That video was from March of 2002. He has mentioned the award countless times during his congressional career.
Kirk has made the claim about the award over and over during the years, including to the Sun-Times and the Tribune back when he first ran for Congress. Nowhere did he ever say that a private group awarded the citation (although the Navy does officially nominate recipients), nor that it was his unit which received the award and not himself.
Cmdr. Danny Hernandez, the Navy’s assistant chief of information, said for several days last week that he was having trouble finding records to clarify the matter. Then on Friday, he said Kirk, an Appropriations Committee member who co-chairs an electronic warfare working group, had changed his Web site to incorporate a different account of the award.
Isn’t it a little bit weird that the Navy would wait until after Kirk had changed his website to get back to the reporter? I had a similar experience with the Navy months ago when I wrote about Kirk posting on his campaign Twitter page from the War Room (which Kirk has claimed he commanded, but actually doesn’t.) The Navy said they’d get back to me after they took a look into the matter, but never did. I followed up with e-mails and calls, but never heard back.
#1: Giannoulias Provided Story Diminishes Kirk’s Outstanding Service
First, the Giannoulias-provided story diminishes Kirk’s Kosovo service by describing him only as “the intelligence officer for a single squadron at Aviano.” In fact, Kirk took charge of four squadrons and served as the lead officer for a combined intelligence team – the largest EA-6B intelligence shop in the history of naval aviation.
The Washington Post does appear to have made at least a semantics error. From its piece…
A copy of one of these commendations posted on his Web site describes him as the intelligence officer for a single squadron at Aviano and says he used a “keen analysis, far-reaching intelligence-gathering network and concise and complete flight briefings” to supply aviators with updates on the threats to their planes.
The commendation medal certificate does, indeed, say that Kirk was the intel officer for a single squadron, but it goes on to note that Kirk “took charge of four deployed squadron’s intelligence assets.”
Still, for Kirk to, on the one hand, make a huge, repeated error of completely misidentifying his award and his service record and then go after Giannoulias’ campaign for the wording of a WaPo story is beyond chutzpah.
The issue of character came to the fore Memorial Day in the U.S. Senate race as Democrat Alexi Giannoulias accused Republican Mark Kirk of embellishing his military record and being a typical Washington insider.
Giannoulias then found himself defending his own lack of military service and previous loans from his family bank to people with ties to organized crime.
“I take full responsibility for this and changed the record once my staff told me [the award] had a different title. But I received this award, the Rufus Taylor Award, as commander of this ad-hoc intelligence unit. I actually served oversees and spent 21 years now in the United States Navy Reserve.
“In this campaign I have a military record and so Alexi Giannoulias’ political goons have now gone through every detail of my military record. He has no military record. He’s never served a day in uniform in his life. As far as I can tell when I wore the uniform of the United States Navy serving in Allied Force, he was wearing a uniform too: of a basketball team in Greece.
“He has also failed to disclose his taxes and his Senate ethics forms. And so while all the other major statewide candidates for Governor and Senator have released their taxes and their ethics forms, the question I have for Alexi Giannoulias is: what are you hiding?”
Usually when a candidate goes way out like that, the other side has hit a nerve.
* As the above quote makes pretty clear, Kirk is also not totally backing down from his previous claims that he was given the award…
#4: Giannoulias Provided Story Suggests Kirk Did Not Earn Award
Fourth, the Giannoulias-provided story inaccurately suggests that Kirk did not personally earn the Rufus Taylor award since it was presented to a unit. In fact, the “unit” that received the award was an ad-hoc intelligence team that Mark Kirk established and ran to support Electronic Attack air combat operations during Kosovo. Kirk was presented with the award at the National Military Intelligence Association’s annual awards banquet.
Leader or not, it was his unit which received the award. So for Kirk to still be taking credit for that requires a whole lot of stones.
this is really a pattern with kirk. it demonstrates first of all that he doesn’t understand the military culture, and — quite frankly — casts doubt on whether he really understands how to command. it raises questions whether kirk has used his reserve status for (personal) political gain. and it demonstrates a severe selfishness that says a lot about his character.
we’ve known all along that mark kirk was just another slick washington politician. this episode speaks to that. the question for voters is whether that’s what we need in these turbulent times…
Big deal: We have one candidate for the U S Senate that fibs about his military record, and another who was a predatory lender/ money laundering/ pilfering banker. Where is G-Rod when you need him. I guess ol Roland wasn’t so bad after all>
The corrections Kirk is providing are less than completely truthful. He knows he’s lying. And people who are reasonably knowledgeable know he’s lying.
Kirk is killing himself with reservists and veterans, I suspect. Add family members of veterans to the list too.
From when I met Kirk in 2000, I knew Kirk was a someone who prioritized political expediency over the truth. He wanted to use his reservist credentials to further his political objectives. But he didn’t want to learn how the Navy really worked if the information contradicted what he wanted to be true.
This seems far more serious than the Conn. story. Kirk has been consistently and energetically misrepresenting v. the Conn. candidate’s inconsistent statements. This may well balance out the bank issue for Alexi and muddies Kirk’s cleanliness…esp. for those on Right who were only tolerating him anyway.
- Living in Oklahoma - Tuesday, Jun 1, 10 @ 12:03 pm:
Another example of Mark Kirk being a political opportunist. Trumping up your resume on the only conservative credentials that the man has, his military experience, is just one more reason why republicans should vote for Alexi Giannoulias. This Mark Kirk campaign and candidacy is the most horrific thing I have seen out of the Illinois republican party.
I find it sad that Alexi took Memorial Day to attack a vet. Kirk mistook the name of an award but no one can take away the decades Kirk has served this country. Maybe if Alexi had actually served in the military he would have a leg to stand on.
kirk didn’t “mistook the name of an award,” he misappropriated (stole) a rather prestigious award recognized throughout the service to replace a corporate-sponsored award that no one ever heard of. he claimed exclusive credit for the award when the award was due to an entire unit (ostensibly under his command). it was pity, selfish and indicative of the fact that kirk really has politicized military service and used it for his own personal gain. it doing so, he dishonored his unit, the uniform and all those who have served this country. to cap it all, kirk has tried to blame his actions on “the giannoulias campaign.” that’s just disgusting. if he can’t take responsibility for his own actions, he doesn’t deserve to be in congress. just another sleazy washington pol…
Stupid, unforced error. True disappointment. Did not see this coming. That said, I was with a bunch of people at a social gathering yesterday including vets from WWII, (including a cool old WAC) Nam, and Iraqi freedom. Obviously, the Kirk issue came up. Over and over people made the point that while they certainly did not condone or understand the need for exaggeration– in fairness, a unit just does not receive such an award without serious leadership and vision at the helm. Leadership that Kirk provided. It just does not happen either in the military or in business. They give Kirk credit for getting the unit to the quality and level of contribution of being worthy of an award. People respect his service, but not this incident, yet I didn’t hear any of them say they would be voting for G. to punish Kirk.
Granted, the Seals campaign of years past has also questioned Kirk’s military claims, but with a compliant local press in Kirk’s pocket (some of whom now work for his Senate campaign) the Seals notes fell on deaf media ears.
Jaded and ivoted,
The man has been perpetrating this self-serving lie for over a decade.
He’s had at least two, maybe even three or four, explanations of the lie in the past 3 days.
He has lied to voters by promoting it through campaign literature sent to people’s homes.
He has used taxpayer dollars to promote the lie on his official House website.
He lied on national TV, in the mail and online. Repeatedly. Over and over.
And when first called on it he blamed staff.
Now, after repeated questioning by reporters and (more importantly) citizens, he claims to take “full responsibility” — for what he’s not clear.
The originally claimed honor (”Navy Intelligence Office of the Year”) is an award which does not even exist.
The secondarily claimed honor (”Rufus Taylor Award”) is completely muddled. There are several Taylor Awards which are given out. None are given out by the Navy as Kirk implied.
Two are individual awards given by the intelligence professionals’ industry — not the Navy. Since they are individual honors it could explain why Kirk repeatedly claimed an individual of “Intel Officer of the Year.”
Another Taylor Award is apparently also given out by an industry group and it is a group honor, not an individual honor. According to press reports this one was given to the entire Attack Wing in which Kirk served. Not just his squadron or the squadrons he oversaw at one time and certainly not to just him as an individual.
Kirk trotted out his former CO, Capt. Clay Fearnow, in a campaign email over the weekend to defend his Navy record. Problem is that Fearnow is now retired from the service and according to his LinkedIn page is working at … Lockheed Martin, a defense contractor. Now why would a defense contractor want to support a Senate candidate… Hmmm… I wonder.
Kirk lied. He lied repeatedly for over a decade.
To cover up he first blamed his staff.
When that didn’t work — because video surfaced from 2002 with him, not his staff, making the claim on national tv — he used Memorial Day to state he took “full responsibility” but couldn’t actually clarify what he was taking responsibility for since further claims by him and his staff are also erroneous.
Now he’s saying none of it matters because his opponent is making the claim?!
What else is he lying about?!
And why are you guys ok with him lying about something as precious as his military record?! (That said, if nothing Giannoulias says matters… why would anything Kirk say about Broadway Bank matter?)
I think Kirk has lied so many times about so many things, stealing the valor of others seemed like a trivial thing in his mind.
- CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Jun 1, 10 @ 12:28 pm:
The Commando served - give credit
The Commando waited a little late in life to sign up —- Hmmmmm.
The Commando did not seem to face much action in that shiny flight suit and seems to have misrepresented himself at every turn. ToASTED!
Fire, Aim, Ready
Thanks Commando for releveling the playing field
Now on to “Drill Baby Drill”
Where is CaribouBarbie when the Commando needs her.
I am his biggest fan here, but this was stupid and careless. I don’t think it’s a long term issue. Dan Seals tried to attack kirk with military veterans in ads about cutting support from troops and it went nohwere.
The question is does a story dumped over the long weekend change the narrative of the campaign? No.
does this do long term damage to kirk? No.
90 percent of the people posting on this post have never met the man, his exwife, his family, and come to their conclusions about him and his record via a partisan prism. his record on veterans and the military is sound and this is not on the magnitude of having a bank fail.
- Bring Back Boone's - Tuesday, Jun 1, 10 @ 12:32 pm:
I tend to agree with jaded voter. I don’t see this moving many numbers for Alexi, and if this is the best they can do it won’t counteract the bank buzz.
I don’t have the time, but in his office he used to have the clip from the navy times, this was several years ago-as in the newspaper article from one of the publications that covers that stuff saying he got the award with a photo of him.
—This seems far more serious than the Conn. story.—
Au contraire, Gumby, to say as Blumenthal did several times, that you were in the jungles of VietNam (or on the Bataan Death march as others have done) when you were not there, is a far, far greater insult to veterans than what kind of award was won. (Unless one is speaking of a navy cross/purple heart/medal of honor type of award which we are not speaking of here.) And, again, I am not condoning or excusing what Kirk did.
The national media picked it up during the Memorial Day weekend nearly two weeks later.
Moreover, the Seals campaign had questioned his claims about military exploits for years given that at least one of his claimed honors doesn’t even exist despite Kirk’s repeated claims of having earned the non-existant award for more than a decade.
And, as for those Kirk supporters claiming that the award was somehow for the unit that Kirk “led” — the only type of Taylor Award that had any remote connection to Kirk was one given to the entire attack wing of which Kirk was only a single player and certainly not the “leader” of the entire wing. (Again, there are several Taylor Awards doled out by private industry, none are given out by the Navy as Kirk had previously claimed and of those awards which are individual honors named after Rufus Taylor Kirk never earned one.)
Kirk is lying on top of his lies and now his supporters are repeating the growing lies like lemmings.
Most politicians have enough stones to do some resume padding.
I am much more concerned about his voting record and flip flopping on energy and climate change. In this particular instance his switch from reasonable moderate to pandering right winger tells me more about what kind of Senator he will make than his military performance does. The guy displayed some technical leadership skills. But does he have the vision we need to get us through our approaching gauntlet of the long emergency without bending ideologically to the wingers?
- English Teacher - Tuesday, Jun 1, 10 @ 12:38 pm:
Note to Washington Post: Web site is now website according to the AP stylebook.
I think the Giannoulias folks were hoping for a homerun, but this is a fly ball to the warning track. There was more Chicago tv/radio news yesterday coverage of the $500 fines they are handing out in Peoria to people who don’t mow their lawns… It’s a good swing, but it didn’t have that sweet sound coming off the bat that makes you know it’s a goner.
Kirk is slick. The media in Chicago is at his beck and call when it comes to the proposals he rolls out be it bizarre anti-Internet sex fiends or BP bandwagon jumping or more normal stuff. The bottom line is he’ll still be able to roll out his story about being in the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks and refer back to his service and this doesn’t take enough away from that to turn the campaign around. If Kirk leaked the story around Memorial Day so he could clean it up this weekend, I wouldn’t put it past him, that was brilliant. On the other hand if Alexi’s people timed it to drop over this holiday, that’s a pretty terrible move … My guess is someone saw this at the logical ‘next’ story following the Connecticut thing, but the timing was real bad.
If Kirk has such a Navy Time article available why did he 110% backtrack on his decade-long claims of having ever earned the honor?
- Arthur Rohlberg - Tuesday, Jun 1, 10 @ 12:50 pm:
If you go to the Illinois Channel website footage of Congressman Kirk’s Senate candidacy announcement last year in Springfield, he tells a story about being in a Navy plane that was coming under fire. The crowd was mostly made of veterans and their families so I hope we was telling the truth.
There are a few things I know you do not want to do when running for office; Never claim you are a “Union Man” and then it turns out you never had union ties and actually seem to live an anti-union life, be it personally or in business.
The second one, Be honest, be precise and be humble about your service in the military. You tout your military service … disclose as much as you can, as quickly as you can, and as plain as you can. If you never served overseas, don;t parce your words. “I never served overseas”. If you won an award, give the date, rationale of the award, and the circumstances that led to your nomination.
Veterans and Union members remember almost as well as seniors, and heaven help you with a senior, who was in a union, and served honorably in the military and you mess up your credentials in a union life, AND serving our country …
Kirk, do not blow it on simple transparency. You serve. Be honest, be humble, and leave it there.
Good grief. It’s not like he said he served when he didn’t. He inflated the award his unit recieved. Kirk is guilty of padding his resume by making it sound like only he received a group award.
OK. Now, if you are a Democrat and won’t vote for anyone other than a Democrat, then you are stuck with hoping that this is some kind of magic bullet for Alexi Giannoulais. It isn’t. You end up puffing this kerfuffle up into an issue, which requires an even bigger bag of hot air, than the one Kirk used.
If you are a Republican, you should feel a bit taken advantage of. Kirk wasn’t your first pick, but a pick of electoral convenience. You probably was hoping he was as big a deal militarily as the claimed, so this big of news kinda sucks.
As I read through the posted comments, I see both sides of this kerfuffle trying to beat the other one over the head and shoulders with this marshmallow baseball bat. Big deal. Get over it.
Blumenthal has demonstrated that you can claim to actually serve when you actually didn’t, and still resist calls by both Democrats and Republicans to end your candidacy. So, Kirk’s resume inflation regarding his personal claim for this award is a bunch of nothing.
It may still be hanging in his office, but it used to be at the receptionist desk when you walk in. I don’t have lexis nexis, but I will search tonight.
- Judgment Day Is On The Way - Tuesday, Jun 1, 10 @ 1:07 pm:
“This seems far more serious than the Conn. story. Kirk has been consistently and energetically misrepresenting v. the Conn. candidate’s inconsistent statements. This may well balance out the bank issue for Alexi and muddies Kirk’s cleanliness…esp. for those on Right who were only tolerating him anyway.”
Nonsense. You can be a “log” or a cook, or a mechanic in theater (or even “over” the area), but you’re there, and even back in the day of the “no fly” zones, that was considered a combat zone. Those ferry pilots moving aircraft in and out of Ubon, Thailand during Vietnam never saw combat either, but they were in the area - and as long as they didn’t misrepresent their contribution, they got their share of the credit for serving in a combat theater of operations, because they were there, doing their job.
Just as a btw, compare Rep. Kirk’s service to that of IA Senator Tom Harkin. Senator Harkin served as a military pilot for 8+ years, but has had a fair amount of “controversy” over his claims as to the extent of his service. Specifically, he claimed that he spent “One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions. I did no bombing.”
That was factually incorrect. But Senator Harkin did spend time in theater, but not in a combat role.
Rep. Kirk and Senator Harkin’s situation are fairly comparable.
Conn. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s situation is completely different - he actively sought deferments to avoid Vietnam service, and then afterwards claimed multiple times in different venues to have served in Vietnam, when he was never there at all. That’s a case of misrepresentation on an enormous scale.
If Blumenthal wins the Senate seat, I’m waiting to the first day that he meets a REAL US Marine in Senator Jim Webb (A first lieutenant during the Vietnam War he served as a platoon commander with Delta Company, 1st Battalion 5th Marines. He earned a Navy Cross, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts).
I doubt you’ll hear Webb giving Harkin or Kirk too much grief outside of the usual inter-service talk, but with Blumenthal, it could easily be a different story.
“completed required pre-qualifications that enabled observation flights during combat missions in TAOR”
“flew with special mission aircraft during the war”
“One of the most experienced, combat-tested, aviation Intelligence Officers in the Naval Reserves”
As to the Rufus Taylor Award for Intel Excellence - it is nominated and selected by the Navy. It is usually given to an individual (1 Navy/1 Naval Reserve.) Kirks Fit Report identifies him as “Recipient” and it is indeed a prestigious award.
Let’s go forward a few months in the time machine. Let’s say Sept. 2010 - what do people recall? Kirk was in the military and was awarded for something good. There was some kind of controversy about what the award was.
The more G keeps going with this story, the more people will be aware that Kirk served in the military. That’s seems like a positive for Kirk. Only if G’s team really believes that this is a vote changing issue, should he keep going with it. If the strategy is to string little things together for a big culminating punchline in October of: “Do we really trust Mark Kirk?” G should be prepared that the response may simply be “No, I really don’t trust any of them.” In other words, the big message has no bite. Not trusting a politician is normal. And if G really wants to make this about who is less trustworthy… well, Illinois may have to wait a lot longer to feel good about that darn Senate seat.
I think Judgment Day puts it well. Can’t add any more.
For Ali G and his confederates to come out and denounce Kirk as “untruthful” and a “liar” shows indeed some big “stones” given the award-winning resume padding by Ali G in 2006 that he was an “experienced bank officer” capable of the financial management demands of the Treasurer’s office. In evading responsibility for the Giorango loan’s, Ali G now says his duties were simply “clerical”. I’ll take Kirk in this match up any day.
A nominee who was once nominated by the Navy to be commended for excellent service, who mistated the name of the award (but was in fact noted by the Navy for excellent service)….or a nominee whose only foreign policy experience is vacationing and playing basketball oversease. Gee, that’s a tough one.
So Kirk stated he received an award that he actually did not receive. Maybe you can call that resume padding. What about the fact that Alexi claimed to be a banker while running for State Treasurer? Didn’t his own brother in the Trib or Sun-Times say that Alexi’s job was pretty much to make sure appraisals were done and documents were signed? Isn’t that basically being a go-for at his fahter’s bank? Sounds like Alexi can be accused of the same thing he is accusing Kirk of. Maybe worse since his own family didn’t trust him with the important stuff.
this is not a campaign ender. everyone is getting way too worked up
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Jun 1, 10 @ 2:35 pm:
Just Saying: The words “oh well” are proof of that? Really? Along with “everyone knew it.” This from a blogger who claimed Kirk was personally interested in him? Huh? Andy Martin material at best.
The commendation story was leaked by the Giannoulias camp to the Washington Post according to the Washington Post.
I understand that it is Giannoulias’ turn to bash on Kirk. I understand the press “needs to play fair” and bash on Kirk after the beating Giannoulias took about his bank (his bank: He owned shares of stock in it and worked in it as a Senior Loan Officer). I understand that certain members of the press have decided they don’t want to hear “Broadway Bank” anymore.
But the “oh well” stuff is way over the top.
I finished reading some of the Fitness Reports and Commendations posted on the Kirk website. I never served in the military and most of this stuff is over my head.
Stuff like: “Outstanding Naval Officer and Premier Aviation Intelligence Specialist.” “Personally recognized by numerous Flag, Air Wing, and Squadron Commanders for providing the most comprehensive, concise Balkan intelligence picture in EUCOM Theater.” “The intelligence team leader for Electronic Attack Wing Aviano. Took charge of four deployed EA-6B squadron’s intelligence assets, molding them into an action team supporting combat operations on a 24-hour basis.” “Unmatched managerial and planning skills.” “Set the standard for tactical intelligence briefs providing over 80 aircrew with the most current, up to date and analytical briefings that NATO had to offer.”
“Unmatched in knowledge of foreign capabilities.” “A true Team Leader.” “Recipient of the Rufus Taylor Intelligence Unit of the Year award for outstanding support provided during Operation ALLIED FORCE.” “Definite Command potential.” “A natural and charismatic leader.” “A superlative speaker and briefer.”
“Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal” (Gold Star in Lieu of Second Award) “Lieutenant Commander Kirk was singularly responsible for the flawless production, integration and operation of the largest 6B intelligence shop in the history of Naval Aviation.”
“Sacrificed valuable time from his campaign for Congress to meet the deployment requirements of the squadron.”
I’m still reading all of this stuff.
My conclusion thus far? Whatta bum! :-)
- Don't Worry, Be Happy - Tuesday, Jun 1, 10 @ 2:42 pm:
Even as they are trying to push back, they are screwing it up even further. Compare these two statements in this post:
From Fact Check #1:
“Kirk took charge of four squadrons and served as the lead officer for a combined intelligence team”
From the award citation:
Kirk “took charge of four deployed squadron’s intelligence assets.”
The statement from the campaign makes it sound like he was responsible for running the four squadrons. The truth was he was in charge of the intelligence assets of the four squadrons. Big, big difference.
Sort of like the difference between being in charge of the War Room instead of running the intelligence operation in the War Room.
Part of this is easy. Kirk can produce his combat ribbon and at least be done with the controversy whether he served in combat as he claims and his supporters here reiterate. I’m a little suspicious that he cannot produce the ribbon because it’s not listed in the awards list the Navy provided WaPo as pointed out by the Nitpicker on May 29.
Misspeaking, and using words that are imprecise are the same thing. Anyone who bashed Blumenthal, should be bashing Kirk right now. Anyone who tried to explain away Blumenthal’s comments, should be doing the same with Kirks.
Any different is pure partisan hackery and blatant hypocrisy. For all of you saying that Kirk didn’t lie about his service, he said he was a combat vet of Kosovo and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Blumenthal screwed up and so did Kirk. In neither case is it a campaign ender, so settle down.
10th Indy says, “As to the Rufus Taylor Award for Intel Excellence - it is nominated and selected by the Navy. It is usually given to an individual (1 Navy/1 Naval Reserve.) Kirks Fit Report identifies him as “Recipient” and it is indeed a prestigious award.”
Strange… the NIP’s own website does NOT list Kirk as a recipient anywhere, in any year.
Which CrackerJack Box did ya get yer “facts” from?
Here are the actual recipients:
I bold-faced the actual 1998 recipients. Either Kirk has been misinforming us all along and he’s really in the Marines or he changed his name from “Mia” soon after supposedly winning this award. Marine Corps… Mia… Mark… easy to confuse…
Past Taylor Award Recipients
Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award Presented annually at the Navy Marine Corps Intelligence Training Center (NMITC), Dam Neck, Virginia
2009 GYSGT Raymond A. Boyce, USMC
2008 LT Christopher A. Dumas, USN
2007 LT David C. (Chris) Jones, USN
2006 LTJG Kevin Altemara, USN
2005 LT James H. King, USN
2004 LT James H. King, USN
2003 ISC (SW/AW) Robert E. Jordan, USN
2002 LT Wesley H. Latchford, USN
2001 MAJ Larry R. Marshall, USMC
2000 LT J. Keith Dunbar, USN
1999 LT Sean R. Kentch, USN 1998 MAJ Stanton H. Patty, USMC
1997 LCDR William A. Ullman, USN
1996 LT William P. Garrity, USN
1995 SSGT Don R. Ashby, USMC
1994 CWO3 James L. Normile, USMC
1993 ISC Mark J. Nelson, USN
1992 CWO3 Roy R. Ellis, USMC
1990 MSGT Lynn W. Sabin, USMC
1989 LT Timothy L. Duvall, USN
GYSGT Michael D. D’Andre, USMC
Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award Presented annually at the Fleet Intelligence Training Center (FITC) San Diego, California
2009 SSGT Ryan M. Bonham, USMC
2008 LT Emmanuel Thomann, USN
2007 LT Patrick W. Prag, USN
2006 LT William R. Walsh, USN
2005 LT Raymond P. Biasi, USN
2004 CTTC (SS) Michael F. Pastor, USN
2003 LTjg Timothy L. Raymie, USNR
2002 LT Enrique C. Bernal, USNR
2001 LT James R. Sanders, USN
2000 LT Raquel Gladieux, USN
1999 CAPT Brian Spiegal, USMC 1998 LT Mia K. Watson, USN
1997 ISC Jon T. Langstaff, USN
1996 LT Robert D. Sharp, USNR
1995 LCDR Katherine A. Pierce, USN
1994 LCDR Joe E. Estill, USN
1993 LCDR Alice M. Jacobson, USN
1991 LCDR Susan M. Chiaravalle, USN
It remains amazing how people forget things like video, letters, awards, and news articles which are easy to get copies. What you said, what you claim you said, and what records often show what you actually said may be three slight variations but the outcomes sure get muddled with time. If you are going to be in the public you know someone is going to be looking your history up. Facebook with your spring break pics or you claiming to have worked with Mother Theresa. Both the same. Once the record is public, it is checkable. Pad that resume at your risk that someone will look while you got in the habit have an expanded interpretation of history. Happens all the time. Pols just get called on what their mouth says more regularly.
Rob - the Navy Awards Manual lists 2 distinct VADM Rufus Taylor awards - one for intel excellence or leadership depending on the manual and one for intel instruction. The award you cite is for Instruction which Kirk never claimed to have won.
I’m an Illinois reserve officer getting ready for active duty in the Middle East. This sort of fudging of awards makes most military people sick. You know, the truth would have been good enough, but he had to stretch it. I’m done with Kirk.
Pat’s strength has been an appearance of honesty and trust.
Pat Quinn’s goofed with us by flashing a hotel discount card. It was his way of being comical with his image. It summed up what a lot of folks liked about Pat Quinn. It was folksy and so Pat Quinn.
Turned out it was expired. He didn’t seem to renew it after we discovered this.
It was a big deal. It hurt his image instead of enhancing it. What he needs to do is renew it, flash it again, and tell us that he has a new card because the other one expired. It would be cute and funny.
Kirk’s image isn’t wound up in his military career. The awards he got are part of being in the military. We all know soldiers in our families with medals. So, it seemed he took credit for an award that was given to his unit. He puffed up his resume. If he was running strictly as a military guy - then it would. But he isn’t.
It isn’t as big a deal. Now, if he waved around a military medal that was a hoax, that would be something else. Or, if he did what John Kerry did way back when he threw someone else’s medals over the White House fence in a photo op, while claiming them as his own - that would be different too.
It is about drama. When a guy repeatedly makes a physical statement before a crowd with an expired discount card, it undermines him, especially when he just stops doing it once the mistake is discovered. Quinn flubbed it twice here. When a guy feels a need to bloviate on his credentials during hearings, it isn’t something we don’t see everyday, and we ignor it. So, it isn’t such a big deal.
Walk over to Roland Burris’ mausoleum and take a gander at the claims he makes. It is all a stretch.
Bloomberg reports that another video featuring U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk (R-IL) making false claims of being the U.S. Navy’s intelligence officer of the year has surfaced.
Kirk’s own campaign video made the same assertion as an image of Kirk in a fighter jet is shown. Previously, the only reported video of Kirk making the claim was on C-SPAN during a 2002 congressional hearing.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 1, 10 @ 5:20 pm:
The entire point here is not the awards Kirk did receive.
It’s the honors that he claimed he received which (A) don’t even exist and (B) he has lied about for 10+ years and (C) he initially blamed his staff and then blamed his opponent for a lie he himself repeated ad nauseum.
“Kirk’s image isn’t wound up in his military career.”
Come on. That is simply not true. Rare is a statement by Kirk, campaign or official, that does not seamlessly wrap or clumsily shoehorn a reference to his position as a Naval Intelligence officer.
Has anyone in the Chicago media market NOT seen ads prominently featuring Kirk in his VFW garrison cap?
To downplay a pattern -not an incident, but a pattern- of a politician inflating his military record for political gain, while chastising another for using an expired hotel discount card to demonstrate his thrift is as is disingenuous and ignores the scope and context of both actions.
–This sort of fudging of awards makes most military people sick.==
Not just military people. I never served and I find it galling, the Connecticut guy especially.
Back in the day, Lane Evans, USMC, always made it clear that he served in Okinawa during the Vietnam era.
As far as those who disrespect the service of others, you can throw in the Saxby Chambliss of the world, who accused Max Cleland of being soft on defense. And you can toss in the Chicken Hawks like Dick Cheney, who was racking up deferments and DUIs while he had “other priorities” during Vietnam.
Chicago media were ALL OVER it tonight, itemizing his exaggerations/misstatements:
- “Intelligence Officer of the Year” - an award that he didn’t win.
- How he “corrected” his website that he served “during” Iraq instead of “in” Iraq.
- How he removed “combat” from his description of his Kosovo service.
- And how he had previously stated he “commanded the war room in the Pentagon”
=== “In law school in DC everyone knew Mark was gay,” the first source told me. I explained that the information was intriguing, it would not be enough to go on. He continued, “But I had sex with him a number of times.” Well, now we’re onto something I thought. “Could someone verify for me that you knew Kirk and went to school with him?” I asked. “Yes” was the swift reply. “Could you recall personal details about Kirk that others may not know?” “Yes,” he said.
According to Pearson, the Navy then gave Kirk’s office a head’s up last Thursday that the media was inquiring about his military service. The Navy spokesman then got back to Pearson today, five days after alerting Kirk’s staff.
So no, contrary to Kirk’s own “goon” claims and those of his ardent supporters, this wasn’t Giannoulias’ campaign trying to get Kirk on Memorial Day.
Unless the Trib somehow got HG Wells’ time machine up and running….
Dear gay enthusiasts,
Nobody cares (except maybe some wacko wingnuts who didn’t like Kirk anyway).
The only curiosity here would be that he did just vote against the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal. That vote would be ironic since, if he is somehow “outed” before the Pentagon DADT review is finalized, he would be discharged from the Reserves.
Adding… Alan Keyes once had something to say about such things.
Louis G. Atsaves: yep, campaigns share their oppo with the media. that, of course, does not excuse candidates from misstating their records or resumes. (there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for this to have appeared on his congressional website, which should have been vetted not by his government staff, but often the caucus staff as well — that is the bigger scandal.)
kirk’s (and his supporter’s) reaction is so childish here; it’s easy to imagine a child explaining to his teacher, “yes, i cheated, but HE turned me in!”
- Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, Jun 2, 10 @ 11:18 am:
bored now, exactly my point.
Why are the Giannoulias supporters and Giannoulias camp pretending otherwise?