Few top ten lists match the audacity of Mark Kirk’s top ten lies about his military record. Kirk (1) falsely claimed he served “in” Operation Iraqi Freedom; (2) falsely claimed to “command the war room in the Pentagon”; (3) falsely claimed to have won the U.S. Navy’s Intelligence Officer of the Year award; (4) falsely claimed to have been shot at by the Iraqi Air Defense network; (5) falsely claimed to be a veteran of Desert Storm; (6) falsely claimed to be the only lawmaker to serve during Operation Iraqi Freedom; (7) falsely claimed to have been shot at in Kosovo; (8) falsely claimed to have been shot at in Kandahar; (9) falsely claimed to have been repeatedly “deployed” to Afghanistan; and (10) falsely claimed not to have violated Defense Department rules on mingling politics with his military service.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_06/024281.php
Rather than address the deficiencies in Kirk’s character, Kirk’s supporters tell us that even without the lies, embellishments, and misrememberings, Kirk has a good military record. They’re missing the point. Kirk’s military record is relevant only because he lied about it. If Kirk hadn’t revealed himself to be a serial exaggerator, his military record, whatever it is or isn’t, would be utterly irrelevant.
Most of us have never served in the military. I would never disrespect anyone for serving in the military, but neither would I hold lack of military service against anyone. Military service is not a prerequisite for holding public office, nor is military service—or the lack thereof—an indicator of how well someone will do in public office. Read More
