Nitpicker has been focusing for some time on one of the many aspects of Mark Kirk's exaggerations of his military service--his tendency to call his training missions "deployments." Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune picked up the story.
When Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk says he repeatedly deployed to Afghanistan with the Navy, he's referring to two-week training missions as part of his annual reservist requirements....
Navy Cmdr. Danny Hernandez said there is a difference between annual training and being deployed, which can sometimes last more than a year.
"I would think that would be (considered) two weeks of annual training," Hernandez, a Navy spokesman, said of Kirk's stints. "A deployment is a deployment and annual training is annual training."
Officials with Kirk's campaign said the five-term North Shore congressman and commander with the Navy Reserve was accurate because deployment encompasses any relocation of forces.
"Congressman Kirk was proud to deploy to Afghanistan in 2008 and 2009 on military orders issued by the United States Navy," said Kirk spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski.
Unfortunately for Kirk, the distinction raised by Cmdr. Hernandez is pretty much the official one. Again, from Nitpicker:
[T]he Kirk campaign is claiming the Navy spokesperson doesn't understand what constitutes a "deployment." Too bad for Kirk the Navy has a clear cut definition for the word.
Deployment. Either a period of at least 90 consecutive days with a deployed unit or two deployments of at least 80 days each with a given 12-month period. No waivers of this requirement will be made.
Kirk seems to be on increasingly shaky ground with his denials. Insisting that training missions are deployments isn't as egregious as his claims about being Intelligence Officer of the Year or commanding the Pentagon War Room, but the claim is more evidence that Kirk just won't be honest about his military service. Combined with some of his more bizarre "interpretations" and alternative histories for global events, Illinois voters have to be asking themselves whether Mark Kirk is just really sloppy or a serial liar.