Most in the MSM won't give this Republican transgression the same attention. This just goes to show, every Democrat must be on his or her toes all the time to present best appearances. Fair or not, it has to be done. Blumenthal should have been scrupulous. Obama's people should not have been stupid enough to talk to Sestak, because they should know it would look bad regardless of realistic assessment. Obama should have talking tough, been down on the beaches early, and deploying clean up efforts big time. And so on. It has to be done. Complaining about the unfairness of it won't make it go away. Adapt or die, and push back as best you can.

BTW I am not convinced the Sestak offer was innocuous anyway, but there should be a clear legal "truth" about it that "real experts" mostly agree on. Is there, really?

I'm betting..."computer says, NO!"

Jason Plummer, Illinois Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, "touted himself as a Naval intelligence officer, but he hadn�t received any training since obtaining his commission last fall."

Illinois republicans are remarkable this way.

This will get all the coverage that three lefty blogs can give it.

This is just the kind of thing that Sen. Hatch wants to criminalize, right?

The Republican candidate for President Obama's old Senate seat inaccurately claimed to have received the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award for service during NATO's conflict with Serbia in the late 1990s.

Interesting, since "the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 makes it a formal federal offense to claim medals and military honors you did not receive, whether you are committing an additional crime or not." **

Seems Kirk has some splainin to do.

**
http://www.ehow.com/about_5649310_fraudulent-use-military-rank.html

Additionally:

The Criminals
People who fraudulently claim military rank are of two types. The first has criminal intent. They intend to defraud people or the government of money or possessions by claiming military honors they don't have.

The second type is sometimes described as having military Munchausen's syndrome, i.e. desperately wanting to be a hero and willing to make things up. This is the military impostor who gives speeches at high schools and marches in local parades.

Punishment
Perpetrators of military fraud, according to the Stolen Valor Act, are subject to up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine from the federal government, as well as a misdemeanor on their permanent records. States may have additional and sometimes worse penalties for the impostors.

Military impostors who have actively or passively defrauded people and businesses of material goods and money may be guilty of additional crimes, which can be prosecuted separately.

Senator Hatch's little stunt bill isn't necessary for prosecuting Kirk. Kirk is defying existing law.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5649310_fraudulent-use-military-rank.html

Have you forgotten already, IOKIYAR

it's cool how these politicians crack the cover of their psychopathologies with the 'embellishment' of their warrior abilities. smell the testosterone in the morning!

we are a society in which all the institutions must be ruled by sociopaths...why is that?

The problem of course is that the "lefty blogs" INCLUDING THIS ONE, take pains to say that Kirk "really has an impressive" record, while the wingnuts just start screaming.

Where is the Democratic senator who is going to take to the floor and demand that Kirk be prosecuted?

Channel your inner baby if you want to be effective.

I only know about this from reading blogs like this one, so I think it's safe to say the media won't have much interest in this.

This isn't really much of a story. So, the award was given to his unit, rather than to him individually? Doesn't seem to be any there there.

The other "examples" of Kirk's supposed lying about his military service are even thinner gruel.

Meanwhile, Chris matthews never misses an opportunity to blast Blumenthal for repeatedly claiming to have served in Vietnam.

If you watch Hardball, it's easly to believe that Blumenthal knowingly claimed to have served in Vietnam hundreds of times instead of the two times it seems he misspoke.

Matthews gets all misty-eyed with admiration for all the guys who actualy fought, killed, and bled in vietnam, unless your name is Kerry.

Ugh!

Kirk story? Did Blumenthal claim he did secret undercover work using the name "Kirk"? Oh those crazy lying Democrats, it's just one scandal after another.

So, the award was given to his unit, rather than to him individually? Doesn't seem to be any there there.

Sure! It's like how assorted Bombay street children get to say they were the Best Actor in 2008, because they were in _Slumdog Millionaire_ and it won Best Picture! Totally legitimate!

The MSM has already outed one politician this election cycle who exaggerated his service record. If they now indulge in doing the same story twice, that is reckless and is just engaging in the politics of personal destruction.

This is especially true if the first politician was a Democrat and the next story is about a Republican, because IOKIYAR you know.

So he accidentally misidentified his medal as the Navy's "Intelligence Officer of the Year" instead of "Outstanding Pip Squeak of the Weekend" at the annual Rotary Bar-B-Q & Potato Sack Race.

Ribby, did you feel that "there really isn't much of a story" about Blumenthal, as well? The "in, not during" example from Kirk is exactly the same thing that got Blumenthal in trouble (with regards to a different war, of course).

[...] it will also be worth watching to see if the media treats the Kirk story with nearly as much enthusiasm as the Blumenthal story. -- Steve Benen

Only if a 3-page long story which starts on p. A-1 means the "same enthusiasm" as a one-column article on p. A-14. That's the NYTimes priorities, at any rate. Granted, Connecticut is more of a "catchment area" for NYT than Illinois but, still...

it will also be worth watching to see if the media treats the Kirk story with nearly as much enthusiasm as the Blumenthal story.

Today's SATSQ: Not a chance of it.

There's an AP article on this on Yahoo's front page, at 9:26 PST Sunday 5/30/10.

Here's the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_el_se/us_illinois_senate_military_award#mwpphu-container

There's mention of the fake intelligence award, the "command the Pentagon's War Room" statement, and his use of Twitter to announce that he was working at the Pentagon's National Military Command Center.

Interestingly, there is no mention of his erroneous 2005 website statement that he served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, which is EXACTLY the same thing that Blumenthal was getting killed for.

Also no mention of the fact that until last week his official bio claimed he received the award for "combat service in Kosovo", despite the fact that he was stationed in Italy for the duration in a non-combat role (Kirk has repeatedly claimed combat veteran status, including the notion that he saw"combat" when he rode as a passenger on a couple plane trips over Kurdistan in 2000, although the United States at that time was not at war with Iraq,or anybody else. What a naive time).
He also claimed to have "deployed" to Afghanistan twice in recent years.... both times for 10 day junkets, a far cry from the 180, 270, and 360 day deployments that non-politically connected reservists have to deal with,

As a 20-year veteran of Naval evaluations, I can safely say that there is a VAST difference between "Outstanding Sailor of the Year" for anything and being a member of a unit that receives an "Outstanding Unit".
The former can be awarded on a unit, command or Navy-wide basis and its value increases in proportion to the number of competitors there are, with Navy-wide being the highest. Such an award recognizes that the contributions of a particular INDIVIDUAL are such as to merit special recognition.
The latter, as the title says, is given to a unit; it may be a unit of the SPs stationed at some naval base or it may be an intelligence unit. Either way, it recognizes the contributions of ALL members who were part of that unit and not a particular member of the unit. Because the qualification for unit awards are usually based on a time-frame, it isn't unusual for someone to "qualify" for a unit award, even though that person didn't actually participate in whatever activity the unit is receiving the award for. Either way, a very good thing to have on one's evaluation.
Lying about the type of award? Not so much.
Oh, and officers are considered "honorable" gentlemen/women who DO NOT tell lies. Especially about their awards. And especially in public. For personal gain.

There's a lot of ill will towards the New York Times on behalf of Blumenthal but I think this will be a much bigger deal, and Kirk may actually have to drop out of the race.
The Republican base is already deeply distrustful of Kirk as a RINO and will not hesitate to denounce him, even if it means giving up a golden opportunity in Illinois. More importantly, perhaps, virtually all the commentary I have seen by veterans is deeply critical, and he may well end up in serious trouble with the Navy brass for conduct unbecoming to an officer.

Ribby wrote

"This isn't really much of a story. So, the award was given to his unit, rather than to him individually? Doesn't seem to be any there there."

No it was an entirely different award, and it was given to the whole unit. The award was not from the military or the government, it was from an obscure association.

Kirk also pulled combat duty in three separate years while only serving maybe 4 weeks. This was against orders by the Joint Chiefs aimed at reservists gaming the system and enriching themselves at the expense of our military heroes actually serving in combat. He got 4 months of combat pay and yearly tax breaks for combat service while he actually only flew over the combat. Poor leadership and certainly not fit to serve in Congress or the military.