Subbing for Dave Weigel, Aaron Blake gets Sen. Orrin Hatch's office to say that a new law proposed by Hatch that would criminalize lying about one's military service would apply to Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal, who lied about serving in Vietnam, but not Illinois Republican Mark Kirk, who has a much longer history of embellishing his military record with false awards and the claim that he served "in Operation Iraqi Freedom." Like Blumenthal, what Kirk meant was not "in" but "during."
Blake writes:
The question is: Does the bill apply to Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) in the same way it applied to the original target -- Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D)? Would Kirk have committed a crime?
The answer, according to Hatch's office, is no.
“The amendment's intent is clear – it would make lying about serving in active duty in the military for the purposes of career advancement a misdemeanor,” Hatch spokesman Antonia Ferrier said.
As Blake notes, though, the law as written currently could apply to Kirk, which makes the statement from Hatch's spokesman really bizarre. Instead of just saying the law would apply to Kirk as well, Hatch's office makes the rather indefensible argument that lying about or exaggerating one's military service should be a crime when Democrats do it but not when Republicans do it.
I think the law as written is unconstitutional anyway, but if you're going to make a craven attempt to make the other side look bad, why make it clear that you're making a craven attempt to make the other side look bad?
-- A. Serwer
