Why John Kerry shouldn't be president. By John Kerry
Why John Kerry shouldn't be president. By John Kerry
PoliPundit points us to one of Bush's best speeches regarding the fundamental differences between himself and John Kerry. Powerful, true and ultimately damning for the Senator from Massachusetts.
| ...Over a 20-year career in the United States Senate, Senator Kerry has been consistently wrong on the major national security issues facing our country. The Senator who voted against the $87 billion for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is the same Senator who has voted against vital weapons systems during his entire career. He tried to cancel the Patriot missile, which shot down scud missiles in Operation Desert Storm. He opposed the B-1 bomber, which was critical to victory in the Afghan campaign. He opposed the B-2 stealth bomber, which delivered devastating air strikes on Taliban positions. He opposed the modernized F-14D, which we used against terrorists in Tora Bora. He opposed the Apache helicopter, which destroyed enemy tanks and anti-aircraft missile launchers in Iraq.
The Senator who is skeptical of democracy in Iraq also spoke with sympathy for a communist dictator in Nicaragua in the 1980s, and criticized the democracy movement as “terrorism.” His misguided policies would have impeded the spread of freedom in Central America. The Senator who claims the world is more dangerous since America started fighting the war on terror is the same Senator who said that Ronald Reagan’s policies of peace through strength actually made America less safe. The same Senator who said the Reagan presidency was eight years of “moral darkness.” In this campaign, Senator Kerry can run from his record, but he cannot hide... |
InstaPundit points us to Martin Peretz' savvy take on Kerry, Israel and the mess bequeathed by Bill Clinton's ill-fated appeasement of Arafat.
MARTIN PERETZ is very unhappy with the look of Kerry's mideast policy:
Ouch. Read the whole thing. |
| ...A little over three years ago, al-Qa'ida was already a growing danger. Its leader, Osama bin Laden, was safe and sheltered in Afghanistan. His network was dispersed throughout the world and had been attacking US interests for years.
Three years later, more than three-quarters of al-Qa'ida's key members and associates have been detained or killed, bin Laden is on the run, many of his key associates are behind bars or dead and his financial lines of support have been reduced. Afghanistan, once controlled by extremists, today is led by Hamid Karzai, who is at the forefront of the world's efforts in support of moderates versus extremists. Soccer stadiums once used for public executions under the Taliban are today used, once again, for soccer. Libya has gone from being a nation that sponsored terrorists, and secretly sought nuclear capability, to one that renounced its illegal weapons programs, and now says it is ready to re-enter the community of civilised nations. Pakistani scientist AQ Khan's nuclear-proliferation network – which provided lethal assistance to nations such as Libya and North Korea – has been exposed and dismantled. Indeed, Pakistan, once sympathetic to al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, has under President Pervez Musharraf cast its lot with the civilised world and is a stalwart ally against terrorism. NATO is now leading the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and is helping to train Iraqi security forces. The United Nations is helping set up free elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Over 60 countries are working together to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Three years ago, in Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his sons brutally ruled a nation in the heart of the Middle East. Saddam was attempting regularly to kill US and British air crews enforcing the no-fly zones. He ignored 17 UN Security Council resolutions. Three years later, Saddam is a prisoner, awaiting trial. His sons are dead. Most of his associates are in custody. Iraq has an interim constitution that includes a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. There are municipal councils in nearly every major city and in most towns and villages. Iraqis now are among those allowed to say, write, watch, and listen to whatever they want, whenever they want... |
Courtesy Powerline and Mudville Gazette:
| ...To start with, Senator Kerry may be a very good man and quite patriotic. Also we have to respect the almost 50% of the American people who lean towards the democrats. I don’t know much about domestic issues in the States so naturally, as might be expected, the position of any Iraqi would be mainly influenced by the issue that most concerns him.
Thus, regardless of all the arguments of both candidates the main problem is that President Bush now represents a symbol of defiance against the terrorists and it is a fact, that all the enemies of America, with the terrorists foremost, are hoping for him to be deposed in the upcoming elections. That is not to say that they like the democrats, but that they will take such an outcome as retreat by the American people, and will consequently be greatly encouraged to intensify their assault. The outcome here on the ground in Iraq seems to be almost obvious. In case President Bush loses the election there would be a massive upsurge of violence, in the belief, rightly or wrongly, by the enemy, that the new leadership is more likely to “cut and run” to use the phrase frequently used by some of my readers. And they would try to inflict as heavy casualties as possible on the American forces to bring about a retreat and withdrawal. It is crucial for them to remove this insurmountable obstacle which stands in their way. They fully realize that with continued American and allies’ commitment, they have no hope of achieving anything. On the other hand if President Bush is reelected, this will prove to them that the American people are not intimidated despite all their brutality, and that their cause is quite futile. Yes there is little doubt that an election victory by President Bush would be a severe blow and a great disappointment for all the terrorists in the World and all the enemies of America. I believe that such an outcome would result in despair and demoralization of the “insurgent elements” here in Iraq, and would lead to the pro-democracy forces gaining the upper hand eventually. Note that we are not saying that President Bush is perfect, nor even that he is better than the Senator, just that the present situation is such that a change of leadership at this crucial point is going to send an entirely wrong message to all the enemies. Unfortunately, it seems to me that many in the U.S. don’t quite appreciate how high the stakes are. The challenge is mortal, and you and we are locked in a War, a National Emergency; and in such circumstances partisan considerations must be of secondary importance. If you lose this war, you are no more, and you will have to withdraw within you boundaries cringing and waiting for terror to strike you in your homeland, afraid to move around, afraid to travel, afraid to do business abroad. You will have to see all your friends abroad annihilated and intimidated and nobody will have any confidence or trust in you anymore. And you will have to watch from far with bitterness the forces of darkness and evil taking over in many parts of this earth, with feelings of impotence and inability to do anything about it. In other words you would lose all credibility, and the fiends of terror and obscurantism would go triumphantly dancing the macabre dance of mayhem and death, and darkness would descend and obliterate the light and the hope. You think I am exaggerating, you think I am being paranoid? I just pray that destiny would not prove all these things; I pray that these horrors will not come to pass. And all this for what? For failing to confront few thousands ex-baathists and demented religious fanatics and some common criminals, concentrated in some rural areas of a country of the size of just one of your states; and that for a nation that has defeated Natzism, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Empire! Well if Senator Kerry is such a good man, and he may well be, then it would be prudent to wait just another four years to elect him, after the job is done. And if this is interference in your national affairs by a foreigner, I am not going to give you any apology for it. Salaam |
In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.
This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold. First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are. Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland. It is said that America's WWII generation is its "greatest generation." But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's "last generation." Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WWII, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor, and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake "living in America" as "being an American." But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities. This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill. Matthew Manweller is a political science professor at Central Washington University. |
I'm sorry I missed this startling and uncomfortable exchange. Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's Daily Show, mercilessly pounds Carlson and Begala of CNN's Crossfire. And let me say for the record that I will meet Begala anywhere, anytime to debate John Kerry's fitness to lead this country.
| ...I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad.
...And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America. ...CARLSON: Kerry won't come on this show. He will come on your show... Here are three of the questions you asked John Kerry... You have a chance to interview the Democratic nominee. You asked him questions such as -- quote -- "How are you holding up? Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?" ... "Have you ever flip-flopped?" et cetera, et cetera. ...Didn't you feel like -- you got the chance to interview the guy. Why not ask him a real question, instead of just suck up to him? ...STEWART: Yes. "How are you holding up?" is a real suck-up. And I actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it. ...STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility... I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit... ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity. ...STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it. CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery? STEWART: Absolutely. CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you... STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. ...I don't doubt for a minute these people who work for President Bush, who I disagree with on everything, they believe that stuff, Jon. This is not a lie or a deception at all. They believe in him, just like I believe in my guy... ...I think they believe President Bush would do a better job. And I believe the Kerry guys believe President Kerry would do a better job. But what I believe is, they're not making honest arguments. So what they're doing is, in their mind, the ends justify the means. |
That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics - Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry's policies "would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth." |
From Baghdad and Lt. Col Powl Smith:
| ...In the same way that al Qaeda changed the outcome of the Spanish elections last March with a single catastrophic bombing in Madrid, the enemies of a free Iraq are increasing the tempo of attacks in order to feed the media, and therefore the American people, a steady diet of blood and carnage in order to convince us that "it just isn't worth it."...
...the real target of the increased insurgent attacks--their strategic grand prize--is American public opinion. The real reason for the surge in violence this fall? The U.S. presidential election... ...the truth is, in Iraq today, America is facing its own Madrid. Whether you are Democrat, Republican, or independent, it should anger you to the very core that our enemies are trying to slaughter American soldiers, innocent Iraqis, and indeed, just about anyone they can find, every day in order to frighten us into retreating. Winning this war will thus ultimately require more than conventional military might. It is in ourselves -- as individuals and as a nation -- that we will find victory or defeat. |
From WindsOfChange:
So this is what [ABC News'] Mark Helperin means when he says:
Over on ABC's 'Noted Now' website, a quote from my own Governator:
So I click along to the linked Reuters story and get this (the deleted words are in bold):
|
I think fundamentally, this is going to be a race that is a choice, and I think what you see even in the Gallup poll, your poll, when you ask them on the important issues "Who do you trust more, who do you trust more to deal with Iraq?" the public trusts the president more; "Who do you trust more on the war on terror?" the public trusts the president more; even on the economy which has been a signature issue of the Kerry campaign, it is almost dead even. So I think still, fundamentally, this is a race where the public is going to decide who has better plans, better vision, on these issues. And right now, on two of the three biggest issues, we have an advantage, and on the other one it is basically tied.
I put the question to my callers: What is the choice on 11/2. here's a list of their responses: Churchill v. Chamberlain Reagan v. Carter offense v. defense advance v. retreat resolve v. dithering blunt talk v. nuance England and Australia v. France and Germany Allawi in power v. Saddam in power leader v. talker White House v. waffle house tax cut v. tax hike private sector growth v. public sector growth cheeseburger v. escargot honest humility v. prideful arrogance "Let's roll" v. roll over Thanksgiving in Baghdad v. Christmas Eve in Cambodia September 12 v. September 10 Battle Hymn of the Republic v. Kumbaya Pat Tillman v. Michael Moore Brit Hume v. Chris Matthews Osama running from us v. Osama coming at us 10 gallon stetson v. the magic hat Saving Private Ryan v. Gigli Laura v. Theresa John Wayne v. Jane Fonda Ray Lewis v. Jerry Lewis Safety blitz v. Prevent defense Global freedom v. Global test "Blood, sweat, toil, and tears" v. "Peace in our time." Lambeau Field v. Lambert Field Old Glory v. white flag road warrior v. road kill Sun Tsu v. sun tan The Great Santini v. Forrest Gump Victory v. Vichy Compass v. windsock Fire power v. flower power Baghdad '03 v. Dien Bien Phu '54 Monday Night Football v. Sex in the City USS Missouri v. USS Minnow Brett Favre v. Ryan Leaf putting down insurrections v. botox injections A man who kept his promises v. A kept man who promises Axis of Evil v. nuisance Tour de force v. Tour de France Lawrence Taylor v. James Taylor Crawford v. Martha's Vineyard Shock and awe v. hem and haw Semper Fi v. simpering |
I think many of us underestimated the president. Informed, glib, funny and self-deprecating, Bush pounded Kerry continually -- and deservedly -- on his twenty-year record in the Senate. Out of the mainstream of American politics, sitting on the Left bank, watching the "...Conservative Senator from Massachusetts, Teddy Kennedy". Kerry, in two decades time, has sponsored virtually no successful legislation of impact and that fact alone had the Senator retreating... hemming and hawing about amendments, names not appearing on bills, and the like. Isn't it time for dinner, Senator?
As for the polls, KerrySpot has some interesting history. Since the 2000 elections, the pollsters -- for a variety of reasons -- have been dramatically underestimating GOP turnout. Need the stats? On a state-by-state basis, here are the dramatically incorrect results of the pollsters. Based upon these sorts of estimates, a 3 point margin for the president could literally mean a blowout victory for GWB.
| Now here's a strange twist on the debate. Bush was the winner in a focus group of uncommitted voters conducted by pollster Frank Luntz last night. The 23 voters thought Kerry, not Bush, won the debate. But they split 17 to 5 in favor of Bush on whom they now plan to vote for (one will vote Libertarian). "They still don't trust what John Kerry is saying," Luntz said, though they thought he said it well. |
Powerful commentary from the Weekly Standard's William Kristol. John Kerry's track record -- when it comes to national security -- is truly appalling. And there's no perfuming that skunk.
| NEVER HAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE elected as president a candidate with a record on national security issues resembling that of John Kerry. Consider some of the distinctive national security choices Kerry has made over the years...
...Fall 1984: The American people have never elected president someone who, in his first successful bid for federal office, chose to make support for a unilateral nuclear freeze and for major cutbacks in America's defense programs the centerpiece of his campaign. The freeze and the cutbacks would have weakened U.S.-European ties, emboldened the Soviet Union, and strengthened the hand of hardliners in the Kremlin. Kerry has never said that the position he took at this turning point in the Cold War was mistaken... ...January 12, 1991: The American people have never elected president a senator who voted against an authorization for the use of military force, in this case in pursuance of a United Nations-approved policy to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Senator Kerry complained in 1991 that we were engaged in "a rush to war." It turned out that Saddam had been only months away from acquiring nuclear capability. Kerry now cites the first Gulf War as a success for the purpose of contrasting it with the recent one--but he has never acknowledged that his judgment in opposing that war might have been in error... |
Entertaining...
| ...
8:10. I'd like to hear Bush say, "I'm going to nuke the next motherf'er who even looks at our country sidewise - twice if he's in the French cabinet." And I'd like to hear Kerry say, "I'm going to tax you bastards back to the Stone Age." Something, anything, to generate some sparks... 8:18. "Everything is a gift from the Almighty," Kerry just said. Now, I know every politician panders. But when Bush talks religion, much as it usually annoys me, I buy it. When Kerry says something like he just did, it makes me wish a thunderbolt would hit him, emblazoned with the words, "Take THIS gift, sucker." Because he's treating me like a sucker - and I'm not even religious... |
Update: I thought Bob Schieffer did a creditable job. In my heart of hearts, I was fearing the worst.
Daniel Pipes reports on some odd news from Florida. Training exercise... or lighthearted frivolity? I'll leave it to you, my esteemed reader, to make that call for yourself.
| When Muhammed Aatique pleaded guilty on Sept. 23, 2003 to being part of northern Virginia jihad network, he acknowledged that the paintball games played by him and his fellow jihadists were "conducted as sort of a military training." Another member of the network, Nabil Gharbieh, told the court how Muslims regarded paintball as a form of jihad.
These admissions come to mind on learning that the Tampa branch of the Muslim American Society is hosting a paintball game today in Ocala, Florida... What is this about? Well, the Muslim American Society is the U.S. face of the Muslim Brotherhood – the single leading Islamist organization worldwide and, as I noted in "The Islamic States of America?" the MAS is not terribly subtle about its intention of "establishing an Islamic state" to replace the existing Constitutional order. Add to this the Muslim Brotherhood's six-decade history of resorting to violence and one can only wonder about the purpose of a paintball exercise for "Manly Brothers"... |
PoliPundit links to the New York Sun:
| An official Navy document on Senator Kerry’s campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry’s “Honorable Discharge from the Reserves” opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.
The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration’s secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry’s discharge as being subsequent to the review of “a board of officers.” This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers. According to the secretary of the Navy’s document, the “authority of reference” this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry’s record was “Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. “This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry’s involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn’t have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry’s status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge. A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry... |
Hugh Hewitt had it right: if it isn't close, the Democrats can't cheat.
The Secret Weapon of George W. Bush is that he has successfully made himself into being seen as one of us. We see a man who on September 11th had one thing that FDR did not have, a video camera in his face looking for any sign of human weakness. What that camera captured was a man who reacted calmly and effectively in the face of an unspeakable horror. In that few minutes in Florida, he had no way of knowing that this was just a couple of aircraft or that there werent 100 more on their way to hit every major city. He had no way of knowing if it was being done in concert with Chinese Nuclear submarines just off the coast, ready to launch missles to decapitate his government and this great nation. None of us knew. A certain porcine filmmaker wants to make that moment into a moment of ridicule and derision, but what I see when I see that moment is a man, one of us, faced with a nation suddenly gone from peace to war in the blink of an eye, with an unknown and possibly very powerful enemy, looking back at an audience of children who until a moment before had all thought that all that would happen on that day is they would get to tell their parents they sat with the president at school. Instead, for the rest of their lives they will tell their families for generations to come that they were in the very room where the President was told that "We are at War".
We often think about that moment in terms of what the kids saw, but we dont stop to think about what the President saw on that day. He had no way of knowing if that particular classroom of children would be affected directly by the war that was now clearly underway. All those kids had dressed for school in peacetime, but before their lunch recess, they would be in wartime. This war would begin here and be fought here at home. For the first time in generations, America itself, had become a battlefield. They sat their looking at him and he at them, and I know as a father myself, he looked at every one of those kids and said to himself "Oh good lord, they are all so young..." He didn't panic, he didn't run out of the room, he didn't cry, and I'm sure he wanted to do all of those things. Instead, he patiently waited for the Secret Service to clear the route, excused himself politely and went about his job, mindful that how well he did it would be reflected in the eyes of those kids on that day. He could have made the whole event about himself, but George knows that there are more important things in the world than his own ego. The most important things in the world, were in that class, looking right at him from their desks. The Secret Weapon of George W. Bush is the nature of a guy who can laugh at himself and knows that his wife is really the better part of himself. The Secret Weapon of George W. Bush is a guy who knows himself well enough to know whats right and wrong without having to take a poll. The Secret Weapon of George W. Bush is the common sense to know that Terrorism is something to be ended, not tolerated as a nuisance. In last Friday's debate, at the end of the debate the audience of 'undecided' voters , voted clearly their intent by walking to George W. Bush and his lovely wife Laura and waited to have their picture taken. The President and his wife were mobbed, while the other candidate was largely by himself. The audience of the people of Missouri, simply felt they could walk up to have their hats and t-shirts signed and their hands shook by a guy named George. Who just happened to be - The President of the United States. |
Two more notes from Zell Miller that remind me why he's my favorite Democrat (outside of a few members of my family of course, but they'll be Hannitized shortly). Hat tip: Powerline.
| NRO: Who will win the presidential election?
MILLER: Bush is going to win and it will be wider than we think right now. As more and more people turn on this election, George W. Bush is going to look better and better and his opponent is going to look weaker and weaker. Who is it we feel more secure with in the White House? The answer to that is President Bush. I have never been more proud to support a president. I admire his leadership and character. I'm glad to have lived long enough to vote for a person like him. |
John Kerry as Arthur Andersen? (courtesy of Oak Leaf with a hat tip to PoliPundit). This post is dedicated to B.
| One day before the presidential debate, the media was aflutter with the Duelfer Report, and Senator Kerry stated “Bush led the nation into war under false pretenses.”
However, no one has yet to ask Senator Kerry the following important question. “Senator Kerry, in a post 9-11 environment, based on the same intelligence that the President had, would you have gone to war?” My personal opinion as a citizen and soldier, is that it would have been derelict not to go to war in a post 9-11 environment based on the information that was known. On September 15, 2004, Senator Kerry stated at the Detroit Economic Club, “President Bush’s desk isn’t where the buck stops - it’s where the blame begins.” Based on that comment it is reasonable to ask, who was responsible to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive branch to make sound decisions affecting the security of the Nation ? In May 1976, Senate Resolution 400 was passed and the 94th Congress established the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The Resolution states, “the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation.” In all of the investigations and studies concerning both the liberation of Iraq and September 11, 2001, there is one group of people that have not submitted to any inquiry. I am referring specifically to the past and present members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. If Senator Kerry is correct that "Bush led the nation into war under false pretenses", then Senator Kerry, by his own admission, and eight year membership on the Select Committee, has failed the American people no differently than the accounting firm Arthur Andersen failed the investing public in its auditing of publicly traded companies. If he is “correct now”, based on his words, then he is guilty of the greatest possible act of “political malpractice” and should suffer the same fate as the once great accounting firm Arthur Andersen. |