ms. kaganis clearly capable academic and the present has right to choose as you please replace the only remaining on the court had to reach this in this country? we're nominating someone who unapologetically obstructed the military at a time of war? she chose to use her position of authority to impede rather that empower the warriors fought and two of fallen for this country. i know a number of my fellow veterans will testify to a personal support of veterans on harvard campus and she said good things to say about the military which i appreciate. but for my money actions always speak louder than words. her actions towards recruiters with wars raging overseas undercut the military ability to fight and win wars and trump a rhetorical explanation. general petraeus calls counterinsurgency the thinking man's war. defeating enemy on the battlefield and in the courtroom takes the best america has to offer. yet in 2004 as you've heard many times, ms. kagan took the law enter own hands blocking equal ac

and ms. kagan is a good thing to say about the military, which i appreciate but for my money actions alwaysk speak louder thn words. t and ms. kagan actions towards recruiters with wars raging overseas, undercut the military's ability to fight and win wars. and it general david petraeus calls counterinsurgency a thinking man's war here defeating our enemy on the battlefield and in the courtroom take the best america has to offer. and yet in 2004 as you've heard many times already ms. kagan took the lawaw into her own hans blocking equal access for military recruiters a direct violationce of federal law. moreover she encouraged students to protest and oppose the presence of a military recruiters. these actions: south my the point deployed to on tunnel bay itself a legal maze graduate-level proportions. it would not the legal situation there and the courtrooms in iraq and afghanistan be better off with participation of lawyers and harvard law school caliber? do not we believe are best and brightest s

in 2004, as you've heard already, ms. kagan took the law into our own hands, blocking equal access for military recruiters in direct violation of federal law. moreover, she encouraged students to protest and oppose the presence of military recruiters. these actions coincided with my deployment to cuba, itself a legal maze of graduate-level proportions. were not the legal situation there in in the courtrooms in iraq and afghanistan be better off with participation of lawyers of harvard law school caliber? don't we believe our best and brightest should be encouraged to serve? in response to the critique she stated that despite her decision to bar recruiters from the office of military services, the number of recruits increased during her tenure. let's be clear. it increased in spite of ms. kagan, not because of her. the more important question, with that number not have been higher had she actually supported recruiters rather than actively oppose them? i don't begrudge her opposition to the so-called don't ask, don't tell legisla