Samuel Nunn: “I think at the outset of my comments I want to stipulate just a couple of things. First of all, the Tailhook symposium…”

“I think at the outset of my comments I want to stipulate just a couple of things. First of all, the Tailhook symposium activities were totally repugnant, repugnant to the U.S. Navy, repugnant to the women who were there, whether they were uniformed or not, but especially to the uniformed women who are serving this country with dedication and with courage and with effectiveness, and I think repugnant to the entire Department of Defense. This conduct was unacceptable in 1991. In my view, it would have been unacceptable in 1951 or 1931 or 1911. I do not think we have to be in an age of political correctness for this conduct to be labeled repugnant at any interval of our history. I believe that Admiral Kelso has said virtually the same thing and said it many times. I will come back to this key point before I conclude my remarks. But the theory here seems to be more and more that the captain should go down with the ship. That is a time-honored tradition in the United States Navy. In this case, I think everyone should understand that Admiral Kelso offered to resign in 1992. He was willing to go down with the ship. He was willing to be held accountable. That resignation was turned down by his civilian superiors, and he was asked to stay on and to try to remedy these problems, to try to straighten out what I would also stipulate was a botched investigation, and to try to bring dignity and honor to the U.S. Navy.”