Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains Lyndon Johnson.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525525
label
Ford Press Releases - Credibility Gap, 1966-1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525525
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Credibility Gap, 1966-1967
description
This file contains Lyndon Johnson.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Freedom of information
Legislation
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525525
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-08-31
month
8
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-02-01
month
2
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
dcb0f7684e52f84c
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D6, folder "Ford Press Releases - Credibility
Gap, 1966-1967" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D6 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
and Cap
NEWS
RELEASE
Newpon Va, to 6. 10, 1966
For release at time speech is made
EXCERPTS
As President Johnson directs the war, Republicans support a position of
strength against Communist aggression. We will oppose those Democrate in the
Congress who support a policy of appeasement, a weakness which led to World War II.
Republicans have long supported bipartisanship in foreign policy, and most
especially at a time when the lives of Americans are at stake. But, bipartisanship
is a two-way affair. It does not involve accepting decisions without first demand-
ing a full, frank and public disclosure of the facts upon which those decisions
are made.
As the late Senator Arthur Vandenberg once said, a fundamental prerequisite
for a truly acceptable bipartisan policy is that "total information must be made
available to Congress and the country and that Congress must completely explore
and approve the measures by which the President's policy is to be implemented."
from the public viewpoint, there has not been this completeness of disclosure
during the Viet Nam struggle.
The American people were not told in 1964 of the Hanoi peace overture. They
were not fully advised of the degree and duration of the buildup of United States
participation in the Viet Nam ground war.
Not until the 1966 State of the Union Message was there full, official
Presidential indication of the distressing possibility that shedding American
blood in Viet Nam could well last "for years."
Whereas Republican Congressional leaders were invited to meet with the President
prior to his decision to resume bombing of North Viet Nam, there was not the same
degree of communication when the President decided to order an extended pause in
such bombings.
As Senator Vandenberg said upon another occasion: "We'll stand by you on the
101
crash landings but would like to be consulted at the take-offe"
DERALO FORD LIBRARY
Excerpts from a speech by Congressman Gerald R. Ford, House Republican Leader
The management of the "war on poverty" is a national disgrace. Republicans
are working very hard to expose the mistakes, the poor administration, the
political bossism.
I am not opposed to the idea of helping the poor to help themselves, but I
am critical of the haphazard way the program is being managed by a Democrat
Administration.
Unless there is prompt Congressional action to insure the soundness of the
poverty program, the plan will continue to be mired in confusion and eventually
be pushed aside by the economic demands of the Viet Nam war.
*
*
*
These are a few stunning examples of poor management of the war on poverty:
In Newport, Rhode Island, enrollees in the Youth Corps included the sons
of a surgeon, businessmen, an executive, a school official, a lawyer, and
Naval officers.
The New York Times reported that in our largest city the Harlem Youth Project
had overspent $2 million in funds contributed to the program by taxpayers.
The director of the Camp Breckinridge, Ky., Job Corps training center was
fired when it was learned his wife and the wives of 51 other middle management
employees were on the payroll. The camp had 350 staff members for the 358
trainees.
It was disclosed in Omaha, Nebraska, that 90 percent of the youths employed
in a neighborhood poverty project were not from low-income families.
*
*
*
Republicans believe in moving ahead toward equality for all citizens,
improving government and its services, increasing jobs and production without
inflation. We believe that each State should determine its own kind of
Legislature and its own laws.
*
*
*
These are the hours of destiny and Republicans are deeply concerned with the
preservation of our Republic.
The problem of keeping our Republic strikes at the very heart of every
American's future and welfare. It is a problem demanding the immediate and
undivided attention of Americans.
############
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Leader
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Melvin R. Laird,
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Conference
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
H. Allen Smith,
Chr. Republican
Ranking Member
Senatorial Committee
Rules Committee
Bob Wilson,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Chr. Republican
Issued following a
Congressional Committee
The Republican
National Chairman
Leadership Meeting
Charles E. Goodell,
Chr. Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
Planning and Research
March 31, 1966
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
There's no longer a "Credibility GAP" -- it's become a Credibility
CANYON! -- and it's widening between the Johnson-Humphrey Administra-
tion and the American people with every week that goes by.
Dateline, March 15, the New York Times - "Secretary of the Treasury
Henry H. Fowler indicated today that he believed that there had been
excessive alarm in business circles about the boom economy.
Dateline, March 23, the New York Times - "President Johnson, citing
some decline in business indicators, made clear today that he was not
yet convinced that a tax increase was needed to slow down economic
expansion and inflation.
Dateline, March 24, the Baltimore Sun - "In a notable exibition of
Administration teamwork, Henry H. Fowler, Secretary of the Treasury,
today reiterated what President Johnson said late yesterday -- there
is no reason at the moment to ask for an anti-inflation tax increase."
And yesterday, March 30, following announcement of a .5% nationwide
cost of living increase, the front pages of the press across the
country reported that the President favors a 5 to 7 per cent tax rise
if one is needed. How do you spell "credibility"? What can we
believe?
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration must take about 5 billion dol-
lars annually out of the economy if inflation is to be checked and a
recession prevented. It does not have the wish nor the w1t nor the
will to reduce expenditures, hence it must increase taxes.
The checking of inflation could be achieved, as Republicans have
long maintained, by a reduction of wholly unwise Federal expenditures
and by other essential fiscal, monetary and economic reforms.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has elected the alternative of
new taxes.
Dateline, March 30, the Wall Street Journal "Consumers Boil
About Widespread Increases; Many Attempt a Revolt." Whom can we best
believe on the high and rising cost of living America's homemakers
and wage-earners or a Democratic Administration that will not see,
will not hear, and will not believe these frightening facts of econo-
mic life?
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 Ex 3700
Staff Consultant - John B. Fisher
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
March 31, 1966
This debt-propelled Johnson-Humphrey Administration continues,
whether knowingly or not, to mislead the American people on matters
of the most vital importance to them. Whether this Johnson-Humphrey
Administration is misinformed, misguided or simply mystified is hard
to determine. It is, in any case, mistaken -- and the cost of its
mistakes in human well-being and in dollars is rapidly becoming far
more than the American people can -- or will -- pay.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration was grossly mistaken in its
budgetary planning, both as regards the cost of the war in Vietnam and
expenditures here at home. Fifteen months ago, after proclaiming "an
important first step toward a balanced budget" the Administration
produced a deficit of over 3 billion dollars. The fiscal 1966 deficit
will be at least twice that of the 1965 deficit.
In June of 1965 Representative Laird of Wisconsin predicted that
estimates of the cost of the war in Vietnam were low by at least 5
billion dollars, only to be harshly rebuked by the Secretary of De-
fense. Yet, in a matter of months, the Johnson-Humphrey Administra-
tion requested of Congress nearly 13 billion dollars in supplemental
appropriations for continued conduct of the war.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has also been 100 per cent
mistaken in its estimates of the inflationary forces now stampeding
across the country that take the earnings right out of the pocket of
the worker -- and this despite the early and unanimous warnings not
only of dozens of economists outside government but the equally strong
and unanimous warnings of members of the Joint Economic Committee of
the Congress.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has proposed -- and has tried
to impose -- economic guidelines for labor, for management and for
the farmer. Democrats are even proposing controls on wages and prices
yet the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has made no effort to place
guidelines upon its own inflationary excesses.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration is obsessed with symptoms
rather than causes.
The role of the opposition is one of both searching criticism and
constructive proposal of alternatives. I commend to you the 13 posi-
tive recommendations for effective action in bringing down the cost
of living presented earlier this week to the American people by the
Republican Coordinating Committee.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Leader
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Melvin R. Laird,
Chr. of the Conference
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Conference
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
H. Allen Smith,
Chr. Republican
Ranking Member
Senatorial Committee
Rules Committee
Bob Wilson,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
The Republican
Issued following a
National Chairman
Leadership Meeting
Charles E. Goodell,
Chr. Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
Planning and Research
March 31, 1966
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
There's no longer a "Credibility GAP" -- it's become a Credibility
CANYON! -- and it's widening between the Johnson-Humphrey Administra-
tion and the American people with every week that goes by.
Dateline, March 15, the New York Times - "Secretary of the Treasury
Henry H. Fowler indicated today that he believed that there had been
excessive alarm in business circles about the boom economy."
Dateline, March 23, the New York Times - "President Johnson, citing
some decline in business indicators, made clear today that he was not
yet convinced that a tax increase was needed to slow down economic
expansion and inflation,"
Dateline, March 24, the Baltimore Sun - "In a notable exibition of
Administration teamwork, Henry H. Fowler, Secretary of the Treasury,
today reiterated what President Johnson said late yesterday -- there
is no reason at the moment to ask for an anti-inflation tax increase."
And yesterday, March 30, following announcement of a .5% nationwide
cost of living increase, the front pages of the press across the
country reported that the President favors a 5 to 7 per cent tax rise
if one is needed. How do you spell "credibility"? What can we
believe?
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration must take about 5 billion dol-
lars annually out of the economy if inflation is to be checked and a
recession prevented. It does not have the wish nor the wit nor the
will to reduce expenditures, hence it must increase taxes.
The checking of inflation could be achieved, as Republicans have
long maintained, by a reduction of wholly unwise Federal expenditures
and by other essential fiscal, monetary and economic reforms.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has elected the alternative of
new taxes.
Dateline, March 30, the Wall Street Journal - "Consumers Boil
About Widespread Increases; Many Attempt a Revolt." Whom can we best
believe on the high and rising cost of living -- America's homemakers
and wage-earners or a Democratic Administration that will not see,
will not hear, and will not believe these frightening facts of econo-
mic life?
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 Ex 3700
Staff Consultant John B. Fisher
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
March 31, 1966
This debt-propelled Johnson-Humphrey Administration continues,
whether knowingly or not, to mislead the American people on matters
of the most vital importance to them. Whether this Johnson-Humphrey
Administration is misinformed, misguided or simply mystified is hard
to determine. It is, in any case, mistaken -- and the cost of its
mistakes in human well-being and in dollars is rapidly becoming far
more than the American people can -- or will -- pay.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration was grossly mistaken in its
budgetary planning, both as regards the cost of the war in Vietnam and
expenditures here at home. Fifteen months ago, after proclaiming "an
important first step toward a balanced budget" the Administration
produced a deficit of over 3 billion dollars. The fiscal 1966 deficit
will be at least twice that of the 1965 deficit.
In June of 1965 Representative Laird of Wisconsin predicted that
estimates of the cost of the war in Vietnam were low by at least 5
billion dollars, only to be harshly rebuked by the Secretary of De-
fense. Yet, in a matter of months, the Johnson-Humphrey Administra-
tion requested of Congress nearly 13 billion dollars in supplemental
appropriations for continued conduct of the war.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has also been 100 per cent
mistaken in its estimates of the inflationary forces now stampeding
across the country that take the earnings right out of the pocket of
the worker -- and this despite the early and unanimous warnings not
only of dozens of economists outside government but the equally strong
and unanimous warnings of members of the Joint Economic Committee of
the Congress.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has proposed -- and has tried
to impose -- economic guidelines for labor, for management and for
the farmer. Democrats are even proposing controls on wages and prices
yet the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has made no effort to place
guidelines upon its own inflationary excesses.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration is obsessed with symptoms
rather than causes.
The role of the opposition 1s one of both searching criticism and
constructive proposal of alternatives. I commend to you the 13 posi-
tive recommendations for effective action in bringing down the cost
of living presented earlier this week to the American people by the
Republican Coordinating Committee.
House Republican Policy Committee
Big Brother
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
140 Cannon House Office Bldg.
For Immediate Release
Phone: 225-6168
May 18, 1966
Republican Policy Committee Statement on Freedom of Information Legislation
S.1160
The Republican Policy Committee commends the Committee on Government Opera-
tions for reporting S.1160. This bill clarifies and protects the right of the
public to essential information. Subject to certain exceptions and the right to
court review, it would require every executive agency to give public notice or
to make available to the public its methods of operation, public procedures,
rules, policies, and precedents.
The Republican Policy Committee, the Republican Members of the Committee on
Government Operations, and such groups as the American Newspaper Publishers
Association, the professional journalism society Sigma Delta Chi, the National
Editorial Association and the American Bar Association have long urged the enact-
ment of this legislation. Due to the opposition of the Johnson-Humphrey Admin-
istration, however, this proposal has been bottled up in Committee for over a
year. Certainly, information regarding the business of the government should be
shared with the people. The screen of secrecy which now exists is a barrier to
reporters as representatives of the public, to citizens in pursuit of information
vital to their welfare, and to Members of Congress as they seek to carry out
their constitutional functions.
Under this legislation, if a request for information is denied, the
aggrieved person has the right to file an action in a U.S. District Court, and
such court may order the production of any agency records that are improperly
withheld. So that the court may consider the propriety of withholding, rather
than being restricted to judicial sanctioning of agency discretion, the proceed-
ings are de novo. In the trial, the burden of proof is correctly placed upon
the agency. A private citizen cannot be asked to prove that an agency has
withheld information improperly for he does not know the basis for the agency
action.
Certainly, as the Committee report has stated: "No Government employee at
any level believes that the 'public interest' would be served by disclosure of
his failures or wrongdoings For example, the cost estimates submitted by
contractors in connection with the multimillion-dollar deep sea "Mohole" project
were withheld from the public even though it appeared that the firm which had
won the lucrative contract had not submitted the lowest bid. Moreover, it was
only as a result of searching inquiries by the press and Senator Kuchel (R.,Cal.)
that President Kennedy intervened to reverse the National Science Foundation's
decision that it would not be "in the public interest" to disclose these
estimates.
The requirements for disclosure in the present law are so hedged with
restrictions that it has been cited as the statutory authority for 24 separate
classifications devised by Federal agencies to keep administrative information
from public view. Bureaucratic gobbledygook used to deny access to information
has included such gems as: "Eyes Only," "Limited Official Use," "Confidential
Treatment," and "Limitation on Availability of Equipment for Public Reference."
This paper curtain must be pierced. This bill is an important first step.
(over)
-2-
In this period of selective disclosures, managed news, half-truths, and
admitted distortions, the need for this legislation is abundantly clear. High
officials have warned that our Government is in grave danger of losing the
public's confidence both at home and abroad. The credibility gap that has
affected the Administration pronouncements on domestic affairs and Vietnam has
spread to other parts of the world. The on-again, off-again, obviously less-
than-truthful manner in which the reduction of American forces in Europe has
been handled has made this country the subject of ridicule and jokes. Would
you believe?" has now become more than a clever saying. It is a legitimate
inquiry.
Americans have always taken great pride in their individual and national
credibility. We have recognized that men and nations can be no better than
their word. This legislation will help to blaze a trail of truthfulness and
accurate disclosure in what has become a jungle of falsification, unjustified
secrecy. and misstatement by statistic. The Republican Policy Committee urges
the prompt enactment of S.1160.
House Republican Policy Committee
Big Brother
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
140 Cannon House Office Bldg.
For Immediate Release
Phone: 225-6168
May 18, 1966
Republican Policy Committee Statement on Freedom of Information Legislation
S.1160
The Republican Policy Committee commends the Committee on Government Opera-
tions for reporting S.1160. This bill clarifies and protects the right of the
public to essential information. Subject to certain exceptions and the right to
court review, it would require every executive agency to give public notice or
to make available to the public its methods of operation, public procedures,
rules, policies, and precedents.
The Republican Policy Committee, the Republican Members of the Committee on
Government Operations, and such groups as the American Newspaper Publishers
Association, the professional journalism society Sigma Delta Chi, the National
Editorial Association and the American Bar Association have long urged the enact-
ment of this legislation. Due to the opposition of the Johnson-Humphrey Admin-
istration, however, this proposal has been bottled up in Committee for over a
year. Certainly, information regarding the business of the government should be
shared with the people. The screen of secrecy which now exists is a barrier to
reporters as representatives of the public, to citizens in pursuit of information
vital to their welfare, and to Members of Congress as they seek to carry out
their constitutional functions.
Under this legislation, if a request for information is denied, the
aggrieved person has the right to file an action in a U.S. District Court, and
such court may order the production of any agency records that are improperly
withheld. So that the court may consider the propriety of withholding, rather
than being restricted to judicial sanctioning of agency discretion, the proceed-
ings are de novo. In the trial, the burden of proof is correctly placed upon
the agency. A private citizen cannot be asked to prove that an agency has
withheld information improperly for he does not know the basis for the agency
action.
Certainly, as the Committee report has stated: "No Government employee at
any level believes that the 'public interest' would be served by disclosure of
his failures or wrongdoings. For example, the cost estimates submitted by
contractors in connection with the multimillion-dollar deep sea "Mohole" project
were withheld from the public even though it appeared that the firm which had
won the lucrative contract had not submitted the lowest bid. Moreover, it was
only as a result of searching inquiries by the press and Senator Kuchel (R.,Cal.)
that President Kennedy intervened to reverse the National Science Foundation's
decision that it would not be "in the public interest" to disclose these
estimates.
The requirements for disclosure in the present law are so hedged with
restrictions that it has been cited as the statutory authority for 24 separate
classifications devised by Federal agencies to keep administrative information
from public view. Bureaucratic gobbledygook used to deny access to information
has included such gems as: "Eyes Only," "Limited Official Use," "Confidential
Treatment," and "Limitation on Availability of Equipment for Public Reference."
This paper curtain must be pierced. This bill is an important first step.
(over)
-2-
In this period of selective disclosures, managed news, half-truths, and
admitted distortions, the need for this legislation is abundantly clear. High
officials have warned that our Government is in grave danger of losing the
public's confidence both at home and abroad. The credibility gap that has
affected the Administration pronouncements on domestic affairs and Vietnam has
spread to other parts of the world. The on-again, off-again, obviously less-
than-truthful manner in which the reduction of American forces in Europe has
been handled has made this country the subject of ridicule and jokes. Would
you believe?" has now become more than a clever saying. It is a legitimate
inquiry.
Americans have always taken great pride in their individual and national
credibility. We have recognized that men and nations can be no better than
their word. This legislation will help to blaze a trail of truthfulness and
accurate disclosure in what has become a jungle of falsification, unjustified
secrecy. and misstatement by statistic. The Republican Policy Committee urges
the prompt enactment of S.1160.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Leader
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
of the Policy Committee
Melvin R. Laird,
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
of the Conference
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Thruston B. Morton,
of the Policy Committee
Chr. Republican
H. Allen Smith,
Senatorial Committee
Ranking Member
Issued following a
Rules Committee
Leadership Meeting
Bob Wilson,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Chr. Republican
The Republican
June 9, 1966
Congressional Committee
National Chairman
Charles E. Goodell,
Ray C. Bliss
Chr. Committee on
Planning and Research
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
James Reston in the New York Times on May 17th last, wrote:
"What he (LBJ) wants is worthy of the faith and
confidence of the nation, but this is precisely what
he does not have, because his techniques blur his
conviction
He is mixing up news and truth
He
is confronted, in short, with a crisis of confidence
"
This statement expresses a point of view and a deep regret, both of
which we fully share.
On May 25, 1966, nineteen distinguished Republican members of the
House of Representatives, including the entire Leadership, catalogued
and summarized on the floor of the House the detailed reasons why
this crisis of confidence has resulted. We have seen this in almost
every aspect of the domestic scene. It has been revealed in the
President's Budget messages and management. It has appeared in the
War on Poverty. It has emerged relative to the NASA program. It
was vivid in wage-price guidepost disputes with labor and with
management. It was startling in his action on surplus sales of
industrial stockpiles and farm products. It became bewildering in
Federal job multiplication figures. It surfaced again in appoint-
ments to high level offices. It proved shocking in the President's
uncertain assessment of the economy. In all these categories of
confidence doubt has developed and the American people have, not at
all surprisingly, steadily lost faith in a President who is rapidly
losing touch with them. A consensus of no confidence is coming to
pass.
Constructively, positively, let it be recorded here and now that
the Republican opposition wants with all of its heart and energy to
support the President of the United States when he is either right
or of the right intent. In such cases it will always do so, but the
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
Staff Consultant John B. Fisher
REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
Page 2
Republicans in the Congress -- and, indeed, the Democrats in Congress
as well -- cannot know what is right or of right intent in the
President's policies unless they have the facts upon which to base
their judgments. The facts are all too seldom given us by this
Administration.
There are those in this Administration who appear to believe
that half-a-truth is better than none. We disagree. Where the
American people at home are concerned we must have the whole truth.
Where the American people in their foreign interests and national
security are concerned, we must be given every fact possible consist-
ent with our safety. Given such facts as to domestic and foreign
policy, we in Congress will, with all the people, be reassured that
the soundest, the sanest, the best possible decisions will be made
in the days to come.
As of this date, as the record so clearly proves, we have not
been given and are not being given the vital facts of American life
by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. We do not charge the
Administration with falsehood but we do claim it has failed to reveal
the whole truth. This being so, this crisis of confidence is
inevitable and the consequent danger to the American people is great.
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President, What CAN we believe?
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
June 9, 1966
James Madison, fourth President of the United States, at a time
when our nation was imperiled wrote:
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a
people who mean to be their own governors must arm
themselves with power knowledge gives. A popular
government without popular information or the means
of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a
tragedy or perhaps both."
Our nation is imperiled now.
On December 13th last, the Republican Coordinating Committee, in
a statement unanimously agreed to by its membership, declared its
own conviction and position with respect to the conflict in Viet Nam.
The first two sentences of that Declaration were these:
"Questions are being raised both at home and abroad
as to the devotion of the American people to peace. One
cause of this confusion has been the inability of the
Johnson Administration to establish a candid and con-
sistently credible statement of our position in Viet Nam."
The two words, "candid" and "credible" are those most meaningful
and most relevant to the point we make today: The Johnson-Humphrey
Administration refuses even yet to be either candid or consistently
credible with respect to its policies and our position in Viet Nam.
If, this, like Madison's, is a time of clear and present danger,
it is essential now, as it was then, that the people be fully informed
as to the problems and the perils confronting them and as to the effec-
tive steps it is planned to take to solve those problems and protect
them from those perils.
All too consistently, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has
failed, whether by oversight or intent, to take the Congress and the
American people into its proper confidence regarding Viet Nam. Such
a failure is inexcusable. It could be tragic.
No American, in public office or in private life, wishes or seeks
to know the details of any plan or program that must, in the interest
of our national security, be kept in executive confidence, but every
American does have the right to know where we are going in Viet Nam
and how far and to what clear purpose. Such information as has been
given us by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has been infrequent
and incomplete.
For this reason, therefore, I urge again that the President
Senator Dirksen
page 4
convene immediately a bipartisan Leadership Conference for a dis-
cussion and examination of American policy in Viet Nam. I urge this
in order that the American people through their elected representa-
tives in the Congress might better understand the shape of things to
come. Armed by such understanding, they will be better able to
provide that unqualified support so necessary to the winning of a
swift, secure and honorable peace.
Unless, by such means, the people are respected in their right
to know we cannot help but ask this Question-of-the-Week -- and,
indeed, of every week:
Mr. President, What CAN we believe?
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Leader
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
of the Policy Committee
Melvin R. Laird,
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
of the Conference
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Thruston B. Morton,
of the Policy Committee
Chr. Republican
H. Allen Smith,
Senatorial Committee
Ranking Member
Issued following a
Rules Committee
Leadership Meeting
Bob Wilson,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Chr. Republican
The Republican
June 9, 1966
Congressional Committee
National Chairman
Charles E. Goodell,
Ray C. Bliss
Chr. Committee on
Planning and Research
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
James Reston in the New York Times on May 17th last, wrote:
"What he (LBJ) wants is worthy of the faith and
confidence of the nation, but this is precisely what
he does not have, because his techniques blur his
conviction
He is mixing up news and truth
He
is confronted, in short, with a crisis of confidence
"
This statement expresses a point of view and a deep regret, both of
which we fully share.
On May 25, 1966, nineteen distinguished Republican members of the
House of Representatives, including the entire Leadership, catalogued
and summarized on the floor of the House the detailed reasons why
this crisis of confidence has resulted. We have seen this in almost
every aspect of the domestic scene. It has been revealed in the
President's Budget messages and management. It has appeared in the
War on Poverty. It has emerged relative to the NASA program. It
was vivid in wage-price guidepost disputes with labor and with
management. It was startling in his action on surplus sales of
industrial stockpiles and farm products. It became bewildering in
Federal job multiplication figures. It surfaced again in appoint-
ments to high level offices. It proved shocking in the President's
uncertain assessment of the economy. In all these categories of
confidence doubt has developed and the American people have, not at
all surprisingly, steadily lost faith in a President who is rapidly
losing touch with them. A consensus of no confidence is coming to
pass.
Constructively, positively, let it be recorded here and now that
the Republican opposition wants with all of its heart and energy to
support the President of the United States when he is either right
or of the right intent. In such cases it will always do so, but the
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
Staff Consultant John B. Fisher
REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
Page 2
Republicans in the Congress -- and, indeed, the Democrats in Congress
as well -- cannot know what is right or of right intent in the
President's policies unless they have the facts upon which to base
their judgments. The facts are all too seldom given us by this
Administration.
There are those in this Administration who appear to believe
that half-a-truth is better than none. We disagree. Where the
American people at home are concerned we must have the whole truth.
Where the American people in their foreign interests and national
security are concerned, we must be given every fact possible consist-
ent with our safety. Given such facts as to domestic and foreign
policy, we in Congress will, with all the people, be reassured that
the soundest, the sanest, the best possible decisions will be made
in the days to come.
As of this date, as the record SO clearly proves, we have not
been given and are not being given the vital facts of American life
by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. We do not charge the
Administration with falsehood but we do claim it has failed to reveal
the whole truth. This being so, this crisis of confidence is
inevitable and the consequent danger to the American people is great.
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President, What CAN we believe?
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
June 9, 1966
James Madison, fourth President of the United States, at a time
when our nation was imperiled wrote:
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a
people who mean to be their own governors must arm
themselves with power knowledge gives. A popular
government without popular information or the means
of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a
tragedy or perhaps both.'
Our nation is imperiled now.
On December 13th last, the Republican Coordinating Committee, in
a statement unanimously agreed to by its membership, declared its
own conviction and position with respect to the conflict in Viet Nam.
The first two sentences of that Declaration were these:
"Questions are being raised both at home and abroad
as to the devotion of the American people to peace. One
cause of this confusion has been the inability of the
Johnson Administration to establish a candid and con-
sistently credible statement of our position in Viet Nam."
The two words, "candid" and "credible" are those most meaningful
and most relevant to the point we make today: The Johnson-Humphrey
Administration refuses even yet to be either candid or consistently
credible with respect to its policies and our position in Viet Nam.
If, this, like Madison's, is a time of clear and present danger,
it is essential now, as it was then, that the people be fully informed
as to the problems and the perils confronting them and as to the effec-
tive steps it is planned to take to solve those problems and protect
them from those perils.
All too consistently, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has
failed, whether by oversight or intent, to take the Congress and the
American people into its proper confidence regarding Viet Nam. Such
a failure is inexcusable. It could be tragic.
No American, in public office or in private life, wishes or seeks
to know the details of any plan or program that must, in the interest
of our national security, be kept in executive confidence, but every
American does have the right to know where we are going in Viet Nam
and how far and to what clear purpose. Such information as has been
given us by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has been infrequent
and incomplete.
For this reason, therefore, I urge again that the President
Senator Dirksen
page 4
convene immediately a bipartisan Leadership Conference for a dis-
cussion and examination of American policy in Viet Nam. I urge this
in order that the American people through their elected representa-
tives in the Congress might better understand the shape of things to
come. Armed by such understanding, they will be better able to
provide that unqualified support so necessary to the winning of a
swift, secure and honorable peace.
Unless, by such means, the people are respected in their right
to know we cannot help but ask this Question-of-the-Week -- and,
indeed, of every week:
Mr. President, What CAN we believe?
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1966
REGARDING FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL
The Congress has performed a notable service for the American people in
passing the Freedom of Information Bill. It now remains for the President to
sign the bill into law.
President Johnson has acquired a reputation for unnecessary secrecy, and
his Administration has become known for its habit of classifying information
which in many instances should be made public.
I recently challenged Mr. Johnson to sign the Freedom of Information bill
after its approval by Congress. I now renew that challenge.
There is one respect in which the bill just passed falls short. It will
not take effect until one year after it is signed. That means the voters cannot
feel assured of a full flow of government information between now and November
even with the new law on the books. That is most unfortunate.
But this legislation nevertheless looms as a landmark amid congressional
efforts to further the people's right to know.
# # #
Republican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
FRIDAY AM'S
October 7, 1966
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT WAS APPROVED OCTOBER 3, 1966
BY THE REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE AND WAS RELEASED
TODAY BY REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RAY C. BLISS
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT THE ADMINISTRATION TO TELL THE TRUTH
Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated by the refusal of the
Johnson-Humphrey Administration to tell the full truth to the people. Whether
it be called "news management" or the "credibility gap," the fact remains that
in many areas of public policy, the Democratic Administration fails to tell
the whole truth.
In Vietnam the Administration has issued a multitude of conflicting
statements about the extent of U.S. involvement, the degree to which American
troops are participating, the goals of the war, the reasons for American
presence and, most importantly, the prospects for success. On October 1, 1963,
for example, Secretary McNamara claimed that "the major part of the U.S.
military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be con-
tinuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. " When
the Secretary painted that rosy picture, there were about 15,000 U.S. military
personnel in Vietnam; by the end of 1965 that number had grown to 180, 000;
and today our presence is in the magnitude of 300, 000.
-more-
- -2-
One of Secretary McNamara's chief deputies has stated:
"Look, if you think any American official is
going to tell you the truth, then you're stupid.
Did you hear that? - - Stupid. 11
On the domestic front, too, a credibility gap has been growing
steadily- - and rapidly- - ever since the Eisenhower Administration left office.
The Secretary of Agriculture has said to Democratic candidates:
"Slip, slide, and duck any question of higher
consumer prices if you possibly can."
There needs to be enacted "truth in budgeting" legislation, so that
the American people can see for themselves how much of the people's money
the Democratic Administration is spending. Suppression of the names of
summer postal employees affords another example.
As a leading news commentator has noted, "the political lie has become
a way of bureaucratic life. "
In an era in which the United States seeks, and needs, friends, how
can we expect the peoples of other lands to trust our Administration's
statements when our own people are becoming increasingly suspicious of its
motives and actions?
The Republican Coordinating Committee respectfully urges the
Administration to be frank with the American people. The people need the
whole truth.
Since the Democratic Party cannot be frank with the American people,
the Republicans will tell them the truth.
###
Congressional Record
United States
of America
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE
90ᵗʰ
CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
Vol. 113
WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1967
No. 124
"WHY ARE WE PULLING OUR BEST PUNCHES IN VIETNAM?"
Speech in the House of Representatives by Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford of Michigan
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Speaker, why are we talking about
After outlining his higher tax plans,
I rise after much reflection to express
money when we should be talking about
the President added:
my grave misgivings, which have been
men? The essential element in President
The inconventences this demand poses are
growing for many months, about the way
Johnson's tax increase message, I submit,
small when measured against the contribu-
the war in Vietnam is going. I believe
is not higher revenues but human lives—
tion of a Marine on patrol in a sweltering
my concern is shared by many millions
not whether every American should live
jungle, or an airman flying through perilous
of my countrymen, and I know it is
better but whether hundreds and thou-
skies, or a soldier 10,000 miles from home
shared by those responsible for fighting
sands of Americans are going to live at
waiting to join his outfit on the line.
the war in Vietnam.
all.
Who can question such a comparison?
My troubled thoughts were brought
This is not an academic exercise with
But the question we may ask-the
into sharper focus last Thursday by the
computers. This involves the finest of our
question I must ask-is this: Why, and
President's message asking for a 10-per-
future leaders. This is a question crying
how long, must U.S. Marines patrol that
cent Federal income tax surcharge. Most
for bold leadership and political cour-
sweltering jungle? Why, and how long,
of the comment on this floor and in the
age of the highest order-even the cour-
must U.S. Navy and Air Force pilots
press centered initially on his tax in-
age to admit past policies have been woe-
brave increasingly deadly skies because
crease proposals. For my part I reiter-
fully wrong.
the flow of sophisticated Soviet weapons
ated that President Johnson still has not
I believe everyone in this House would
has not been stopped? Why, and how
made a convincing case for higher taxes.
willingly vote any level of taxes and the
long, must American soldiers-now
But with his tax message, as an addi-
American people would willingly pay
nearly half a million-wait 10,000 miles
tional and emotionally compelling argu-
them if they were convinced it would
from home to meet and match Asian
ment, the President announced his deci-
bring the Vietnam war to an end. But as
enemies man to man, body for body?
sion to "authorize an increase of at least
I do not believe the grave challenges we
45,000 in the number of men to be sent
Mr. Speaker, we must ask another
face at home can be countered simply
to Vietnam this fiscal year."
question: Why are we pulling our best
by pouring out more and more money,
This will swell the total to 525,000
punches in Vietnam?
neither do I believe the graver challenge
Americans, not counting those in ad-
Is there no end, no other answer ex-
in Southeast Asia can be met merely by
jacent areas, surpassing our peak man-
cept more men, more men, more men?
pouring in more and more men and by
power™ commitment to the Korean war.
Of course we will give our fighting men
these brave men pouring out more and
Vietnam is a major war, and has become
all they need to defend their lives and
more blood.
an American war.
carry out their mission. But what is their
At the end of 1963, when President
I am troubled, Mr. Speaker, that the
mission?
Johnson succeeded to the Presidency, the
President's ordering 45,000 more Amer-
Is there any clear, coherent, and cred-
United States had approximately 16,000
icans to Vietnam is almost taken for
ible military plan for bringing this bloody
men in Vietnam, Only 109 had been killed
granted, so hardened have we become to
business to a conclusion?
in action and about 500 wounded.
these creeping commitments. I am
Certainly there are such plans. Our
By grim coincidence, the Pentagon re-
troubled that the only apparent result of
ablest military leaders would be unbe-
leased the latest casualty figures on the
General Taylor's and Mr. Clifford's cir-
lievably derelict not to have developed
same day we received the President's tax
cuit of our Pacific allies, besides arrang-
a variety of alternative strategies based
increase message. The toll of Ameri-
ing another Asian summit show, was a
on the situation and sound military ex-
cans-as of July 29-now stands at 87,-
promise of some 3,000 to 15,000 South
perience. But up to now they have not
000-12,000 dead and 75,000 wounded.
Korean reservists "to release American
been allowed to put their plans to a real
Figures rounded.
troops for combat duty" in Vietnam.
test; or worse, their plans have been
Mr. Speaker, I blame nobody but the
Should it not be the other way around?
tried piecemeal, in the same senseless
Communist enemy for these sad statis-
President Johnson himself set the
way Americans have been fed piecemeal
tics. I have supported the President and
groundrules for a great debate about our
from 16,000 to 525,000 into this penin-
our country from the outset and to this
Nation's priorities and goals. I accept
sular war, under such high-level restric-
hour. I have heard myself branded a
them. I hopè others will join. In his tax
tions as to void their validity.
hawk, and worse, for counseling firmness
increase message, Mr. Johnson said:
General Eisenhower recently stated
against Communist aggression and using
This nation has taken a solemn pledge that
pointedly that a "war of gradualism"
America's awesome arsenal of conven-
its sons and brothers engaged in the conflict
cannot be won. The result of our "war
tional arms to compel a swift and sure
(in Vietnam) shall never lack all the help,
of gradualism" against North Vietnam
all the arms, and all the equipment essential
peace.
has been the equivalent buildup of the
for their mission and for their very lives.
But I am troubled, as I think most
enemy forces on the ground and the
America must and will honor that pledge.
Americans are troubled. Recent surveys
It is for this reason that expenditures for
accelerated hardening of his defenses.
show that more than half of our people
Vietnam-subject as they are to the variable
Mr. Speaker, when you have to change
are not satisfied with the way the war
demands of military operations-may now
a tire, you tighten every lug as hard as
exceed our earlier estimates.
you can. If you only tighten one, or
in Vietnam is being conducted.
tighten them unevenly, your car will go
on wobbling down the road and wind up
demic. Half a million Americans are
later. I again supported him when he re-
in a ditch.
deeply involved, more than 10,000 have
moved his earlier restraints on bombing
What is especially dishonest is secretly
lost their lives in the intervening 20
some enemy oil storage depots in June
to forbid effective strategic action and
months, and the only answer present
1966. Neither of these steps brought Rus-
publicly portray it as an honest try.
leadership has to offer is to order 45,000
sian or Red Chinese intervention. What
Then, when expected results are not
more into battle.
they did bring was a loud Communist
forthcoming, to belittle the effort and its
Third, our primary recommendation
clamor for unconditional U.S. cessa-
backers. This is worse than dishonest—
for a quarantine, or any meaningful
tion of all bombing of North Vietnam,
for meanwhile brave men have died in
form of seapower sanction against Hai-
and much propaganda about civilian
vain.
phong harbor, has been rejected. The
casualties.
I point no accusing finger. I do not
enemy meanwhile has had time to de-
Thus we already have accepted what-
want to be partisan or personal. This is
velop and defend alternative overland
ever real risks or propaganda punish-
not a Democratic war nor a Republican
and air supply routes bristling with im-
ment might be incurred in maximum use
war but an American war, as all our
ported Soviet weapons. After many
of American conventional sea and air
wars have been once we were in them.
months the refitting of the battleship
power against significant military tar-
My party has, in fact, stated its support
U.S.S. New Jersey has just been au-
gets in North Vietnam. The whole world
of the war in Vietnam more explicitly
thorized, and will take almost a year to
thinks that is what we are doing. The
and muted its public criticism and dis-
finish. Meanwhile the enemy has in-
American people have been and still are
sent more successfully than the Presi-
stalled in heavy concrete emplacements
being led to believe that is what we are
dent's party.
along the North Vietnamese coast what
doing. Most Americans wonder why
Republican policy on Vietnam gen-
may well be Soviet surface-to-surface
North Vietnam has not been totally de-
erally has been based on a very precise
missiles capable of sinking a warship at
stroyed. They remember what conven-
and wholly nonpartisan statement which
100-mile ranges.
tional bombing did to Tokyo and Berlin,
I helped to draft and to which I have
Fourth, only one small portion of one
to London and Warsaw. They wonder
consistently subscribed for the past 20
of our recommendations, the use of con-
what can be left in North Vietnam worth
months. It was issued December 13, 1965,
ventional American air and sea power
bombing.
by the National Republican Coordinating
against military targets, has been even
Over this past weekend, Mr. Speaker,
Committee and its main points were
belatedly tried. On June 29, 1966, Presi-
there have been successive reports of
these:
dent Johnson permitted air attacks on
massive American airstrikes against
1. Our purpose is
to repel Communist
some, but not all, of North Vietnam's
North Vietnam. On Saturday we read:
aggression, to minimize American and Viet-
petroleum storage depots. As Secretary
"197 Missions Set Record for Raids on
namese casualties, and to bring about a swift
of Defense McNamara admitted at the
and secure peace. (Emphasis mine.)
North Vietnam." On Sunday it was "U.S.
time, the enemy already was well ad-
2. There is a growing danger that the
Carrier Jets Meet Heavy Fire in Hanoi
United States is becoming involved in an
vanced on a major dispersion plan. But
Region," and on Monday, "U.S. Raids
endless
land war in Southeast Asia
to this day, 13 months later, only about
North 178 Times in Day." It also was an-
(which) would be to the advantage of the
one-fourth of the known oil storage tar-
nounced we have lost 636 U.S. planes
Communists.
gets in North Vietnam have been hit by
over North Vietnam.
3. Our first objective should be to impose
American air strikes and a significant
But when one reads the official spokes-
a Kennedy-type (sea) quarantine on North
percentage remain officially forbidden.
men's account of what was accomplished
Vietnam.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled.
on these airstrikes, nothing has changed.
4. To accomplish our objectives we also
Is this any way to run a war while
recommend the maximum use of American
Strategic bombers from Guam dropped
casualties increase tenfold? Is it really
conventional air and sea power against sig-
their bombs on North Vietnamese weap-
nificant military targets.
necessary, will it do any real good, to
ons positions, base camps, storage areas,
Mr. Speaker, when these reasoned, re-
send another 45,000 men to Vietnam?
sponsible, and limited military measures
Before leaving our 20-month-old rec-
and trails. U.S. pilots attacked troop
were urged by the leaders of the loyal
ommendations, largely rejected, let me
concentrations, three artillery pieces, one
stress two other key words in that Re-
bunker, two armored vehicles, one tank,
opposition party some 20 months ago,
publican statement. Nobody was or is
five trucks. Other strikes hit an oil stor-
American casualties in Vietnam stood at
urging escalation. It was specific about
age depot, 28 trucks, 10 undescribed
less than 1,500 dead and 6,500 wounded;
a total of 8,000 as compared to 87,000
conventional weapons-the kind we have
buildings, one warehouse area, one
today.
been dropping on jungles and individual
bridge. These are all the details given for
Now we are told, and we scarcely
trucks in prodigious tonnages-and about
what is touted as the biggest American
question, the President's decision to dis-
military targets, not indiscriminate
air assault of the Vietnam War.
patch another 10-percent reinforcement
bombing of civilians or cities. But the
Mr. Speaker, we are still pulling our
Communists, as they proved in Korea and
best punch in North Vietnam.
of our ground troops-45,000 more men
other wars, are quite capable of shielding
The distinguished first Secretary of the
to Vietnam-hardly enough to be noticed
their most strategic targets with their
Air Force, Senator SYMINGTON, recently
except by those called and their loved
own women and children. It is horrible,
expressed his exasperation over accounts
ones. Surely this is what a nationally re-
but effective.
of U.S. bombing of North Vietnamese
spected Washington columnist has
targets by saying "Somebody is making
branded "Horror on the Installment
The very word "escalation" has become
available to the press a vast amount of
plan," by Reston, on May 14, 1967, in the
a bugaboo and its military meaning
misinformation."
New York Times.
abused. The scope of American involve-
I believe it is high time the American
Reviewing our December 1965 policy
ment in Vietnam was really escalated or
people knew the truth.
statement I am compelled to some tragic
enlarged in February 1965 when Presi-
Would the American people believe
and troubling conclusions.
dent Johnson approved the bombing of
that in mid-1967, after 2½ years of U.S.
North Vietnam. I accept the President's
First, under policies which the Presi-
bombing of North Vietnam-an area
own definition-August 29, 1964-during
dent has just pledged to continue sub-
about the size of Michigan-only three
the 1964 election campaign when he told
stantially unchanged, our purpose of
out of every 10 significant military
Americans:
minimizing American casualties has
targets had ever been struck by U.S. air-
failed. Our purpose of securing a swift
I have had advice to load our planes with
power?
bombs and to drop them on certain areas
peace has failed, because it was never
that I think would enlarge the war, and re-
Why are we still pulling our airpower
tried. And our purpose of repelling Com-
sult in our committing a good many Amer-
punch?
munist aggression remains, at best, a du-
ican boys to fighting a war that I think
Would the American people believe
bious stalemate and deadly duel of attri-
ought to be fought by the boys of Asia to
that when Secretary McNamara made
tion.
help protect their own land. And for that
his ninth visit to Vietnam last month,
Second, our warning against involve-
reason I haven't chosen to enlarge the war.
public opining that U.S. forces there
ment in a disadvantageous land war in
Mr. Speaker, I supported the President
might be used more effectively, nearly
Asia has gone unheeded. It now is aca-
when he reversed this decision 6 months
half the identified top priority targets in
North Vietnam were officially off limits
to air attack under high-level orders
see no justification for sending one more
affice airpower Again I punch? ask: why Copy are we pulling our
from Washington?
American over there, let alone 45,000.
Why are we still pulling our airpower
Perhaps we all have been diverted in
Our Navy and Air Force have clear
punch?
recent weeks, by the Middle East crisis
superiority in the air over North Viet-
Would the American people believe
and the violence in our cities, from the
nam and its costal areas. They have the
that more than a hundred vital fixed
moment of truth that is confronting this
weapons and resources they need. They
enemy positions in North Vietnam, in-
Nation on our future course in Vietnam.
know "the very elements of their trades"
cluding most of the air defense control
But the straws have been in the wind.
superbly. Must we accept as inevitable
centers that have accounted for more
On July 24, at the height of the De-
that the only way to fight this war is
than 600 U.S. planes, most of his major
troit riots, the New York Times reported
within the territory of South Vietnam,
airfields and all of his naval facilities,
from obviously authoritative Washing-
matching the enemy body for body, bay-
could not be attacked under Washing-
ton sources that "United States Won't
onet for bayonet, grenade for grenade?
ton orders?
Modify Vietnam Bombing." Predictably,
It is one thing to deprive the enemy
Why are we still pulling our airpower
it reported President Johnson as firmly
punch?
rejecting both pleas for expanding air
of victory. It is one thing to say he can
no longer succeed. It is one thing to in-
Would the American people believe
stikes by approving new targets and
counter-proposals to restrict bombing to
crease his cost of continuing the war.
that despite the much-publicized and
Cannot Ho Chi Minh claim he has done
prayerful Presidential decision to allow
the southern zone of North Vietnam.
the same to us?
bombing of some oil depots a year ago,
On August 1 one of our own colleagues
Can we match the Asian Communists
about three-fourths of the enemy's pe-
from California, one of the administra-
tion's sharpest war critics on the other
even in patience?
troleum storage targets had not yet
come under attack? Or that despite fre-
side of the aisle [Mr. BROWN], said in
I for one am running short of patience,
Los Angeles that the latest "agonizing
Mr. Speaker. I would like to believe that
quent news reports of raids on power-
plants, roughly one-third of North Viet-
reappraisal" in the White House had
the President has been misled or mis-
been resolved.
informed. that with all his aides and
nam's total power targets and all enemy
advisors he has been unable to obtain
hydroelectric generating facilities were
Temporarily at least the President will fol-
the evidence which I know is available
still forbidden targets by orders from on
low his customary practice of going down the
high.
middle, making no change in the bombing
to him as it is to me.
policy, probably until after the September 3
In his tax increase message President
Why are we still pulling our airpower
election in Vietnam.
Johnson concluded that—
punch?
The gentleman forecast.
The test before us as people is
Would the American people believe
that 60 percent of the key targets that
On the same day Columnist Joseph
whether we have the will and the courage
to match our commitments.
make up North Vietnam's transporta-
Kraft in the Washington Post com-
tion network were immune from our air
plained that-
Mr. James Reston, commenting in
attack? That only about one-fourth of
Nowhere is the assertion that a specified
Sunday's New York Times, says this:
these priority transport targets, one-
effort continued over a particular time ought
The unsolved problem, obvious for a very
third of his railroad facilities and
to yield a defined result. The Defense Secre-
long time, which Lyndon Johnson will not
tary talks of progress, but does not say prog-
bridges had ever been attacked? That all
face and which the people intuitively under-
ress toward what. As a result there is no good
stand or seem to understand, is the problem
seaport targets and canal locks were off
measure for asserting what the United States
of priority.
limits? That most of the enemy's repair
is doing in Vietnam.
shops could not be hit?
Maybe the President has some scheme for
I believe the test of will and courage
Why are we still pulling our airpower
getting the country out of the war as invisibly
is not the people's, but the President's.
as he got it into the war-
I believe that ending the war in Vietnam
punch?
Would the American people believe
This columnist continued.
must have the very highest of national
priorities, now.
that high-level directives for more than
Maybe there 18 a program for applying mili-
2 years prevented American airmen from
tary pressure until the other side breaks.
Without this, we shall continue to
wallow and weave and wobble in what
hitting five out of six of North Vietnam's
Maybe there is a plan for negotiations after
key industrial targets? That however
the elections in South Vietnam next month.
General Eisenhower called "as nasty a
primitive, nearly 90 percent of the tar-
But none of us can know that. On the con-
mess as we have ever been in." Neither
gets in the enemy's warmaking indus-
trary, all we can see is a shell game.
more men, nor more money, nor more
trial base remained unscathed?
Mr. Speaker, I have quoted others who,
material will do any good unless there is
Would Americans believe that even in
while not always in agreement with me,
more will and more courage at the top.
the category of purely military facilities,
voice the same gnawing doubts I feel.
Who knows better than General Eisen-
North Vietnamese Army, Navy, Air Force
Yet in his tax increase message last
hower that there can be only one course
and defense installations, more than two-
week, President Johnson only confirmed
when a nation resorts to force of arms:
thirds of the total targets never had been
our worst fears. He revealed no recent
to give the war first priority among na-
attacked? That only ammunition dumps
change in his policies or his plans. On
tional aims; to wage it efficiently and
have been significantly hit? That almost
the contrary, he took pains to stress that
with minimum bloodshed and brutaliza-
half of these military targets remained
his words about the Vietnam war last
tion of one's own people; to hit hard
officially forbidden by high-level policy
January "are even more true today."
enough and convincingly enough to bring
restraints?
The President repeated his bleak es-
it to an early end. The tiny nation of
Mr. Speaker, why are we pulling our
timate that "we face more cost, more
Israel just reaffirmed this axiom of war.
airpower punch?
loss, and more agony." He reiterated that
Have we abandoned it? Why are we pull-
Contrary to the calculated public im-
nearly half a million Americans "have
ing our airpower punch?
pression, the real argument at the high-
deprived the Communist enemy of vic-
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the apparent
est levels of our Government which took
tory" and that the enemy "can no longer
step-up in air attacks over North Viet-
Mr. McNamara to Saigon last month
succeed on the battlefield." He did not
nam over the past few days signals a
and twice brought General Westmore-
say our pressure on the enemy would be
reversal of past mistakes, that targets
land to Washington has not been
intensified or increased, only this:
of real strategic significance will shortly
whether to send 250,000 men, or 100,000
I must say to you that our pressure must
be struck, and that before the weather
men, or 45,000 men, or 20,000 men to
be sustained-and will be sustained-until
turns bad for another long season this
Vietnam. It is high time the American
he realizes that the war he started is cost-
will really cripple the enemy's warmak-
people knew what the real issue was.
ing him more than he can ever gain. I know
ing capability. I hope this, but the Presi-
The real issue, Mr. Speaker, was
of no strategy more likely to attain that end
dent has only promised to sustain the
whether we really have any hope of win-
than the strategy of "accumulating slowly,
ning the Vietnam war, in the sense of
but inexorably, every kind of material re-
same inadequate level of pressure per-
source"-"of laboriously teaching troops the
mitted in the past.
meaningful and concerted military pres-
very element of their trade." That, and
Would Americans believe, Mr. Speaker,
sure that could force the enemy to the
patience-and I mean a great deal of
that during all of 1966, handcuffed by
negotiating table, or not. If not, I can
patience.
such secret restraints, brave American
airmen flew more than 100,000 combat
own countrymen.
to start ending this war.
missions over North Vietnam without at-
The enemy in North Vietnam knows
I do not want to wait until the 1968
tacking one of these significant strategic
where his vital targets are. He knows
elections in the United States to bring
targets? Would they believe that under
which have been attacked and which en-
this war to an end.
this policy, apparently unchanged, only
joy privileged sanctuary. He knows many
If bringing peace to Vietnam and
about 1,000 strikes were directed against
of his most vital and vulnerable strategic
bringing half a million Americans home
top priority pressure points during 1966,
assets have been spared. Ho Chi Minh
alive would ensure President Johnson's
while 279 U.S. planes were lost?
probably asks himself: Why are the
reelection by a landslide, I would gladly
Can military morale be sustained under
Americans pulling their airpower punch?
pay that price.
such circumstances? Can peace ever be
Mr. Speaker, I do not know the an-
won this way?
swer. I doubt that Ho Chi Minh knows
I do not think the President has made
the answer. I hope he does not interpret
I am not a military expert, but I have
a convincing case for a tax increase. Let
it as proof of America's lack of will and
full confidence in many dedicated Amer-
us debate that another day. Even less, in
courage. I hope it does not encourage
icans who are, and in the facts that sup-
view of the evidence I have, has the Com-
him psychologically to prolong the
port their deep and patriotic concern. I
mander in Chief made a convincing case
slaughter as it surely enables him to con-
believe the American people deserve to be
for sending 45,000 more troops to fight a
tinue militarily. It is inhuman even to an
told the truth about Vietnam. There is no
ground war in Vietnam.
enemy to hack him to death by inches.
need to conceal such information from
It is my earnest plea that he will re-
I do not want to wait until the Sep-
the enemy, unless it be to deceive one's
consider.
tember 1967 elections in South Vietnam
(Not Printed at Government Expense)
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR AM's RELEASE OR ON DELIVERY--
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., on the Floor of the House of
Representatives, Tuesday, August 8, 1967.
Mr. Speaker, I rise after much reflection to express my grave misgivings,
which have been growing for many months, about the way the war in Vietnam is
going. I believe my concern is shared by many millions of my countrymen, and I
know it is shared by those responsible for fighting the war in Vietnam,
My troubled thoughts were brought into sharper focus last Thursday by the
President's message asking for a 10% Federal income tax surcharge. Most of the
comment on this floor and in the press centered initially on his tax increase
proposals. For my part I reiterated that President Johnson still has not made
a convincing case for higher taxes.
But with his tax message, as an additional and emotionally-compelling
argument, the President announced his decision to "authorize an increase of at
least 45,000 in the number of men to be sent to Vietnam this fiscal year."
This will swell the total to 525,000 Americans, not counting those in
adjacent areas, surpassing our peak manpower commitment to the Korean War.
Vietnam is a major war, and has become an American war.
At the end of 1963, when President Johnson succeeded to the Presidency, the
United States had approximately 16,000 men in Vietnam. Only 109 had been killed
in action and about 500 wounded.
By grim coincidence, the Pentagon released the latest casualty figures on
the same day we received the President's tax increase message. The toll of
Americans (as of July 29) now stands at 87,000 12,000 dead and 75,000 wounded.
(Figures rounded.)
Mr. Speaker, I blame nobody bút the Communist enemy for these sad statistics.
I have supported the President and our country from the outset and to this hour.
I have heard myself branded a hawk, and worse, for counseling firmness against
Communist aggression and using America's awesome areenal of conventional arms
to compel a swift and sure peace.
But I am troubled, as I think most Americans are troubled. Recent surveys
show that more than half of our people are not satisfied with the way the war
in Vietnam is being conducted.
(more)
BERALD FORD LIBRAR,
-2-
Mr. Speaker, why are we talking about money when we should be talking about
men? The essential element in President Johnson's tax increase message, I
submit, is not higher revenues but human lives -- not whether every American
should live better but whether hundreds and thousands of Americans are going
to live at all.
This is not an academic exercise with computers. This involves the finest
of our future leaders. This is a question crying for bold leadership and
political courage of the highest order -- even the courage to admit past policies
have been woefully wrong.
I believe everyone in this House would willingly vote any level of taxes
and the American people would willingly pay them if they were convinced it would
bring the Vietnam War to an end. But as I do not believe the grave challenges
we face at home can be countered simply by pouring out more and more money,
neither do I believe the graver challenge in Southeast Asia can be met merely
by pouring in more and more men and by these brave men pouring out more and more
blood.
I am troubled, Mr. Speaker, that the President's ordering 45,000 more
Americans to Vietnam is almost taken for granted, so hardened have we become to
these creeping commitments. I am troubled that the only apparent result of
Gen. Taylor's and Mr. Clifford's circuit of our Pacific allies, besides arrang-
ing another Asian Summit show, was a promise of some 3,000 to 15,000 South Korean
reservists "to release American troops for combat duty" in Vietnam. Shouldn't
it be the other way around?
President Johnson himself set the groundrules for a great debate about our
nation's priorities and goals. I accept them. I hope others will join. In
his tax increase message, Mr. Johnson said:
"This nation has taken a solemn pledge that its sons and brothers engaged
in the conflict (in Vietnam) shall never lack all the help, all the arms, and
all the equipment essential for their mission and for their very lives. America
must and will honor that pledge. It is for this reason that expenditures for
Vietnam -- subject as they are to the variable demands of military operations --
may now exceed our earlier estimates."
After outlining his higher tax plans, the President added:
"The inconveniences this demand imposes are small when measured against
the contribution of a Marine on patrol in a sweltering jungle, or an airman
flying through perilous skies, or a soldier 10,000 miles from home waiting to
(more)
-3-
join his outfit on the line."
Who can question such a comparison?
But the question we may ask -- the question I must ask -- is this:
Why, and how long, must United States Marines patrol that sweltering jungle?
Why, and how long, must U.S. Navy and Air Force pilots brave increasingly deadly
skies because the flow of sophisticated Soviet weapons has not been stopped?
Why, and how long, must American soldiers -- now nearly half a million -- wait
10,000 miles from home to meet and match Asian enemies man to man, body for body?
Mr. Speaker, we must ask another question: Why are we pulling our best
punches in Vietnam?
Is there no end, no other answer except more men, more men, more men?
Of course we will give our fighting men all they need to defend their lives
and carry out their mission. But what is their mission?
Is there any clear, coherent and credible military plan for bringing this
bloody business to a conclusion?
Certainly there are such plans. Our ablest military leaders would be
unbelievably derilict not to have developed a variety of alternative strategies
based on the situation and sound military experience. But up to now they have
not been allowed to put their plans to a real test, or worse, their plans have
been tried piecemeal, in the same senseless way Americans have been fed piecemeal
from 16,000 to 525,000 into this peninsular war, under such high-level restrictions
as to void their validity.
General Eisenhower recently stated pointedly that a "war of gradualism"
cannot be won. The result of our "war of gradualism" against North Vietnam has
been the equivalent buildup of the enemy forces on the ground and the accelerated
hardening of his defenses.
Mr. Speaker, when you have to change a tire, you tighten every lug as hard
as you can. If you only tighten one, or tighten them unevenly, your car will
go on wobbling down the road and wind up in a ditch.
What is especially dishonest is secretly to forbid effective strategic
action and publicly portray it as an honest try. Then, when expected results
are not forthcoming, to belittle the effort and its backers. This is worse than
dishonest -- for meanwhile brave men have died in vain.
I point no accusing finger. I do not want to be partisan or personal.
This is not a Democratic war nor a Republican war but an American war, as all our
wars have been once we were in them. My party has, in fact, stated its support
(more)
-4-
of the war in Vietnam more explicitly and muted its public criticism and dissent
more successfully than the President's party.
Republican policy on Vietnam generally has been based on a very precise
and wholly nonpartisan statement which I helped to draft and to which I have
consistently subscribed for the past 20 months. It was issued December 13, 1965
by the National Republican Coordinating Committee and its main points were
these:
1. "Our purpose is to repel Communist aggression, to minimize American
and Vietnamese casualties, and to bring about a swift and secure peace."
(Emphasis mine.)
2. "There is a growing danger that the United States is becoming involved
in an endless
land war in Southeast Asia (which) would be to the advantage
of the Communists. "
3. "Our first objective should be to impose a Kennedy-type (sea) quarantine
on North Vietnam."
4. "To accomplish our objectives we also recommend the maximum use of
American conventional air and sea power against significant military targets."
Mr. Speaker, when these reasoned, responsible and limited military measures
were urged by the leaders of the loyal opposition party some 20 months ago,
American casualties in Vietnam stood at less than 1500 dead and 6500 wounded;
a total of 8000 as compared to 87,000 today.
Now we are told, and we scarcely question, the President's decision to
dispatch another 10% reinforcement of our ground troops -- 45,000 more men to
Vietnam -- hardly enough to be noticed except by those called and their loved
ones. Surely this is what a nationally respected Washington column has branded
"Horror on the Installment Plan." (Reston, May 14, 1967, NYT)
Reviewing our December 1965 policy statement I am compelled to some tragic
and troubling conclusions.
First, under policies which the President has just pledged to continue
substantially unchanged, our purpose of minimizing American casualties has failed.
Our purpose of securing a swift peace has failed, because it was never tried.
And our purpose of repelling Communist aggression remains, at best, a dubious
stalemate and deadly duel of attrition.
Second, our warning against involvement in a disadvantageous land war in
Asia has gone unheeded. It now is academic. Half a million Americans are deeply
involved, more than 10,000 have lost their lives in the intervening 20 months,
(more)
-5-
and the only answer present leadership has to offer is to order 45,000 more into
battle.
Third, our primary recommendation for a quarantine, or any meaningful
form of seapower sanction against Haiphong harbor, has been rejected. The enemy
meanwhile has had time to develop and defend alternative overland and air supply
routes bristling with imported Soviet weapons. After many months the refitting
of the battleship U.S.S. New Jersey has just been authorized, and will take
almost a year to finish. Meanwhile the enemy has installed in heavy concrete
emplacements along the North Vietnamese coast what may well be Soviet surface-
to-surface missiles capable of sinking a warship at 100-mile ranges.
Fourth, only one small portion of one of our recommendations, the use of
conventional American air and sea power against military targets, has been even
belatedly tried. On June 29, 1966, President Johnson permitted air attacks on
some, but not all, of North Vietnam's petroleum storage depots. As Secretary of
Defense McNamara admitted at the time, the enemy already was well advanced on a
major dispersion plan. But to this day, 13 months later, only about one-fourth
of the known oil storage targets in North Vietnam have been hit by American air
strikes and a significant percentage remain officially forbidden.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled. Is this any way to run a war
while casualties increase ten-fold? Is it really necessary, will it do any real
good, to send another 45,000 men to Vietnam?
Before leaving our 20-month old recommendations, largely rejected, let me
stress two other key words in that Republican statement. Nobody was or is
urging "escalation." It was specific about conventional weapons -- the kind we
have been dropping on jungles and individual trucks in prodigious tonnages -- and
about military targets, not indiscriminate bombing of civilians or cities. But
the Communists, as they proved in Korea and other wars, are quite capable of
shielding their most strategic targets with their own women and children. It is
horrible, but effective.
The very word "escalation" has become a bugaboo and its military meaning
abused. The scope of American involvement in Vietnam was really escalated or
enlarged in February 1965 when President Johnson approved the bombing of North
Vietnam. I accept the President's own definition (August 29, 1964) during the
1964 election campaign when he told Americans:
"I have had advice to load our planes with bombs and to drop them on certain
areas that I think would enlarge the war, and result in our committing a good
(more)
-6-
many American boys to fighting a war that I think ought to be fought by the boys
of Asia to help protect their own land. And for that reason I haven't chosen to
enlarge the war."
Mr. Speaker, I supported the President when he reversed this decision six
months later. I again supported him when he removed his earlier restraints on
bombing some enemy oil storage depots in June, 1966. Neither of these steps
brought Russian or Red Chinese intervention. What they did bring was a loud
Communist clamor for unconditional U.S. cessation of all bombing of North Vietnam,
and much propaganda about civilian casualties.
Thus we already have accepted whatever real risks or propaganda punishment
might be incurred in maximum use of American conventional sea and air power
against significant military targets in North Vietnam. The whole world thinks
that is what we are doing. The American people have been and still are being led
to believe that is what we are doing. Most Americans wonder why North Vietnam
has not been totally destroyed. They remember what conventional bombing did to
Tokyo and Berlin, to London and Warsaw. They wonder what can be left in North
Vietnam worth bombing.
Over this past weekend, Mr. Speaker, there have been successive reports of
massive American air strikes against North Vietnam. On Saturday we read: "197
Missions Set Record for Raids on North Vietnam." On Sunday it was "U.S. Carrier
Jets Meet Heavy Fire in Hanoi Region," and on Monday, "U.S. Raids North 178 Times
in Day." It also was announced we have lost 636 U.S. planes over North Vietnam.
But when one reads the official spokesmen's account of what was accomplished
on these air strikes, nothing has changed. Strategic bombers from Guam dropped
their bombs on North Vietnamese weapons positions, base camps, storage areas and
trails. U.S. pilots attacked troop concentrations, three artillery pieces, one
bunker, two armored vehicles, one tank, five trucks. Other strikes hit an oil
storage depot, 28 trucks, 10 undescribed buildings, one warehouse area, one
bridge. These are all the details given for what is touted as the biggest American
air assault of the Vietnam War.
Mr. Speaker, we are still pulling our best punch in North Vietnam.
The distinguished first Secretary of the Air Force, Senator Symington,
recently expressed his exasperation over accounts of U.S. bombing of North
Vietnamese targets by saying "Somebody is making available to the press a vast
amount of misinformation."
(more)
-7-
I believe it is high time the American people knew the truth.
Would the American people believe that in mid-1967, after two and one-half
years of U.S. bombing of North Vietnam -- an area about the size of Michigan --
only 3 out of every 10 significant military targets had ever been struck by
U.S. air power?
Why are we still pulling our airpower punch?
Would the American people believe that when Secretary McNamara made his
ninth visit to Vietnam last month, publicly opining that U.S. forces there might
be used more effectively, nearly half the identified top priority targets in
North Vietnam were officially off-limits to air attack under high-level orders
from Washington?
Why are we still pulling our airpower punch?
Would the American people believe that more than a hundred vital fixed
enemy positions h North Vietnam, including most of the air defense control
centers that have accounted for more than 600 U.S. planes, most of his major
airfields and all of his naval facilities, could not be attacked under Washington
orders?
Why are we still pulling our airpower punch?
Would the American people believe that despite the much-publicized and
prayerful Presidential decision to allow bombing of some oil depots a year ago,
about three-fourths of the enemy's petroleum storage targets had not yet come
under attack? Or that despite frequent news reports of raids on power plants,
roughly one-third of North Vietnam's total power targets and all enemy hydro-
electric generating facilities were still forbidden targets by orders from on
high.
Why are we still pulling our air power punch?
Would the American people believe that 60 percent of the key targets that
make up North Vietnam's transportation network were immune from our air attack?
That only about one-fourth of these priority transport targets, one-third of his
railroad facilities and bridges had ever been attacked? That all seaport targets
and canal locks were off-limits? That most of the enemy's repair shops could not
be hit?
Why are we still pulling our airpower punch?
Would the American people believe that high-level directives for more than
two years prevented American airmen from hitting 5 out of 6 of North Vietnam's
key industrial targets? That however primitive, nearly 90% of the targets in
the enemy's war-making industrial base remained unscathed?
(more)
-8-
Would Americans believe that even in the category of purely military
facilities, North Vietnamese army, navy, air force and defense installations,
more than two-thirds of the total targets never had been attacked? That only
ammunition dumps have been significantly hit? That almost half of these
military targets remained officially forbidden by high-level policy restraints?
Mr. Speaker, why are we pulling our airpower punch?
Contrary to the calculated public impression, the real argument at the
highest levels of our government which took Mr. McNamara to Saigon last month
and twice brought Gen. Westmoreland to Washington has not been whether to send
250,000 men, or 100,000 men, or 45,000 men, or 20,000 men to Vietnam. It is
high time the American people knew what the real issue was.
The real issue, Mr. Speaker, was whether we really have any hope of winning
the Vietnam war, in the sense of meaningful and concerted military pressure
that could force the enemy to the negotiating table, or not. If not, I can see
no justification for sending one more American over there, let alone 45,000.
Perhaps we all have been diverted in recent weeks, by the Middle East crisis
and the violence in our cities, from the moment of truth that is confronting
this nation on our future course in Vietnam. But the straws have been in the
wind.
On July 24, at the height of the Detroit riots, the New York Times reported
from obviously authoritative Washington sources that "U.S. Won't Modify Vietnam
Bombing." Predictably, it reported President Johnson as firmly rejecting both
pleas for expanding air strikes by approving new targets and counter-proposals
to restrict bombing to the southern zone of North Vietnam.
On August 1 one of our own colleagues from California, one of the
Administration's sharpest war critics on the other side of the aisle (Mr. Brown)
said in Los Angeles that the latest "agonizing reappraisal" in the White House
had been resolved.
"Temporarily at least the President will follow his customary practice of
going down the middle, making no change in the bombing policy, probably until
after the September 3 election in Vietnam," the gentleman forecast.
On the same day Columnist Joseph Kraft in the Washington Post complained
that "nowhere is the assertion that a specified effort continued over a
particular time ought to yield a defined result. The Defense Secretary talks of
progress, but does not say progress toward what. As a result there is no good
measure for asserting what the United States is doing in Vietnam."
"Maybe the President has some scheme for getting the country out of the war
(more)
-9-
as invisibly as he got it into the war," this columnist continued. "Maybe there
is a program for applying military pressure until the other side breaks. Maybe
there is a plan for negotiations after the elections in South Vietnam next month.
"But none of us can know that. On the contrary, all we can see is a shell
game," Mr. Kraft concluded.
Mr. Speaker, I have quoted others who, while not always in agreement with me,
voice the same gnawing doubts I feel. Yat in his tax increase message last week,
President Johnson only confirmed our worst fears. He revealed no recent change
in his policies or his plans. On the contrary, he took pains to strees that his
words about the Viet-Nam War last January "are even more true today."
The President repeated his bleak estimate that "we face more cost, more loss,
and more agony." He reiterated that nearly half a million Americans "have
deprived the Communist enemy of victory" and that the enemy "can no longer succeed
on the battlefield." He did not say our pressure on the enemy would be intensi-
fied or increased, only this:
"I must say to you that our pressure must be sustained -- and will be
sustained -- until he realizes that the war he started is costing him more than
he can ever gain. I know of no strategy more likely to attain that end than the
strategy of 'accumulating slowly, but inexorably, every kind of material resource'
-- 'of laboriously teaching troops the very element of their trade.' That, and
patience -- and I mean a great deal of patience."
Again I ask: why are we pulling our airpower punch?
Our Navy and Air Force have clear superiority in the air over North Vietnam
and its coastal areas. They have the weapons and resources they need. They
know "the very elements of their trades" superbly. Must we accept as inevitable
that the only way to fight this war is within the territory of South Vietnam,
matching the enemy body for body, bayonet for bayonet, grenade for grenade?
It is one thing to deprive the enemy of victory. It is one thing to say he
can no longer succeed, It is one thing to increase his cost of continuing the
war. Cannot Ho Chi Minh claim he has done the same to us?
Can we match the Asian Communists even in patience?
I for one am running short of patience, Mr. Speaker. I would like to believe
that the President has been misled or misinformed, that with all his aides and
advisors he has been unable to obtain the evidence which I know is available to
him as it is to me.
In his tax increase message President Johnson concluded that "the test before
(more)
10
us as people is whether we have the will and the courage to match our
commitments."
Mr. James Reston, commenting in Sunday's New York Times, says this:
"The unsolved problem, obvious for a very long time, which Lyndon Johnson
will not face and which the people intuitively understand or seem to understand,
is the problem of priority."
I believe the test of will and courage is not the people's, but the
President's. I believe that ending the war in Vietnam must have the very
highest of national priorities, now.
Without this, we shall continue to wallow and weave and wobble in what
General Eisenhower called "as nasty a mess as we have ever been in." Neither
more men, nor more money, nor more material will do any good unless there is
more will and more courage at the top.
Who knows better than Gen. Eisenhower that there can be only one course
when a nation resorts to force of arms: to give the war first priority among
national aims; to wage it efficiently and with minimum bloodshed an brutalization
of one's own people; to hit hard enough and convincingly enough to bring it to
an early end. The tiny nation of Israel just reaffirmed this axiom of war.
Have we abandoned it? Why are we pulling our airpower punch?
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the apparent step-up in air attacks over North
Vietnam over the past few days signals a reversal of past mistakes, that targets
of real strategic significance will shortly be struck, and that before the
weather turns bad for another long season this will really cripple the enemy's
warmaking capability. I hope this, but the President has only promised to
sustain the same inadequate level of pressure permitted in the past.
Would Americans believe, Mr. Speaker, that during all of 1966, handcuffed
by such secret restraints, brave American airmen flew more than 100,000 combat
missions over North Vietnam without attacking one of these significant strategic
targets? Would they believe that under this policy, apparently unchanged, only
about 1000 strikes were directed against top priority pressure points during
1966, while 279 U.S. planes were lost?
Can military morale be sustained under such circumstances? Can peace ever
be won this way?
I am not a military expert, but I have full confidence in many dedicated
Americans who are, and in the facts that support their deep and patriotic concern.
I believe the American people deserve to be told the truth about Vietnam. There
(more)
11
is no need to conceal such information from the enemy, unless it be to deceive
one's own countrymen.
The enemy in North Vietnam knows where his vital targets are. He knows
which have been attacked and which enjoy privileged sanctuary. He knows many
of his most vital and vulnerable strategic assets have been spared. Ho Chi Minh
probably asks himself: Why are the Americans pulling their airpower punch?
Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer. I doubt that Ho Chi Minh knows the
answer. I hope he does not interpret it as proof of America's lack of will and
courage. I hope it does not encourage him psychologically to prolong the
sluaghter as it surely enables him to continue militarily. It is inhuman even
to an enemy to hack him to death by inches.
I do not want to wait until the September 1967 elections in South Vietnam
to start ending this war,
I do not want to wait until the 1968 elections in the United States to bring
this war to an end.
If bringing peace to Vietnam and bringing half a million Americans home alive
would ensure President Johnson's re-election by a landslide, I would gladly pay
that price.
I don't think the President has made a convincing case for a tax increase.
Let us debate that another day. Even less, in view of the evidence I have, has
the Commander-in-Chief made a convincing case for sending 45,000 more troops to
fight a ground war in Viet-Nam.
It is my earnest plea that he will reconsider.
SAMPLES OF FIRST TWO DAYS' MAIL & WIRES ON AUGUST 8 VIETNAM SPEECH
Favorable to Unfavorable Ratio 10-to-1
NEW YORK
Your speech I hope may be considered the key step in a break
of the entire Republican Party with Administration policy on
Vietnam
Both morally and politically the new Republican
policy should be quite simple "Fish or cut bait."
ALABAMA --
THANK GOD AT LAST A VOICE OF THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN OUT IN
CONGRESS IN DEFENSE OF TRUTH AND SANITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
IN GOVERNMENT. WE ADMIRE YOUR COURAGE
WE ARE BEHIND
YOU
DON'T GIVE UP THE CAUSE.
PENNSYLVANIA
Please continue your efforts to uncover the failures in our
Vietnam war effort. We find it hard to believe the U.S. can
do so poorly that we are despised by the world.
OKLAHOMA --
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR LONG AWAITED STATEMENTS ABOUT THE WEAK
MANNER THE ADMINISTRATION IS CONDUCTING WAR AND PULLING OUR
AIRPOWER PUNCH.
DISTRICT OF --
Your comments and position on the Vietnam situation are in my
COLUMBIA
opinion absolutely sound and correct. Do everything in your
power to force the hand of the Executive to maximize the
proper use of military equipment before one additional service-
man is shipped to that country.
PENNSYLVANIA --
I am appealing to you to do all in your power to hasten an end
to this slaughter of our best manhood needlessly. The
sycophantic so-called advisors who surround our President
should be exposed.
MICHIGAN --
MCNAMARA MAY BE AGAINST THIS BUT BE SURE 90 PERCENT OF TAX-
PAYING PEOPLE ARE FOR USING OUR AIRPOWER AND FEEL IT WOULD END
THIS MESS IN A HURRY. KEEP UP THIS DRIVE WE NEED IT.
NEW YORK --
Congratulations on your Vietnam policy. The Administration
has done everything but kiss the Viet Cong's feet -- while
GIs were dying every day. God bless you.
WASHINGTON --
WE AGREE EMPHATICALLY. KEEP UP PRESSURE.
FLORIDA --
SIR THE MOTHERS OF AMERICA ARE DEEPLY INDEBTED TO YOU AND OUR
KIDS IN VIETNAM WILL REMEMBER YOU FOR FORTHRIGHT COURAGEOUS
STAND IN DEFENSE OF THEIR LIVES.
WEST VIRGINIA -- President Johnson is playing politics with our boys lives.
Let's win or get out! Thank you.
CALIFORNIA --
MCNAMARA'S POSITION DOESN'T SAVE AMERICAN LIVES AND CERTAINLY
DOESN'T WIN
SUCH A POSITION DEVOURS RESOURCES MONEY AND
MEN
BELIEVE SUCH CONDUCT OF VIETNAM WAR TO BE IMMORAL.
PENNSYLVANIA --
This is the basic reason for failure to get Hanoi to a con-
ference table: a bombing halt is meaningless if the bombing
itself is painless. If real targets were being hit, a
bombing halt -- or the promise of it -- would be sufficient
inducement.
NEW YORK --
THANK HEAVENS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A REAL OPPOSITION PARTY.
ILLINOIS --
IT'S TIME THE PRESIDENT WAS CALLED TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS TRAGIC
ENDLESS STALEMATE.
VIRGINIA --
I'm truly sick and tired of Mr. McNamara saying the objective
of the war is not to win but to occasionally slap the enemy's
wrist. Mr. McNamara feels that you don't understand the
objectives; I suggest those objectives should be changed.
-2-
MASSACHUSETTS -- I wouldn't hire a plumber to fix my TV set -- civilians don't
know how to fight a war. Where did McNamara get his military
experience -- but I suppose he is not the real one to blame.
(A veteran)
VIRGINIA --
I do so thoroughly agree with you. I am a lifelong Democrat
but the present Administration has made a Republican of me.
NEW YORK --
WE ARE DISGUSTED WITH THE ERRORS AND HALFWAY MEASURES THAT
HAVE CAUSED UNNECESSARY LOSS OF AMERICAN LIVES WIN OR GET
OUT OF VIETNAM. (A professor)
IDAHO
I feel as you, the truth about Vietnam should be told our
people. They are the ones paying taxes and offering their
sons as sacrifices -- for what? (A Democratic party worker)
NEW YORK --
Thank God for one in Congress with a backbone. Excuse me for
writing but you are the only man that is for the U.S.A.
OHIO --
I wish I could read the entire speech. I believe every word
that was published. The remarks of the Secretary of Defense
are beyond my understanding. To say the restraints on bombing
are designed to save American lives is certainly ridiculous
since they prolong this war of attrition.
IOWA
The people of our country owe you a debt of gratitude for
your speech concerning the ridiculous management of our
Vietnam activities by McNamara and the President and for
exposing the misinformation the Administration puts out for
political purposes. Thank you for presentation of facts.
NEW YORK --
Today I am writing my Senators and Congressman -- but not to
congratulate them. Rather, to let them know I wish they'd
get in line with you.
TENNESSEE --
The President and McNamara are afraid of killing a civilian
over there but they are not afraid of killing our boys. The
people know you know the facts as well as your duty.
PENNSYLVANIA
-- I often wonder why we have a Congress until I hear a voice
of wisdom such as yours. I'm sure you sleep soundly at night
with your conscience.
TEXAS --
Thank Goodness somebody in Congress has decided to speak out.
I have a son who spent 20 months in and out of the war zone
so I've given a great deal of thought to this matter. Get in,
get it over with and get out, fast.
VIRGINIA --
Congratulations! It's about time someone told the American
public the truth.
NEW YORK --
How right you are! It's great to hear some common sense talk
from the GOP. In 1968 the people are going to pay their
respects to the Washington intellectuals who are pussyfooting
with the Reds in Vietnam and elsewhere. The people will
elect a man who is for letting the military run and win the
war.
CALIFORNIA --
We along with millions of Americans back your statements about
Vietnam made today. We are plain DISGUSTED with this
Administration.
MASSACHUSETTS -- WE PRAY YOU STAND FAST AND END OR STEP UP THIS COWARDLY HALF
BOMBING OF JOHNSON'S AND THE LOSER MCNAMARA. WE AREN'T
WINNING BUT INSTEAD SEE CASUALTIES MOUNTING OUT OF DEFERENCE
TO ENEMIES, HALF FRIENDS AND POWER HUNGRY AMERICAN MINORITY.
IT'S TIME FOR MAJORITY RULE IN THIS DISTURBED COUNTRY.
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR COURAGE.
MICHIGAN --
HEARTIEST CONGRATULATIONS ON TYING FURTHER DRAFTING TO REMOVAL
OF BOMBING RESTRICTIONS.
-3-
VIRGINIA
Your analysis of giving the Prsident more money and troops is
as correct as President Lincoln's assessment of Gen.
McClellan -- "Sending that man and more men is like pushing
fleas across a room."
ILLINOIS --
This present policy that we have is very confusing to me. I
heartily support our objectives in being in Vietnam, but it is
becomming more and more difficult to see how we can send our
young men over there to fight and die while at the same time
protecting the enemy. (A clergyman)
NEW JERSEY --
There are millions of Democrats and Republicans who feel as
you do. We were very glad to know that someone in Washington
has the courage to speak out.
OHIO --
Congratulations for your most honest and revealing speech.
For the sake of the Nation, keep up your investigations and
then speak out!
NEW YORK
I watched you on TV this morning explaining your position
against LBJ and his cronies and their one-man war. For too
long a time, the Republican Party has been a gutless group.
I encourage you to continue. You were not critical enough.
MICHIGAN --
I support your position. If we are not fighting to win this
war, if vital targets are in restricted areas, why are we
there? Certainly sending 45,000 more troops is a sign of
escalation as much as bombing restricted areas.
MONTANA --
GOD BLESS YOU FOR HAVING COURAGE TO SPEAK UP. MAY OTHER
REPUBLICANS BACK YOU AND STOP THIS WASTE OF OUR BOYS
FLORIDA
I agree with you. Let's stop killing our boys off. Congress
should have gotten the Secretary of Defeat and Destruction
out of office long ago -- he never has told the truth.
NEW YORK --
Please be assured this is no casual support -- we have three
in the U.S. Marine Corps. One son was killed leading his
platoon in Vietnam. I hope your point of view prevails.
DISTRICT OF --
As a Democrat, I commend you for your efforts to bring to
COLUMBIA
the attention of the American people our tactical follies
and political and military pussyfooting.
CALIFORNIA --
My bitterness stems from my certain knowledge that the missile
buildup in North Vietnam would not have been possible had
the military been permitted to run this war -- and my son
would be alive.
DISTRICT OF --
Although I am not generally with you on matters of partisan
COLUMBIA
concern, I want to thank you and congratulate you for
speaking outside a partisan context yesterday on this seemingly
endless, divisive and corrupting war that we must somehow
come to terms with in Vietnam. Your speech was one of the
better pieces of Statesmanship in this whole rather ineffectual
session of the Congress.
KANSAS --
I am at a complete loss to understand why more of the members
of Congress don't back you up. I am positive that a big
majority of thinking Americans agree with you. It is rotten
politics to trade lives for votes and that is what Johnson
is doing in Vietnam even as he did in Detroit. We'll see a
different story along about election time.
NEGATIVE
NEW YORK
The American people do not need your insane counsel of
bombing innocent people in Vietnam for the profit of
American merchants of death.
-4-
DISTRICT OF --
I have noted your continuing efforts to offer constructive
COLUMBIA
alternatives to the Administration's involvement in Vietnam.
Your current criticism, I fear, is not in this category. May
I suggest another alternative -- that we put a price on Viet
Cong and North Vietnamese heads.
NEW JERSEY --
U Thant has told the world negotiations would probably take
place if the bombing ceased. But Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ford
encourage the escalation in spite of world opinion.
MICHIGAN --
You are concerned only with the provincial thoughts of your
narrow, small town supporters. How can you be so brazen as to
stand up in front of TV and pretend to represent the American
people? You represent nothing but a fine group of farmers who
have never in their lives read anything except Booth
Tafkington or O. Henry, and I'm dubious about O. Henry.