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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525589
label
Ford Press Releases - Vietnam, 1965-1968
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525589
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Vietnam, 1965-1968
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Legislation
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Peace negotiations
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525589
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1968-05-31
month
5
year
1968
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-02-01
month
2
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
a007d7cdbb6070c7
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D9, folder "Ford Press Releases - Vietnam,
1965-1968" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D9 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 17, 1965
STATEMENT BY THE
JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Senator Dirksen
Representative Ford
Senator Kuchel
Representative Arends
Senator Hickenlooper
Representative Byrnes
Senator Saltonstall
Representative Laird
Senator Morton
Representative Brown
Representative Wilson
It is undoubtedly difficult for the Communist capitals of Mos-
COW, Peking and Hanoi -- where disagrement is not tolerated -- to
understand that because Americans may differ on means to assure the
complete independence of South Vietnam, there is no difference among
us on the objective.
We, the members of the Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership,
want to make it clear we support President Johnson's recent order for
strikes against Communist supply bases in North Vietnam. If we have
any difference with the President in this respect, it IS the belief
these measure might have been used more frequently since the Bay of
Tonkin decision last August and an even stronger policy formulated
in the meantime.
These Communist-proclaimed "wars of liberation" are nothing more
than a verbal cover for naked aggression. The Communists unmask this
aggression when they "stage" mob demonstrations against American em-
bassies as Free World resistance to their terrorist tactics in an
independent nation is stepped up.
We suggest that so long as there is Communist-promoted infiltra-
tion of South Vietnam in violation of the 1954 and 1962 Geneva agree-
ments, there can be no negotiations on the Vietnamese question, and
we urge the President to make this unmistakably clear to the world.
Agreements can only fail when the Communists negotiate only for domi-
nation and we negotiate only for peace.
#####
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Jr.,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
of the Conference
Melvin R. Laird,
Thruston B. Morton,
Chr. of the Conference
Chr. Republican
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Senatorial Committee
of the Policy Committee
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Issued following a
Clarence J. Brown,
The Republican
Leadership Meeting
Ranking Member
National Chairman
Rules Committee
Dean Burch
March 4, 1965
Bob Wilson,
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
In days past, the members of the Joint Senate-House Republican
Leadership have expressed support for a stiffened American military
position in South Vietnam. At the very time we spoke, the Soviet and
Red Chinese regimes were warning the United States against such action
and promising the North Vietnamese increased military assistance. In
many nations throughout the world, Communist agents were organizing
riots and demonstrations against American diplomatic establishments in
an all-out propaganda drive against the United States.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk has stated, as American policy, that
there can be no negotiations on the 'ietnamese issue so long as the
Communist nations promote aggression against South Vietnam. We believe
this a worthy policy. In fact, we advocated it.
We suggest that logic would have the United States carry this
policy one step farther.
The Soviet Union has been espousing a policy of "peaceful co-
existence.' This policy was welcomed by the Kennedy and Johnson Ad-
ministrations and numerous moves were made to demonstrate American
readiness to respond, particularly in the fields of trade, communica-
tions and diplomatic relations.
Yet the fact remains that the Soviet Union and the other Communist
nations have not diminished, but stepped up, their promotion of sub-
version in the neutral and free-world countries. South Vietnam is
only the most glaring example. The continued supplying of Cuba, the
subversion in South America, notably Venezuela, and in Africa, notably
the Congo, and the ceaseless agitation throughout Southeast Asia, are
typical.
The only thing peaceful about "peaceful co-existence" is the
title. In any relaxed relations, it is the United States that is
supposed to do the relaxing. The Communist nations continuously out-
rage the rights of other nations. Too long have we heard the trumpet
of retreat from those who seem to favor another Munich.
If we are not going to negotiate the Vietnamese question until
the aggression against South Vietnam ceases, an equally necessary step
would be to stop entertaining the overtures of the Communist nations
for broader trade and diplomatic relations and to intensify our ef-
forts to persuade our friends abroad to do the same, until the Commun-
ists have demonstrated their good faith in areas where not only free-
dom but life and death are at stake.
(Ford statement - page 2)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
STATEMENT BY REP. FORD:
-2-
March 4, 1965
During the past three years the Soviet Union and other Communist
nations have, under the so-called "peaceful co-existence" policy,
made measurable gains in trade and diplomatic concessions from the
United States while offering little in return. Here are some examples:
An agreement has been initialed for the establishment of a New
York-Moscow air route which the Soviet Union has long sought.
An American-Soviet treaty has been negotiated, which now awaits
Senate approval, that would give the Soviets consular offices they
want in New York, Chicago and San Francisco in exchange for similar
American consulates in Russia which would avail us little and only
give the Communists more targets for mob violence.
Having purchased $140 million worth of badly-needed U.S. wheat
on which the American taxpayer paid $44 million in subsidies so the
Soviets could buy it far below our domestic price, Russia has now
bought $11 million in soybeans which the New York Times speculated
might be going to Cuba.
In response to Communist bloc overtures for expanded trade,
President Johnson has named a committee to explore stepped-up sales,
and the Commerce Department's issuance of export licenses for sales to
Communist nations has been increasing steadily.
Even more significant, our government last month backed down com-
pletely on its widely-publicized call for the Soviet Union to pay up
its assessments to the United Nations, and then compounded this loss
of face by lifting a three-month freeze on voluntary contributions to
the U.N. out of the U.S. Treasury.
From a standpoint of bargaining, we constantly give much and get
little or nothing in deals with the Communist nations. We, the members
of the Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership, urge a "no concession-
no deal" policy, meaning that the Communists must be ready to make
concessions as the price of agreements with the United States. Until
we and our allies arrive at such a policy, we can only expect more
Koreas and Vietnams and an ever-widening circle of Communist subver-
sion around the earth.
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Jr.,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Press Release
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Conference
Chr. of the Conference
Thruston B. Morton,
Chr. Republican
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Senatorial Committee
of the Policy Committee
Issued following
a
Clarence J. Brown,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Leadership Meeting
Ranking Member
The Republican
Rules Committee
National Chairman
Dean Burch
March 4, 1965
Bob Wilson,
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
In days past, the members of the Joint Senate-House Republican
Leadership have expressed support for a stiffened American military
position in South Vietnam. At the very time we spoke, the Soviet and
Red Chinese regimes were warning the United States against such action
and promising the North Vietnamese increased military assistance. In
many nations throughout the world, Communist agents were organizing
riots and demonstrations against American diplomatic establishments in
an all-out propaganda drive against the United States.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk has stated, as American policy, that
there can be no negotiations on the ietnamese issue so long as the
Communist nations promote aggression against South Vietnam. We believe
this a worthy policy. In fact, we advocated it.
We suggest that logic would have the United States carry this
policy one step farther.
The Soviet Union has been espousing a policy of peaceful co-
existence." This policy was welcomed the Kennedy and Johnson Ad-
ministrations and numerous moves were made to demonstrate American
readiness to respond, particularly in the fields of trade, communica-
tions and diplomatic relations.
Yet the fact remains that the Soviet Union and the other Communist
nations have not diminished, but stepped.up their promotion of sub-
version in the neutral and free world countries. South Vietnam is
only the most glaring example. The continued supplying of Cuba, the
subversion in South America, notably Venezuela, and in Africa, notably
the Congo, and the ceaseless agitation throughout Southeast Asia, are
typical.
The only thing peaceful about "peaceful co-existence" is the
title. In any relaxed. relations, it is the United States that is
supposed to do the relaxing. The Communist nations continuously out-
rage the rights of other nations. Too long have we heard the trumpet
of retreat from those who seem to favor another Munich.
If we are not going to negotiate the Vietnamese question until
the aggression against South Vietnam ceases, an equally necessary step
would be to stop entertaining the overtures of the Communist nations
for broader trade and diplomatic relations and to intensify our ef-
forts to persuade our friends abroad to do the same, until the Commun-
1sts have demonstrated their good faith in areas where not only free-
dom but life and death are at stake.
(Ford statement - page 2)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
GERALD
LIBRARI
STATEMENT BY REP. FORD:
-2-
March 4, 1965
During the past three years the Soviet Union and other Communist
nations have, under the so-called "peaceful co-existence" policy,
made measurable gains in trade and diplomatic concessions from the
United States while offering little in return. Here are some examples:
An agreement has been initialed for the establishment of a New
York-Moscow air route which the Soviet Union has long sought.
An American-Soviet treaty has been negotiated, which now awaits
Senate approval, that would give the Soviets consular offices they
want in New York, Chicago and San Francisco in exchange for similar
American consulates in Russia which would avail us little and only
give the Communists more targets for mob violence.
Having purchased $140 million worth of badly-needed U.S. wheat
on which the American taxpayer paid $44 million in subsidies so the
Soviets could buy it far below our domestic price, Russia has now
bought $11 million in soybeans which the New York Times speculated
might be going to Cuba.
In response to Communist bloc overtures for expanded trade,
President Johnson has named a committee to explore stepped-up sales,
and the Commerce Department's issuance of export licenses for sales to
Communist nations has been increasing steadily.
Even more significant, our government last month backed down com-
pletely on its widely-publicized call for the Soviet Union to pay up
its assessments to the United Nations, and then compounded this loss
of face by lifting a three-month freeze on voluntary contributions to
the U.N. out of the U.S. Treasury.
From a standpoint of bargaining, we constantly give much and get
little or nothing in deals with the Communist nations. We, the members
of the Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership, urge a "no concession-
no deal" policy, meaning that the Communists must be ready to make
concessions as the price of agreements with the United States. Until
we and our allies arrive at such a policy, we can only expect more
Koreas and Vietnams and an ever-widening circle of Communist subver-
sion around the earth.
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
FOR RELEASE APRIL 7, 1965 AFTER
on President's Viet-Nam Message
DELIVERY OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
The President is to be commended for his insistence on no retreat
in Viet-Nam. But, there is a strong hint in his message dealing with
Communist aggression in Southeast Asia and thefate of 15 million people
of South Viet-Nam that he wants to buy peace. History proves that
friendship, security and solid international relationships cannot be bought
and sold with dollars in the geo-political market place when the Communists are
involved.
The President's contention that the United States is ready for
"unconditional discussions" sounds much like "negotiations," which must
be carried on only from a position of strangth. Until we prove to the
Communists that we mean business, it would be sheer folly to attempt a
negotiated settlement.
I hope that the President, who has been given staunch support by
Republican leadership in the past when he ordered stepped-up military
operations against aggressor supply lines, realizes that the United States
will end up in second place if we retreat under pressure or a meaningless
settlement.
We all hope that peace will return soon in troubled and war-torn
Viet-Nam, but peace with justice and security cannot be purchased with a
billion American tax dollars.
Whether the conflict spreads depends upon the power-hungry Communist
aggressors. If we use our military strength wisely and effectively, and if
we get growing support from our Southeast Asia allies, the war in Viet-Nam
can end without the loss of freedom for our allies or a retreat by the
United States to Pearl Harbor.
If we are right in principle, which we are, use the power we have
and persevere, freedom and security will prevail.
################
Excerpts from a speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich)
File capy
"Foreign Policy"
april 12? ?
montgoment
Congressional Republican Leadership will continue to support the President in
his firm and resolute stand against Communist aggression in Vietnam and elsewhere.
We favor measured, meaningful military steps, which have been ordered by the
President. However, we would oppose wild, unbridled expansion of the conflict in
Vietnam to chase an impossible fanatasy of unconditional Communist surrender.
Although everyone hopes for an end to the fighting, bloodshed and death on the
jungle battlefields of Southeast Asia, negotiations on our part from a position of
military weakness would mean surrender without meaning. It would mean American and
South Vietnamese lives had been given in vain. It would mean the United States
toppling from its position of world leadership into the bottomless canyon of
mediocracy and weakness.
*
#
#
Most members of Congress-Democrat and Republican--are not expected to have
full knowledge of the inside, secret military day-by-day strategy of the war in
Southeast Asia. Neither the public at large nor Congress has any idea at this time
how far the Administration plans to stretch its military effort.
The ccmbat decision-making rightfully belongs to the President as Commander-in-
Chief. This is among the heavy burdens of his high office.
The President makes the military decisions, including targets to be bombed, the
number of American troops to be committed on land and in the air. It takes a
Presidential order to expand our efforts in Vietnam to a larger-scale ground and
air war. He---and he alone---is responsible for military victories or defeats.
....
GERALD
From the Office of Rep. Gerald R. Ford
H-230 The Capitol
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 13, 1965
Rep. Gerald Ford (R-Mich.), House Republican Minority Leader, today
warned a visiting group of Brazilian editors that "unless current trends are
checked, we are heading for an outbreak of Viet Nam-type guerilla wars in
Latin America."
Ford said that " a vacillating hemispheric policy regarding the flow
of subversive weapons and propaganda has set the stage for Communist guerilla
aggression, under the guise of so-called 'National Liberation Fronts', throughout
the Western Hemisphere.
" Cuba and Viet Nam have furnished the models for Communist guerilla
aggression aimed at overthrowing existing pro-Western governments," Ford declared.
" And as our experience in these two countries has proven so painfully,
economic aid by itself is not sufficient to check a subversive Communist campaign,
financed and supplied from outside. 11
The House Minority Leader told the Brazilians, in Washington for the
Fortalezo, Brazil Journalists Project, that current U.S. and hemispheric policy
toward Castro Cuba " seems to be one of letting sleeping Communist wolves lie. "
" But we ought to know that the Communist wolf in Havana is very active,"
Ford said. 11 If the Red plan to create Viet Nam-type wars in Latin America
takes hold, Havana would serve as the Hanoi of the entire operation. It is
today the capital of Communist subversion in the heartland of the Free World."
Ford expressed hope that 11 Brazil will continue the progress it has
made in recent months toward a return to stable and sound government."
###########
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich)
on President's remarks at a News Conference April 27, 1965
The President's restatement that the United States intends to stay
in Viet-Nam to help halt aggression by Communist attackers should be
applauded.
I support the President's renewed pledge that we must stand firm
in Viet-Nam to guarantee an eventual lasting peace. Congressional
Republican leadership has supported the Administration's policy in that
war-torn country while too many Democrats have openly attacked the
President for his position.
It is gratifying to know that the President is critical of his
critics, many of them in his own political empire.
The President has confirmed our earlier position that perhaps
military action against aggressors in Viet-Nam was tardy. Unfortunately,
our restraint was viewed as a weakness by the enemy. It is somewhat
shameful that this strong country waited for more murders, more savage
attacks against the peaceful citizenry of South Viet-Nam until we took
an active part in beating down aggressors by attacking their supply lines
and military installations.
Certainly, as the President said, we should seek to achieve a
lasting peace in Viet-Nam, but not to the extent of buying it with a
billion dollars in foreign aid under a program the Administration
recommended earlier.
############
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Michs)
May 3, 1965
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Our Nation's fight against Communism in the Dominican Republic and Southeast
Asia virtually demands that the President immediately come to Congress for a
supplement to the military budget submitted to the House and Senate in January
before the United States became involved in conflict in two hemisperes.
If we are to bolster our effort in fighting Communism in two hemisperes,
it may require a revision of certain legislative programs, including a new look
at the President's recommendations on overall fiscal policy and tax reduction.
I also urge that the United States recognize that the cause of the current
strife and trouble in Latin America is Fidel Castro.
Latin America, in fact the Western Hemispere, will not be free of Communism's
dangerous threat until the arsonist Fide Castro is eradicated. He is the "fire-
starter" in the Dominican Republic.
At the same I suggest that President Johnson sarry out the original four-
point program which John F. Kennedy demanded in fighting Communism.
During the 1960 presidential campaign and at the time of the Cuban missile
crisis, the late President insisted on: inspection of missile si%es in Cuba,
removal of all Soviet forces from Cuba, support of free Cuban forces both inside
and outside of that country, and blocking be export of Communism in this hemispere
`rom Castro's bastion.
It makes no sense to fight Communism 6,000 miles away in Viet Nam or to
rotect American lives in the Dominican Republic against aggression unless we
take care of the generator of turbulence almost within sight of our country.
#####
FORD FIBRARY
From the Offices of: Robert F. Ellsworth, 3rd District Kansas
Peter H.B. Frelinghuysen, 5th District New Jersey
FOR RELEASE THURSDAY A.M.'s
MAY 13, 1965
15 Republicans Underscore Support For Administration's Policy in Southeast Asia
15 Republican Congressmen, in a letter issued yesterday, underscored
Republican support of President Johnson's policy in Southeast Asia. In a letter
to House Republican Leader Gerald Ford, the 15 Congressmen pointed to the
unanimous Republican support in both Houses of Congress for the President's
request for an additional $700 million earmarked for Vietnam. The joint effort
mentioned the Republican Party's "continuing dedication to its uninterrupted
history of bipartisan support for United States policy in times of crisis."
The letter to Ford reminded "all those abroad who may hope that internal
differences will sap American will and purpose in Vietnam, the unanimous
Republican support of the President should make clear just how wrong they are,"
and that the Republican Party, despite differences with President Johnson, stands
together in the determination to preserve the integrity of South Vietnam and
the right of her people to be free.
/s/ Mark Andrews, N.Dak.
/s/ William S. Mailliard, Calif.
/s/ John F. Baldwin, Calif.
/s/ Joseph M. McDade, Pa.
/s/ Alphonzo Bell, Calif.
/s/ F. Bradford Morse, Mast
/s/ William S. Broomfield, Mich.
/s/ Charles A. Mosher, Ohio
/s/ Robert F. Ellsworth, Kan.
/s/ Howard W. Robison, N.Y.
/s/ Peter H.B. Frelinghuysen, N.J.
/s/ Herman T. Schneebeli, Pa.
/s/ Frank J. Horton, N.Y.
/s/ Garner E. Shriver, Kan.
1st Robert T. Stafford, Vt.
Text of Letter Follows
From the Offices of: Robert F. Ellsworth, 3rd, Kansas
Peter H.B. Frelinghuysen, 5th, New Jersey
FOR RELEASE THURSDAY A.M.'s
MAY 13, 1965 PAGE TWO
The Honorable Gerald Ford
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Dear Jerry:
We take great pride in the unanimous Republican vote in both Houses of
the Congress in support of the President's request for $700 million for
U.S. policy in Vietnam. The message should be crystal clear:
-- To President Johnson, Republican unanimity spoke of our
Party's continuing dedication to its uninterrupted history
of bipartisan support for United States policy in times of
crisis.
To all those abroad who may hope that internal differences
will sap American will and purpose in Vietnam, the unanimous
Republican support of the President should make clear just
how wrong they are.
-- And to those few here at home who demonstrate against the
American presence in Vietnam the Republican Party has made
clear that, whatever our differences with President Johnson,
we stand together in the determination to preserve the integrity
of South Vietnam and the right of her people to be free.
Republicans of course will jealously guard our right to disagree with the
President and to criticize him publicly when he is wrong. We do not for
one moment suggest that we agree fully with all phases of American policy
or its implementation, even in Vietnam. But all people everywhere should
have no doubt where we stand on the fundamental precepts of American policy
in Southeast Asia:
1. We believe that the United States forces should remain in
South Vietnam as long as the Communist aggression continues.
2. We believe that the United States cannot in good conscience
abandon the Asian continent to Communist imperialist domination
and that an American withdrawal from Vietnam in the present
circumstances would undermine confidence in American leadership
and encourage further tests of our will.
3. We believe that the limited air attacks against North Vietnam
are justified because they require the North Vietnamese regime
to pay a heavy price for the aggression it is waging, because
they may impel the North Vietnamese to seek a negotiated settle-
ment, and because they may limit the effectiveness of the Viet
Cong in South Vietnam.
We believe that the surest road to peace and to constructive negotiations,
in Vietnam and around the world, must inevitably begin with the willingness
to meet agression whenever and wherever it occurs.
The only purpose of force is to secure a just peace. We share the
President's reluctance to use forces in Vietnam, but we share also his
determination to persevere in the search for a just peace.
Sincerely,
LIBRARY
From the Office of
Rep. Melvin R. Laird, R-Wis.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2246 Rayburn House Office Building
JUNE 14, 1965
Washington 25, D.C.
We may be dangerously close to ending any Republican support of our present Vietnam
policy. This possibility exists because the American people do not know how far the Administration
is prepared to go with large-scale use of ground forces in order to save face in Vietnam.
The American people deserve an answer to this question. The Republican party should
base its future support on the nature of that answer.
In the absence of this answer, we can only conclude that present policy is aimed not at
victory over the Communist Insurgency nor at driving Communists out of South Vietnam but rather
at some sort of negotiated settlement which would include Communist elements in a coalition
govetnment.
If such is the objective of the Johnson Administration, then the charge can be levelled
that this Administration is over-committing ground forces in this area of the world and needlessly
exposing the lives of thousands of American boys.
In several public utterances, Administration spokesmen have implied that the ground
force build-up in Vietnam is Eisenhower or Republican policy. Such an implication is just the
opposite of the truth.
The Eisenhower-Dulles policy scrupulously oided a large-scale use of conventional
ground forces in Southeast Asia. As a matter of fact, at the time President Eisenhower left office,
there were only 773 members of the U.S. Military Mission in Vietnam and the situation at that
time was much less critical than it is now although we have more than 50,000 American troops
there today. Indications are that the American Troop build-up in Vietnam could go as high as
100,000 American boys.
Wellover two years ago, Interested free world Asian aguntries offered to assist United
States efforts in that area of the world, This aid included the offer of ground troops and other
assistance from such countries as South Korea, Formosa, and Thailand. This aid was rejected by
the United States at that time.
Today, thousands of American boys are fighting a war and many are losing their lives
because the United States government has failed on occasion after occasion to make the right
decision at the right time.
If our objective is a negotiated settlement, it is time to use other means than the needless
sacrifice of American lives to attain that objective. Once American troops are committed In any
situation, a top priority objective must be to take those steps necessary to protect American
lives and minimize the number of casualties.
One such step, already long overdue, is to retarget our bombing raids on more
significant targets in North Vietnam. A major transportation and supply area is the port city of
Halphong. To continue to allow the unhindered flow of war materials in and out of that area
only insures greater American casualties in future Viet Cong offensive sections.
Republicans:will continue to support President Johnson when his actions in the
Vietnamese situation serve American and free world interests and when they do not needlessly
waste or endanger American lives.
####
QERALD FORD LIBRARY
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Conference
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
Thruston B. Morton,
Chr. Republican
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Senatorial Committee
of the Policy Committee
Issued following a
Clarence J. Brown,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Joint leadership meeting
Ranking Member
The Republican
Rules Committee
National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
June 18. 1965
Bob Wilson,
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
To date, the Republicans in the Congress have publicly supported the Adminis-
tration's policy toward South Vietnam in the belief that it was in harmony with
that enunciated by the Congress in Joint Resolution.
That objective, as defined last August, was "assisting the peoples of South-
east Asia to protect their freedom."
Now doubt is raised about this objective by recent remarks of the Chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate. In a speech, timed so as to make
it appear that it had Presidential approval, Senator Fulbright and some other Demo-
crats may wish to redefine the objective for which American troops are being com-
mitted to conflict in South Vietnam in ever-increasing numbers.
The Senator calls for a "negotiated settlement involving major concessions by
both sides."
Any who talk of concessions by the United States have an obligation to specify
the kinds of concessions which they are prepared to advocate. They have an obliga-
tion, too, to indicate the limits beyond which concessions cannot be made.
Senator Fulbright suggests the Geneva Agreements of 1954 "in all their speci-
fications" as a basis for settling the conflict in South Vietnam. But this Agree-
ment, as Secretary Rusk acknowledged in 1962, contained a fatal flaw in providing
veto power to the Communist member of the international commission established to
supervise the execution of the terms of the Geneva settlement.
This mistake must be avoided in any future peace settlement. So must the mis-
take of establishing a coalition government with Communist participation for South
Vietnam. Bitter experience should have taught us that such a coalition merely de-
fers a Communist takeover.
To conclude an agreement with such provisions would violate the President's
promise of April 7, 1965, "We will not withdraw under the cloak of a meaningless
agreement."
We hope for negotiations among representatives of responsible sovereign govern-
ments which will both end the fighting in South Vietnam and preserve the independ-
ence of that nation. The United States cannot, without violating its word, settle
for less. The meaningless Laotian settlement of 1962 should be a lesson to us at
this time.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
-2-
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE GERALD R. FORD
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Of all the things that Senator Fulbright has had to say, none was more reveal-
ing than his criticism of the Eisenhower Administration for "encouraging" the South
Vietnamese government to refuse to permit the holding of a nationwide election in
Vietnam in 1956.
The refusal was amply justified if only because the kind of election envisaged
by the Geneva Agreement of 1954 -- a free election -- could not have been held.
Anyone who thinks that a free election was possible in Communist North Vietnam knows
little of how Communists operate and could have fallen into a Moscow-Peiping trap.
The criticism boils down to a complaint that the United States government failed
to exert pressure on the South Vietnamese to surrender to the Communists nine years
ago.
Such was not the policy then -- and veiled suggestions that it be the policy
today should be emphatically repudiated.
The United States could not agree today -- any more than in 1956 -- to legiti-
matizing Communist control of all of Vietnam by the device of a Communist-style
election.
The Eisenhower Administration labored to build out of the chaos in South Viet-
nam a durable economy, a progressive social order, and military strength.
That it achieved a considerable measure of success was attested to by several
of Senator Fulbright's colleagues.
In February of 1960, Senator Mansfield's Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee reported, "By any measure, Vietnam has made great progress
under President Ngo Dinh Diem in the improvement of internal security, in the crea-
tion of the forms and institutions of popularly responsible government where before
few existed, and in the advancement of the welfare of the people of Vietnam." "
Finally, a major policy paper, issued by the State Department in December 1961,
stated flatly that "The years 1956 to 1960 produced something close to an economic
miracle in South Vietnam
It is a report of progress over a few brief years
equalled by few young countries."
Any attempt to equate overall conditions, including the United States military
commitment, in South Vietnam in 1960 with conditions there today is a crude dis-
tortion of history.
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Conference
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
Thruston B. Morton,
Chr. Republican
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Senatorial Committee
Issued following a
Clarence J. Brown,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Joint leadership meeting
Ranking Member
The Republican
Rules Committee
National Chairman
Bob Wilson,
Ray C. Bliss
June 1965
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
To date, the Republicans in the Congress have publicly supported the Adminis-
tration's policy toward South Vietnam in the belief that it was in harmony with
that enunciated by the Congress in Joint Resolution
That objective, as defined last August, was assisting the peoples of South-
east Asia to protect their freedom."
Now doubt 1s raised about this objective by recent remarks of the Chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee of the lenate. In a speech, timed so as to make
it appear that it had Presidential approval Senator Fulbright and some other Demo-
crats may wish to redefine the objective for which American troops are being com-
mitted to conflict in South Vietnam in ever-increasing numbers.
The Senator calls for a "negotiated settlement involving major concessions by
both sides."
Any who talk of concessions by the United States have an obligation to specify
the kinds of concessions which they are prepared to advocate. They have an obliga-
tion, too, to indicate the limits beyond which concessions cannot be made.
Senator Fulbright suggests the Geneva Agreements of 1954 "in all their speci-
fications" as a basis for settling the conflict in South Vietnam. But this Agree-
ment, as Secretary Rusk acknowledged 15 1962, contained a fatal flaw in providing
veto power to the Communist member of the international commission established to
supervise the execution of the terms of the Geneva settlement.
This mistake must be avoided in any future peace settlement. So must the mis-
take of establishing a coalition government with Communist participation for South
Vietnam. Bitter experience should have taught us that such a coalition merely de-
fers a Communist takeover.
To conclude an agreement with such provisions would violate the President's
promise of April 7, 1965, "We will not withdraw under the cloak of a meaningless
agreement."
We hope for negotiations among representatives of responsible sovereign govern-
ments which will both end the fighting in South Vietnam and preserve the independ-
ence of that nation. The United States cannot, without violating its word, settle
for less. The meaningless Laotian settlement of 1962 should be a lesson to us at
this time.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
-2-
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE GERALD R. FORD
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Of all the things that Senator Fulbright has had to say, none was more reveal-
ing than his criticism of the Eisenhower Administration for "encouraging" the South
Vietnamese government to refuse to permit the holding of a nationwide election in
Vietnam in 1956.
The refusal was amply justified if only because the kind of election envisaged
by the Geneva Agreement of 1954 -- a free election -- could not have been held.
Anyone who thinks that a free election was possible in Communist North Vietnam knows
little of how Communists operate and could have fallen into a Moscow-Peiping trap.
The criticism boils down to a complaint that the United States government failed
to exert pressure on the South Vietnamese to surrender to the Communists nine years
ago.
Such was not the policy then -- and veiled suggestions that it be the policy
today should be emphatically repudiated.
The United States could not agree today -- any more than in 1956 -- to legiti-
matizing Communist control of all of Vietnam by the device of a Communist-style
election.
The Eisenhower Administration labored to build out of the chaos in South Viet-
nam a durable economy, a progressive social order, and military strength.
That it achieved a considerable measure of success was attested to by several
of Senator Fulbright's colleagues.
In February of 1960, Senator Mansfield's Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee reported, "By any measure, Vietnam has made great progress
under President Ngo Dinh Diem in the improvement of internal security, in the crea-
tion of the forms and institutions of popularly responsible government where before
few existed, and in the advancement of the welfare of the people of Vietnam."
Finally, a major policy paper, issued by the State Department in December 1961,
stated flatly that "The years 1956 to 1960 produced something close to an economic
miracle in South Vietnam
It is a report of progress over a few brief years
equalled by few young countries."
Any attempt to equate overall conditions, including the United States military
commitment, in South Vietnam in 1960 with conditions there today is a crude dis-
tortion of history.
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich)
on Viet Nam war
June 26, 1965
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Shocking events demand that the Administration immediately take the wraps off
our military forces in Southeast Asia by unleashing devastating air and sea power
against all significant military targets in North Viet Nam,
The execution of Army Sgt. Harold George Bennett, the threat to commit more
murders, the reign of terror against innocent victims in Saigon, and the constant
rebuffing of peace attempts starkly reveal the Communist intention for conquest
without regard for human life.
I recommend President Johnson harden the U.S. attitude toward North Viet Nam,
including full-scale air attacks on all significant Viet Cong military targets and
a naval quarantine to cut off delivery of arms and supplies by sea.
In this deepening crisis the Administration cannot play geo-political footsie
with the power-mad Communist leaders in Southeast Asia. It is the duty of the United
States to make ruthless aggression in South Viet Nam so costly for the enemy that
Hanoi leadership will join us at the peace table it now spurns,
If Communist aggression is to be stopped in its tracks and crushed, the
Seventh Fleet must set up a quarantine against shipping that fattens the aggressor's
war arsenal.
It is appalling to learn that 65 vessels have carried material to the Viet Cong.
Free world nations receiving U.S. foreign aid, whose ships have called at North
Viet Nam ports since January, must be given notice by a quarantine that we do not
intend to allow this flow of offensive military materiel to the enemy.
For the United States to fight a massive land war in the swamps and jungles on
the terms of the enemy is illogical. The U.S. must make its military attacks so
successful on North Viet Nam that the Viet Cong will back off from the escalation
of its aggression.
The time for a mighty United States military air offensive and the quarantining
of North Viet Nam seaports is now-motoday, this crucial and critical hour.
#
#
#
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, REPUBLICAN LEADER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON
VIET NAM -- JULY 1, 1965
Republicans will continue to disregard partisan considerations in foreign
policy. We will be guided by the national interest.
Like Senator Arthur Vandenberg at the time of the Yalta Agreement, we will
criticize Administration policy when it fails to serve the national interest. We
will make constructive recommendations that will bolster the President's firmness.
No Republican has called this McNamara's war.
Several House Republicans, including myself, recently made the following points
about Viet Nam:
1. The objectives of our Nation's policy must be the establishment of con-
ditions under which the people of South Viet-Nammay live in peace and
freedom. This means a government of their own choosing. This means
freedom from aggression - from within and from without,
2. We hope for negotiations to end the fighting - to assure the freedom and
independence of South Viet-Nam. LET ME CLARIFY ONE POINT the Communists
are escalating the war. No American is. Moreover, Peiping and Hanoi spurn
the negotiating table.
3. The United States cannot, without violating its word, agree to settlement
which involves a coalition government with Communists. Such government
makes a larger war inevitable at a later date. History proves a coalition
government with Communists gives them unlimited veto power. Veto power
scuttles any hope for permanent peace.
4. The Administration must not sacrifice the freedom and independence of
South Viet Nam. To do so makes the loss of American lives purposeless.
Some Democrats would abandon the free people of South Viet-Nam. The
President must not yield to them.
5. In this crisis, some Republican leaders believe American air and sea
power must be used more effectively in North Viet-Nam against significant
military targets. We advocate greater Allied participation. We question
the logic of committing U.S. ground forces on a large scale to fight a
war in Southeast Asia,
---0000000-~
Filecapy
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, REPUBLICAN LEADER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON
VIET NAM -- JULY 1, 1965
Republicans will continue to disregard partisan considerations in foreign
policy. We will be guided by the national interest.
Like Senator Arthur Vandenberg at the time of the Yalta Agreement, we will
criticize Administration policy when it fails to serve the national interest. We
will make constructive recommendations that will bolster the President's firmness.
No Republican has called this McNamara's war.
Several House Republicans, including myself, recently made the following points
about Viet Nam:
1. The objectives of our Nation's policy must be the establishment of con-
ditions under which the people of South Viet-Nammay live in peace and
freedom. This means a government of their own choosing. This means
freedom from aggression - from within and from without.
2. We hope for negotiations to end the fighting to assure the freedom and
independence of South Viet-Nam, LET ME CLARIFY ONE POINT -- the Communists
are escalating the war. No American is. Moreover, Peiping and Hanoi spurn
the negotiating table.
3. The United States cannot, without violating its word, agree to settlement
which involves a coalition government with Communists. Such government
makes a larger war inevitable at a later date. History proves a coalition
government with Communists gives them unlimited veto power. Veto power
scuttles any hope for permanent peace.
4. The Administration must not sacrifice the freedam and independence of
South Viet Nam. To do so makes the loss of American lives purposeless.
Some Democrats would abandon the free people of South Viet-Nam. The
President must not yield to them.
5. In this crisis, some Republican leaders believe American air and sea
power must be used more effectively in North Viet-Nam against significant
military targets. We advocate greater Allied participation. We question
the logic of committing U.S. ground forces on a large scale to fight a
war in Southeast Asia.
---0000000--
GERALD
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
Statement by Gerald R. Ford, House Republican Leader,
July 7, 1965
on Communist missile sites in North Viet Nam
A danjerous build-up of enemy missile strength 1: North Viet Nam demands
immediate, effective United States do attacks against these significant military
targets.
The construction of the missile sites is clear evidence of Communist
escalation of the conflict,
Sites designed for firing surface-to-air missiles should be knocked out
by United States air superiority before the enemy uses the weapons against the
side of freedom. The sites are a threat to the lives of American military personnel.
I reaffirm my support of President Johnson's stand-firm policy against
Communist agression. However, the State Department's report of an enemy missile
build-up indicates need for more effective air action against these significant
military targets as quickly as possible.
# # # #
GERALD
STATEMENT BY RUP. GERALD R. FORD
ON APPOINTMENT OF A NEW AMBASSADOR
July 8, 1965
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The appointment of a new United States ambassador in South Viet Nam
at this critical time is very perplexing.
The President should give a clear, detailed explanation to the
American people if this switch in high-level diplomatic assignments from
General Maxwell Taylor to Ambassador Lodge means a change in the United
States foreign policy of firmness against Communist aggression.
#
#
#
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
ON FOREIGN POLICY
July 13, 1965
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In the past ten days several speeches have been made by Democrats on the Floor
of the Senate concerning Republican views on the war in Viet Nam.
Complete, accurate and meaningful debate on this issue is needed. It should
be encouraged. Anything less will confuse the American people and could mislead
the enemy.
Republican leaders in the House and Senate have forthrightly supported the
President in his firm actions against Communist aggression. We reaffirm that po-
sition today, but reserve the right to make constructive suggestions and to raise
legitimate questions.
Does unwarranted speculation, does the twisting of words and phrases serve
the national interest? Does unjustified name-calling add stature to this public
dialogue?
No elected Republican office-holder to my knowledge has advocated "indiscrimi-
nate slaughter of Vietnamese" -- nor the bombing of targets other than those of
significant military importance -- nor bombing of targets outside Viet Nam. Nor
has any Republican opposed discussions leading to an honorable settlement at the
proper time.
In these critical hours, significant events have come to the forefront.
* Revealing that the conflict in Southeast Asia is going badly for the side
of freedom, the President sent the First Infantry Division into battle
positions.
*
Secretary of State Dean Rusk warns Red China and any other nation that by
the decision to "get into this war" they must realize "the idea of sanctuary
is dead."
* United States military manpower in Viet Nam grows to 71,000 with the pros-
pects of substantially more ground troops being committed in that war-torn
country.
*
The Soviet Union warns it will step up military aid to the Communist ag-
gressors in Viet Nam.
At a delicate geo-political time a sudden switch in Ambassadors to Viet Nam
is ordered by the President.
* Speculation grows that military Reservists will be recalled to active duty
by the White House.
(more)
-2-
*There is growing talk of the Administration planning to ask Congress
for a larger defense budget.
Casualty lists grow in Viet Nam as the swamp and jungle war expands.
*Red China's foreign minister Marshal Chen Yi expresses his hopes that
the United States will send 2 million troops predicting "the bigger the
intervention, the bigger the defeat will be" for free world forces.
*Communist aggressor leaders spurn all efforts aimed at settlement.
*The enemy's military arsenal grows as ships from some of our
allies visit North Viet Nam ports unloading war-support cargoes for use
against the free world effort to defeat Communist aggression.
*Members of the President's own Democrat party create doubts by
labeling our military effort "McNamara's war" and provide the enemy with
damaging propaganda ammunition.
I urge the President to deliver a "state of the emergency" message
to dispel the myths, to squelch or to confirm the speculation, to calm
the growing uneasiness and unrest in the Nation.
Without violating national security, the President should bring the
facts out of the shadows. I strongly recommend that he speak with the
Nation without delay in this critical hour of history.
###
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Conference
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
Thruston B. Morton,
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Chr. Republican
Senatorial Committee
Issued following a
of the Policy Committee
Leadership Meeting
Clarence J. Brown,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Ranking Member
The Republican
July 15, 1965
Rules Committee
National Chairman
Bob Wilson,
Ray C. Bliss
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
This is an appropriate time to speak of bipartisanship in foreign policy.
Bipartisanship signifies united support by the two major parties for such
policy aims and means as are required for the security of the nation.
A bipartisan foreign policy imposes obligations on both the majority and the
minority parties. For the majority party, it counsels frequent consultation with
the minority as policy is formulated and access for the minority to information
needed to determine the wisdom of policy.
For the minority party it imposes an obligation to avoid carping about trivia.
The minority should avoid the hypocrisy of complaining about measures which it
would favor if it were in the position of policy maker. No administration should
be blamed for events beyond its control.
Members of both parties must weigh all the consequences of public criticism.
There is an obligation to demonstrate to both friend and foe that the American
people are united in time of danger. There is an obligation to avoid furnishing
grist for the propaganda mills of an enemy.
But bipartisan foreign policy has never meant a cessation of debate, of criti-
cism, of suggestion. Senator Arthur Vandenberg, who, more than any other public
figure in his time, personified bipartisanship, said that bipartisan foreign policy
"simply seeks national security ahead of partisan advantage." But, he added immed-
iately, "Every foreign policy must be totally debated and the 'loyal opposi-
tion' is under special obligation to see that this occurs.
Debate, then, should be encouraged. Only in the crucible of full and candid
debate can the nation forge a foreign policy which will lead to the ends which all
Americans seek to attain -- peace, freedom, and security. Only thus can public
understanding and acceptance of foreign policy be achieved.
Bipartisanship in foreign policy demands that representatives of both parties
give each other a respectful hearing, that both deal in facts, that both discuss
genuine issues, that both avoid distortion and misrepresentation.
We pray that the national security decisions of the President may always be
wise. If we must disagree with any of those decisions, we shall never question his
sinceredesire for peace. We expect that responsible spokesmen for his party will
credit us with similar motives.
(Ford statement page 2)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
- 2 -
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
July 15, 1965
Today the President is being called on to make fateful decisions. His efforts
to end the fighting in Vietnam by negotiation have been spurned. President Johnson
has now decided to increase substantially the commitment of American ground forces
in the theater of conflict.
As the military commitment grows, the nation must be clear about its objectives,
its responsibilities, and the consequences in Vietnam. This objective can only be
the establishment of conditions under which the people of South Vietnam can live in
peace, freedom, and security.
The objective can be attained only when aggression from within or without is
brought to a halt.
The establishment of a coalition government with Communist participation in
control of South Vietnam is incompatible with this objective.
Evacuation of American troops under an agreement to be policed by a commission
including a Communist member with veto power over commission decisions would be
incompatible with this objective.
The desire of the government and the people of the United States to negotiate
a peace in Vietnam has been established beyond question. But a peace which would
turn South Vietnam over to the Communists -- immediately or after some interval --
must be forthrightly rejected.
Any doubt as to the resoluteness of the United States in the pursuit of the
objective of maintaining the freedom and independence of South Vietnam that has
arisen is due to unfortunate statements of some Democrats.
Although we do not quarrel with the President in his invitation to the aggres-
sors to negotiate without any pre-conditions, we doubt the wisdom of failing to
make it clear that the United States is not going to agree to the kind of treaty
and truce provisions that have made possible Communist take-overs in the past.
President Johnson has said that the United States will not withdraw from
Vietnam under a meaningless agreement. We suggest that the President assure the
nation that no agreement will be made which will make a mockery of the sacrifices
already suffered by our American fighting men and the soldiers of South Vietnam.
July/9,1965 July 19,1965
State message femergency
statement
w/Lillain
GERAUS
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, House Republican Leader
on "State of the Emergency" message by the President
July 19, 1965
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The hard, bitter facts of the war in Viet Nam come more sharply into focus at this
crucial time in our Nation's history.
* Enemy guerrillas take control of a vital highway that linked two
United States military bases,
*
Defense Secretary McNamara gets the word from high commanders in
Saigon to rapidly expand the number of American combat troops in
Viet Nam,
* An hour of decision nears for the President to decide whether,
he will call up military Reservists and National Guard divisions,
However, the American people grow more concerned, more confused by the hour as
the war situation for them becomes a Itmare of speculation.
I have urged the President to deliver a "s of the emergency" message to the
Nation. As the hours grow more critical, I gain recommend that the Commander-
in-Chief candidly tell the Congress and the Nation what we are up against in
Viet Nam today and what may be ahead.
The American people who face sacrifices should begiven an accurate, honest
appraisal within the confines of national security. The hour is getting late.
The Nation waits for a straight-from-the-shoulder message from the White House.
#####
GERALD FORD LIBRAR)
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
House Republican Leader
On United States Air Attacks in
North Viet Nam Against Missile
Sites: July 27, 1965
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In view of the anticipated high-level meeting at the White
House within 24 hours it is inappropriate for me to comment
at this time.
It seems to me that President Johnson should have the
opportunity to make a full explanation of the facts to the
Congress and to the American people. After such a statement,
Republican Leadership will be in a position to comment.
#####
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
House Republican Leader
On United States Air Attacks in
North Viet Nam Against Missile
Sites: July 27, 1965
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In view of the anticipated high-level meeting at the White
House within 24 hours it is inappropriate for me to comment
at this time.
It seems to me that President Johnson should have the
opportunity to make a full explanation of the facts to the
Congress and to the American people. After such a statement,
Republican Leadership will be in a position to comment.
#####
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Following Statement was Approved Unanimously
by The Republican Coordinating Committee meeting
in Washington, D. C. December 13, 1965
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 consistently
credible statement of our position in Vie Nam. Official statement of the
Administration have been conflicting and repeatedly over ptimistic. The
Communists have skillfully exploited this inadequacy of our present leadership.
We Republicans believe that the people of South Viet Nam should have
an opportunity to live their lives in peace under a government of their own
choice free of Communist aggression.
We believe that our national objectives should be not the unconditional
surrender of North Viet Nam, but unconditional freedom for the people of
South Viet Nam and support of their struggle against aggression.
Our nation, with vigorous Republican support and leadership, has
dedicated itself to successful resistance to Communist aggression through
programs for Greece and Turkey; in Iran, Lebanon and Quemoy-Matsu; in
Austria, Trieste and Guatemala, by timely action in the Dominican Republic,
and today in Viet Nam.
Under our present policy in Viet Nam, there is a growing danger that
the United States is becoming involved in an endless Korean-type jungle war.
A land war in Southeast Asia would be to the advantage of the Communists.
-- MORE -
GERALD LIDATE
- 2 -
Since it appears that the major portion of North Vietnamese military
supplies arrive by sea, our first objective should be to impose a Kennedy-type
quarantine on North Viet Nam.
To accomplish our objectives we also recommend the maximum use
of American conventional air and sea power against significant military targets.
Our purpose is and must be, once again to repel Communist aggression,
to minimize American and Vietnamese casualties, and to bring about a swift and
secure peace.
- 30 -
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Following Statement was Approved Unanimously
by The Republican Coordinating Committee meeting
in Washington, D. C. December 13, 1965
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 consistently
credible statement of our position in Viet Nam. Official statements of the
Administration have been conflicting and repeatedl over optimistic. The
Communists have skillfully exploited this inadequacy of our present leadership.
We Republicans believe that the People or South Viet Nam should have
an opportunity to live their lives in peace under a government of their own
choice free of Communist aggression.
We believe that our national objectives ould be not the unconditional
surrender of North Viet Nam, but unconditional freedom for the people of
South Viet Nam and support of their struggle abainst aggression.
Our nation, with vigorous Republican upport and leadership, has
dedicated itself to successful resistance to Communist aggression through
programs for Greece and Turkey; in Iran, Lebanon and Quemoy-Matsu; in
Austria, Trieste and Guatemala; by timely action in the Dominican Republic,
and today in Viet Nam.
Under our present policy in Viet Nam, there is a growing danger that
the United States is becoming involved in an endless Korean-type jungle war.
A land war in Southeast Asia would be to the advantage of the Communists.
-- MORE - --
GERALD LIVERSE
- 2 -
Since it appears that the major portion of North Vietnamese military
supplies arrive by sea, our first objective should be to impose a Kennedy-type
quarantine on North Viet Nam.
To accomplish our objectives we also recommend the maximum use
of American conventional air and sea power against significant military targets.
Our purpose is and must be, once again to repel Communist aggression,
to minimize American and Vietnamese casualties, and to bring about a swift and
secure peace.
- 30 -
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
January 31, 1966
For immediate release
Statement by House Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford of Michigan
on resumption of bombing of North Vietnam.
To protect the lives of 200,000 American troops in South
Vietnam, the President had no other choice. For more than a
month the United States had demonstrated its good faith in an
effort to solve the conflict without further loss of life. It
is clear that the Viet Cong and their Red Chinese allies want
war. The United States must be united in this crisis.
(Statement on President's call for U.N. Security Council meeting)
I wholeheartedly support any action to take this grave matter
before the United Nations and I hope the U.N. will fulfill its
role in seeking peace.
#
#
#
Re Hawaii Conf.-LBJ
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
For immediate release
Feb. 4, 1966
In response to inquiries regarding the President's sudden trip to
Hawaii to meet with U.S. and South Vietnamese leaders, I can only
comment at this time with the following statement.
All other Administration efforts having failed, we hope this
conference will lead to a prompt honorable and lasting peace.
The American people and the Congress are entitled to know immediately
the full facts that precipitated this crisis conference. What it means
is anyone's guess There certainly has been no information or adequate
explanation given thus fer.
Under the circumstances there will be wild speculation ranging from
an intensification of the conflict to outright appeasement.
Pearl Harbor, where the United States suffered a tragic defeat,
should be a sober reminder of the danger of miscalculating the
enemy's intention.
# # # #
DERALD FORD VIBRARY
Office Copy
House Republican Policy Committee
Viet Nam
John J. knodes, Chairman
140 Cannon House Office Bldg.
March 2, 1966
Phone: 225-6168
Immediate Release
Republican Folicy Committee Statement on Viet Nam
The deep division within the Democratic Party over American policy in Viet Nam
is prolonging the war, undermining the morale of our fighting men and
encouraging the Communist aggressor. It has confused the people in other
nations about the American purpose and has led North Viet Nam to believe that
in time we may falter, that we do not have the necessary will or determination
to win. As a result, the peace that this nation and the free world seeks has
been delayed, the fighting intensified, and the threat of a major war deepened.
In an effort to please the conflicting elements in the Democratic Party, the
Administration has had to dodge and shift. Its policy and position on Viet
Nam continues to be marred by indecision, sudden change and frequent reinter-
pretation. Under the circumstances, it is little wonder that the enemy has
been encouraged, our friends dismayed, and the "national unity that can do more
to bring about peace negotiations than almost any other thing" delayed.
We, therefore, call upon the President to disavow those within his party who
would divide this country as they have divided the Democratic Party. Certainly,
as the President has stated, "there is much more that unites us than divides us."
However, as long as the party in power cannot agree on such basic issues as
whether Americans should be in Viet Nam at all, what our Nation is trying to
achieve there and whether the right means are being used, there will continue
to be uncertainties, misunderstandings and fears about the war in Viet Nam.
America, indeed the world, is waiting for the President to take command of his
party. Until this is done, the divisive debate will continue, the confusion
will grow, and a peaceful solution will elude us.
Republicans are united in their support of the fighting men in Viet Nam. We
also support a policy that will prevent the success of aggression and the
forceful conquest of South Viet Nam by North Viet Nam.
In addition, we believe that the people of South Viet Nam should have an
opportunity to live their lives in peace under a government of their own
choice, free of Communist aggression.
Certainly, these objectives cannot be realized by admitting the Communists to
a share of power in a coalition government. For this is "arsenic in the
medicine," the "fox in the chicken coop." It would pave the way for a Communist
takeover as surely as did the coalition governments in Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Rumania, and Hungary. Moreover, it would make a cruel and indefensible mockery
of the sacrifices of the fighting men in Viet Nam.
GERALD LIDRARY
Vietnam medical
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
For release Friday, March 18, 1966
WASHINGTON--Medical help for South Vietnamese civilians
is woefully inadequate and the Administration mais act quickly
to meet that need, House Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford
declared today.
Ford said he has received reports of miserable conditions
in Vietnam hospitals and in some cases "abeolute filthiness"
from a Grand Rapids, lichigan, orthopedic surgeon who has
donated his services in Vietnam on three occasions and has just
returned from a voluntary tour of duty there.
The surgeon, Dr. Affred B. Swanson, told Ford he is
"appalled by the lack of medical facilities in Vietnam."
"It's a national disgrace," Dr. Swanson declared.
Ford noted that Health-Education-Welfare Secretary John W.
Gardner, now on a Vietnam tour, has found hospital conditions
fully as shocking as Dr. Swanson has described them.
He pointed to a news dispatch from Banmethuot, South
Vietnam, telling how Gardner visited a 30-bed Banmethuot hos-
pital ward with 70 men and women patients piled into it and
muttered to the hospital supervisor: "Impossible, impossible."
Gardner flew to the hospital, 170 miles north of Saigon,
to see what medical and educational aid South Vietnam lacks.
FORD is LIBRARY OFRALD
(MORE)
VIETNAM MEDICAL
Page Two
Dr. Swanson charges that the Administration has talked
for years about giving South Vietnam medical aid but hasn't
done anything about it.
Ford said he will raise his voice again and again until
the Administration acts. He said he hopes to have Dr. Swanson
testify before the congressional committees concerned so they
can learn what he has seen in Vietnam.
Of Administration officials, Dr. Swanson said:
"Their charts indicate they're doing a lot (about
Vietnam's medical problems) but I've been there three times
in four years, and there just haven't been any improvements."
He added:
"In a country that's burning and bleeding to death, it's
fantastic we aren't doing more to save the lives of the civi-
lian population. It's just plain wrong."
Dr. Swanson said there are many dedicated people providing
medical aid in Vietnam but not enough of them.
At the same time, the lack of hospital bed space and
other facilities is staggering, Dr. Swanson added.
Dr. Swanson estimated the need for new hospitals at 40 to
50 spotted throughout Vietnam.
He quoted the Vietnamese Army's surgeon general as saying
they would cost $300,000 to $500,000 apiece and should be de-
signed to include a civilian wing and an army wing with a
common laboratory-surgical unit in the center.
(MORE)
VIETNAM MEDICAL
Page Three
"The President should ask Congress to appropriate funds
for this program," Dr. Swanson said.
"Congress has just voted $1.8 billion to replace aircraft
shot down over Vietnam. If they would put the same amount of
money into social reconstruction, the war would be a lot closer
to being won."
"Even now the AID (Agency for International Development)
people over there could at least do something about the filthi-
ness in the hospitals--at least get the walls scrubbed down
on a regular basis. But they won't do it, and their excuse is
that the Vietnamese don't do it and it's their problem.
"It's mostly a matter of the guy at the top (President
Johnson) saying, 'Let's do something about this; and if there's
anything you can do, we'll back you up.'"
Ford emphasized that Congress has just approved $415 million
in special economic aid for Vietnam. He suggested some of this
money could be used to improve medical conditions there.
Dr. Swanson recalled that Vice-President Humphrey on his
recent visit to Vietnam pledged help on two fronts--social as
well as military. If the United States follows through, the
surgeon continued, this should mean medical funds equal to the
need.
Dr. Swanson currently is trying to put together a polio
immunization program for Vietnam with'private assistance coupled
with the government's blessing.
(MORE)
VIETNAM MEDICAL
Page Four
He said all he needs to line up 1 million shots of polio
vaccine, to transport it to Vietnam, and to get two deep
freezers to store it is a letter of intent from Maj. Gen. James W.
Humphreys, Jr., public health chief in Vietnam on loan to AID.
Polio is not an epidemic disease in Vietnam but the people
are deathly afraid of it, Dr. Swanson said.
He wants to begin by immunizing the 500,000 children in
the Saigon area.
#######
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT, APRIL 18
President Johnson is going to have to make a big decision soon-whether to
make greater use of our air and sea power or to send many more U. S. troops to
Vietnam, maybe an additional 200,000 or more.
We apparently must make such a choice to achieve even a stalemate in Vietnam
and to gain a cease-fire in a war that now looks like a war without end.
Infiltration of enemy troops from North Vietnam into the south has been
officially estimated at 4,500 a month. How should we deal with this continued
infiltration?
U. S. combat losses so far this year already have exceeded those for all of
1965-1,361 Army, Marine, Navy, and Air Force men killed in combat between
January 1 and April 9 as compared with 1,342 men in all of last year.
This reflects the fact that there were only about 25,000 American troops in
Vietnam last year at this time, while there now are more than 240,000 there.
Use of more air and sea firepower would seem preferable to sending more U. S.
manpower to Vietnam. Let's try this before sending more of our boys into combat.
I feel use of more air and sea power could save thousands of American lives
and hasten the accomplishing of our objective in Vietnam--to stop Communist
aggression, persuade the enemy to agree to a negotiated settlement, and promote
an honorable and lasting peace.
Is there a shortage of certain kinds of bombs in Vietnam? The Pentagon has
acknowledged that our factories will not be turning out new 750-pound bombs until
July and that meantime we're resorting to such things as buying back 5,570
750-pounders we sold to a West German fertilizer firm which wanted the nitrate
from the explosives.
We find that the Pentagon sold these bombs to the West German firm for $1.10
apiece two years ago and now is buying them back for $21 apiece. That means the
German firm is making a gross profit of $102,124 on the deal--1,200 per centprofit.
If there is no shortage of 750-pound bombs, then I can't understand why the
Defense Department would be willing to buy back its own bombs. Let the Pentagon
explain that away.
I say such an incident substantiates my charge of mismanagement. I say it's
a glaring example of mismanagement. And I'm sure the American people will feel
the same way about it.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT, APRIL 19, 1966
CBS News Correspondent Peter Kalisher, quoting what he described as an
"unimpeachable" source, reported today from Saigon that "a dire lack of
ammunition and explosives" has forced a cutback in U. S. Air Force sorties in
South Vietnam from over 400 to less than 100 a day in the past week.
Yet the Defense Department keeps issuing denial after denial of any shortages
in Vietnam.
I challenge the Pentagon to level with the American people. I demand that
the American people be allowed to know just what is happening in Vietnam.
Kalisher states flatly that there is no bomb shortage in Vietnam but there
is a shortage of the things that make bombs go off--fuses, pins, and timing
devices. There is also a shortage of 20-milimeter cannon shells.
Why do we have to learn these things from "an unimpeachable source," obviously
an American Air Force officer who naturally prefers to remain unidentified?
It should not be left to an unidentified but obviously honest officer to
report that Air Force bombers have been taking off half-loaded in Vietnam since
the middle of April and that only emergency missions and those in direct support
of ground force operations are being flown.
Kalisher reports that the bomb parts shortage apparently is about to be met
through shipments now on the way. But he notes that the parts are not in Vietnam
now and describes the shortage as "foreseen but not avoided."
These are the hard facts about the conduct of the war in Vietnam. There is
no reason for any U. S. officer to give out a false report concerning bomb parts
shortages. It's time the Pentagon tore away the veil of secrecy.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT-APRIL 21, 1966
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN
A week ago, in reiterating that the Republican minority in the House had given
the President every penny he has asked for defense-purposes, I raised a question of
serious shortages and inadequate advance planning by the civilian managers in the
Penatagon which, according to widely publicized reports by reliable and patriotic
Americans close to the scene, have been and still are hampering thestepped-up level
of combat operations in Vietnam.
These reports, coincident with serious internal disturbances in that troubled
country, came as something of a surprise to me, to a great many members of the
Congress, of both parties, as well as to the millions of Americans we are here to
represent. We had been told in October 1963, by Secretary of Defense McNamara,
that most Americans would be out of South Vietnam by the end of 1965. We had been
assured, again by Mr. McNamara early last year that neither more combat troops nor
more money would be needed in South Vietnam. Late last year, the Defense Secretary
returned from a personal inspection of the situation there to say, "We have stopped
losing the war!" And we have been told ever since that the situation was improving
day by day.
So it produced something of a sonic shock wave when suddenly the front pages of
the newspapers and the radio and television newscasts were full of reports of
internal unrest, attacks on Americans, and curtailment of combat operations against
the Communist enemy. These were variously attributed to supply tieups, shortages
of essential equipment, and civil disturbances in South Vietnam. Evidence mounted,
and continues to mount, that the Pentagon planners were not adequately prepared to
cope with the kind of limited, non-nuclear type of military operation for which
they have supposedly been reorganizing since the end of the Eisenhower administra-
tion, with much fanfare about modern management methods.
When I raised the question of mismanagement, Mr. McNamara quickly--perhaps. too
quickly-sought to smother it by sheer weight of computer-like statistics, He
called a quickie press conference that afternoon and personally declassified large
areas of secret information about U. S. bomb loads and backlogs. This information
was presumably classified on the grounds of national security and potential value
to the enemy. It was not the first time he has removed the "secret" label when
criticism of the Pentagon came too close for comfort.
(MORE)
-2-
REP. FORD STATEMENT - APRIL 21, 1966
In the course of Mr. McNamara's news conference to discredit his critics--who
have never supposed or suggested that any of his mistakes were deliberate or
dishonorable--the Secretary found himself partially confirming our concern. He
admitted that the Air Force had to buy back 750-pound bombs which had originally
cost U. S. taxpayers $330 apiece, were sold as surplus to a West German fertilizer
firm two years ago for $1.70 apiece, and have now been recovered for $21 apiece.
If this is good management, I am mistaken about the meaning of the word. If there
was no bomb shortage, was this transaction really necessary?
Mr. McNamara also denied there is any shipping shortage affecting Vietnam. Yet
only last Monday there were reliable reports--one headlined "U. S. Again Short Of
Viet Ships" from the April 18 Journal of Commerce-that the government is trying to
get 20 or more additional vessels from private shipping companies. It is a known
fact that ships have been stacked up for weeks as far away as Manila waiting to
unload their Vietnam cargoes. Mr. McNamara cites figures on Post Exchange supplies
delivered to Saigon in answer to allegations that our airmen haven't enough bombs.
He says there is no ship shortage, only shortages of dock facilities. I am
not interested in playing word games, nor am I interested in playing politics with
this serious situation. I am only interested--and I think every member of the
House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, is also interested--in seeing that the
billions for defense we have unhesitatingly voted is well and wisely spent and that
every American sent 10,000 miles from home is given all the support and supplies he
needs to protect himself, defend all of us, and bring the war to a swift and
satisfactory end.
There has never been any doubt in my mind that every one of my colleagues in
the House and Senate, regardless of party, agrees completely on this point. I am
proud to see such distinguished Americans and distinguished Democrats as Senator
Stennis say, as he did on a national television network last Sunday, that his
Preparedness Subcommittee has found evidence of "mismanagement" in Pentagon planning
for the war. I am encouraged to hear that Mr. McNamara conceded before the
Fulbright committee that we have some "temporary dislocations of supplies" in South
Vietnam because that means that he is going to do something about it. I am informed
that he sent his chief of Air Force logistics to Saigon to investigate what he
calls the non-existent bomb shortages and to eliminate them. That's what we want.
But I am deeply concerned that Mr. McNamara, in his Senate testimony yesterday,
brushed off the concern of millions of patriotic Americans as "all this baloney."
I share this concern, and I shall continue to express it. I think such able members
of Congress as Senator Stennis, Chairman Garmatz of the House Merchant Marine
(MORE)
-3-
REP. FORD STATEMENT - APRIL 21, 1966
Committee, and Congressman Otis Pike of the House Armed Services Committee share
it. I know that many responsible newsmen here, covering the Pentagon and sharing
risks with our fighting men in Vietnam will continue to express their concern
because that is our obligation to the American people.
Now here are just a few of the reports that have come in to corroborate the
question I raised a week ago:
1. New York Times Correspondent Neil Sheehan, in a front page story from
Saigon yesterday, reported that since April 6 "the number of Air Force attack
sorties in South Vietnam has shrunk to about 43 per cent of its former level
from 185 daily sorties dropping about 1000 bombs on Communist targets to an
average of 83 sorties and 400 bombs. Rocket firings, according to this reliable
report, have fallen even more spectacularly from 2800 a week to 98. Mr. Sheehan
says further that our planes are being sent out against the enemy with light
loads--which is another way of saying more American manpower is being exposed to
combat risks with less firepower. The New York Times dispatch states that "Air
Force officers in Vietnam have repeatedly warned the Pentagon over the last four
months that munitions were not arriving fast enough to meet requirements" and so
far they are still inadequate. This has nothing to do with recent civil
disturbances at South Vietnamese ports nor with the internal distribution system
of our fine military field commanders under Gen. Westmoreland, according to
Mr. Sheehan's sources. This New York Times report was called to Mr. McNamara's
attention in the Senate hearings yesterday and he called it "baloney."
2. Earlier, CBS News Correspondent Peter Kalischer, quoting what he called
an "unimpeachable" source, reported from Saigon that "a dire lack of ammunition
and explosives" has forced a cutback in U. S. Air Force sorties from over 400
to less than 100 per day. Kalischer said the critical shortage was not in bombs
but in fuses and other key parts that make bombs usable. He also reported a
shortage of 20-millimeter cannon shells and planes taking off half-loaded.
"Only emergency missions and those in direct support of ground forces operations
are being flown," CBS News said. This and other careful reports from trained
war correspondents on the scene also, apparently, come under Mr. McNamara's
category of "all this baloney."
3. The long-range management of our overall defense effort can be faulted
for its failure to adequately anticipate the needs of the American Merchant
Marine, a subject which we discussed at some length yesterday at the House
Republican Policy Committee press conference. As recently as the start of this
year, Mr. McNamara testified that our merchant fleet was adequate for our defense
needs and reaffirmed his earlier preference for airlift. Yet this week the
administration is reportedly trying to scrape up 20 or more additional U. S.
flag carriers, and the current budget includes funds for replacement of only
9 to 13 of the World War II merchant ships that form the bulk of our dwindling
merchant marine--now fallen to about 1000 vessels, mostly old, while the Soviet
Union has 1500, mostly new, and 673 more building or on order. In this connection,
I note that Mr. McNamara yesterday brushed off questions by the distinguished
senator from Kansas, Senator Carlson, about the resale of surplus items by NATO
nations. He said it was all "World War II equipment junk." It's a sad fact
this is true of much of the Merchant Marine that he considers perfectly adequate.
But our alarm over shipping is more "baloney."
4. The authoritative magazine, Aviation Week, in a series of articles by a
Marine Corps Reserve pilot who spent two norths in Vietnam reports in technical
detail on a wide range of ordnance and ammunition shortages, deficiencies and
deterioration. The publication, Aviation Daily, in its April 19 issue stramed
up the misstatements Mr. McNamara has made in recent weeks and concluded that
"he has managed to almost meet himself coming back on some of the stories he
has presented to the public."
Mr. McNamara has a great gift for figures. He is extremely agile in the use
of words. As I said previously, I am not the least concerned with playing word
games. I have not myself used the word "baloney" to characterize disagreements
among equally patriotic Americans. We in the minority in this Congress cannot
(MC RS)
-4-
REP. FORD STATEMENT - APRIL 21, 1966
selectively declassify information which has been stamped "Secret" in order to
substantiate the serious questions raised about the safety and support of our
fighting men in Vietnam and the future security of our country.
We must therefore depend in large measure on the kind of responsible,
independent reporters I have cited for firsthand information on the situation in
Vietnam. I for one do not regard them as "baloney." Whether you call these
examples mistakes of judgment, mismanagement, poor planning, faulty foresight,
bad bungling or just plain goofs, I don care. Whether they are "alarming" or
"distressing" or "shocking" or whatever word you prefer--they are intolerable as
long as they endanger any American soldier, airman, sailor, or marine. They are
intolcrable as long as we, by asking questions of the Pentagon and persisting
after answers, can compel or speed up remedial action. This is the joint duty
of the responsible press and the responsible representatives of the people. I
intend and hope thev intend to continue this duty. It is not "baloney."
# # #
COLUMN FOR 5TH DISTRICT WEEKLIES, WRITTEN MAY 20, 1966
BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
WASHINGTON--My mail indicates that many people in the Fifth Congressional
District are losing patience with the Vietnam War because the South Vietnamese
have been fighting among themselves for weeks.
I cannot help but feel there is a moral question involved in the Vietnam War--
one which must be answered. That question is: How much longer will Americans be
willing to fight in Vietnam in the cause of freedom if the people whose freedom
the United States is protecting fight among themselves?
We made a commitment to help a legitimate government in Saigon thwart
Communist aggression.
The government we now have in Saigon is not a legitimate government. It is
a military junta, and Premier Ky obviously intends to remain in power through use
of force for at least a year. He has frankly said so.
Our commitment to the South Vietnamese was to help them turn back the
Communist aggressor.
Instead, South Vietnamese troops have been so busy fighting each other that
for the third week in this war American casualties are greater than those of the
South Vietnamese. This is true despite the fact that the South Vietnamese have
nearly three times as many troops on the ground as we have.
President Johnson must bear at least some of the responsibility for the mess
that has developed in Vietnam's internal affairs at the same time that our men
are performing so brilliantly in combat.
Events in Vietnam may make our sacrifices there meaningless. What began as
the fulfilling of an international commitment may become a great American tragedy.
***
The way prices have been rising this year, it's as though the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration has imposed a 4 per cent income tax increase without your knowing it.
Another way to look at it is that it now costs you $11.25 to buy the same
basket of goods and services you could get for $10 during the 1957-59 period when
President Eisenhower was in the White House.
That's the meaning of the increases in consumer prices that have been reported
by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics since the beginning of this year. The
government's own figures tell us that inflation is here. But the Administration
keeps on spending money as though it was going out of style, and that's the major
cause of inflation.
# # #
Re: AIR Y SEA POWER
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT
JUNE 29, 1966
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
For many, many months the National Republican Coordinating Committee of which
I am a member has advocated more effective use of conventional U.S. air and sea
power in Vietnam in the firm belief this would shorten the Vietnam War.
Finally the President has seen fit to order air strikes against oil supply
depots near Hanoi and Haiphong. This raises the question.. Why were these raids not
carried out much earlier in the war?
Defense Secretary McNamara failed to answer this question satisfactorily at his
news conference this morning. Yet McNamara himself said the raids on the oil depots
will make it "far more difficult and far more costly for the North to continue the
infiltration" of men and material which is the basis for continued fighting in the
South.
The American people should demand to know of the Johnson opy Administration why the
attacks on the petroleum depots were not made months ago. American casualties during
this period have increased sharply.
The people also should ask the Administration why it continues to allow the
shipping of military supplies into North Vietnam through the port of Haiphong.
The National Republican Coordinating Committee has backed basic Administration
policy in Vietnam--that of helping South Vietnam thwart Communist aggression and
terror.
But as long ago as last December 13 the GOP Coordinating Committee urged full
use of conventional U.S. air and sea power against significant military targets in
North Vietnam and recommended a Kennedy-type quarantine of Haiphong.
The Republican Coordinating Committee made these recommendations to minimize
American and South Vietnamese casualties, to shorten the war, and to achieve a
secure peace in Vietnem. The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has been tardy in
adopting these obviously sound military tactics.
###
RARY
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Gerald R. Ford
of Illinois
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
Thomas H. Kuchel
Leslie C. Arends
of California
of Illinois
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
Melvin R. Laird
of Iowa
of Wisconsin
Leverett Saltonstall
Press Release
of Massachusetts
John J. Rhodes
of Arizona
Thruston B. Morton
of Kentucky
H. Allen Smith
of California
Issued following a
Leadership Meeting
Bob Wilson
PRESIDING:
of California
The National Chairman
Charles E. Goodell
August 25, 1966
Ray C. Bliss
of New York
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Never before in American history has this nation been involved
in a war more difficult, more unpopular and so little understood.
Never before has any Administration been so frustrated in its foreign
policy or, as it now appears, so uncertain as to the next step to be
taken.
As you know, a proposal has been made, initially by the Foreign
Minister of Thailand, recommending the convening of an all-Asian
Conference to work toward a just and peaceful settlement of the war
in Viet Nam.
Because the securing of a just and honorable peace 12 the clear
desire of every loyal American, we believe that the proposal of an
all-Asian Peace Conference deserves prompt and thorough consideration.
To those who remind us needlessly that neither Communist China nor
Communist North Viet Nam would attend such a Conference, we reply that
neither would the United States be'a participant, but we endorse
unhesitatingly such a peace-seeking effort by all other Asian nations.
That Asian Communists disapprove or would oppose such a Conference
should not surprise nor discourage us nor should it impede such an
endeavor by men of good-will elsewhere in Asia.
To those who recommend a reconvening of he Geneva Conference,
we must insist that such an approach is no longer viable nor valid,
because the approach must come from the Asian nations themselves.
A peaceful and honorable settlement of the conflict in Viet Nam
cannot now be originated, formulated or influenced by non-Asian
interests. Only under Asian skies, under Asian auspicies, under
Asian responsibility and guidance can such a move now be made with
genuine hope of success.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
GERALD
LIBRARY
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
- 2 -
The Republican Leadership emphasizes again its wholehearted
support of our armed forces in Southeast Asia. We reaffirm our
determination that Communist aggression in South Viet Nam shall be
overcome and that peace with freedom shall be re-established in that
troubled land.
Our encouragement and endorsement of the proposal of an all-Asian
Peace Conference represents, in one respect, a new and important
Republican foreign policy position. It emphasizes once more, however,
our determination that the Republican Party shall continue strongly
to maintain its historic and cherished position as the party of peace.
RE: V-N ELECTION
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, SEPT. 12, 1966
The large turnout of voters in Vietnam's election of a constitutional
assembly lays the first stone in building a foundation for representative
democracy in that war-torn land. Americans should be most gratified.
We may now expect that next year there will be elections in Vietnam to
establish a representative government to run the country in place of the military
junta which now controls it. This would be a most healthy development. It would
serve to undercut the standing of the Vietcong with the people and likely would
promote genuine support for the central government.
Meantime the writing of a constitution for Vietnam is a matter of
greatest importance. Some of the proposals being considered include land reform
aimed at granting all peasants the land they are presently working, a section
restoring to villages the self-governing power which provincial chiefs have taken
from them, and a provision giving the to-be-elected parliament the right to
investigate activities of the executive branch of government.
The activities of the Vietnam constitutional assembly over the next six
months should be quite constructive. If performance bears out promise, the
people of Vietnam will be the gainers and the cause of world freedom will advance.
# # #
GERALD LIBRARY
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, SEPT. 12, 1966
The large turnout of voters in Vietnam's election of a constitutional
assembly lays the first stone in building a foundation for representative
democracy in that war-torn land. Americans should be most gratified.
We may now expect that next year there will be elections in Vietnam to
establish a representative government to run the country in place of the military
junta which now controls it. This would be a most healthy development. It would
serve to undercut the standing of the Vietcong with the people and likely would
promote genuine support for the central government.
Meantime the writing of a new constitution for Vietnam is a matter of
greatest importance. Some of the proposals being considered include land reform
aimed at granting all peasants the land they are presently working, a section
restoring to villages the self-governing power which provincial chiefs have taken
from them, and a provision giving the to-be-elected parliament the right to
investigate activities of the executive branch of government.
The activities of the Vietnam constitutional assembly over the next six
months should be quite constructive. If performance bears out promise, the
people of Vietnam will be the gainers and the cause of world freedom will advance.
# # #
Re. "White Paper V-N
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE GERALD R. FORD (R-Mich.), MINORITY LEADER,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, September 20, 1966.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The report of the House Republican Planning and Research Committee, "The
United States and the War in Vietnam," is being released at a time when this
var is becoming as big for the United States as the Korean War ever was.
This report is a factual and objective recital of the relationship of
our nation with Vietnam since 1950.
The facts which it contains raise questions which are on the minds of
the public. Even as staunch a Democrat as Richard N. Goodwin foreign policy
adviser to both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, recognized public concern
above the aspects of Vietuamese policy criticized in this document when he said,
... here has never been such attense and widespread deception and confusion
that which surrounds this war."
What Mr. Goodvin calls deception and confusion" in relation to Vietnam
is an issue of the 1966 campaign.
At the mid-term election, the voters will decide whether they want the
Congress to exercise its responsibilities in the field of foreign policy more
vigorously or want the Congress to be a docile instrument of the President --
weithe effectively questioning, nor investigating, nor checking and restrain-
in the executive ranch.
The decision of the voters on these matters will have an important effect
#
GERALD LIDRARY
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 28, 1966
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
I hope the October meeting between President Johnson and a few Asian
leaders improves prospects for peace in Vietnam, but I am inclined to doubt it.
There is far more reason to believe that an all-Asian peace conference in which
no western power would participate--including the United States--would have a
far better chance to succeed.
The meeting as now planned has definite political overtones. It was
announced by Philippine President Marcos. Yet it was Marcos who on September 21
urged an all-Asian peace conference in an appearance before the General Assembly
of the United Nations. The Marcos peace proposal was focused on an all-Asian
Peace Conference, with the Soviet Union to act as chief mediator in arranging
U.S. - North Vietnamese peace talks. Now President Marcos has announced a
U.S. - Asian Conference. It would be interesting, indeed, to learn the basis
for this change in Mr. Marcos' position.
I had hoped Mr. Johnson would not mix domestic politics and honest endeavors
for peace in Vietnam.
But I also expected that the President would make some gesture aimed at
taking the heat off the Democrats on the Vietnam issue just prior to the Nov. 8
election.
It is ironic that the State Department spoke favorably of the all-Asian
Peace Conference as espoused by Republican leaders but said it could not push
the idea because this might kill it. The current move by Mr. Johnson undercuts
the Republican peace proposal.
Since I do not believe the Manila meeting will lay the groundwork for
peace talks with North Vietnam, I suggest the President use that opportunity
to ease the U.S. burden in Vietnam. President Johnson might well use the
occasion to persuade more of our Asian allies to increase their troop commitments
in Vietnam so we will not be carrying so disproportionate a military load.
###
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 3, 1966
Statement adopted by the Republican Coordinating Committee, meeting
October 3, 1966:
VIETNAM AND THE MANILA CONFERENCE
President Johnson will meet with some of our Asian friends late this
month at Manila and he will carry with him the good wishes of every American.
The Republican Coordinating Committee makes no issue of the fact that this
conference could as well have been held six months or a year ago. As we
pledged in our statement of December 13, 1965, we will wholeheartedly and
unanimously support every effort to defeat Communist aggression and to
achieve an honorable peace menever or wherever made
We earnestly hope the conference will result in practicable steps toward
achieving such a peace. Meanwhile we trust that the conference will produce
a significant increase in military, economic and political support from our
allies.
We insist that every practicable step toward winning the war be taken
in support of the thousands of Americans now engaged in deadly combat. Their
sacrifices must not be in vain.
-30-
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
Press Release
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
Milton R. Young
of North Dakota
offece
H. Allen Smith
of California
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray CSTA/TEMENT BY THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
FOR RELEASE. Cramer
Florida
January 19, 1968
The Republican Leadership of the House and Senate calls upon the
President to make known to the American people the background and poli-
tical character of British writer and cameraman Felix Greene, producer
of a film entitled "North Vietnam -- A Personal Report."
Greene's film, which is called a viewing must by the American
Communist Party's offical newspaper "The Worker," will be shown on
Jan. 22 by the National Educational Television network.
In order that the American people may properly judge the motiva-
tion behind the Greene film and the message it is intended to convey,
it is essential that they have insight into the purposes of the
producer. The Executive Branch of our government has full and reliable
information about the background of Felix Greene. It is for this
reason the Republican Leadership of the Congress demands that the
White House publicly disclose relevant information it has on the
producer of the film. The American public has the right to know.
In our view, Greene clearly is a propogandist for the Communist
cause who seeks to portray the United States as the aggressor in the
Vietnam War. He also hopes to convince the American people that the
North Vietnamese are a gallant little people who are being inhumanly
butchered by the United States.
Radio Hanoi describes Greene's movie as "the first full-length
film on the U.S. imperialists' crimes in their air raids against the
DRV (Democratic Republic of Vietnam)."
"The Worker" comments: "Above all you will admire the spirit of
liberty in that brave little country (North Vietnam)." "You must see
this film," The Worker continues. "You will then realize, as perhaps
never before, how foolish is President Johnson's claim that the demon-
strations in this country prolong the Vietnamese resistence. The fact
is the opposite. It is the heroic resistance by (North )Vietnam that is
increasing the anti demonst the world."
Room S-124 U.S.
Consultant to the Leadership- John B. Fisher
The Republican Leadership believes that it is our duty to demand
LIBRARY
that our government make known the "credentials", motives and purposes
of the producer.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
January 23, 1968
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
The United States Government should demand that North Korea release the
U.S. Navy intelligence ship, the Pueblo, forthwith. If the vessel was cruising
in international waters, as was apparently the case, there is no justification
whatever for the action taken by the North Koreans.
# # #
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
Press Release
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray STATEMENT BY THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
FOR RELEASE.A Cramer
Florida
January 19, 1968
The Republican Leadership of the House and Senate calls upon the
President to make known to the American people the background and poli-
tical character of British writer and cameraman Felix Greene, producer
of a film entitled "North Vietnam -- A Personal Report."
Greene's film, which is called a viewing must by the American
Communist Party's offical newspaper "The Worker," will be shown on
Jan. 22 by the National Educational Television network.
In order that the American people may properly judge the motiva-
tion behind the Greene film and the message it is intended to convey,
it is essential that they have insight into the purposes of the
producer. The Executive Branch of our government has full and reliable
information about the background of Felix Greene. It is for this
reason the Republican Leadership of the Congress demands that the
White House publicly disclose relevant information it has on the
producer of the film. The American public has the right to know.
In our view, Greene clearly is a propogandist for the Communist
cause who seeks to portray the United States as the aggressor in the
Vietnam War. He also hopes to convince the American people that the
North Vietnamese are a gallant little people who are being inhumanly
butchered by the United States.
Radio Hanoi describes Greene's movie as "the first full-length
film on the U.S. imperialists' crimes in their air raids against the
DRV (Democratic Republic of Vietnam)."
"The Worker" comments: "Above all you will admire the spirit of
liberty in that brave little country (North Vietnam). "You must see
this film," The Worker continues. "You will then realize, as perhaps
never before, how foolish 1s President Johnson's claim that the demon-
strations in this country prolong the Vietnamese resistence. The fact
is the opposite. It is the heroic resistance by (North Vietnam that is
increasing the anti- Room demonst S-124 U.S. ations Capitol (202) through 225 3700 the world."
Consultant to the Leadership- John B. Fisher
The Republican Leadership believes that it is our duty to demand
that our government make known the "credentials", motives and purposes
of the producer.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
January 23, 1968
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
The United States Government should demand that North Korea release the
U.S. Navy intelligence ship, the Pueblo, forthwith. If the vessel was cruising
in international waters, as was apparently the case, there is no justification
whatever for the action taken by the North Koreans.
###
Copy
the
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
April 1, 1968
All of the excitement generated by President Johnson's decision not t 0 seek
re-election has obscured the significance of his statements regarding Vietnam.
It seems clear to me that the President has made a major policy decision of
great importance to the American people and to the world--namely, that it does not
make sense for the United States to greatly increase its troop commitment in Viet-
nam. I applaud that decision. I think it is sound. I think it reflects a
realization by the President that any future increases in allied troop strength in
Vietnam should come from South Vietnamese manpower. I endorse that view.
I join the President in the hope that we can move toward an early and honorable
peace in Vietnam. If, indeed, his order to halt the bombing of the North will not
endanger our troops in the South and will lead to productive peace talks, then it is
a good decision. However, it must be remembered that the United States suspended
its bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong for 17 days without announcement prior to the
Communist Tet offensive of Jan. 31. Hanoi's answer was a savage attack on some 30
South Vietnamese cities. The difference now is that the President's announcement
has put Hanoi on center stage in the arena of world opinion.
Regrettably, if peace talks begin now, the United States and South Vietnam will
be approaching the bargaining table at a time when most of South Vietnam's country-
side is in Communist hands as a result of the Tet offensive.
I hope all Americans unite behind the President in his moves toward peace in
Vietnam. But it is difficult to see how the President's decision not to seek re-
election will dissolve the basic differences between the President's supporters and
those individuals backing Sens. Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy.
It now can be expected that Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey will contend with
Kennedy and McCarthy for the Democratic presidential nomination. There are those who
will recall that when Sen. Kennedy first proposed a coalition government for South
Vietnam with the Communists being given a share of the power, Humphrey said this was
like putting the fox in the coop with the chickens.
So the scene has changed, but then again it has not changed. Unless the
President and Vice-President Humphrey now favor a Kennedy-McCarthy type solution in
Vietnam, the division within the Democratic Party remains.
# # #
Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
May 3, 1968
Hanoi-Paris Comment
I am delighted that initial Vietnam peace talks now can get under way.
Paris is a good site from the standpoint that conditions will be favorable for
complete press coverage. It is important that the American people be kept
informed as to the progress--or lack of it--made during the talks. I hope
that later we can move quickly from preliminary talks into genuine peace
negotiations.
***
Taxes and Spending
Republicans are dismayed that the President is apparently unwilling to
agree to responsible compromise on spending and taxes. His adamant attitude
is hardly the way to meet the fiscal crisis which confronts the Nation. There
must be a solution that will be joined in by members of both parties who realize
the gravity of the situation.
# # #