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
4526211
label
Annual Convention of the United Services Life Agency, Washington, DC, July 23, 1969
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526211
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Annual Convention of the United Services Life Agency, Washington, DC, July 23, 1969
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Spain
Antimissile missiles
International relations
Military bases
United States-Soviet relations
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526211
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1969-07-31
month
7
year
1969
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1969-07-01
month
7
year
1969
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
35787053fdceb80a
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D27, folder "Annual Convention of the United
Services Life Agency, Washington, DC, July 23, 1969" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D27 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
AN A DDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
BEFORE THE ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE UNITED SERVICES LIFE AGENCY, JULY 23, 1969,
THE SHOREHAM HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY EXPECTED AT 9 A.M. WEDNESDAY
amenca america at Pist
It is a great pleasure to be with you this morning. I feel right at home,
because there is a certain kinship between insurance agents and politicians.
We're all salesmen.
I have a friend who is neither XMXXM a politician nor an insurance agent and
recently
yet I would classify him as a super-salesman. He/convinced his wife she was too
fat to wear anx expensive dress she had her eye on.
Antother friend of mine--and this fellow mxis an insurance sxinsman agent--had
the sale of a new life insurance policy all wrapped up and was just completing the
application. "Now, K let's see," he said to his client, "This is to be monthly payments
on a straight life. That's what # you wanted, isn't it?" Wallx "Well," the customer
replied slowly, "I would like to fool around a little on Saturday nights."
You know, President Nixon is quite a salesman, too. He recently invited 26
when
mw2metamtxRepublican congre ssmen to breakfast and he finished with them 18 nikx
of the 26 voted for extension of the surtax.
I have nothing to sell here this morning, but I would like to make a case-the
case for a strong Americam--because I most fervently believe that 11xxxx only a SEEEMX
strong America can prevent World War Xxx III.
The tragic ME war in Vietnam has precipitated a crisis of decision in this
country. The choice we must make, the overriding decision that faces us, is whether
to abandon the role of world leadership we reluctantly accepted after
World War 2.
Let noone misinterpret what I am about to say. I hold no brief for those who
would argue that presidential actions and policies in the field of foreign affairs
should not be subject to scrutiny by the Congress. On the contrary, I believe the
Congress bears a grave ruspersibilityzferx joint responsibility for the foreign
policy of the United States.
I recall that the late great Sen. Arthur Vanderberg once If Michigan made this sage comment
about congressional relations ****** with the White House in the
handling of foreign affairs: "We want to be in on the takeoffs, not just the crash
landings."
In the final analysis, however, I don't believe that any thinking American
and should be
would disagree that the President is/the architect of United States foreign policy.
in
The Congre SSRIX might succeed/shaping that policy to some degree, but it is the
LIBRARY
President who sits at the potter's wheel 24 hours a day and makes
-2-
decisions which affect the course of world history.
At present there is a guatx great debate going on in the United States Senate.
It goes far beyond the question ofwine whether to deploy the Safeguard missile
defense system.
The true issue is whether the Senate or the President is to lay out the
blueprint for future American foreign policy.
Due
one
The underlying ISSUE to the heart of wwixfature our
future foreign policy: Shall the United States make concessions to the Soviet Union
without any return on the investment? Shall there be NON a quid where there is no
quo? If we NEXEXX err, shall we err on the side of strength or wakana weakness?
hall we foreclose on the number of options open to our President in
demaling with a dangerous adversary?
These are basic questions. There also are other key questions that have
been thrown into sharp focus by the tragedy of Vietnam.
Thex
How great a commitment should must the United States make in seeking to block
We
Communist expansionism? Cortainly and that Come areas
are less important to our national interest than others
conditions vary from one area to another. Some might be regarded as poor risks.
a
our
One very fundamental consideration is whether the regime which seeks NNN help
at least
is a viable ramgovernment or/holds promise of becoming so--or whether our support
represents a knee-jerk response in
a
doubtful if not hopeless cause.
We are committed throughout the world. We are the hope of free peoples
everywhere. But we must not rush in where only fools would venture.
We are the guardian of liberty **** throughout the world, But we need not
race madly off to quell every breach of the peace, and industrial indeed we must not.
The free world has no right to expect that we will
respond to every "riot ball."
them
What is necessary is that We see the world as it is and not as we would wish
direct
it to beg and that our/involvement be carried out on a selective basis.
conergies
should
of
war
the
of
We must regularly / review all of our foreign
commitments and in the Mode light of that review periodically examine our defense
They
needs.
We must be ever vigilant. We must be ever strong.
The Atlantic and with Pacific are no longer our fingst lines of defense.
The
world,
a the forces for evil that it holds,
new
our orstep
-3-
President Nixon has been ******* engaged in making
world
a
reassessment
and review since taking office last Jan. 20.
One result is that he has ordered the withdrawal of 14,900 military personnel
from U.S. bases overseas and has reduced federal civilian employes overseas by 5,100.
I applauded that order. It is indicative of the careful appraisal President Nixon
has given to the need for the numbers U.S. forces and personnel in
is
foreign lands.
There was some speculationmarix during this presidemtial review
of our overseas bases and personnel that in we would abandon our bases in Spain.
But the President has decided these bases are vital to American security, particularyly
in view of the Russian expansionist moves in the Mediterranean and the Mideast.
My information is that the base at Tweregenzx Torrejon is highly important to
the Air Force. It pumps more jet fuel X than any basazinxEaropax other base in
Europe. Its troposphere communications center is essential to Sixth Fleet operations
and handles traffic from all over southern Europe, the Manhax Mediterranean and
the Middle East.
6bviously, our major military decisions are closely intertwinded XMX with
our basic foreign policy.
What we in effect are saying to ourselves when we make
certainx weapons decisions is that this is what we need to carry out our foreign
palsa policy commitments, or this is vital to our own domestic
defense and the credibility of our nuclear deterrent.
It is upon that basis that President Nixon has recommended initial deployment
of the Safeguard ballistic missile system at two strategic air bases--Malmstrom in
Momtana and Grand Forks in North Dakota.
I strongly support the President's proposal. The President has studied all the
alternatives and has made a major policy decision. I believe than that when the
nationalsecurity is at stake it is better to risk some middlys additional dollars than
to take a gamble which the lives of our citizens
and
immardiesx
jeopardizes as We move into the Seventies.
You'we heard the expression, "looking down the throat of a cannon." We are
staring at the warheads of Soviet Intercontinental% ballistic missiles every minute
of every hour, every hour of every day, and every day of every year.
We can't make the Soviet threat go away simply by saying everything is A-O.K.
at the k Kremlin. Wishing won't make it SO.
But the men in the Kremlin respect power-whether it is offensive orxinfx
defensive power.
LIBRARY
I favor deployment of the Safeguard missile defense system because I believe
it is X the best insurance for peace that money can buy today.
The actual amount at issue in the military procurement bill being considered
by the Senate is $345.5 million in items for the Safeguard
sites in North Dakota and Montana. And the Safeguard system will be under annual
reviewxx thereafter, both in terms of need and cost.
If we can put a man on the moon--and we have-we can make the Safeguard missile
defenase system work--and we will.
The Safeguard missile defense system a threat to
peace?
Ridia
iulous.
Safeguard a threat to success of the anticipated arms control talks with the Russians?
Nonsense.
As for the arms control talks with the Soviet Union, every American hopes
they
produce an enforceable agreement which will at least reduce the pace of the
armsr race. But the talks may drag on for years--and they may fail.
Let us not trot off into a foolish state of euphoria. Remember the
spirit of Glassboro and how it exploded into nothingness? Has any American forgotten
the swift surprise invasion of Czechoslovakia last August 20 by Warsaw Pact powers
led by the Soviet Union? Uncomfortably successful, wasn't it?
We were shocked, and we should have been. And we should not now start dreaming
about instantt success in arms control talks with the Russians. They don't give
anything away. If there is an agremement, it will be because they feel they
have something to E gain by it.
eturning to the ABM, I think it is highly significant that former Secretary
of State Dean Acheson believes a congressional go-aheadmm on
deploying the Safeguard ABM system would be our ace in thexhmlazx arms control talks
with
the
Russians.
I
have
made the very same point
in my arguments
in favor the of the Safeguard system but not as well.
Letus, above all realistic
Let us
(
be realistic $ this hour when some Americans would have us
make peace in Vietnam on the enemy's terms. Let us be completely aware that if the
Soviet Union would stop supply ing the enemy with arms and would stop fueling
the enemy in the tnam War, the war would end.
In any case, it is impossible to win a limited war--and that has been the tragedy
of
Vietnam. It was in full recognition of this
that President Nixon opened the door to pe ace Caregotmated in Vietnam with his June 8 address to
wide
the Nation. The inittal withdrawal of 25,000 U.S. combat troops from Vietnam is the
beginning of Mrs American disengagement in Vie tnam.
I support the President's
initiatives for peace in Vietnam. I dom not believe he should be hurried. I dom
Americans
not believe that those who are seeking maxpi precipitous,
massive, unilateral withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam are being helpful.
-5-
There will be more U.S. troop withdrawals. There will be
a gradual de-Americanization of the war, But there will be no cut-and-run operation
in
Vietnam.
We
will
not
abandon
thogoald
national
self-determination
and hand the enemy the prize they could not win on the battlefield.
I believe we will be able to disengage ourselves from Vietnam without
sacrificing the sole objective toward which we point--national self-determination
for the South Vietnamese people.
This
is
a
clear
and
valid
goal.
no
It is a goal I believe we will achieve.
I can understand those Americans who say we should have gone into Vietnam to
win or we should not have gone in at all. I cannot understand those who believe that
they are performing a public service by reading the names of America's Vietnam war
dead on the steps of the United States Capitol or on the Pentagon generably g rounds.
In my view what they are doing is cruel and to no purpose. They are squeezing the
hearts of American parents whose sons have died in Vietnam,
making more grievous the hurt these parents have already suffered.
They are among those WINO
the enemy
to believe they needed only sit back and wait for a complete, unilateral American
pullout
from Vie tnam. They even minimize the bloodbath that would inevitably
ensure.
South Vietnam, with the backing of our
Government,
has
challenged
North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front to end the
war
through jointly controlled and internationally supervised elections. What could be
more fair?
Yet those Americans who parrot the VietCong line silently applaud the enemy's
rejection of the offer. They smile and say Hanoi will never agree to an
election in which the Thieu-Ky Government has a role. They
the
as though
Ne
it is news-that the Hanoi Government wants the Nixon Administration to take a hard
setting up
coalition
look at
a provisional government in Saigon.
The
want peace at any price,
as
as
interlopers in Vietnam... "the only foreigners there."
What would they are proposing is virtual surrender in Vietnam. And what they are
proposing
inevitably lead to further aggression
and
additional encroachment in Asia by Communist forces there.
precipitous
U.S. pullout from Vietnam would deal a staggering blow to
U.S. prestige and credibility throughout the world.
As the London Economist recently declared: "It is an illusion to imagine
that the United States canagree to a compromise peace that would amount to a sell-out
and retain any credibility in Asia, Nor in Asia alone; for in this shrunken world,
credibility is indivisible."
Those
who
pre SS for a précipitous unilateral withdrawal of U.S.
by
forces from Vietnam are doing a disservice to their country
making
the
President's task more difficult. I believe they are prolonging
the war,
however sincere they may be.
There is only one way to peacent in today's world, and that is through
strengths and through devotion to principles of international justice.
It
is
significant, I believe, that the many of the same Americans
who preach coalition government as a solution in Vietnam are also urging sharp
cutbacks in U.S. military strength.
I do not question their motives, but I do question
their judgment.
They cite the late President Eisenhower's MMXX warning about "unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." But t hey
fail to quote this most telling statement in Ike's farewell address upon leaving the
White House:
"A visal element inknepingx in keeping the peace is our military establishment.
Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may
be tempted to risk his own destruction."
The Atlantic and the Pacific no longer are our fixex first lines of defense.
The world, with all of its forces for agtevil, now sits on our doorstep.
There is no defense for Ancie America except in its Armed Forces and its weaponry,
at the ready and ever-strong in an attempt to dissuade that potential
aggressor from springing to the attack.
Americans accomplished miracles in with our entry into World War 2 II. We
converted industrial plants into a
great war machine in an amazingly short time. But we no longer have
******* timexxwamm on our sixexx side.
As President Eiskenhower said in his farewell speech: "Now E we can * no longer
risk emergency impreistationxaf improvisation of nationaldefense; we have been compelled
to create a permanent armaments indiustry of *vast EEF proportions."
This is the world as it is, and we have to live in it. Let us accept it and XEX
shrink
do what we must do to make America secure. Let us not from the role of world
leadership that America must assume if there is to be order in the world and peace
for free men. Thank you.