Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
From Buchanan to Kemp RE: Briefing Memo for use in Facing McCloskey regarding Vietnam. 22 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/29/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146543
label
WHSF: Contested, 48-35
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146543
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 48-35
description
This file contains:
From Buchanan to Kemp RE: Briefing Memo for use in Facing McCloskey regarding Vietnam. 22 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/29/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146543
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a7dbb093bb4c3c94
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
48
35
6/29/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Buchanan to Kemp RE: Briefing
Memo for use in Facing McCloskey
regarding Vietnam. 22 pgs.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015
Page 1 of 1
them
DETERMINED TO BE AN
BRIEFING MEMORANDUM
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
By
NARS, Date
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM TO JACK KEMP
FROM: Pat Buchanan
June 29, 1971
Having witnessed your appearance with McCloskey on the
Cavett show -- where the host was sycophantic in his
introduction of your opponent -- the following observations
I think are in order.
First, suggest strongly that there be less agreement
with McCloskey, and more probing, challenging of his posi-
tions, with questions thrown back at him. There needs to
be more of an adversary proceeding -- gentlemanly conten-
tiousness.
Secondly, suggest making the thrusts shorter and
sharper -- and force him to respond. Example:
# #
Now, Pete, you just accused the United States of waging
war against the people of Laos, against the people of
Cambodia, against the people of Vietnam. Now, that's false,
Pete and you know it. Both the legitimate government and
the people of Cambodia are fighting for their lives against
external North Vietnamese aggression -- and they have
welcomed American assistance. In fact they have asked for
more. The government of Laos fully approves of what the
United States is doing in that country; they are asking for
our assistance -- because they know that the one existing
threat to their national independence and their freedom
2
does not come from the Americans ten thousand miles away --
it comes from the North Vietnamese, their historic enemies,
who have thousands of ground troops occupying their country
and attempting to overthrow their government.
The truth is peace that everyone in Southeast Asia
wants peace -- except the North Vietnamese. Every nation
in Southeast Asia is fighting to defend its homeland --
except the North Vietnamese.
The Laotian Government has asked for American military
assistance; the Cambodian Government wants American military
assistance; the South Vietnamese Government has asked for
American assistance - that is why it is being given. No
one, Pete, has asked for North Vietnamese troops to come
into their country --- and because they are there, on wars
of aggression -- that is why the fighting continues in
Southeast Asia.
American pilots are not fighting for conquest -- Pete --
they're fighting to prevent it -- and you know it.
# #
The Americans are trying to "save face."
We're not trying to "save face," Pete; we're trying
to do what we did in Korea where you fought -- save freedom
from Asian communist aggression.
# #
3
The soldiers on the other side are fighting with more courage
and capacity than the South Vietnamese.
Just a minute, Pete. You and I know they have found Viet
Cong boys of fifteen chained to their machine guns. Some of
those tanks that went into battle in Laos for the enemy were
sealed -- from the outside. North Vietnamese troops are given
rice wine to get drunk before battles.
Sure, they have fought with courage. But the South Viet-
namese have fought with great courage as well. You seem to
forget that for every American killed in action -- three South
Vietnamese have died. You forget that they have been fighting
and dying for ten years. That is a terrible injustice to say,
after all their suffering, they don't care about freedom. Brown
people care about freedom just as much as white people.
And we don't judge the merit of a cause on whether it produces
better soldiers. The Germans were the best soldiers in Europe,
the Japanese soldiers were courageous and brave -- so were the
North Koreans.
But the quality of the German, Japanese and North Korean
soldier does not make fascism right. It does not make Japanese
Imperialism right. It does not make Asian communism right.
As for the South Vietnamese troops - - they are being called
cowardly by the same kind of people who used to say that black
4
Americans didn't make good soldiers, that South Koreans could
never be taught to fight -- we now find that American blacks
are among the best soldiers in Vietnam; and that the South
Koreans have become among the best soldiers in Asia -- and the
South Vietnamese are becoming fine soldiers in their own right.
That is why the military situation today -- with 250,000 Americans
in Vietnam is even better than it was three years ago -- when
five hundred and fifty thousand Americans were in Vietnam. Your
slurs about the South Vietnamese, Pete, are unjust and unfair
to those people, and their army.
#
#
They have destroyed some 307 villages in I Corps area --
this is the sort of thing for which General Jodl was hung, after
he did this to Norway.
Pete, for you to compare the conduct of American Army in
Vietnam with that of Nazi General Staff is really a moral outrage,
an unpardonable slander. I Corps is not some remote area of the
South Vietnam. It is where the DMZ is located; it is the home of
A Shau Valley, the main invasion route. It contains Khe Sanh and
the jump-off point into Laos; it is at the outlet of the Ho Chi
Minh Trail -- in short, it is perhaps the major battlefield of
South Vietnam today and in the future.
If the Americans have moved those villagers out of their
villages -- then it might be because that is necessary for their
own safety. To shift people out of a battle area is different
5
than moving them into slave labor camps. Let me quote you
Secretary General U Thant, who called on all belligerents
less than a year ago (Sept. 1970)
"to ensure that civilians are removed from or kept out
of areas, likely to place them in jeopardy or to expose
them to the hazards of warfare."
That was the Secretary General. Pete, you're trying to
have it both ways. First, you condemn American pilots when
a village is damaged by American air power -- then you condemn
Americans when they relocate the villagers out of the battle
zones. Under your rules, America could never fight and win a
war.
Even in Korea, Pete, where you served -- there were two
million, that's right, two million civilian casualties -- and
millions upon millions of refugees. These are inevitable in
wartime.
#
#
In the last show McCloskey said that we are going to continue
the bombing to "force them to submit." If he uses this again,
simple response:
Pete, no one is trying to force North Vietnam to submit to
anything -- we are trying to prevent them from forcing South
Vietnam to submit to a communism they don't want; that's what
this war is all about. No one is trying to overthrow Hanoi's
Government --- they're trying to overthrow the Laotian Govern-
ment, Cambodian Government, the South Vietnamese Government.
It is not the Laotians, Cambodians and South Vietnamese who
6
are sending massive invasion armies into the North -- the
armies of invasion are coming out of the North into the South.
Submission is what the North is after -- free and open elections,
free from submission, is what America is fighting for -- and you
know that as well as I.
#
#
AUTHORITY ON THE WAR
McCloskey repeatedly says that the President is waging an
illegal war because the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution has been
repealed -- that there is no constitutionality for what he is
doing.
When RN took office there were 550,000 Americans in Vietnam;
when that Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was repealed there were still
hundreds of thousands of Americans in Vietnam. The President is
bringing them out on his timetable -- and Congressional approval
for that is inherent in the fact that Congress continues to vote
him every single dollar he needs to do SO. If Congress wants all
American activity halted in Southeast Asia - let Congress cut off
all funds for Southeast Asia -- but Congress has refused to do
that -- it has been giving the President the dollars he needs,
and in giving the dollars, they are giving him their approval in
the most meaningful way that approval can possibly be given.
That is where the President continues to get his authority.
Pete, you ought to know about undeclared limited wars --
you fought in one in Korea.
#
#
7
DON RIEGLE
McCloskey quotes Riegle repeatedly to the effect that the
President allegedly told Riegle that following his election he
would end the war in six months.
The ridiculousness of this is apparent. First, the President
said no such thing. And if he had, he would have said it to his
personal family, his closest advisers, his White House staff, or
campaign
his closest colleagues in the Congress -- not to an Administra
tion outsider, and junior Congressman like Mr. Riegle.
The
likelihood is far less that the President would confide this
incredible secret to an obscure Congressional dove than that
Congressman Riegle has been smoking something lately.
UNCLE HO, THE PATRIOT
Ho Chi Minh has been described by McCloskey as a great national
patriot and hero, trying to bring all his people under single rule.
But in that sense Adolph Hitler was a great German patriot and
hero, for he too tried to bring all the German people -- in Austria,
in Czechoslovakia, in Poland and the Rhineland -- under Berlin's
domination.
But we judge people not just on their nationalism -- Ho was
a nationalist and Hitler was a nationalist. But on their
objectives -- Nazism in one case and Communism in the other --
and on their means -- atrocity and aggression in both cases.
What Hitler did to the Jews is precisely what Ho would have done
to the Catholics had they not fled into the South by the hundreds
of thousands. As it was, thousands died in Uncle Ho's agrarian
reform --- after his victory over the French. And while the
Communist revolutionaries are in power in Hanoi, what happened
8
to the anti-communist Vietnamese revolutionaries who fought
against the French?
McCLOSKEY IN KOREA
In the Korean War at times there were orders to shoot anyone
in civilian clothes found wandering around at night.
He may remember the anti-guerrilla operation effort that
was tagged Operation Ratkiller in those less euphemistic times.
In the Korean War, nearly two million civilian casualties
were recorded. God only knows how many Koreans, North and
South, were made homeless. The point is, Pete, that in any
war, there are refugees and in modern wars, they are inevitable.
But to suggest that America in this war, or in that Korean
War, deliberately sought to create those refugees is false and
malicious.
Let me add another point. You indicate that America has
used more bombs in Southeast Asia than in all the Second World
War. To me this is proof itself that America is deliberabely
avoiding civilian targets -- taking special precautions to avoid
wounding or injuring the innocent. In one attack American and
British bombers killed hundreds of thousands of Germans in
Dresden, in the great fire raid. It is a testament to the fact
that we are fighting a limited war that we have deliberately
held back from such bombing against Hanoi and Haiphong -- that
we have not destroyed the dikes in North Vietnam, as we did not
destroy the dams in North Korea.
9
McCLOSKEY IN LAOS
Pete came back home telling us that the Ambassador had lied
to him, that the Deputy Chief of Mission had lied to him, the
military lied to him, the State Department lied to him, the
Catholic priest who was his interpreter had not told him the
truth. It seems, Pete, that the only people who supposedly told
you the truth are the ones who made statements supporting the
conclusions you went over there with. After all, didn't you
announce as hard fact that we were following a policy of bombing
villages -- even before you went over to investigate for your-
self. Isn't it a fact that you heard a great deal while in
Laos contradicting your views -- but have refused to relay those
thoughts to the American people -- for fear it would weaken your
case. In short, isn't it true that you haven't told us the
whole truth?
Questions:
Pete, while in Laos, I understand high Laotian officials
told you they supported the American bombing policy, that
they needed and they wanted it continued. That, if it stopped,
NVN would overrun the country. Weren't you deceiving the
American people, when you failed to come home and relay that
message to the American people? Why didn't you mention this
critical factor?
10
You have stated that when Ambassador Sullivan was replaced
by Ambassador Godley --- our policy on bombing was changed, and
bombing became indiscriminate. How can you say this when
Ambassador Sullivan himself -- in testimony to Congress -- has
denied it? How can you categorically accuse of falsehood an
Ambassador, a DCM, the State Department, the military and a
President who has been there 15 years -- when you were only
in Laos forty-eight hours?
NOTES
Pete McCloskey was in favor of declaring war against
Korea if Korea didn't return the Pueblo and the crew of
the Pueblo.
Yes, occasionally, American bombs have fallen by
mistake upon innocent civilians -- but they have also
fallen by mistake upon South Vietnamese and American
troops. The inevitable errors of combat do not constitute
a policy of atrocity such as that practiced by the enemy
and employed in the massacre of five thousand people in
cold blood in the city of Hue.
The President is de-escalating in two years what the
Democrats escalated for five.
This is not Nixon's War -- but it will be Nixon's Peace.
WITHDRAWAL DEADLINE
We were told that meaningful negotiations would follow
if we had a bombing halt.
We were told that meaningful negotiations would follow
if we would admit the VC to the conference table.
We were told that meaningful negotiations would follow
if we announced unilateral withdrawal of American troops.
We were lied to, misled all three times by the enemy.
11
And we should take no more on faith from an enemy emeny in
whom no sane man would place his faith.
If the enemy wants to show good faith --- why don't they
start treating American prisoners of war like human beings
instead of pawns in a game.
Why do they refuse to release the sick and wounded?
Hanoi is the kind of regime even its sick and wounded
soldiers apparently don't want to go home to.
DECEPTION
One of McCloskey's repeated charges is that the Admin-
istration "deceives" the American people, that it "has now
perfected the art of keeping information from the people
and their elected representatives. "
This can be turned into a direct attack on McCloskey
himself. First, a simple statement that, the five times the
President has pledged to bring home thousands of American
troops, these troops have come home. When he went into
Cambodia he told the American people he would be out in
sixty days, he was out in sixty days. He told the American
people he had a plan to end American involvement in this
war -- and that is precisely what he has accomplished. Since
he took office, three hundred thousand American troops have
been removed from the Vietnam War. American war dead is down
to around ten percent of what it was when he took office --
that is what I call keeping your commitments.
But, since we are talking about deception -- let's bring
up your own visit to Laos and Southeast Asia. When you came
back, you reported on one refugee survey you had found, you
12
failed to mention that there were two others that gave a
different view. You failed to mention that these surveys
also reported that 95 percent of the Laotian refugees would
not return to their homes under Communist rule -- even if
peace came. You failed to indicate that while in Laos you
told the American Ambassador you were satisfied that it was
not American policy to bomb villages -- and then you went to
a press conference and said precisely the opposite. Further,
you attempted to disguise a Life photographer and members of
your private press entourage as "staff members." In other
words, Pete, from the record you are guilty of the very lying
and deception which you have charged to the United States
Government. How can we believe you when you came back and
reported only those facts and figures and arguments which
tended to support your view -- and ignored the massive evidence
there was that refuted all you had to say.
CORRUPT GOVERNMENT ARGUMENT
The United States is fighting to keep in power a corrupt
regime of Thieu-Ky which is no better than Hanoi's, which
shuts down newspapers and locks up political prisoners.
Abraham Lincoln imposed censorship on American papers
in the Civil War, this is no argument. In Great Britain in
World War II, there was a suspension of elections. What we
are dealing with here is a nation without democratic tradi-
tions that has developed these decisions even during a war
against both internal and external aggression.
13
Yes, papers have been censored in the South; but in the
North, there is no free press whatsoever. In the South, there
is freedom of religion for Catholics and Buddhists alike. In
the North there is no freedom of religion. In the South,
there are village elections, there are provincial elections,
there are presidential elections. President Thieu was elected
over eight other candidates in the only free national election
ever held in that part of the world. By the way, Pete, who
elected Pham Van Dong? In the South, there are many opposition
parties; in the North there is none.
Nine hundred thousand refugees fled from the rule of
Ho Chi Minh when he took power in 1954 - you find thousands
who have fled south -- how many Vietnamese have fled into
Communist country -- even their own prisoners of war are too
terrified to return home. That is the worst indictment of a
regime I have ever seen. Can you imagine all but five of the
American prisoners refusing repatriation if they had the
chance.
"Can we honestly say today that the Thieu-Ky regime, with
its seizure of newspapers, its number two presidential candi-
date in jail, its repression of dissent -- represents a higher
order of freedom for the South Vietnamese than would government
from Hanoi?" -- McCloskey, Washington Monthly, April, 1971.
14
McCLOSKEY ON REFUGEES
(a) Eighty percent of all bombing in Laos is done against
the Ho Chi Minh Trail, where no one lives -- and where the only
casualties are enemy troops and engineers who are moving supplies
to kill American men.
(b) Even Mr. Harriman will concede that in Laos, the war
there is one of aggression by the North Vietnamese who violated
the Geneva Accords the day they signed it.
(c) All American air support is being done not to wage war
against Laos, but to wage war against those committing aggression
against Laos, against Cambodia, against South Vietnam, and against
the remaining American troops in Southeast Asia.
(d) Eighty-five percent of the enemy troops in Laos are
North Vietnamese -- if there were no Communist ground forces
rampaging through Northern Laos, and using Southern Laos as an
avenue of aggression -- there would be no American planes over-
flying the country. Pete, instead of making demand after demand
on the American Government, attack after attack on the American
President -- why don't you devote just one speech to the people
really responsible for this war and its continuation - the
aggressors in Hanoi.
(e) What of the 20 percent of the bombs used in Northern
Laos -- where the only American in danger of being killed is a
CIA agent.
15
First, the main targets in the North are roadway and
storage areas -- they are not villages. These are hill people;
and their villages are on the hillsides; and the American attacks
are directed against road targets.
Secondly, there is a standing rule that American bombers
without explicit permission do not bomb within five hundred
yards of any individual village.
Third, McCloskey says that most of the villagers left
in 1968 and 1969 -- yet Mr. Nixon was not even President in
1968, and in 1969 until July 12 -- two years ago -- Mr. Godley
did not become the Ambassador. Mr. Sullivan was.
Fourth, I read you the testimony of Mr. Sullivan himself
on American policy -- and Mr. McCloskey I want to know if you
think he is a liar -- as you have implied most of the other
American officials are serving in that outpost in Laos.
(attached)
Fifth, McCloskey only interviewed a handful (16 at most)
of the refugees, from a single area where battles had raged back
and forth -- and from this he extrapolated war crimes against
the American air force -- and he has nothing to back those
outrageous charges.
Sixth, his colleague, Rep. Waldie, indicated that the
refugee camps he saw were remarkably well run; and that
casualties and fatalities seemed at a minimum -- why did
Mr. McCloskey see fit to ignore this bit of evidence when
he brought home his testimony.
16
Seventh, can you tell us, Pete, why you announced your
verdict to the New York Times about American actions in Laos
before you went there for forty-eight hours, and came racing
home to be on Sunday television to announce your findings --
Do you think the country can believe you went to Vietnam with
an open mind?
CIVIL WAR ARGUMENT
One of McCloskey's repeated arguments is that the war in
Vietnam is a "Civil War" like the American Civil War, that
"in both conflicts the South broke away and the North fought
to reunite a country that essentially belongs to them.
Counter Arguments:
1. "Pete, the difference between the two is basically this.
In our Civil War, one of the goals of the North was to put an
end to the slavery of 3 million black Americans. In the
Vietnamese Civil War, the North is attempting to impose political
slavery upon 17 million people who have fought ten years to
prevent it. "
2. If the Communist North has a right to "re-unite" the
country under Hanoi's domination -- then Saigon has the same
right to re-unite the country under non-communist rule. Would
you agree to that?
3. If Hanoi has the right to use force to unite the nation
under Hanoi's rule -- then, by God, Saigon has the right to use
military force to defend itself.
4. If Hanoi is right in using force to bring the South
under Communist control -- then North Korea had the right to
17
use force to bring South Korea under Communist rule -- yet,
Mr. McCloskey, you were part of the American military force
sent to South Korea to prevent precisely that unification under
militant Communist rule. What you are condemning in 1971 is the
same thing you and hundreds of thousands of Americans fought to
prevent in 1951 -- the aggression of an Asian Communist power,
against an Asian people that wants no part of Communist.
5. Hanoi has no more right to use force to bring the
people of South Vietnam under its power than does East Germany
have a right to use military force to bring West Germany under
its power.
PHOTOGRAPHS
McCloskey says he was denied photographs of any villages
standing in Laos behind Pathet Lao lines.
Facts: US Embassy offered to provide him with photographs.
McCloskey offered a flight north of the Plain of Jars in the
site 50 and 32 -- and to Luang Prabang to interview refugees.
He was offered the opportunity to overfly the enemy held city
of Attopeu in Southern Laos, in enemy hands for more than a
year. All these were designed to show him that there were
many villages and towns in enemy territory not destroyed. He
turned down all offers.
Reason he did not see villages along roads in Northern Laos
is that rarely have there been any -- Northern Laotian people
live on hills and mountains -- do not make their villages in
the valleys where the roads run.
18
THE SURVEYS
The surveys McCloskey got said several things:
The first dealing with people displaced by the combat on
the Plain of Jars says 49 percent of the people there left their
homes for fear of bombing -- 51 percent for other reasons,
including dislike of NVN/PL.
The second in the Ban Xon area found 28 percent attributed
their status to fear of bombing. Seven percent to fear of
death by bombing -- fifty percent said they left because they
did not like the Pathet Lao.
Query? Why did McCloskey not make public the second survey
as well as the first?
Also, there are not seven hundred thousand refugees in Laos
that is the number of people who have had to move once -- there
are three hundred thousand, and the primary reason that they are
refugees is the military action of the enemy -- according to
Ambassador Sullivan.
No substantive change in rules has taken place since Amb.
Sullivan was replaced by Ambassador Godley -- that is the
testimony of both men.
McCloskey talks of the horrors of cluster bombs and white
phosphorous. Horrible weapons -- like most weapons of modern
war. But what he does not state is what was included in the
survey he mentioned that the number of civilians actually killed
by such weapons in Laos is "extremely low."
19
The Ambassador's guiding rule -- and both he and the Air
Force concur -- is that before any village can be destroyed
they have to have convincing aerial photography that it is no
longer inhabited.
McCloskey says we are destroying their food supplies by
bombing the villages --- but a major food supply area is the
enemy held Attopeu and that has not been destroyed -- and
McCloskey refused to overfly the area.
HAVE WE A RIGHT TO HIT A NEUTRAL COUNTRY
North Africa was neutral in World War II -- we invaded there.
Occupied France was neutral; we invaded there. Belgium declared
its neutrality. We invaded there.
There is no obligation in international law for American
troops to sit in their bunkers as clay pigeons while enemy units
prepare an assault from privileged sanctuary -- and after such
assault, return to their immune provinces. We did not attack
Cambodia -- we attacked enemy forces, illegally occupying
Cambodian terrain as staging areas for attacks on American
men. Nothing in international law requires Americans or South
Vietnamese to grant privileged sanctuary to enemy forces sur-
rounding it and attacking it from three frontiers.
NEW YORK TIMES CONTROVERSY
Here as in his continued insistence on an honorable end to
Vietnam -- what the President has done is not the popular thing
but the right thing, the presidential thing.
20
The Government could not sit back and wait until the New York
Times decided for itself what top-secret document should be made
public, and what not. The law appeared violated; and the govern-
ment -- whether it is popular or not -- had to move to enforce
the law. Nixon could only have been helped politically by what
was revealed; he acted not in his political interest -- but the
national interest.
The policies of the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations are
policies of escalation -- the President is the reverse -- de-
escalation, getting out of war we entered when Democrats con-
trolled the White House, the Departments and both Houses of
Congress by huge margins. This is not Nixon's war -- but it
will be Nixon's peace.
The deception charged against the Johnson Administration is
something for which they must answer -- as for the President he
has kept every pledge of withdrawal; he came out of Cambodia
when he said he would come out; he is implementing his plan for
peace as he promised in 1968. The proof is in the pudding.
The President has done what he promised. Let others answer for
their own record.
Press
What About Freedom of President to Publish.
First Amendment has limits. No right to publish information
that would cost the lives of American men -- such as Cambodian
invasion plans or information on American Polaris deployment.
Surely, it would have been wrong had the New York Times taken
the atomic secrets of the Rosenbergs and published them on the
21
front page -- where the limit lies, let's leave it -- as the
President has -- with the Supreme Court.
TWO FINAL POINTS
If McCloskey brings up the "horrors" of this war theme,
suggest the following:
Sure, war is hell. We knew that a century ago. But far
fewer have died in the bombing in Asia, than in the last war.
Mr. Frost will recall the British fire-bombing of the city of
Dresden which killed two hundred thousand Germans in a matter
of days if not hours. Nothing like that has been attributed
to the Americans in Vietnam. The cities of Hanoi and Haiphong
have not been destroyed. Enormous tonnage has been dropped -
but millions have not died, because the Americans are not
deliberately killing civilians; they have sought to reduce
civilian casualties to the minimum. And for all the horrors of
war, we know there is something worse, and that is the loss of
freedom -- perhaps forever; and that is why the South Vietnamese
are fighting on; and that is why we are helping them. When
Mr. McCloskey says, it isn't worth it --- he means the freedom
of the people of South Vietnam, of Cambodia, of Laos, isn't
worth it to him -- maybe, Pete, they would rather make that
decision themselves. And they have made it with their courage.
Finally, Pete, though I respect you I must say this:
With your charges that the American diplomats in Laos --
who cannot defend themselves here -- have all lied and deceived
you and the American people. With your allegation of war crimes
22
to American officers in Vietnam. With your charges of deception,
and in effect war-mongering for political purposes by a President
who has brought a detente to the Middle East, opened the door to
China, initiated SALT negotiations with the Russians, brought
half our men home -- and cut our casualties by almost ninety
percent -- I think you are guilty of demagoguery; you are
guilty I believe of that smear tactic long associated with
the name of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Patrick J. Buchanan