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
4526384
label
West Contra Costa County Business and Professional Association, Richmond, CA, November 18, 1971
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526384
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
West Contra Costa County Business and Professional Association, Richmond, CA, November 18, 1971
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-
Federal budget
Foreign aid
National security
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526384
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1971-11-30
month
11
year
1971
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1971-11-01
month
11
year
1971
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
92065858931458a4
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D32, folder "West Contra Costa County
Business and Professional Association, Richmond, CA, November 18, 1971" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Distribution
20
copies
to
Mr.
Ind
Moffice
Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6 P.M., P.S.T.--
November 18, 1971
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the West Contra Costa County,
Calif., Business and Professional Association, Thursday evening, Nov. 18, 1971,
at Richmond, Calif., Civic Auditorium.
I sincerely hope the SALT talks are successful. But if those talks fail,
there is no doubt in my mind that the United States will have to act to offset the
arms momentum now being displayed by the Soviet Union.
I say this fully aware of Federal budget considerations and fully cognizant
of the fact that the neo-isolationists have succeeded in turning the American
people against the military. They have, in fact, declared war on the military, in
my view.
I find this most unfortunate because I firmly believe it is the first duty
of our National Government to "provide for the common defense." That is a duty
which can be shirked only at our common peril.
I know the neo-isolationists are sincere. They think the way to stop the
arms race is for the United States to disarm unilaterally. They would like to see
us abandon most of our commitments around the world and devote ourselves almost
exclusively to domestic affairs. They have adopted the idea that the threat of
Communist aggression is a bogeyman held up to scare the American people. Some
believe it matters not whether other lands fall to Communist aggressors.
I strongly support President Nixon's efforts to turn the world around--to
turn it from confrontation to negotiation. But I do not believe the way to do this
is through appeasement, unilateral disarmament or negotiation from weakness. Only
the strong survive. The United States must remain strong if there is to be peace
in the world.
I expect the debate over defense spending to grow in volume and intensity in
the years ahead. I hope every American will study and ponder the questions involved
rather than simply adopt an anti-military stance. It is time we got rid of
knee-jerk reactions to the phrase, military-industrial complex.
I have helped to cut military budgets, having served 12 years on the defense
appropriations subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. But those were
judicious cuts, sensibly arrived at. By contrast, some Senate liberals swing a
meat-axe at the military budget.
(more)
Digitized from Box D32 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
They ignore such reports as that of the President's Blue Ribbon Defense
Commission which earlier this year warned of "a significant shifting of the strategic
military balance against the United States and in favor of the Soviet Union."
They ignore the statement by Jane's Fighting Ships that the Soviet Union now
has a "super-navy" while American naval strength is declining.
They ignore the growing Soviet superiority in Intercontinental Ballistic
Missiles.
They ignore the fact that the Soviets are committing greater resources to
strategic offensive and defensive weapons than is the United States.
They ignore the strong possibility that the U.S. will lose its technological
superiority to the Soviet Union.
They ignore the convincing evidence that the Soviet Union seeks a preemptive
first-strike capability vis-a-vis the United States.
Instead of recognizing the dangerous position in which we find ourselves,
Senate liberals feed the mounting hostility of the American public against the
military, the defense establishment and the so-called military-industrial complex.
They pay no heed to the woeful fact that their irresponsible criticism of
the military is undermining and weakening the only force capable of providing
security for the American people.
The latest example of irresponsible behavior by the Senate liberals was the
vote Oct. 29--since remedied, thank God-which sank a bill providing aid for
Southeast Asia.
To cut U.S. aid to Indochina at the very time that we are stepping up the
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam is to threaten the program of withdrawal.
There is a direct link between U.S. aid and our allies' ability to tie down North
Vietnamese forces as we pull our troops out of Vietnam.
Had we sharply reduced or cut out economic aid to South Vietnam, it would
have crippled that country's weak economy.
Had we cut back aid to South Korea, we would have jeopardized our program of
troop withdrawals there because the aid funds are being used to modernize the
South Korean armed forces as an offset to our pullout from that country.
The attitude of the Senate liberals has signalled to the rest of the world
that the U.S. word is suspect, that the U.S. cannot be depended upon in defense of
freedom.
The nation which values anything more than its freedom will lose its freedom.
I pledge unfailing hostility to those who, wittingly or otherwise, would have the
United States abdicate its responsibility for advancing peace and freedom in the
world.
I say we must guard our legacy 0 with all the resources at our
command. Freedom is our most precious posses DD.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6 P.M., P.S.T.--
November 18, 1971
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the West Contra Costa County,
Calif., Business and Professional Association, Thursday evening, Nov. 18, 1971,
at Richmond, Calif., Civic Auditorium.
I sincerely hope the SALT talks are successful. But if those talks fail,
there is no doubt in my mind that the United States will have to act to offset the
arms momentum now being displayed by the Soviet Union.
I say this fully aware of Federal budget considerations and fully cognizant
of the fact that the neo-isolationists have succeeded in turning the American
people against the military. They have, in fact, declared war on the military, in
my view.
I find this most unfortunate because I firmly believe it is the first duty
of our National Government to "provide for the common defense." That is a duty
which can be shirked only at our common peril.
I know the neo-isolationists are sincere. They think the way to stop the
arms race is for the United States to disarm unilaterally. They would like to see
us abandon most of our commitments around the world and devote ourselves almost
exclusively to domestic affairs. They have adopted the idea that the threat of
Communist aggression is a bogeyman held up to scare the American people. Some
believe it matters not whether other lands fall to Communist aggressors.
I strongly support President Nixon's efforts to turn the world around--to
turn it from confrontation to negotiation. But I do not believe the way to do this
is through appeasement, unilateral disarmament or negotiation from weakness. Only
the strong survive. The United States must remain strong if there is to be peace
in the world.
I expect the debate over defense spending to grow in volume and intensity in
the years ahead. I hope every American will study and ponder the questions involved
rather than simply adopt an anti-military stance. It is time we got rid of
knee-jerk reactions to the phrase, military-industrial complex.
I have helped to cut military budgets, having served 12 years on the defense
appropriations subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. But those were
judicious cuts, sensibly arrived at. By contrast, some Senate liberals swing a
meat-axe at the military budget.
(more)
They ignore such reports as that of the President's Blue Ribbon Defense
Commission which earlier this year warned of "a significant shifting of the strategic
military balance against the United States and in favor of the Soviet Union."
They ignore the statement by Jane's Fighting Ships that the Soviet Union now
has a "super-navy" while American naval strength is declining.
They ignore the growing Soviet superiority in Intercontinental Ballistic
Missiles.
They ignore the fact that the Soviets are committing greater resources to
strategic offensive and defensive weapons than is the United States.
They ignore the strong possibility that the U.S. will lose its technological
superiority to the Soviet Union.
They ignore the convincing evidence that the Soviet Union seeks a preemptive
first-strike capability vis-a-vis the United States.
Instead of recognizing the dangerous position in which we find ourselves,
Senate liberals feed the mounting hostility of the American public against the
military, the defense establishment and the so-called military-industrial complex.
They pay no heed to the woeful fact that their irresponsible criticism of
the military is undermining and weakening the only force capable of providing
security for the American people.
The latest example of irresponsible behavior by the Senate liberals was the
vote Oct. 29--since remedied, thank God--which sank a bill providing aid for
Southeast Asia.
To cut U.S. aid to Indochina at the very time that we are stepping up the
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam is to threaten the program of withdrawal.
There is a direct link between U.S. aid and our allies' ability to tie down North
Vietnamese forces as we pull our troops out of Vietnam.
Had we sharply reduced or cut out economic aid to South Vietnam, it would
have crippled that country's weak economy.
Had we cut back aid to South Korea, we would have jeopardized our program of
troop withdrawals there because the aid funds are being used to modernize the
South Korean armed forces as an offset to our pullout from that country.
The attitude of the Senate liberals has signalled to the rest of the world
that the U.S. word is suspect, that the U.S. cannot be depended upon in defense of
freedom.
The nation which values anything more than its freedom will lose its freedom.
I pledge unfailing hostility to those who, wittingly or otherwise, would have the
United States abdicate its responsibility for advancing peace and freedom in the
world.
I say we must guard our legacy 01 freedom with all the resources at our
command. Freedom is our most precious posses ion.
###
LIBRARY