Agnew on Television

Joins Dean Martin tonight at 10:00 on 4. This is a special report from NBC News. Here is NBC News correspondent Edwin Newman. Good evening. Vice President Spiro Agnew is speaking tonight to a meeting of the Midwest Regional Republican Committee. The speech is to be delivered in the Grand Ballroom of the Fort Des Moines Hotel in Des Moines Iowa. Mr. Agnew is to begin speaking in a matter of moments. But some reports of the speech already have been made. You perhaps know that it is a very strong attack on the news departments of the television networks. The release time of the speech, six o'clock eastern time an hour before the speech actually was to begin, was fixed by the vice president's office. This is the Grand Ballroom of the Fort Des Moines Hotel in Des Moines, Iowa On the [inaudible] at the moment is McGill Boyd, the Republican State Committeeman man from Kansas. Who will Introduce the Governor of Iowa Robert Ray who in turn will introduce the Vice President. At the moment

other personages at the head table are being introduced. Governor Richard Ogilvy of Illinois has just been presented. While this is going on perhaps I can set for you the context of the speech the White House News Secretary Ron Ziegler said this evening that he had not received a copy Of Mr. Agnew's speech until it was released to the press. Ziegler said also that President Nixon had not discussed television news coverage with the vice president. Gentlemen it is now my privilege to present to you the Honorable Sprio T. Agnew, the vice president of the United States. [Cheering and clapping] [Inaudible] Boyd and distinguished guests at the head table and ladies and gentlemen, I

had a distinct honor this evening of introducing the vice president of the United States. For some time he was one of our colleagues, the governor, the governor of Maryland, and in our trade we say he's what– [Edwin Newman interjects] To clarify matters this is the governor of Iowa Robert Ray Refer to as the person using vice president who was me who was making the call for them to really get to be introduced with your boy Bill and stay with him in the Senate. And he was really welcoming the vice president to the hall. And it governor Ray of Iowa who is making the actual introduction. [End of Newman's commentary] You could say also that he has maintained that there is nothing wrong with being patriotic, moral now and hard working. [clapping] [Governor Ray speaking]Our Vice president has travelled from coast to coast, border to border in this country to tell a story that he believes in and to tell people the way he sees it.

This man appears to us tonight. To tell you what he believes and he will do it in Paris and he will do it in Canada. Ladies and gentlemen I've been pleased an honor to present to you the vice president of the United States. The honorable Sprio Agnew. [clapping] Thank you. [clapping] Thank you very much. Thank you very much Governor Ray, Governor Overly Governor Taben, Mr. Ford, Ms. Peterson, many distinguished officials of the Republican Party gathered for this midwest Regional meeting. It's indeed a pleasure for me to be here tonight I had intended to make all three of the regional meetings that had been scheduled this

fall but unfortunately I had to scrub the western one, Hawaii was a little far at the moment, that time, but I'm glad to be be here and I look forward to attending the others. I think it's obvious with the cameras here that I didn't come to discuss the ban on cyclamates or DDT. [laughter] I have a subject I think is great interest To the American people, tonight I want to discuss the importance of the television media to the American people. No nation depends more on the intelligent judgment of its citizens. No media has a more profound influence over public opinion. Nowhere in our system are there fewer checks on said vast power. So nowhere [inaudible] Not to listen to.

A word about Mr. Han. For ten months he was America's Chief negotiator at the Paris peace talks. A period in which the United States swapped some of the greatest military concessions in the history of warfare where an enemy agreement on the shape of the bargaining table. Like Coolidge's nature of man, Mr. Hireman seems to be under some heavy compulsion to justify his failures to anyone who will listen. [applause] The networks seem willing to give him all the airtime he desires. Now every American has a right To disagree with the president of the United States and to express publicly that disagreement. But the president of the United States has a right to communicate with the people who elected him.

And [applause] And the people of this country have the right to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about a presidential address without having a president's words and thoughts characterized through the prejudices of hostile critics before they can even be digested [applause] [applause] When Winston Churchill rallied public opinion, to stay the course against Hitler's Germany. He didn't have to contend with a gaggle of commentators raising doubts about whether he was reading public opinion right. Or whether Britain had the stamina to see the war- war through. When president Kennedy rallied the nation in the Cuban Missile Crisis, his address to the people was not chewed over

by a round table of critics who disparaged the course of action he asked America to follow. The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men. Who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every presidential address but more importantly have a free hand in selecting, presenting and interpreting the great issues in our nation. First let's define that power. At least forty million Americans every night it's estimated watch the network news. Seven million of them view ABC. The remainder being divided between NBC and CBS. According to Harris polls and other studies. For millions of Americans the networks are the sole source of national and rural news. In Will Roger's observation what you knew is what you what you read in the newspaper. Today for forty millions of Americans it's see and hear on their television sets. Now how is this

network news determined. A small group of men numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchorman commentators and executive producers decided upon 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that's to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes they make available. Their powers of choice are broad. They decide what 40 to 50 million Americans will learn of the day's events in a nation and in the world. We cannot measure this power and influence by the traditional Democratic standards. For these men can create national issues every night. They can make or break by their coverage and commentary a moratorium the war. They can elevate men from obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others. For millions of Americans the network reporter covers a continuing issue

like the ABM or Civil Rights becomes; in effect. The presiding judge in a national trial by jury. It must be recognized that the networks have made important contributions to the national knowledge through news, documentaries and specials. They have often used their power constructively and creatively to awaken the public conscience to critical problems. The networks made hunger and black lung disease national issues every night. The TV networks have done what no other medium could have done in terms of dramatizing the horrors of war. The networks have tackled most of our most difficult social problems with a directness and an immediacy that's the kit of their medium They focused the nation's attention on its environmental abuses, on pollution in the Great Lakes and the threatened ecology of the Everglades. But it was also the networks that elevated Stokely Carmichael and George Lincoln Rockwell from obscurity to national problems nor is their power confined to the

substance. The raised eyebrow, the inflection of the voice the caustic remark left in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official or the wisdom of the government policy. When Federal Communications Commissioner considers the powers of the networks equal to that of local state and federal governments; all combined. Certainly it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history. Now what do Americans know of the men who wield this power. For the men who produce and direct the network news the nation knows is practically nothing. The commentators most Americans know little Other than they reflect, urbane, and their presence seemingly well-informed on every important matter. We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington D.C. or New York City, the latter

of which James Reston terms the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States. [applause] Both Communities bask in their own provincialism or parochialism. We can deduce that these men read the same newspapers. They draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their viewpoints. [applause] Do They allow their biases to influence the selection and presentation of the news? David Brinkley States: Objectivity is impossible in a normal human behavior. Rather it says we should strive for fairness. Another anchorman on a network news show

contends and I quote "You can't expunge all your private convictions just because you sit in a seat like this and a camera starts to stare at you. I think your program has to reflect what your basic feelings are." I plead guilty to that. Less than a week before the 1968 election. This same commentator charged that President Nixon's campaign commitments were no more durable than campaign Valone's. He claimed that were not for the fear of a hostile reaction. Richard Nixon would be giving into, and I quote him exactly, his natural instinct to smash the enemy after him with a club go after him with a meat axe. This slander made by one political candidate about another, it would have been dismissed by most commentators as a partisan attack. This attack emanated from the privileged sanctuary of a network studio. And therefore had the apparent dignity of an objective

state. The American people would rightly not con- tolerate this concentration of power in government. Is it not fair or relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny enclosed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and license by government? The views of the majority of fraternity, generally do not and I repeat NOT represent the views of the America. [applause] That is why such a great gulf exited between how the nation received the Presidents address and how the networks reviewed it. Not only did the country see the president's address warmer, more warmly than the networks but so also did the Congress of the United States.

Yesterday the president was notified that 300 individual Congressmen and 50 senators of both parties had endorsed his efforts for peace. [applause] [applause] As with other American institutions, perhaps it is time that the networks were made more responsive to the views of the nation and more responsible to the people they serve. [applause] Now I wanna to make myself perfectly clear. I'm not asking for government censorship or any other kind of censorship. I am asking whether a form of censorship already exists. When the news that forty millsion Americans And. When the news of forty million Americans receive each night is determined by a handful of men responsible

only to their corporate employers and is spoken through a handful of commentators who admit their own set of biases. The questions I'm raising here should have been raised by others long ago. They should have been raised by Americans who have traditionally considered the preservation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Their are special provinces of responsibility. [applause] They should have been raised by those Americans who share the view of the late justice ?Merden? ?Hand? that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. Advocates for the networks have claimed a first amendment right to the same unlimited freedoms held by the great newspapers of America but the situations are not identical. Where the New York Times reaches 800,000 people.

NBC reaches twenty times that number, on its evening news. Where can the tremendous impact seeing television film and hearing commentary be compared with reading the printed page. A decade ago before the network news acquired such dominance over public opinion, ?Walter? ?Linkman? spoke to the issue. He said there's an essential and radical difference between television and print. The three or four competing television stations control virtually that can be recieved over the year by ordinary television set But besides the mass circulation dailies, there are weeklies, monthlies, out of town newspapers and books. If a man doesn't like his newspaper he can read another from out of town or wait for a weekly news magazine. It's not ideal but it's infinitely better than the situation in television. There, if a man doesn't like what the networks are showing, all he can do is turn them off and listen to a phonograph

Networks he stated, which are few in number and have a virtual monopoly of a whole medium of communication. The newspapers of mass circulation have no monopoly on the medium of print. Now a virtual monopoly of a whole medium of communication is not something that Democratic people should blithely ignore. And we are not going to cut off our television sets and listen to the phonograph. Just because the airwaves belong to the networks they don't. They belong to the people. [applause] As Justice Byron Wright -White wrote in his landmark opinion six months ago. The right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. [applause] Now, it's argued that this

power presents no danger in the hands of those who have used it responsibly. For as to whether or not the networks and abuse of power they enjoy, let us call as first witness former Vice President Humphrey and the City of Chicago. According to Theodore ?White? televisions inter- cutting from the film Streets of Chicago with the current proceedings of the convention created the most striking and false political picture of 1968. The nomination of a man for the American presidency by the brutality and violence of merciless police. If we are to believe a recent report of the House of Representatives Commerce Committee then television's presentation of the violence in the streets worked an injustice on the reputation of the Chicago police. According to the Committee finding one network in particular presented, and I quote, a one-sided picture which in large measure exonerates the demonstrators and protesters. Film of the

provocations of police that was there never saw the light of day. While the film of the police response which the protesters provoked was shown to millions. Other networks showed the same scene of violence from three separate angles without making it was the same scene. Why [inaudible] is reticent in drawing conclusions? It is not a document to inspire confidence in the fairness of the network. Our knowledge of the impact that work is on the national mind is far from being complete. But some early returns are available. Again, we have enough information to raise serious questions about its effect on the democratic society. Several years ago Fred Friendly, one of the pioneers of network news, wrote that it's missing ingredients were conviction, controversy and a point of view. The networks compensated with a

vengeance. In the networks' endless pursuit of controversy, we should ask, What is the end value? To enlighten [inaudible] What is the result. to inform or to confuse? How does the ongoing exploration for more, more excitement, serve our national search for internal peace and stability. Russia's law seems to be operating in the network news. Bad news drives good news. The irrational is more controversial than the rational. The currents can no longer compete with the ?senate?. One minute of average Cleaver is worth 10 minutes of Roy Wilkins. The labor crisis settled at the negotiating table is nothing compared to the confrontation that results in a strike. But better yet balance along the picket lines. Formality has become the nemesis of the network. Now the

upshot of this controversy is a narrow and distorted picture of America emerges from the televised news, a single dramatic piece of the mosaic becomes in the minds of millions the entire picture. The American who relies upon television for his news might conclude that the majority of American students are embittered radicals. The majority of black Americans feel no regard for their country. That violence and lawlessness are the rule rather than the exception on the American campus. We know that none of these conclusions is true. Perhaps the place to start looking for a credibility gap is not in the offices of the government in Washington but in the studios in the studios of the networks in New York [applause] Television may have destroyed the old stereotypes but has it not

created new ones in their places? What has this passionate pursuit of controversy done to the politics of progress through local compromise essential to the functioning of a Democratic society. The members of Congress or the Senate who follow their principles and philosophy quietly in a spirit of compromise are unknown to many Americans, while the loudest and most extreme dissenters on every issue are known to every man in the street. How many marches and demonstrations would we have if the marchers did not know that the ever-faithful TV cameras would be there to record their antics for the next news cycle. [Applause] We've heard demands that senators and congressmen and judges

make known all their financial connections, so that the public will know who and what influences their decisions and their votes. Strong arguments can be made for that view. But when a single commentator or producer night after night determines for millions of people how much of each side of a great issue they're going to see and hear, should he not first disclose his personal views on the issue as well? [applause] And this search for excitment and controversy has more than equal time gone to the minority of Americans who specialize in attacking the United States, its institutions and its citizens. Tonight I've raised questions. I made no attempt to suggest the answers. The answers must come from the media men. They are challenged to turn their critical powers on themselves, to direct their energy, their talent and their

conviction toward improving the quality and objectivity of news presentations. They are challenged to structure their own civic ethics to relate their great feeling with the great responsibilities they hold. And the people of America are challenged, too, challenged to press for responsible news presentations. The people can let the networks know that they want their news straight and objective. The people can register their complaints on bias throught mail to the networks and phone calls to local stations. This is one case where the people must defend themselves, where the citizens, not the government must be the reformer, where the consumer can be the most effective crusader. By way of conclusion, let me say that every elected leader in the United States depends on these men of the media. Whether what I've said to you tonight will be heard and seen at all by the nation is not my decision.

It's not your decision. It's their decision. [laughter and applause] [applause] In tomorrow's edition of the Des Moines Register, you'll be able to read a news story detailing what I said tonight. [laughter] Editorial comment will be reserved for the editorial page where it belongs. Should not the same wall of separation exist between news and comment on the nation's networks? [applause] Now my friends, we'd never trust such power as I've described over public opinion in the hands of an elected government. It's time we

questioned it in the hands of a small and unelected elite. The great networks have dominated the America's airwaves for decades. The people are entitled to a full accounting of their stewardship. [applause] -Vice President Spiro Agnew has been speaking about television news at the meeting of the Midwest Regional Republican Committee in Des Moines, Iowa. This is Edwin Newman, NBC News. This has been a special report from NBC News. [silence]

[silence] [silence] [inaudible] what I thought was an important element in that lecture which was the statement that the president had a plan to end the war and I thought he was deter... determined to do that. That after some nine months we thought it was time for a move of significance to take place. Now, I think it's critical in the way many people, including myself, interpret his speech, is that his plan does not seem to

call for an early end to the war. In fact, it's indefinite. It leaves it uncertain. What is before us is whether or not in the course of attempting to keep our commitments we can find a peace with honor and justice to both sides. Or rather we should disregard the obligations which the United States has made through previous presidents. And so disregarding them say to the world that the word of the United States is no good. That also is an oversimplification, because you have the further alternative: shall we withdraw rapidly or less rapidly. You have a further alternative. Can we pursue the fast road of hopefully improved negotiations with Hanoi and Paris, or the slow

road of the Vietnamization of the war? [dramatic music] [dramatic music] [dramatic music] Good evening, I'm Jim Clark. For the next half hour we'll examine the status of the president, the nation, and the war in Vietnam. It has long since become nearly meaningless to s.. say the war in Vietnam has entered a new stage or reached a new plateau. It has become equally uninstructive to say that developments on the battlefield have reached a turning point or that there are straws in the stalemated wind blowing over the

Paris peace talks. Such judgment in light of the historical record has often been wrong, misleading or absolutely fatuous. The same has been true of the pulse of the nation. It has shifted from enormous highs in support of various presidents to depressing lows, like those preceding the announcement by President Lyndon Johnson that he would not seek another term. What has been aptly termed "the nasty little war" has cost nearly 40,000 American lives and an expenditure of over 100 billion dollars. The war, too, has become a sort of lightning rod, attracting to it all the grief and agony of a nation suffering serious divisions, one grappling with severe social, racial and economic problems. That we recognize the hazards of trying to fix the position of the president, the nation, and the war, this week seemed nonetheless an appropriate time to do it. The president had enunciated his plans for peace in a definitive nationwide address. Supporters have rallied to his side in ...

Veterans Day demonstrations. The massive three-day protest of the war was beginning today. Then this afternoon, President Nixon made a surprise unexpected visit to the House and Senate to thank members for bipartisan support of his search for peace. The president drew standing ovations as he alluded to his bi.. bipartisan support. He said when national security is involved, when the peace of the world is involved, when the lives of our young men are involved, we are not Democrats or Republicans. We are all Americans. An indirect criticism of his leading foreign policy critic in the Senate, President Nixon without mentioning him by name referred to Senator J. William Fulbright. The president recalled that when he was a freshman Congressman some had questioned whether a Democratic president could govern with a Republican Congress and had suggested President Truman should resign after providing for a Republican successor. The president said that forecast proved wrong. He added that now, with the political situation reversed,

the bipartisan foreign policy tradition is once again been reaffirmed. TV7's Capitol Hill correspondent, Joseph McCaffrey, and I sought an assessment of the situation in separately filmed interviews yesterday with Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senate Republican leader Hugh Scott. Fulbright told McCaffrey he has significant reservations about the president's plan for peace. This statement of course of desire to be in the war which I think everybody shares. The difference here is not over the objective. It is, are the means reasonably adapted to achieving that objective? That is, the means that he advocates is compared to the means that others advocate. Are his measures which he discusses reasonably designed to achieve an early end of the war? -Do you think they are? -Well, this leaves- first, it's un- certain, in a way. But I would say that they are not if,

as I believe to be the case, he is so committed to the Thieu-Ky government that he is determined to sustain them through thick and thin, to arm them and to support them indefinitely. I believe that the critical obstacle to a negotiated settlement of the war is our unwillingness, that is our government's unwillingness, to- to disassociate our fortunes from the reservation of the Thieu-Ky government. I believe if, put it another way, that if the president is willing to agree to a transition provisional government, if you like, in which all segments, recognized segments of the political life of South Vietnam may participate on a reasonably equal, equal manner, that is, the great sects, the religious

organizations, the V.C. and the Thieu government, I wouldn't exclude them, but they take their chances along with everybody else. I believe this is the minimum required to get a negotiated settlement. If we insist that we will support the Thieu government and that the Thieu government will continue to be in power when it- when the elections take place, there is no possibility in my view of getting a negotiated settlement. -Do you think then there has to be a political settlement, a political plan, before there can be a military withdrawal? -Well I think this is the orderly and civilized way to do it. I think it would be a disorderly way, sort of a chaotic way, simply to just pull out. I've never had a- just drop your arms, or keep 'em for that matter, and get on the boats and come home. I think it's a very disorganized situation anyway, but a political settlement somewhat after the pattern of the Geneva Accords of 1954. I've said this time and time again that is the best precedent

for the liquidation of this- this unfortunate and tragic affair. As an observer, Senator, I've had the feeling, and it keeps getting stronger all the time, that Nixon's best opportunity to end the war was last spring, shortly after taking over, that it's going to be harder for him to end the war now with every day that passes. I agree with that. I had this long talk with the president, one in particular and others, too. This is what I tried to impress upon him, that he had no need of assuming the responsibility for this war. He had not been involved in it. It was the mistake of predecessors in office and that he could in good conscience state that he thought we had accomplished whatever purpose there was. We'd given the South Vietnamese government an opportunity at least to establish itself, and it's now time for us to disengage, and that we should make that arrangement through a political

engage- a political settlement that would provide for an orderly withdrawal. That it was not in the national interest of our country to stay there indefinitely. And I did my best to persuade him, but I didn't make a sale. You have great difficulty persuading presidents. Don't you, Senator? -Well, this isn't just me. A lot of other people share that difficulty. Presidents have always been, I think, a little difficult. This office, I think, does something to people. I guess all offices of tremendous power -Too insulated. -insulates them from the common herd so to speak. And it also tends--and it's human nature. This is no reflection on this president. It's been true I think of nearly all presidents--tends to elevate them into a sphere in which infallibility is usually associated with it. And they feel that they are- they have a special mission.

This has been true throughout history. It's not peculiar to- The Nixon administration seems to be making a big pitch on the Vietnamization of the war. And I just wonder if a country cannot win a war by its- with us helping it, how it can win it all alone. Well, I don't think it can. I mean, they- they have a great many more troops today than the enemy has. I- I don't believe it can, because it's a narrowly based political government. However, if I'm wrong in that, they would have an opportunity under the program I propose, that is of a free election under the direction of a provisional government which everybody participates and to demonstrate the contrary. I don't ... I don't see why they would. I can think of no instance hardly where generals with no political background, who have formerly served a colonial power, which was France and now in effect serve a foreign

power [inaudible] of the United States. It's inconceivable to me that they would have a great political appeal. This is against human nature. There's no reflection on those individuals. It's in the circumstances. And client or puppet states rarely have a political base. -For five years, longer than five years, this ... this war has been tearing up Vietnam and now it's tearing this country asunder. Don't you think ... think that our concern should be with this country, primarily now instead of Vietnam? This is exactly the point I've tried to make [inaudible] I mean we talk about our concern for the self-determination and for the Thieu government and for freedom in South Vietnam. I'm much more concerned about what's going on in this country and after all should we not be concerned about our own soldiers who were being ummm killed? weekly ... Weekly, I mean, have- daily since all these years since 65? It

seems to me that ought to take precedence over what happens in South Vietnamese- South Vietnam Vietnam, I mean it is a matter of sort of perspective. And I think what goes on here and what goes on with our own armed forces is far more important than this rather vague concept of self-determination in a country that has never had self-determination and I'm not sure they want self-determination. That's for them to prove that. Ah, Most ... Most of those countries do not have self-determination in our sense. They all have some form of a government which is different from our idea of self-determination. It's either military dictatorship or something comparable to that or a kind of an oligarchy which is historical - with historic roots. I don't say that critical, but that's a fact that these countries do not have either the history, nor I think the capacity at this stage or maybe the des- also the desire to have our country. -Do you think that the center at home is prolonging the

war? -I don't think so, I think what's prolonging the war is the unwillingness of us to make the arrangements that I've already mentioned. Now of course what I'm saying is based upon this [inaudible] that the intrusion of this country into the affairs of Vietnam was a serious mistake in judgement. This is what I- I don't see why- how the President can reconcile The idea of staying on and supporting a South Vietnam government if he, if he believes it's a mistake. If it wasn't a mistake and it was justified [inaudible] or perfectly valid reason, then why would you accept anything [inaudible] victory? Shouldn't it be pursued to victory? Now he has never given up the idea of a military victory. But if it were justified, then I think he ought to go through the victory. If

it was a mistake then you ought to settle it politically in the same fashion as I say the French did -When Mr. Nixon moved to bring the first combat soldier back here a few weeks ago- a few months ago. Didn't he automatically then decide he was going to give up the war? -It seems to me that was it. Well, Mr. Johnson, President Johnson stopped the bombing of the north. It seems to me at that point and they began the de-escalation of the war. At that point, he had accepted that conclusion. He never had really believed in the war or he wouldn't have put all the restrictions upon the bombing in the north [inaudible] in my opinion it was an equivocal position, he followed all along. He couldn't quite be convinced that it was thoroughly in our interests therefore we took half measures. -Senator, I know ... I know that senators are not prophets but based on the record. Looking back over what's happened, what do you think lies in the future for Vietnam if we keep on the way we're going? -Well, you said a moment ago about the critical stage, this is very hard to see. I

I thought that the president would certainly as a good, I thought, receptive political leader, disassociate himself from the war and take whatever measures are necessary to effect a reasonably orderly liquidation of the war. Now I'm uncertain about it. I still think that the interests of our country are so clear, by that I mean that they do not lie in continuing this war in Vietnam. The interests of our country's so clear that we must come back. We must begin to pay more attention to our domestic affairs and we must allow these people to work out their own destiny. The pressures we develop and bring that about. -You think the so-called silent majority is going to encourage re-escalation of this war. I do not. I think that- I don't agree with the silent majority backs this war. I do agree that there is a historical and traditional impulse of all peoples to back

their leader whether whatever the organization may be in time of trouble, this goes back to the tribal state when the survival of the tribe depends upon backing the leader. I can understand this, it was true in those days we're no longer a tribe, our survival and security is in no way involved in Vietnam. Vietnam has certainly never been a threat to the security of the United States, either directly or indirectly. The illusion that this is part of a a vast international communist conspiracy surely has been dissipated except in a very restricted circle. There are few who still subscribe to this so a that tribal instinct is out of place. But I agree it's very difficult to overcome instincts overcome traditional ways of doing things especially in political and social matters. We find that in all areas of life. It is not easy to change our ways of thoughts and our habits, and so

we find it either whether it be in racial affairs or economic affairs cultural affairs or political affairs. - So Senator [inaudible] [inaudible]. Harsh critic of the war under Lyndon Johnson, now has serious reservations about President Nixon's plan to bring the war to an early end. We carried some of those objections with us to a separate interview with senate republican leader Hugh Scott. Scott eight weeks in office as Senate Republican leader has generally been regarded as a moderate on the war. But talking with us, he was sharply critical of senator Fulbright 's remarks and firmly in support of the president. Senator Fulbright says he is disappointed with what now appears to be the president's Vietnam policy that it does not seem to call for an early end to the war. That the plan is indefinite and that the president's measures don't seem designed to achieve an really end the war. What's your reaction to that?

Well I think as it often happens, Senator Fulbright is wrong. Ummm, The senator is a very able, scholarly man man but like many professors I've known frequently starts with a wrong major premise. He is not the president of the United States - speaking of major premises, Senator Fulbright indicated that the critical obstacle as he says to a negotiated settlement is our government's unwillingness to disassociate our fortunes from the preservation of the two key government. He calls upon the administration to agree to the formation of a provisional Saigon government and to agree to free elections as the minimum requirement to win a negotiated settlement Well again you have a problem of the wrong major premise. The president has not made a commitment to maintain in office the two key government government, like all governments they deal with the other

government in power at the time. It is up to the people of South Vietnam to change their government. More people voted in South Vietnam in their last election than in the most recent US election. And while I do not sympathise or approve of their impressions of the present Saigon goverment. What Senator Fulbright proposes apparently is without any regard to the Constitution or the laws of South Vietnam. They should hold a Fulbright referendum immediately to see whether or not the people of South Vietnam agree with Senator Fulbright and replace this government forthwith. This is the height of the ridiculous and I don't go for these extreme suggestions. Now if Senator Fulbright means that we favor free elections internationally or internally supervised in which anybody could be elected in South Vietnam including communists, the answer is yes.

President Nixon proposed that May 14th, we are perfectly willing to have such free elections but as I remember the last time we the United States overthrew a Vietnamese government, it was people like Senator Fulbright who objected to it. Others of course have raise criticisms of the apparent U.S. Vietnam policy as enunciated in the president's November 3rd speech. One criticism is that assuming negotiations will be unproductive in [inaudible]. The plan to Vietnamise the conflict is Based on what they say is an essential fallacy. Namely that the Saigon government and its armed forces might not be able to stand on its own as U.S. troops withdraw. Are you concerned about this? This seems also to concern Senator Fulbright. Well I don't know exactly what Senator Fulbright is getting at. If he is concerned that the Saigon government will not survive, he ought to favour in strengthening it. Or he ought to, umm, he ought

to have a better suggestion than any of those he has made so far. My own view is that our obligation in Vietnamising to war is to leave the Saigon government as well prepared to defend itself as we can. And then I do not think we are obligated to give a permanent guarantee forever and ever to South Vietnam that they will be guaranteed that they can withstand the forces of communism. Obviously if Russia or China moved in, there's no guarantee. Obviously if the war is to continue there is no ultimate guarantee. Leave them as strongly prepared as we can but we we don't say to them that you are guaranteed any form of government just as Senator Fulbright doesn't like the form they have now.

I really find myself very much confused by Senator Fulbright's views because they have a sort of a [incomprshensible] So Scott, following the president's November 3rd speech. You and Senator Mansfield and more than 30 of your colleagues suggested that we attempt to achieve a cease fire in Vietnam. So I take it you believe the president's policy is flexible and can even admit to further suggestions along these lines. Well of course we are. The president himself has said over and over again that none of his points in his May 14th peace offer aah are non-negotiable but the other way all of his points are negotiable except the right of the South Vietnamese freely to choose their own government. We aren't guaranteeing two key governments. But Senator Fulbright seems to

say let's stop in the middle of a war and elect a government that I could get along with. I think there ought to be a higher and higher. objective than that --- Are you concerned that our domestic critics are not putting enough pressure on Hanoi ... that they are neglecting the lack of movement by Hanoi. I think so. I think that in their anxiety to to make their point. Each of them that he has a better way of ending the war than the president. They are concentrating on the only people who listen to them - the Americans and they know Hanoi won't listen They think they do. And yet I think that if all of the critics made up their mind to tell it to Hanoi The war would be short. --- Senator Scott, some observers believe there was something for everyone in the November 3rd speech. Is it possible that it was precisely the kind

of speech that a president would make if he had every intention of disengaging from the war as rapidly and reasonably as could be expected. Right, I admit the possibility. But I wouldn't want to mislead anyone in thinking that I know what the president has said the president would do. I do not. I think the president too has undoubtedly been advised of the intent of the United States to withdraw all of its forces at some time or other and at a point when the Vietnamese believe themselves are able to defend themselves on the ground with in Vietnam without U.S. or other allied forces. The critics seem to be concerned that there is too little definite about what the president's president says is his plan. do you believe that in the discussions with the Saigon government that there is a definite timetable. Perhaps A timetable has been set. I believe so and I commented last winter before President

Nixon was inaugurated that what would happen during this year of 1969 would be that the president would move to end the war. And all of his critics would be terribly mad at him for doing it. And that's about what's happening. Senator Scott, some critics say the administration has been guilty of needless provocation of a moratorium organizers and the protesters. And others believe he lumped all the protesters together as an effect deterring peace and prolonging this war. Do you agree? Well I, I, no. I think that uh.. as the president has said he welcomes honest dissent. I think he is listening I'm satisfied he is. I think it is interesting to know whether Hanoi is listening. I think for myself, I would make a distinction between the absolute, absolute right to punish dissent, of non-violent dissent which I would encourage.

I think it helps us to find out how much of a fever the country is running at any given time. The difference between that and violence which must not and cannot be tolerated. Now I'm glad the administration has agreed on a compromise including the use of the part of Pennsylvania Avenue. I would have supported their security positions. I had no choice but to support them. But I'm glad that the moratorium people and the administration have met together and have come to what seems to me a very fair compromise in the line of march. I may add that I'd be willing to give you details that I had a part in bringing the contending points of view together. Senator Scott, Senators quite obviously are not prophets and making predictions on the war in Vietnam as and rather of a high mortality rate in this town. But could we ask you to look ahead a bit

for us? What would you hope the situation would be like with regard to the president, the nation, and the war six months from now? The leaves will return to the trees, and in my judgment, before they have all fallen again one winter from now, it would be my guess that most, if not all, of the combat troops are either out of Vietnam or on the way out on some timetable. And this is a personal guess. --- Today in Paris, citing anti-war protests here in Washington and Hanoi [incomprehensible] demand that the U.S. withdraw from Vietnam. Ambassador Lodge told him Hanoi is entertaining false expectations based on the protests. In Vietnam, there was heavy new fighting up near the DMZ and along the Cambodian border. At least 34 Americans were reported killed, 121 wounded in a 24 hour period ending this evening. I'm Jim Calrk. Thank you. Good night.[Music]

[Music & Titles] [Music & Titles] That