Washington Week in Review

PLEason . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . supporters of the president have defected first the Hearst chain then the Chicago Tribune and a number of others the Chicago Tribune hurt bad enough so that they had Dean Birch respond or provide a rebuttal or try to provide a rebuttal but no one paid much attention to it and then we've had the Senate and House Republicans beginning to defect in large numbers and and Neil will talk about that but the rumors that Mr. Nixon would resign as you know has swept the city and all had been denied by the White House this morning the president and the vice president had an hour long meeting and then Mr. Ford shuffled off the buffalo where he had a press conference in which he said confirming what the White House spokesman had said earlier that resignation had not been discussed. Ford said though he could infer that Mr. Nixon has no intention of resigning and then Ford went on to say has no sharp disagreements with the president still supports him but stress that I will continue to be

my own man while the White House continues to turn out paper and appointments and continues to have water known over there as photo opportunities showing the president with cabinet officers and visitors of one kind or another and I think this flurry of activity proved that everything is normal and routine can fool no one Paul because it isn't normal and it isn't very routine there now. I watch the president pose for one picture with the housing and urban development secretary James Lynn and he looked like a man trying to look as calm and composed and relaxed as possible. He barely succeeded his eyes looked distracted he looked like a troubled man a man deeply tired and troubled and the question that hangs over the White House now is are these pressures becoming intolerable and can the presidency itself be salvageable now one final thing Mr. Nixon is going to still water Oklahoma tomorrow night for a commencement address at the Oklahoma State University

and maybe we'll get some clue to his temper and outlook in the speech he makes there. You're saying in effect that the president himself is trying to hold up what about his staff how they've been hit by this. Well, Neil throughout the executive branch there is privately deep dismay pessimism one top cabinet officer has said privately to even two reporters that the Nixon administration is finished others have expressed thorough disgust but publicly they are they are being very loyal and game and brave Mr. Lynn for example when he came out to announce the housing program praise the president spoke you know in an upbeat manner but throughout there is this pervasive mood of what I would call be pessimism. Peter you the president keeps talking about doing the job he was elected to do. Now you're telling us he's not doing that I take it. Well, I think that there's nothing's moving

Charlie there is a kind of inertia at the heart of the government it just has to be his chief of staff Alexander Hague has overworked over tired working around the clock practically and not much gets done and you can talk to people around town in various government departments and agencies and they will say that the bureaucracy works. As we've often said the checks come in and they go out but as for creativeness any kind of you know any kind of new programs it just isn't happening. Peter is there any discussion at the White House about the state of the president's health are there any expressions of concern or indications that he may be feeling the strain physically. Well, there was a stories as you know this week that the president's you know he's in a kind of blue funk or deep funk but they deny this they deny it and these photo opportunities are calculated to further disprove these stories and as I say when people go in and see the president chatting rather amably and smiling one might

think through clinch teeth but nevertheless smiling for the photographers he looks all right you know we're not we can't judge from a far we're not the doctors or psychiatrists but there's a game being played to put the best possible face on the president's ability to do his job. Peter what can the president do now is Republican leadership in Congress is pulling away from him. The public no longer is supporting him the way it was his tactics have not worked up until now. What can he do? Well his options grow narrower and narrower Paul as much he can do he's trying to bullet through and he says he's going to go forward with it. Is it salvageable? Can he reverse the trend representative roads believes that the moral impact of those transcripts is such and the erosion is a morally erosion not what he would call an evidentiary effect and therefore the morally erosion is difficult to reverse. I don't know the direct answer to

your question but he's in a deep dilemma you cannot reverse this by the accounts of many of the political leaders in this town. Peter what about Gerald Ford? Was there another reason for the president's summoning him back to Washington just to have what appears to have been from what we know. There may be casual conversations. There may be enemies working too hard. There may be Neil but I don't know the answer to that but everybody thought that in this environment to call him back was really to discuss the possibility of a resignation. Mr. Ford said they did discuss the impeachment thing in terms of procedures to be followed. We're not sure what that means but I just don't know the answer to that question. Well the question I'd like to put to you Neil is how do you explain the collapse of Mr. Nixon's support this week in Congress among Republicans and how deep is it. Well first the depth I think is still a little early to assess it seems to be very

very deep. What happened really was last week when the transcripts were first published they came out of one great big glob as we all know we all had a kind of a desperate time trying to sort them out. The members of Congress themselves did not read them. They did watch television which did a lot of specials on the transcripts they did read the newspapers and so on. But what really happened when it really began to turn is last weekend. The congressman normally very busy people they crowded schedules and so on. The weekends they started reading the transcripts themselves and what they read I think fascinated them and then it disgusted them and they kept reading and the words that were coming out all over the hill. The ugliness involved here the mental ugliness the immorality the lack of a sense of law disgusting as a frequent word immorality and so on. That seemed to come together in a

mass form the way I time was literally on Wednesday afternoon and on the house floor and the members were then talking about this themselves on the basis of having themselves read these things and the whole bottom just fell out of Nixon's support. Now there were editorials coming out that Peter's already mentioned the Chicago Tribune and Hurst and so on. That I do not think was significant. That is confirmation to these congressmen that their reading is correct. The mail last week was almost nonexistent on this subject. This week it began to come in and it's coming in quite heavy volume now against the president. Very hostile to the president. John Rhodes said that his mail he's a very pronix and district in Arizona is 10 to 1 against the president. But again that mail didn't influence. Most congressmen don't pay all that much attention to their mail. They do watch it but they don't they don't shift position on it. That also confirmed their finding against the president and it's just the whole bottom is falling out.

Neil I know you'll accuse me of cynicism for asking this question but are some of these congressmen and senators calling for Mr. Nixon to resign because they don't want to face up to an impeachment vote. Peter attitude towards congressmen reminds me of what lord acted once said about a member of the British House of Commons. He said to fellow only knew one thing and that was wrong. But I'm your question. It's a switch I'm elected by the way I thought you were going to give us power act. No it's the same fellow same fellow. Different quote. Different quote. He made quite a few good quotes. I've got someone on top of my tongue. No, I don't think so at all Peter. I think the moral revulsion and it's nothing less than that. That these men feel on reading this sort of thing. The degradation of the office of president that they see with their own eyes handed to them by the president himself is what's really stunning. Martha will be talking in a moment about some of the men in their up for election and so on. But it's not just these people. And

there's a great hesitation I think within the Congress leadership example to formally ask for the president's resignation. I don't believe they'll do it. Not immediately. But was the call for resignation an orchestrated one? No, there were reports that the leaders got together and decided to do this. No, no, no. I know the leaders have not done that. As if they're telling me the truth which I assume they are. No, I would think that as last weekend was the time when they began to get the message of what was really in those transcripts by reading them this weekend next this coming weekend. They will begin to start thinking about, you know, what do we do about it now? I know the leaders in specific cases, or how their members are coming to them and saying, you know, I've had it. There's an implicit question in that from the member to the leader. What are you going to do about it? And by next week, the leaders are going to have to start coming up with some answers. The only feeling is that what they will come up with is a head count of the House and the Senate and they will try to turn it out of the White House and present it to the president. And in effect say, it's your move. Neil,

let me just get you to elaborate this second a Republican strategist told me this week that the situation some months ago looked pretty good, but that it had really been barricaded up tactically. And he wasn't even willing to consider it as a substantive thing. I disagree with this. That the tactics, the dilatory tactics and all this sort of thing aren't the real reason that I think that not only the tactics, but the strategy, the overall thing has been a disaster from the beginning. Yeah, but it's the substance of the transcripts that's really turning the yes, but the reason the substance of the transcripts came out was itself a series of of blunders. Neil, we've gone this far and we've not got to the House Judiciary Committee beginning its inquiry this week. That's fascinating. What? It is fascinating. And we're counting on you right now to tell us a minute and 30 seconds. Fascinating about it is that the history of this republic, that committee, the judiciary committee has only twice, and this

is the second time this week, taken evidence towards the impeachment of a president. And the thing is of a myth is symbolic importance and it's anti-climactic. And it's anti-climactic about because of what these tapes did, what these transcripts are on the dead. And the meeting was held. They went through the forms. I was particularly touched by what Ed Hutchinson said, the ranking Republican. He spoke of the rule of law and how the committee should proceed this way. He spoke of a divine providence and has looked over this country and blessed this land and this people and so on. And I couldn't help but thinking here, he would say those words. If those words were in the president's mouth in those transcripts of the spirit that he spoke from toward the rule of law had permeated that file, the president would be a free man at this hour. And he's not. He's beleaguered. And I think he's going to be removed from office. A quick question about Scott. Does Scott feel had? Is that why he recoiled? So Republican leader, Scott? Yeah. In Kenner, I haven't

talked to him. I know he's been very nervous. I know if he has said that he would do what he's now done if he felt had. I assume he has been. He can read the English tongue as well as any other member of Congress and he corresponded and he's citizen. And he has to feel away. Martha, you cover the Senate very closely and in particular, the Watergate committee. Do you agree with what Neil has just been saying? Do you find the same kind of mood? Or what do you think? Very much so. Yes, I think the Republican members of the Senate are extremely disturbed about the contents of the transcripts. Some of them are holding back comment, not because they feel that the president has any hope left, but because they are still concerned about the possibility that they will have to serve as jurors. If the impeachment process moves forward and there is a trial in the Senate, they're reluctant to comment on the substance of the transcripts for fear that it might be prejudging the evidence or be seen as that. Most of those who are speaking out now are running for reelection. Several of them are just today, Senator Milton Young of North Dakota, who is a

conservative Republican. One of the president's strong supporters urged that the president considers stepping aside temporarily under the terms of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution and allowing Jerry Ford to serve as acting president until the impeachment process is concluded. He is up for reelection this year and he's in a very, very tough race. A leading newspaper in his home state just two days ago put forward this suggestion of the 25th Amendment procedure. Senator Schweiker also, why is Young in difficulty in North Dakota? He used to own that state. He did. I think he's in difficulty largely because of President Nixon and his Watergate troubles. There is an age factor involved, also Senator Young's not a young man, but he, I think, would have far less trouble where it not for the problems that the president is having. As I was saying though, Senator Schweiker of Pennsylvania, who also today called upon the president to resign, is another one who is running for reelection this year. He doesn't appear to be

in much trouble, but I'm sure it's in his mind. He's worried about his voters. There's one of the two senators who made the president's enemies list. That's right. Does this mean, Martha, that Republicans are now willing to dump the president to help win reelection? I don't know whether they'd like to have that mode of attributed to them. I think it's certainly in their minds inevitably, particularly the ones who are facing tough fights this year. They can't help but be worried about the drag that he is on the ticket. But it is your contention, is it Martha, that this is genuine outrage at what they saw in the transcripts? And it's honest. It has no political overlay to it. I think they're political overlaced almost anything that happens in Congress. But I do think the moral revulsion is absolutely sincere that the members of both houses are shocked and appalled and upset and discouraged and saddened many of them. That suggests that they're reading it or have read it. They are. There are people who believe that they just aren't weighing into this vast voluminous pile of transcript. But you think they are in

the end? I believe they are. And interestingly enough, the president, as you mentioned, is going to Oklahoma tomorrow, where Senator Belman of Oklahoma is one of the, practically, the only member of the Senate, I think, who has said previously he would be pleased to have the president come and appear in his state this year when Senator Belman is running. I am told that at a press conference in Oklahoma today, when Senator Belman was asked his impressions of the transcript, his response was that he had not finished reading them. What about Senator Goldwater? What about Senator Goldwater? Do you hear anything about what Stan, he may take? That's an interesting question. And a lot of people are waiting to see what Senator Goldwater will say and whether he will say anything. I understand from a conversation I had with a member of his staff late this afternoon that there's a possibility he may be preparing a statement for early next week. They wouldn't indicate what the statement will cover. But I suspect there are going to be a great many people waiting to see what it is that Barry Goldwater has to say because he has a great moral authority within the Senate. That's what I was going to

ask you. If he were to come out against the president or suggest resignation, would that influence a great number of other conservative Republicans or other senators in the Senate? I believe it might. Yes, he's highly regarded and known as a representative. All senators, not just conservatives. He is a very highly respected man whose integrity is beyond question. But are there that many more asking all innocents to be affected after Senator Scott's statement about the disgusting nature of the whole thing? I think there's still a large block that Goldwater would reach that have not been I think you have about a dozen hard core Nixon supporters, largely the right wing of the Republican Party within the Senate now. And the oh, handful six perhaps perhaps less southern Democrats from the deep South Mississippi. Let me tell us about the Watergate Committee. There's a graph to their report out. Yes, the staff draft, the rough draft, which was prepared by the chief counsel, Sandesh

was given to the Watergate Committee members earlier this week. Most of them did not get around to reading it really until perhaps yesterday or the day before. It drew some rather stiff conclusions about where responsibility should be placed for both the Watergate, where I create a break in and for the cover up. For instance, the draft suggested that the weight of the evidence shows that former Attorney General John Mitchell did indeed approve the plan which led to the Watergate burglary, even though Mitchell has denied this repeatedly. Is that based on evidence that we have not seen? No, that's based on the evidence within the before the committee and which was conflicting, but they chose to come down or they believed that on balance, the evidence indicated that Mitchell had approved the plan. There were some stories that there were some stories that the president himself had participated in plans for intelligence gathering before the break in and that the committee draft worked on that. Do you know anything about that? They, not directly. I

don't think they dwelt on that. There was reference in the committee draft to the so-called Houston plan, which was a 1970 proposal for extensive domestic intelligence gathering that involves some illegal activities such as wiretapping for break-ins, sew repetitions and for mail interceptions, which the president admitted in public statements that he had at one time approved. He also said he had withdrawn that approval very shortly thereafter and that it was never implemented. The committee found no evidence that he did withdraw the approval. But the point that we ought to add, I think, Martha, is that he said he approved it because it all had to do with national security. Yes indeed. The national security cover. Well, one of the great leaders of the Western world, Willie Bryant has resigned and Charlie, I'm wondering if there is a lesson in that for President Nixon. Paul, I think there's a parallel and a contrast, which ought to put me somewhere in the middle of answering your question. Willie Bryant resigned this week for integrity's sake. There had

been found close to him a spy of 17 years duration, accepted responsibility and the consequences of it, where that he resigned. It's a sort of uprightness that had characterized Willie Bryant's entire career. It was about what one might have expected. He has been called occasionally a fool by some of his critics, where he's asked politics. It hadn't worked out as well as he might have hoped, but it sprang from an idealism, a sense of purpose and nobling purpose. He wanted to cool off things. He wanted a better deal for people east and west. And for his efforts, he got the Nobel Peace Prize. Willie Bryant was perhaps in his heyday when he was the Lord Mayor of West Berlin, the late 1950s. And I think if I may be forgiven for going beyond my usual sermon and being subjective, that it's fair to say that like most of the reporters of the Western world, I made the pilgrimage to the Berlin rot house at time or

two when he was there. And when you shook hands with Willie Bryant and he looked you in the eye, you knew you were not talking to an ordinary man. He then went on to become Foreign Minister and Chancellor of a country which was an economic giant, but a political pygmy. And so remains today, he could have done much more, his accomplishments don't really account for the highest demon which he's held. It's a mystique, Carrie's mom, to bring it down to the moment helmet. Schmidt will succeed him as Chancellor. No doubt there's an election next week in the one stock. He's finance minister now has been defense minister previously. And it's fair to say I've been in Germany twice this year that the people in Germany were not as wrapped up in Willie Bryant as the people overseas, which seems to be often the case with domestic leaders. How much mid probably will be able to do better inside Germany and outside as Chancellor? And for the good of the Atlantic Alliance, would he reverse

quickly Charlie? Well, he reversed the Oaks Politek policy. In a sense, reversal is a pretty strong where which might not 180 degrees, but he certainly is not all that concerned about improving relations where the Germans have seen that they the West Germans have seen they've not got all that much out of Dayton Oost Politek and they taught, but I think they taught falling on evil days all over the place. Partly because of the disarray in which all the Western countries are. Charlie, what does his resignation under the peculiar situation to take responsibility for something which he obviously didn't know about in terms of his own integrity? What does that do in Europe? In regarding Nixon who has refused to? Well, it does have an action. Being at this distance, one hesitates but I think it flashes a light that will be seen and some of the reporting from there is indicated as much and people have

been quoted. Here's one member of the whole Alliance who has determined to stand up and for integrity's sake. In any event he did. I don't you know there was an interesting piece in the New York Times with John Kerry, the British mystery writer who said the question about Brad is what did he know and when did he know it? We don't know and we don't want to be too sure it was just the spy thing. I mean he had been. There's a sex kind of involved. I suppose so, but I'm not sure that in Europe that that really matters. Charlie, aren't we making any progress in the Middle East? You know, I don't think so. I keep reading that the guy aboard the Kissinger Airplane says he's optimistic and the Secretary runs from one chapter to another. The fighting has been going on. I think it's now into its third month on the go-on heights and neither side seems willing to give as much as the other demands. I speak now Israel and Syria. Mr. Kissinger is probably coming home soon

and then go back out there. The question I don't know the answer to is whether the American government ought to have its Secretary of State run around the Middle East for two weeks at a time and there's other things. There's a bargaining credibility being undermined by the problems of his principle the president. Is this affecting Kissinger's ability to negotiate successfully when other countries have no way of knowing how long this government's going to hold together? I think that it is Martha in respect to the Soviet Union. I don't think there's any question about the Soviet Union is going to play the next difficulty for all its worth. In the Middle East they've got so many problems of their own. The Middle East doesn't need any of it. I would think that that was so. Moreover, he is playing the mediators role here in the president. Well, yes, it is. That is important to them. But what about the commitments he's making, obviously making. He made a commitment to the Egyptian and ran it to $250 million in economic aid. I suppose they know how our government works and that the money has to be coming and I say the money will be put

up too. It's a quick question. Ask a quick question on the fall of governments. Brandt has fallen. The Canadian government has fallen. He's really government has fallen. Is that through any great injury to those particular countries? In top it is. And the part is you've had enough people. I'm talking in terms of American changing governments. What's the question that does it what now? Has it hurt the nations in itself? Well, of course, it's hurt the nations. I think that the world is really in a state of anarchy for heaven's sake. And so we had unions getting stronger by doing nothing. And we'll be in a state of anarchy if we don't end this program. I'm Paul II. Good night for Washington Week in Review. This program is the main possible by Grant from the Ford

Foundation. Washington Week in Review has been a production of impact, a division of GWETA.