Washington WTOP television 9, a post Newsweek station at Broadcast House.
Face the Nation was pre-recorded for broadcast at this time.
Senator Kennedy, once again there's repeated speculation that your brother Robert will seek the Democratic presidential nomination this year.
If he does, will you support him against Lyndon Johnson?
Well, Senator Robert Kennedy has indicated, Mr. Ogronski, on a number of different occasions that he did not expect to be a candidate.
He expected President Johnson to win the nomination as well as the election.
And I expect to support President Johnson. I expect Senator Robert will as well.
From CBS Washington in color, Face the Nation, a spontaneous and unrehearsed news interview with Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts.
Senator Kennedy will be questioned by CBS News correspondent John Hart, ward just of the Washington Post, and CBS News correspondent Martin Ogronski.
We shall resume the interview with Senator Kennedy in just a moment.
Senator Kennedy, as you know, I was in Boston last Thursday to cover your speech on Vietnam, which you made immediately after your return from there.
And you harshly criticized the South Vietnamese government for wholesale corruption, for unwillingness to match U.S. sacrifices in the war.
You demanded an American confrontation immediately of the Chiou government to reform itself.
Now, if President Johnson ignores your demand, how can you and principals still support him for renomination?
Well, let me say, Mr. Ogronski, I believe that President Johnson, from my own conversation that I had with him on my return, is aware of the problems of corruption.
I also feel that Ambassador Bunker, Mr. Comer, are aware.
My principal problem has been that I think perhaps the priorities have been placed on the military aspect of the war, which are extremely important.
But unless there is this kind of confrontation, which I outlined in the speech in Boston, I do not feel that the military successes will be really productive in reaching even a short-term, let alone a long-term resolution of the problem.
Senator, there have been a number of confrontations over the years between our embassy in Saigon, both the military and civilian side, and the Saigon government.
None of these confrontations seem to have worked in the past.
What new elements would you bring to that to make them work and to bring a more satisfactory realignment within the Saigon government?
Mr. Just, I think they have to be much more dramatic, and they have to be dramatic in the sense of alternatives that will be proposed if the Saigon government is not going to really attack the problem of corruption, which is today eating away at the very fiber of that country.
It pervades, as you know, Mr. Just, in every aspect of life in Vietnam.
And this is something which is not startling. I'm sure there have been others that have commented on this.
There have been Mr. Potez, who is a high-ranking official in our own State Department, who's commented in the House committees.
There are the statement of the Catholic bishops in early January that indicated that unless the problems of corruption, the tremendous kinds of corruption that exists in that nation are rooted out, that there will never be a meaningful peace.
And I think we have to be much more aggressive in trying to attack this problem than we have in the past.
Senator Kennedy, in these confrontations Ward talks about, the Vietnamese government has successfully resisted all of the dramatic alternatives which have been presented to them.
Aren't you really moving in the direction of coming up to them and saying, now look, shape up, or we're going to ship out?
Well, I think that perhaps very is exactly what we should do, Mr. Hart.
Tell them that we'll withdraw if they don't clean up in a certain period of time?
I'm not prepared today to make any time limit as to when we ought to adjust or modify our own commitment.
But what I am prepared to state is that I think it's rather meaningless for the United States to sacrifice 10,000 American boys a year to expend the amount of funds and resources they were expending, some $30 billion a year,
and to see the great weight of this battle being carried by the United States at a time when the Saigon government is failing to mobilize its full resources, failing to draft young 18-year-olds in that country.
And in the debate before the Parliament, it's stated quite clearly that they don't feel that it's in the national interest to draft 18-year-olds.
That's why we have young 18-year-old Americans who are suffering and dying in that country, where we see millions of dollars in the programs that I've been primarily interested in, the programs of refugees, civilian casualties,
where you have outright thievery and outright corruption of the most extraordinary sort, which is recognized among every facet of that society.
I just wonder how long the American people are going to stand for it.
And I, for one, would certainly feel that unless the South Vietnamese government is going to become a great deal more serious about rooting out the problems of corruption,
that first of all I think that the nature of our fighting over there is going to be rather hopeless.
And I think that they ought to recognize that we're going to moderate and modify, modify significantly, the nature of our commitment in that country.
Senator, you have indicated that you raised all these points with President Johnson since your return from South Vietnam.
Can you tell us what was his reaction?
Did he feel that there was the urgency that you see in it to do something now and to confront them flatly with what amounts to an ultimatum, as which you recommend, either they shape up or we pull out?
Well, Mr. Ogronsky, the president was interested in my comments. He listened to them. I think he's aware of this problem. But I would not be prepared to speak to him.
Well, were you satisfied with his response?
Well, I would just say that I myself am going to review closely the actions taken both by our, by the South Vietnamese government, by our own government officials in this area.
And we'll visit Vietnam again, I would hope next year, we'd continue our own hearings on the problems of refugees and continue to speak out on this as we, as this, as we move along in the course of the next few months.
Yes.
Do you think the South Vietnamese people support the war to the point where they would go along with recommendations for an 18-year-old call up the kind of war economy, putting the country on a war footing that you suggest?
Are the, are the people, are the people that much in favor of prosecuting the war in Vietnam?
Well, I, today I would question, Mr. Just, whether they are principally because they equivocate the question of corruption so intimately with their own government.
And therefore it's difficult for them to arouse any kind of national spirit, for them to cope with the problems of the war because they, they see corruption in every aspect of their life.
And when you have the government itself only working five days a week, when you have the South Vietnamese government officials taking three-hour siesta breaks, when you have elements of the South Vietnamese Army, when they're, when they're marching, taking two to three hour breaks at lunchtime, it seems to me that that has to come from the top.
And we can establish and set up certain kinds of accounting procedures to try and attack the problems of the conversion of funds which are extensive in the refugee problem.
But this is something that the South Vietnamese government has to do and which they're not doing today.
And in which in my conversations with leading government officials in that, I fail to detect the sense of urgency which I think is so necessary if we're not going to be involved in what I think is a hopeless stalemate.
Senator, doesn't this position you take in a sense put the United States in a position of admitting that this is a puppet government but they aren't acting like good puppets?
Well, I think if these, we've gone through the questions of the elections themselves, I'm prepared to see if this government is really interested in attempting to meet this problem, to give them a reasonable time to attempt to do it.
But I think that we have an interest, a vital national self-interest, a vital national investment in terms of life and other resources. And I don't think, frankly Mr. Hart, that we can expect to reach any satisfactory solution to that problem.
The way this is moving at the present time, and I think if we have to, whatever means necessary, if we have to impress upon them the importance and the relevancy of seeing a total attack on the problems of corruption, I think we ought to do it.
This is a national interest to the United States as well as the South Vietnamese government.
And I suppose there'll be those that accuse, that accuse the United States of interfering. I don't think we have any alternative.
Well, Senator, if we're willing to threaten them with withdrawal, we must also be willing, I think you would agree, to put up and really withdraw.
Now, are you willing to take all of the consequences that might mean for the United States in Asia and Southeast Asia?
Well, I'm prepared to make significant kinds of adjustments of moderating the, our whole effort. I think we ought to be doing that anyway, Mr. Hart.
If we do not achieve negotiations in the very foreseeable future, I think we ought to modify the pursuit of our objectives in that country to much more of a clear and whole operation in the sense that we're protecting the civilian population
and we're reducing the total number of troop losses. I think this is essential unless, until we know what that government is prepared to do.
Do you advocate then a return to what is in effect the enclave or the enclave theory? Is that correct, Gavin?
Well, rather than the enclave theory, the modified enclave theory, I would think that it would come closer to the suggestions that were made in the Bermuda conference
a few weeks back, that is, the protection of the civilian population, reduction of the losses of American troops, for I do not see how we can possibly tolerate the increased losses of American troops that we have in the last two to three years
and still see this cancer of corruption in all aspects of the Vietnamese government, where you either have involvement of the government itself or the complicity of other members of that government
and why we ought to be seeing the increased losses of American lives is something that I don't want to feel that we can tolerate.
To get specific on the talk of moderation, that if negotiations aren't quickly forthcoming, you'd moderate the military effort.
What then happens to a position like Quezon, where we hold up near the demilitarized zone, where three North Vietnamese divisions are now presumably right around that area and about to attack?
What would you do about Quezon?
Well, Mr. Just, I'm not prepared to make a tactical evaluation of the Quezon.
Quezon is symbolic.
Yes, it is. That's right. And as well as many of our other operations in the highlands.
I listen to military officials who have a profound amount of experience in conducting the war and who I have a great deal of respect for and who have served extremely well the U.S. forces under their command.
And they view many of the involvements in the higher plains, even in Quezon, as military victories.
I hear also, Mr. Just, others who are involved in the civilian programs of revolutionary development say that when it's necessary to deploy great numbers of American troops in the highlands, that we're taking them out of the populated areas, that we have corresponding V.C. activity in these areas, which was true when I was there.
That the V.C. are able to get the rice, which they would need at other times, which was true when I was there, and that we are fighting the Viet Cong in the area where they are best suited to fight, and that is deep within the jungles.
Now, you're suggesting from my earlier comments that my feeling is that we ought to be protecting the population, the reduction of the forces, and that is something that I would agree with.
And I would make, I suppose, the, that is a policy question and hope that the military leaders could find the appropriate tactical ways to implement it.
Senator, in our system of government, as you well know, there is only one way that one can express a disagreement with an administration in power, and that's in the political way.
One doesn't only criticize, one attempts to act politically.
Now, here we have Senator McCarthy of Minnesota seeking to challenge the nomination of President Johnson, saying identically what you and your brother Robert are saying in criticism of the administration policy in Vietnam.
Why do you not then support Senator McCarthy?
Well, Mr. Ogronsky, Senator McCarthy himself, I believe, stated at an early part when he announced for the presidency that he didn't feel that he was going to win the nomination.
He felt that it was important that we have this kind of debate or discussion on the question of Vietnam.
I think it is extremely important that the debate itself is taken out of the rioting in the streets, the demonstrations in front of the Pentagon, the kind of bitter acrimony, the confrontations between the First Lady of the land, the secretary of state, the cabinet officials, and put into the ballot box.
So I think that this kind of debate is important. I think it's useful, and hopefully with the reaction from it and the dialogue that will spring from it, we can have the kinds of modifications on our policy, which we're in sympathy with.
I feel myself that it's, Mr. McCarthy is coming to Massachusetts. The people up there will have an opportunity to know how I stand on this question. They'll have a chance to view as well, either President Johnson or Senator McCarthy will be able to make up their own mind.
Where are you going to stand when it comes to the primary?
I'm not going to participate in the primary other than to speak out on the question of Vietnam whenever I'm asked. I spoke out in my own state when I returned. I'll continue to speak out. I'm going to make a report to the Senate within the next two or three weeks on the problems of refugees, civilian casualties.
We're going to conduct hearings that will continue through the winter and the spring and continue to oversee this problem. People of that state will know where my position is on it.
But let me say, Mr. Ogronsky, that I feel that what I have no apologies for expecting to support the President of the United States, President Johnson. I've seen in the areas which I've been particularly interested in, in the field of civilian casualties and refugees, significant increase in the budgetary considerations for those programs.
The refugee program has increased practically from zero two and a half years ago to some 30 millions of dollars, the health program from five to 40 millions of dollars. And I think that it's, these are, these are improvements.
Are you satisfied with President Johnson's response to the proposal of Hanoi some weeks ago on peace negotiations? Do you think that we should stop the bombing now?
Well, let me answer that. I indicated in March of last year my general support, my support for the halt in the bombing. I felt that at that time, and I continue to feel that it cannot be justified from a military point of view, but that if there is some hope, some reasonable chance, some even outside chance of reaching the negotiating table, that it is worth taking that chance.
Recognizing full well that even when we reach the question of negotiation, we don't necessarily mean that we're going to reach a satisfactory solution, but I do think that that chance is worth taking.
Well, do you feel the President has sufficiently and has exploited with sufficient vigor the opportunity to start peace negotiations?
Well, I say that by support they halt in the bombing, and we haven't taken that course. I think that speaks for itself.
Senator Kennedy, the North Koreans have announced that they will ignore any United Nations action on the Pueblo incident and also that they are ready for combat with the United States if necessary.
Do you think that the United States should now or very soon or under any condition respond militarily and possibly open a second front in Asia?
I think the President has handled this Pueblo incident extremely well in pursuing every kind of diplomatic means that have been open to us and then reserving under Article 51 of the UN Charter unilateral kinds of actions without getting into a discussion as to what those unilateral actions would be.
What we're interested in and what Ambassador Goldberg and the President have stated is the lives of those 83 Americans and returning those as well as the ship itself.
And I think that I certainly support the efforts that are being made now on the diplomatic means.
Now, there are other considerations. What do you might say if we, what are these other alternative means? And certainly a variety of different alternatives have been suggested.
I think back at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis when there were 12 or 15 different kinds of alternatives that were suggested at that time to President Kennedy, some included military kinds of actions.
But I wouldn't be prepared at this time to indicate which I would support or not. But I do feel that we are pursuing this in the appropriate way and I support the President. I think he's done an outstanding job in this area.
To return just a second to Vietnam, there's been a lot of talk about politicians who go out there and say they're brainwashed by the American establishment. Did you feel that the official version of events that you got, the official briefings both from the military command and the civilian side, pretty much agreed with what you saw yourself in the field? Or did you notice any difference?
Well, I suppose, Mr. Just, that you have under any set of circumstances, the administration, the officials trying to present the facts in the most optimistic kind of setting and the most optimistic light. I suppose that one would expect that.
In the opportunities to talk with men of the press, they look at it somewhat more skeptically in a different kind of a critical light, a way of questioning. And so you try in your conversations with the young parliamentarians, the deputies, the senators and other civilians to try and acquire some kind of balance.
I found absolutely no attempt to, where do you use brainwash, anyone. I think, quite frankly, you do find officials trying to present it in the most optimistic kind of light. And I came back from Vietnam without sharing that optimism.
Senator, to return to a political question for a moment, the Massachusetts primary, which interests, as you know, everyone at this particular moment, didn't the president ask you directly to be his stand-in in Massachusetts?
No, he did not, Mr. Kravitzky.
Indirectly?
No.
Will then Senator McCarthy run alone up there in Massachusetts, as far as you can tell?
Well, I've heard that the president's considering running up there under our Massachusetts law, the state chairman would file the president's name unless the president indicated that he would not want his name.
So it's somewhat different from, for example, entering his name in another primary. The state chairman would do so unless instructed not to, or the president would have a stand-in in Massachusetts.
What do you think would be the outcome of that election, then, Senator McCarthy versus the president?
I would think the President Johnson would be successful in Massachusetts. The president in 1964, as far as percentage-wise, ran third strongest in Massachusetts outside of Hawaii and Rhode Island. I think that he would run strongly in Massachusetts today.
But you yourself would take no stand between here and Senator McConnell?
Senator, am I correct in feeling that by and large you think that the president of the United States is doing about as good a job as he possibly could do at this moment in the conduct of our foreign policy and in the conduct of the Vietnam War?
It seems to be the thrust of what you've been saying.
Well, Mr. Ogronsky, I would, I have serious reservations about our policy in Vietnam and the pursuit of that policy in Vietnam. And I think that that is the overriding consideration and the question that is before our nation and pervades every other aspect of not only the life in this country but our domestic programs.
And I've tried to express very briefly some of those reservations. I do recognize that we, the Pueblo incident and the Middle East crisis, I think that these incidents have been well handled.
But we have to realize that the Vietnam issue is the overriding foreign policy question.
And I do regard it as the overriding foreign policy question, and you say that you do. It would seem that there would be a fundamental conflict between your ability to support the president in principle and your reservations.
One would think if you regarded this as so overriding an issue that you would want to do something about it and place it in the hands of someone who would take a different policy, a different line in Vietnam. Or do you feel that that just isn't in the cards and is the wrong thing to do now?
Mr. Ogronsky, I see no alternative. Certainly within the Republican ranks we've seen no alternative. The Republican State of the Union address even took a much harder military line towards the problems of Vietnam.
Leading Republican candidates, I think, would move in a much more intense kind of way as far as military action. And so I don't, and I think the Republican Party has failed to really develop any kind of useful or constructive debate on this question.
Well, it would appear then that the Brotherhood's candidate, despite some reservations, would loyally support President Johnson for reelection.
Well, I'm prepared to answer for myself, Mr. Ogronsky. And I would just say, as I stated before, I expect the president to be nominated and expect to support.
I think that in the, certainly the domestic areas, fields of civil rights, the problems of poverty, gun legislation, a whole host of domestic questions, I think these have been programs which I support and which I think need continuation.
Very briefly, at the beginning of our discussion you suggested we should threaten the South Vietnamese government with withdrawal.
Mr. Hart, I'd like to correct just the impression, I would, with significantly modifying our policy there, and I think I outlined in the course of the presentation exactly what I intended by that.
I'm not prepared to set a time limit on that fact.
Senator Kennedy, thank you very much for being here to face the nation. We regret we have run out of time.
A word about next week's guest in a moment.
Today on Face the Nation, Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, was interviewed by CBS News correspondent John Hart, ward just of the Washington Post.
CBS News correspondent Martin Ogronsky led the questioning. Next week, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach will face the nation.
Official Washington will be in attendance when an all-star cast performs for the first time on the stage of the newly restored Ford's Theater.
See an inaugural evening at Ford's Theater, a CBS News special, in color, Tuesday at 10, 9 Central Time.
Face the Nation originated in color from CBS Washington.