CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

April 3, 1969

Page 8631

Mr. FULBRIGHT. . . . My own view is that the proper time for criticism of what you perceive to be a mistake is when the mistake is made, or when you become aware that it has been made. Mr. Nixon, after all, did not discover for the first time that there was a war going on in Vietnam on the day of his inauguration. He has been a keen observer and articulate commentator on events in Indochina for the last 15 years. With due allowance for the necessary period in which a new President organizes his administration and becomes familiar with the workings of the Federal Government, it must also be borne in mind that the policy questions involved in Vietnam are not new but drearily old and familiar ones; that the president has had long experience in foreign affairs, which, as he said in the campaign, he regards as his "strong suit;" and finally, that, even if it were justified on all other grounds, we can not afford the luxury of delay in ending the war because every week that the war continues some 200 to 400 young Americans lose their lives.

You cannot really win on this matter of dissent, anyway. On March 27 the Foreign Relations Committee had a harmonious public hearing with Secretary of State Rogers, and that occurrence turned out to be hardly more pleasing to the critics of criticism than if the committee had held a field day of polemical fire works. Dismissing the matter of "tone and emphasis" -- which were at least as significant in the discussion with Secretary Rogers as the actual words which were uttered -- the Washington Evening Star speculated archly and irrelevantly about new techniques for soothing "irascible" Senators. On the other hand, one national reporter was heard muttering about the committee's lack of "courage" for its failure to launch an unbridled attack on the Secretary of State.

It is all very puzzling. "Responsibility," it seems, means silent acquiescence in a policy which you deplore, while "courage" seems to connote an undiscriminating, though highly entertaining, bellicosity. Lacking more reliable guidelines for the discharge of his responsibilities, what can a politician do except to rely on his own fallible judgment?

I ask unanimous consent to have inserted at the conclusion of my remarks a letter from an old friend in Arkansas who was very upset by the hearing at which Mr. Laird was present.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SPRINGDALE, ARK.,

March 26, 1969.

Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR BILL: I watched you on the National Broadcasting set the Other night badger Laird until I almost vomited, and then I turned over to Walter Cronkite to get something more pleasant.

Bill as much as you and Gore and Church, Hatfield, Percy and Javits and Teddy boy love the communists, why in the *** don't you just move over to Russia and live there? You'd be a *** sight more comfortable, although about the only television coverage you would get in this country would be on May Day.

Sincerely,

ULYS A. LOVELL, Attorney at Law.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I say that I have listened with a great deal of amusement to the Senator's comment on the subject of dissent. The one reassurance I get out of it is that there is nothing in the record of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas to suggest that he is likely to be intimidated by these conflicting pieces of advice on how dissent ought to be conducted.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I appreciate the comment of the Senator from Maine. I hope he is correct, and that I will not be intimidated. It is encouraging to hear of the Senator's confidence.