Quincy Howe: First question for Vice President Nixon.
Thank you, Quincy. Mr. Vice President, Senator Fulbright and now tonight, Senator Kennedy,
maintain that the Administration is suppressing a report by the United States Information
Agency that shows a decline in United States prestige overseas. Are you aware of such a
report, and if you are aware of the existence of such a report, should not that report,
because of the great importance this issue has been given in this campaign, be released
to the public?
Mr. Cronkite, I naturally am aware of it, because I, of course, pay attention to everything
Senator Kennedy says, as well as Senator Fulbright. Now, in this connection I want to point out
that the facts simply aren't as stated. First of all, the report to which Senator Kennedy
refers is one that was made many, many months ago and related particularly to the uh - period
immediately after Sputnik. Second, as far as this report is concerned, I would have
no objection to having it made public. Third, I would say this with regard to this report,
with regard to Gallup Polls of prestige abroad and everything else that we've been hearing
about "what about American prestige abroad": America's prestige abroad will be just as
high as the spokesmen for America allow it to be. Now, when we have a presidential candidate,
for example - Senator Kennedy - stating over and over again that the United States is second
in space and the fact of the matter is that the space score today is twenty-eight to eight
- we've had twenty-eight successful shots, they've had eight; when he states that we're
second in education, and I have seen Soviet education and I've seen ours, and we're not;
that we're second in science because they may be ahead in one area or another, when
overall we're way ahead of the Soviet Union and all other countries in science; when he
says as he did in January of this year that we have the worst slums, that we have the
most crowded schools; when he says that seventeen million people go to bed hungry every night;
when he makes statements like this, what does this do to American prestige? Well, it can
only have the effect certainly of reducing it. Well let me make one thing clear. Senator
Kennedy has a responsibility to criticize those things that are wrong, but he has also
a responsibility to be right in his criticism. Every one of these items that I have mentioned
he's been wrong - dead wrong. And for that reason he has contributed to any lack of prestige.
Finally, let me say this: as far as prestige is concerned, the first place it would show
up would be in the United Nations. Now Senator Kennedy has referred to the vote on Communist
China. Let's look at the vote on Hungary. There we got more votes for condemning Hungary
and looking into that situation than we got the last year. Let's look at the reaction
eh - reaction to Khrushchev and Eisenhower at the last U.N. session. Did Khrushchev gain
because he took his shoe off and pounded the table and shouted and insulted? Not at all.
The President gained. America gained by continuing the dignity, the decency that has characterized
us and it's that that keeps the prestige of America up, not running down America the way
Senator Kennedy has been running her down.
Quincy Howe: Comment, Senator Kennedy?
I really don't need uh - Mr. Nixon to tell me about what my responsibilities are as a
citizen. I've served this country for fourteen years in the Congress and before that in the
service. I've just as high a devotion, just as high an opinion. What I downgrade, Mr.
Nixon, is the leadership the country is getting, not the country. Now I didn't make most of
the statements that you said I made. The s- I believe the Soviet Union is first in outer
space. We have - may have made more shots but the size of their rocket thrust and all
the rest - you yourself said to Khrushchev, "You may be ahead of us in rocket thrust but
we're ahead of you in color television" in your famous discussion in the kitchen. I think
that color television is not as important as rocket thrust. Secondly, I didn't say we
had the worst slums in the world. I said we had too many slums. And that they are bad,
and we ought to do something about them, and we ought to support housing legislation which
this Administration has opposed. I didn't say we had the worst education in the world.
What I said was that ten years ago, we were producing twice as many scientists and engineers
as the Soviet Union and today they're producing twice as many as we are, and that this affects
our security around the world. And fourth, I believe that the polls and other studies
and votes in the United Nations and anyone reading the paper and any citizen of the United
States must come to the conclusion that the United States no longer carries the same image
of a vital society on the move with its brightest days ahead as it carried a decade or two decades
ago. Part of that is because we've stood still here at home, because we haven't met our problems
in the United States, because we haven't had a moving economy. Part of that, as the Gallup
Polls show, is because the Soviet Union made a breakthrough in outer space. Mr. George
Allen, head of your Information Service, has said that that made the people of the world
begin to wonder whether we were first in science. We're first in other areas of science but
in space, which is the new science, we're not first.
Quincy Howe: John Chancellor's question for Vice President Nixon.
Sir, I'd like to ask you an- another question about Quemoy and Matsu. Both you and Senator
Kennedy say you agree with the President on this subject and with our treaty obligations.
But the subject remains in the campaign as an issue. Now is - sir, is this because each
of you feels obliged to respond to the other when he talks about Quemoy and Matsu, and
if that's true, do you think an end should be called to this discussion, or will it stay
with us as a campaign issue?
I would say that the issue will stay with us as a campaign issue just as long as Senator
Kennedy persists in what I think is a fundamental error. He says he supports the President's
position. He says that he voted for the resolution. Well just let me point this out; he voted
for the resolution in 1955 which gave the president the power to use the forces of the
United States to defend Formosa and the offshore islands. But he also voted then for an amendment
- which was lost, fortunately - an amendment which would have drawn a line and left out
those islands and denied the p- right to the president to defend those islands if he thought
that it was an attack on Formosa. He repeated that error in 1959, in the speech that he
made. He repeated it again in a television debate that we had. Now, my point is this:
Senator Kennedy has got to be consistent here. Either he's for the President and he's against
the position that those who opposed the President in '55 and '59 - and the Senator's position
itself, stated the other day in our debate - either he is for the President and against
that position or we simply have a disagreement here that must continue to be debated. Now
if the Senator in his answer to this question will say "I now will depart, or retract my
previous views; I think I was wrong in 1955; I think I was wrong in 1959; and I think I
was wrong in our television debate to say that we should draw a line leaving out Quemoy
and Matsu - draw a line in effect abandoning these islands to the Communists;" then this
will be right out of the campaign because there will be no issue between us. I support
the President's position. I have always opposed drawing a line. I have opposed drawing a line
because I know that the moment you draw a line, that is an encouragement for the Communists
to attack - to step up their blackmail and to force you into the war that none of us
want. And so I would hope that Senator Kennedy in his answer today would clear it up. It
isn't enough for him to say "I support the President's position, that I voted for the
resolution." Of course, he voted for the resolution - it was virtually unanimous. But the point
is, what about his error in voting for the amendment, which was not adopted, and then
persisting in it in '59, persisting in it in the debate. It's very simple for him to
clear it up. He can say now that he no longer believes that a line should be drawn leaving
these islands out of the perimeter of defense. If he says that, this issue will not be discussed
in the campaign.
Senator Kennedy, your comment.
Well, Mr. Nixon, to go back to 1955. The resolution commits the president in the United States,
which I supported, to defend uh - Formosa, the Pescadores, and if it was his military
judgment, these islands. Then the President sent a mission, composed of Admiral Radford
and Mr. Robertson, to persuade Chiang Kai-shek in the spring of '55 to withdraw from the
two islands, because they were exposed. The President was unsuccessful; Chiang Kai-shek
would not withdraw. I refer to the fact that in 1958, as a member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, I'm very familiar with the position that the United States took in
negotiating with the Chinese Communists on these two islands. General Twining, in January
'59, described the position of the United States. The position of the United States
has been that this build-up, in the words of the president, has been foolish. Mr. Herter
has said these islands are indefensible. Chiang Kai-shek will not withdraw. Because he will
not withdraw, because he's committed to these islands, because we've been unable to persuade
him to withdraw, we are in a very difficult position. And therefore, the President's judgment
has been that we should defend the islands if, in his military judgment and the judgment
of the commander in the field, the attack on these islands should be part of an overall
attack on Formosa. I support that. In view of the difficulties we've had with the islands,
in view of the difficulties and disputes we've had with Chiang Kai-shek, that's the only
position we can take. That's not the position you took, however. The first position you
took, when this matter first came up, was that we should draw the line and commit ourselves,
as a matter of principle, to defend these islands. Not as part of the defense of Formosa
and the Pescadores. You showed no recognition of the Administration program to try to persuade
Chiang Kai-shek for the last five years to withdraw from the islands. And I challenge
you tonight to deny that the Administration has sent at least several missions to persuade
Chiang Kai-shek's withdrawal from these islands.
And that's the testimony of uh - General Twining and the Assistant Secretary of State in '58.