SEN. FULBRIGHT CRITICIZES AN EDITORIAL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000300060018-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 16, 2000
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: February 25, 1970
• Content Type: NSPR

WASHINGT ON POST DATE PAGE ~~--
For Release 2001/08/07 : - - 30060018-1
V ,M?- ~Approved- ~^
Sen. Fulbright Criticizes an Editorial
It seems to me that the editorial in the
Feb. 4 Washington Post entitled "Vietnam:
The President and the Public" is unneces-
sarily critical of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, in general, and of the authors of
the committee staff report on Vietnam, in
particular.
It is true that the authors of the report
were physically present in Vietnam for only
11 days, as your editorial notes. It should be
pointed out, however, that one of the au-
thors, James Lowenstein, has visited Viet-
nam before, has spent more than two years
in Asia while in the Foreign Service and has
visited Southeast Asia frequently in the
course of the four and a half years he has
served on the committee staff. The other au-
thor, Richard Moose, has intimate knowl-
edge of. the background of our policies in
Vietnam over the past several years as a re-
sult of his service in the White House on the
National Security Council under both Dr.
Rostow and Dr. Kissinger. Both have a wide
acquaintanceship among American officials
and journalists in Vietnam and among Viet-
namese a well.
While on the subject of the length of vis-
its to Vietnam, has The Post forgotten the
numerous visits of briefer duration over the
past two decades by various Vice Presidents,
Secretaries of Defense and State, Chairmen
A the Joint Chiefs of Staff and special pres-
.dential emissaries? The optimistic reports
>manating from these visits have been re-
reived with acclaim and used to justify im-
,ortant policy decisions. The Post has not
criticized these visitors for reached certain
!onclusions on the basis of brief visits but,
sn the contrary, has often praised them,
seen though subsequent events proved their
Prediction9 to be wrong. The Post has not
;een a connection between the length of vis-
es to Vietnam and the validity of the conclu-
ions reached by visitors in, the past. Why
foes The Post now suddenly imply that such
i connection exists? Perhaps the editorial
neans to say that readers should dismiss the.
-eports of The Post correspondents who file
heir reports after visits of only a few days.
The editorial criticized the committee
staff report for not reaching a "judgment"
as to whether the President's Vietnam pol-
icy should be reviewed. I do not see how a
reader could possibly draw any other con-
clusion, even though the label "judgment"
was not used. In the same vein, you state
that the "authors have misgivings but they
do not have an alternative." Again, it seems
to me that the alternative is perfectly ob-
vious--that is, a negotiated settlement
rather than. a continuation of the war, as
the policy of Vietnamization seems unfortu-
nately to imply.
Finally, you say that the committee is pre-
pared to leave the responsibility for "mus-
tering public support" for a policy to the
President alone. This statement ignores the
efforts the committee has made for the past
several years in trying to muster public sup-
port for a policy designed to shorten the war
and also overlooks the fact that The Post
was extremely critical of the committee's ef-
forts to do so during the Johnson adminis-
tration. I regret that.the committee has not
been more successful in bringing the war to
an end. But what success we have had in
mobilizing public opinion on this issue has
contributed, in no small measure I believe,
to bringing Mr. Nixon to the White House
and to changing the policy of the United
States in Vietnam from escalation to de-es-
calation.
I would like to make one more point about
the committee staff report. The editorial
staff of The Washington Post may not be
aware of the fact that under the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 the committee
staff is supposed to be appointed on a non-
partisan basis. The committee has succeeded
in living up to the letter as well as the spirit
of that law. Committee staff consultants are
appointed on the basis of their professional
experience and competence with, it should
be emphasized, the agreement of both Dem-
ocratic and Republican senior members of
the committee.
Thi selection procedure has, I believe,
provided the committee with a staff able to
appraise situations with objectivity as well
as expertise. Because they report to the com-
mittee as a whole, and thus cannot hope to
please all committee members, the reports
of the staff are not based on the need to jus-
tify previous policies or on the temptation to
conform to institutional prejudices, unlike
the situation in the executive branch. The
standards by which their reports are judged
are far more severe-that is, whether they
describe the present objectively and predict
the future accurately. I believe that The
Post agrees that the staff report on Vietnam
meets the first test. Whether it meets the
second, only time will tell. But I am confi-
dent that the report will stand the test of
time at least as'well as past editorials of The
Washington Post.
J. W. FULBRIGHT,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Washington.
Approved For Release 2001/08/07 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300060018-1