All language subtitles for The John Wayne Warhawk Movie No Substitute for Victory (1.2.1971)

[helicopters flying]

[weapon firing]

[explosions]

[gun firing]

Ladies and
gentlemen, a long time

ago Abraham Lincoln
made a statement.

To stand by silence when
you should speak out

makes cowards of men.

It's time we spoke out about
Vietnam and the most obvious,

yet the most ignored threat
ever faced by free people

in the history of the world.

The street demonstrators
demand that we

get out of Southeast Asia
so that there will be peace.

Where do they get the
idea that there will

be peace just because we quit?

We can't stop the
war by giving up,

and we sure can't
settle anything

by trying to bargain
with a winning

enemy at the peace table.

As for the war that was going
on a long time before Vietnam

and will go on whether
we pull out or not,

we can't stop the
war by giving up.

And the way it is now we're
not programmed to win because

of the politicians and
civilians that we've

let stick our nose in it.

Listen to this young fellow.

I'm flying helicopters
commercially in Alaska now.

Not long ago, I was
flying them in Vietnam.

I was there to fight the
communists and try to win

but our politicians
wouldn't let us.

What kind of a war is this
that we're not supposed to win?

Truth of the matter is it's
not a separate war at all.

It's only one
battle in a bigger,

long drawn out
attack that's been

going on for over 50 years.

And it's a war we're loading
not only on the battlefields

but out on street
corners, college campuses,

in the offices of some
of our most influential

so-called statesmen.

Now all men of good will
certainly want peace,

but do we want peace at any
price, peace without freedom?

We all know that this
country has, with good will

has stumbled a few times
and made a mistake or two,

can't go back and do
anything about that.

But as Mr. Lincoln once said,
"I wish I had been there when

the horse was stole,
but I reckon I can find

the tracks when I do get there.

Seems to me the horse
is already stolen,

so we better get back
and pick up the tracks."

To give you that background we
have a man who really knows.

Someone who was there when
all the important history was

being made since World War I.

He has the facts firsthand
from leaders and the generals

themselves.

Here he is.

A great newspaper man,
Mr. Lowell Thomas.

Hello everybody,
this is Lowell Thomas,

to chat with you for a moment
about what we all seem to agree

is just about the most
important subject of our time.

And to those of you who
are fairly young perhaps

it is more important to
you, than to the rest of us.

I'm sure you all remember
the words of the father of

our country, George Washington.

He was a fairly wise man.

He said, "the best way
to prepare for peace

is to be ready for war.

NARRATOR: World War I
with the beginning of what

the whole of mankind
hoped would lead

to a permanent world peace.

LOWELL THOMAS [VOICEOVER]: It
seems like the height of folly

now, hard for us to
understand, impossible,

in fact to comprehend.

But after the war
was over, the Allies

began to disband their
armies, break up their navies,

and melt down their guns!

NARRATOR: In the confusion
at the end of World War I,

a group of dedicated men
came to power in Russia.

The leader of the group, Nikolai
Lenin, head of the Bolshevik,

or Majority Communist
Party, he knew

the free nations of the world
desperately wanted peace.

He also knew his ideology,
Communism, could use

this as a tool against them.

Part of his plan to achieve
world wide supremacy

was to instruct communist
followers in all countries

to protest for peace.

A disarmed nation then
would be ripe for plucking.

As soon as hostilities ceased
at the end of World War

I, the Allies who had stopped
the Kaiser's war machine,

stopped it cold, alas
they began to disband

their armies and navies.

After all, Germany had
been the only nation

with ambitions to expand, and
Germany was smashed for good.

Or was it?

No one at the peace tables had
ever heard of a lance corporal

in one of the Bavarian
regiments, a chap

known as Adolf
Schicklgruber, later

to be known as Adolf Hitler.

It's hard to believe
that a lowly lance

corporal with a funny
mustache could ever get far.

But in less than
15 years, there he

was, head of a re-armed
Germany, with plans

to conquer the world.

Distinguished men like the lone
eagle, Charles Lindbergh and

the fabulous Jimmy Doolittle--

Told us what was going
on in Central Europe,

told us what Hitler
was doing, and we

paid little or no attention.

NARRATOR: Ah, but life was
too dear and peace too sweet

to rock the boat,
so few raised a hand

to do anything at that time.

So in 1938, with the
most powerful war

machine in the world
up to that time,

Hitler marched on Austria.

The next year, 1939, he
marched on Czechoslovakia.

Now, England began
to get the message.

We all know how Chamberlain
went from London to Munich

with his umbrella,
and came back saying,

"this means peace in our time."

But no sooner had this
conference been concluded,

then Hitler made a
pact with Russia.

And then they both
attacked Poland.

The next step was the
blitz on the west.

[explosions]

With the Nazis and the
Communists in collusion,

their representatives
here in America

stepped up their propaganda
and began shouting to us,

disarm, disarm!

No harm will ever
come to America.

NARRATOR: Meanwhile, peace
talks had so reduced US power

that when the Japanese
attacked Pearl Harbor,

you all remember that some
of our old battleships

lined up there either
were sunk or beached.

And we had, for all
practical purposes,

lost our Pacific fleet.

It appeared as though
it was almost too late,

but we did get down to
the agonizing business

of rebuilding for
a counter-attack.

And the history books show
that in spite of all obstacles

we finally, we finally did win.

After that, followed those usual
negotiations between the winner

and the loser.

But even while we were winning,
certain American leaders,

perhaps fooled by
Stalin, they arranged

things so we lost nearly as much
as we gained, possibly more.

As our troops rushed in
triumph through Germany

they got the word to
slow down, slow down.

Let the Russians move in.

Let the Russians take
over East Germany,

take over the great
city of Berlin.

Today, a nation of
people who love communism

so well that they
have to be walled in

and kept in with guns,
they are a tragic monument

to those people who seek
to appease the enemy.

[weapons fired]

In meetings at Yalta with
Lenin's cunning successor,

Stalin, the Russians managed
to take over all of Eastern

Europe, much of Asia.

We know what happened
in the Far East,

and how they put
it over on China.

And so the stage was set
for Korea, and a little later

on for Vietnam.

In 1945, everybody
thought the war was over,

but our real enemy was
still going strong.

This was the so-called
ally that we had let

take East Germany and Berlin.

Now I'm not speaking
of the Russian people,

and I won't speak of
the Chinese people.

I'm speaking of the
communist conspiracy.

So many of the great Americans
of the last generation

are no longer with us to give
us the firsthand account of what

happened behind the scenes,
behind the false front

of communist cooperation
after the war.

We are fortunate that one of the
greatest leaders, a conqueror

of the Nazis in
Italy, is here and can

tell it like it was when it came
to getting along with the Reds.

This is General Mark Clark.

After the end of World War
II, when the fighting stopped

in Italy, and I took the
surrender of the German forces

there, I went into Austria
as the American occupation

commander and High Commissioner.

Russian armies were
there in Austria as well,

and I sat on a quadri-apartheid
meeting with the Russians

and the British, the
French and ourselves

in order to implement the
agreement that the nations had

made at Potsdam,
which was to bring

about free and independent and
democratic Austria once more.

Saw firsthand the duplicity of
the Soviets, how they looted,

killed, murdered, and that
they couldn't be believed.

I found that every
constructive move

and suggestion we
made to help Austria

was vetoed by the Soviets.

When I went with Burns to the
conference of foreign ministers

in England, and then
with Marshal into Moscow,

and there again I saw the
difficulty, the almost

impossibility of doing business
with the Russians and that

you should do it from a
position of extreme force,

and you never compromise,
and you never show weakness.

Or they see weakness, they
despise it, and exploit it.

And when they see strength
and determination,

that's when they sit
up and take notice.

In the aftermath
of the war, the Reds

managed to grab off
East Germany and all

the countries that are now
on the wrong side of the Iron

Curtain.

And for the next big
move to encircle a world,

they looked to east to Asia.

There a lot of garbled
accounts of what

really happened when the
East began to go Red,

but we have the number
one authority with us,

who can give it to us straight.

This is a man who is more
familiar with Asian communism

than anyone else
in America today.

He is General Albert
C. Wedemeyer, former US

commander in the Far East.

He sat and listened to Mao
Tse-tung tell how they,

the Reds were going
to take over China.

The general warned the State
Department at that time

that we should support Chiang
Kai-Shek if we didn't want

the biggest country in the
world with 700 million people

to be lost to communism.

Unfortunately,
nobody was listening.

We'll listen to him now,
General Albert C. Wedemeyer.

I have spent 10 years
in the Orient living

in China, the
Philippines, and in India.

Experiences and
observations in those areas

provide the basis for
my ideas and suggestions

about the Vietnam war.

At the close of World
War II, the Soviet Union

accelerated plans for the
conquest of the Far East.

In 1946, the Republic of
China, Japan, and Thailand

were the only independent
nations in that area.

Moscow planned to exploit the
industrial know-how of Japan,

the vast pool of
manpower in China,

and the natural
resources in Southeast

Asia, the Philippines,
Indonesia,

and the Melanesian islands.

During General MacArthur's wise
and courageous administration,

Communist efforts
to communize Japan

were successfully blocked.

The Soviet Union then turned
its attention to mainland China.

With the connivance of
the Red Chinese leaders,

Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai,
mainland China, an area greater

in extent than the United
States, and 700 million people

were drawn within the orbit
of the Soviet Union in 1949.

The loss of China to
the tyranny of communism

was a black mark
on the escutcheon

of the United States.

Instead of supporting our
loyal World War II ally, Chiang

Kai-Shek, the United States
government adopted a hands

off policy which was dramatized
by the then Secretary

of State's announcement quote,
we will let the dust settle out

there," end of quote.

You and I know that the
dust was settled in Korea

and is now being settled in
Vietnam with American blood.

Chiang Kai-Shek,
and his government

were compelled to
withdraw to Formosa

where they maintained
a strong bastion

against communists advance.

I believe then, and do now,
that we should have continued

our support of the strongly
anti-Communist government

of Nationalist China.

Had we done so, the United
States would not today

experience an uneasy
peace in Korea

and a costly war in Vietnam.

Of course the next communist
move in their continuous war

on the free world was Korea.

And after General MacArthur was
pulled out for being too tough

on the commies, General
Mark Clark was ordered

to Korea to pick up the pieces.

He soon found out
he was faced again

with the same ol'
problems when it

came to dealing with the reds.

General Mark Clark.

President Truman sent
me out to the Far East

to take command
during the Korean

War the last year and a half.

And there I saw them
again, I saw them this time

on the field of battle.

I saw how treacherous they were,
how they murder our prisoners

of war, and how they could not
be relied upon to carry out any

of their promises or
live up to the rules

of the Geneva
Convention concerning

prisoners or conduct of war.

The so-called Korean War
was the first evidence

since the pullback from
Berlin of a no-win policy.

Apparently Hitler was the
last enemy we were supposed

to put up a fight against.

General Clark found
out that he had

to try to wage war with one,
or maybe both hands, tied.

The fighting was
severe at that time

the Chinese had entered
the war, and there

were many limitations
that were placed upon me

as the commander-in-chief.

I could not hit, for
example, the bridges

over the Yellow River over
which the killers came

with their paraphernalia,
their ammunition, their tanks,

and whatnot to kill our men.

It seemed to me that that was
completely wrong that we should

not take out those bridges.

And that would make it more
difficult for the enemy

to maintain his
position on the field.

We were not able to hit
the city of Pyongyang

because there were
ammunition plants

that were hidden within it.

We did not hit certain power
plants that provided power

for North China and Manchuria.

But in spite of all the
difficulties, a kind of peace

was finally arranged in Korea.

At that time we never heard of a
place called Vietnam, which was

to be the next Red
battle in their long war

against the free world.

Vietnam was in a part of the
French colonial possession

known as Indochina.

The reports were
that the Indochinese

were fighting for
independence from the French.

[explosions]

This may have been so, but
it was also a good excuse

for a communist takeover
to switch the ruling

powers from France to the Reds.

The so-called
revolution was headed

by a character with a funny
beard and an unfunny reputation

as a terrorist.

His name was Ho Chi Minh.

He was what the historians
call a dedicated revolutionary.

Ho was born in 1890 and was a
communist even as a young man.

He was so active that he helped
form the French Communist

Party in 1920.

All during the '30s, the Kremlin
used him to foment trouble

in the Orient, and aided him in
building up a fanatic follower.

When he died in 1969, the
London Daily Telegraph

debunked the picture of
Ho as a simple patriot.

I quote, "there are always men
who, for one reason or another,

will rhapsodize on the qualities
of even the worst tyrant.

Ho Chi Minh's record
for cold-blooded,

and often bestial murder of
men, women, and children,

ranks him beside Hitler and
Stalin for shear atrocity,"

unquote.

Now during Ho's
career, he was paraded

around the communist
world, where

the masses were trotted out
to give him a big reception

wherever he went.

He was feted by such Red liners
as India's Krishna Menon,

and of course, by, the then
big boss of communism, Nikita

Khrushchev, as well as
all the secondary world

wields of the party.

Ho made his biggest
effort at a place

called Dien Bien Phu where
he beseeched the French army.

The United States was asked
to bring an air strike

in against Red positions.

The United States refused.

In any event, the French
cause was probably

doomed because the leftist
French government forced

their army to fight a no-win
war as General Clark had been

forced to fight in
Korea, So Ho was

able to inflict a humiliating
defeat on the French.

NARRATOR: At the Geneva Peace
Conference, which followed,

it was agreed that Laos,
Cambodia, and Vietnam

would be independent nations.

However, Vietnam was
partitioned temporarily,

and the two areas divided
by the 17th parallel--

the north area to
be under the control

of the communist stooge,
Ho Chi Minh, and the south

to be under the former
French puppet, Bao Dai.

Immediately after the
Geneva Conference,

Ho Chi Minh and his
Viet Cong followers

launched an extensive and
brutal campaign of subversion

and guerrilla action.

More than 50,000 South
Vietnamese, including village

officials, teachers, merchants,
and law enforcement officers

were kidnapped,
mutilated, or killed

by the Viet Cong Guerrillas.

Too often our own
information media, TV, radio,

and the press, are responsible
for a wide-held impression

that the North Vietnamese
and the Viet Cong

are the good guys,
and we, the South

Vietnamese, the South
Koreans, and Americans,

are the bad guys.

The Red liners of all
countries had a ball castigating

the United States,
but no one ever

complained about the
almost daily Viet

Cong mortaring of towns and
the killing of civilians.

Well, anyway, to give you
an idea of how popular

Ho and his crowd were after
they kicked out the French,

the Geneva Conference
gave all Vietnamese

300 days to go
either north or south

to the Red or non-Red area.

Word of this opportunity
to make a choice

was supposed to be
circulated in every village

and town in the land.

While Ho understandably
made no effort

to broadcast this information,
over 1,200 thousand people who

found themselves in
the Communist North

streamed south to freedom
below the 17th parallel.

This rush was still in progress
when the 300 days were up,

and Ho dropped the
bamboo curtain.

But in spite of the fact that
he lowered the boom on them,

officially, the continual
defection of North Vietnamese

and defection from the
supposedly dedicated Viet Cong

goes on to this day.

From before 1960,
US advisers were

aiding the South Vietnamese.

We had in the area what
was known as the Military

Assistance Command.

We are fortunate
to be able to hear

from the man who was in charge
almost from the beginning,

General Paul Harkin.

From February 8,
1962 until June 1964,

I was the commander of
the United States Military

Assistance Command in Vietnam.

And at capacity, I commanded
all the United States

forces in South Vietnam,
the army, the Navy,

the Air Force, and the Marines.

We had no American combat
troops in Vietnam at that time.

Our role was strictly advisory.

In that capacity, we trained
the Army, Navy, and Air Force

of the Vietnamese armed forces.

You have probably heard people
say that the United States

shouldn't be over there in
the first place, that's it

an immoral war, that
we are there illegally.

The record shows that after
the partition of Vietnam,

President Eisenhower promised
the government of South

Vietnam, all possible aid.

At the Geneva Conference,
the North Vietnamese

agreed not to molest people
south of the 17th parallel,

but when the Viet Cong started
infiltrating and slaughtering

village leaders, administrators,
and school teachers,

the president of South
Vietnam asked for our help.

He didn't ask Russia.

He didn't ask communist China.

He asked the United
States of America

if we could assist in
stopping communist aggression

and helping build up the
resources of his country.

This was when my headquarters,
the Military Assistance Command

was established.

The South Vietnamese didn't have
quite enough forces to protect

all the villages at once.

And we started in 1961, what
we call the Strategic Hamlet

Program, which simply
meant a trained

local force to protect
the local people

from communist infiltration.

By the American
advisors, the situation

was frustrating in the extreme.

They would aid a village
in building a school

and on the first dark night,
the Viet Cong guerrillas

would destroy it by mortar
fire with mortars made

in Russia or Communist China.

In the back country,
other Americans

were helping to distribute food,
medicine, and needed supplies.

Special forces
played an active part

in training the South
Vietnamese soldiers,

as well as the Montagnard
people in the highland.

The special forces, a
new unit in our services,

is called the Green Berets.

One of the best known of these
is Sergeant Barry Sadler.

We have a big job in Vietnam.

The villagers on both the
Mekong and the Highland

are constantly threatened
by the Viet Cong

and their North
Vietnamese allies,

and often recruited
into their armed forces,

sometimes with use of
propaganda, promises, lies.

When that fails,
they don't hesitate

to use force, terrorism, even
to butchering entire villages

as an example to
those who won't listen

to their friendly persuasion.

And when they use force, they
use these, modern weapons made

in Communist China
and the Soviet

Union, their communist allies.

I spent a great deal of
my time in the Vietnam

working as a medic.

I work in the villages with the
people, and they needed help.

And over a period of years,
the health of these people

has been greatly improved by
the US medics in the field.

You can't get to really
know the people of Vietnam

by staying around Saigon.

Saigon's a big city with 4
and 1/2 million people in it,

and with worst traffic than
you'll find in New York.

The marketplaces are crowded and
filled with black market goods,

everything from American
coffee to opium.

And like all cities
in a war zone,

the profiteers are
after the buck.

But south of Saigon
lies the delta,

28,000 square miles of the
richest rice land in the world,

rice land the communist won.

Here's a housewife out catching
poisonous snakes for the family

dinner, and glad to get them.

Where the Viet Cong mortared
or burned a village,

we came in to collect refugees
and ferry them to a new, more

secure area, one that was
safe from the guerrillas,

at least for the time being.

Of course, the roads were
mined or under possible mortar

attack, and the villagers had to
be moved in airborne operation.

And everything went, including
burial urns which contained

the ashes of their ancestors,
because these people always

carry their dead with them.

More and more
aircraft were needed.

But as we seem to be
getting somewhere,

it so infuriated the
communists that they

stepped up their attacks on
these unarmed innocent people.

Whole villages were
burned to the ground.

Farmers were
mortared and machine

gunned in their rice
paddies while trying

to gather their crops.

The attacks became more and
more vicious and fanatical.

It seems incredible,
but the knowledge

of these terror tactics
didn't inflame the free world

against the communists.

But unbelievably criticism of
our operations began to mount.

It was frustrating for a
soldier halfway around the world

fighting a war, and it
seemed like the enemy was

the good guy in the white hats.

It was as if the
American public were

only getting the information
the Reds wanted them to.

In fact, I'd say the Press had
been more help to the enemy

than a fresh division.

To the Americans in the
mid 60s the situation

really became explosive.

All the troops were
told to avoid combat.

We were losing more and
more advisors all the time.

In the summer of '64,
some of our destroyers

were patrolling in the Gulf
of Concord, and two of them

were fired upon by North
Vietnamese gunboats.

A man who was in
the unique position

to see the whole thing
develop is Admiral

US Grant Sharp, former Commander
in Chief of Pacific operations.

Admiral Sharp.

In early 1965,
President Johnson

decided that US combat troops
were necessary in South Vietnam

to keep the country from being
overrun by the communists,

so that is how it started.

Our objectives are
clear and honorable.

They are simply to prevent
the success of North

Vietnamese aggression, to
prevent Viet Cong terror,

and to allow the country to
live in peace and freedom.

While our objectives
are correct,

the methods we have
used to achieve them

leave much to be desired.

We inserted our
forces piecemeal,

and then, worst of all, we
never used our tremendous air

and Naval power effectively.

Before the admiral
goes on, notice

that just as with the Berlin
pullback in World War II,

and the hamstringing
of the military

during the Korean
mess, the no-win policy

dictated by behind the
scenes powers in Washington

is again in force
and has been ever

since President
Kennedy committed

us to this no-win conflict.

From the beginning, we
should have closed the harbor

of Haiphong and prevented
all the vital imports

from reaching that area.

Instead, we permitted them
to import all the necessities

of war without any difficulties
whatsoever despite the fact

that we control the seas.

This was a great
mistake of course,

and immeasurably
increased the casualties

that our side incurred.

One of the best features
of a Naval blockade,

or a blockade by mining, is that
there are very few casualties

involved.

The country which is
blockaded against simply

doesn't get the
supplies they need,

and thus their capacity to
fight is greatly reduced.

Whenever we fight
the communists,

they seem to have help
from somebody on our side.

Somebody always
wants to bend over

backwards to avoid
getting tough with them,

doing them any damage.

I can't figure this as
a innocent attitude,

especially since the
Reds tell us continually

exactly what
they're going to do.

Now Lenin said war is
simply continuation

of politics by other means.

He's admitting that if
they can't convert you

by peaceful means, they'll
just switch to violence

and pull a gun on you.

He also said something
else in that book.

He said that the assistance
of the Soviet Republic

side by side with the United
States is unthinkable.

One or the other must
triumph in the end.

Now Lenin's school of
poetical warfare in Moscow

teaches that, "war is to
the hilt between communism

and the free world.

It is inevitable."

Now don't take my word for it,
just get one of these books

and read it for yourself.

If you want to know how
they're doing so far,

let's take a look.

They have East Europe.

They're around big
Cuba on one side

and getting ready to break
out in Korea on the other,

and about to wear us
to a nub in Vietnam.

Well, the patience of a
nation or the fighting men

will wear out.

If your own side won't let
you win since that's what

the Reds want, it
makes you wonder

who's controlling our destiny.

The boys on the firing line
are the most frustrated of all.

Listen to a man who
not long ago was

flying a gunship in Vietnam.

We were never really allowed
to go on the offensive.

We were constantly
clearing out areas,

only to let the Viet
Cong go back in as soon

as we had moved out.

On the search and
destroy missions

we would burn up
an area with lead,

or lay down a base of
fire as the term is.

Then the troops were lifted in.

The boys would be landed
and take off into the brush

after the Viet Cong.

When the guys on the
ground were at work,

the expression,
smoking them out,

was an appropriate description
of how they operated.

Later, after they
had swept the area,

we'd come back and pick them up,
and fly them back to the base.

It would be anywhere from
two days to two months.

One thing great
about the chopper,

we would be able to get
the wounded to the hospital

in a matter of minutes.

We arranged the delta
looking for infiltrators,

but the trouble was justice in
the city streets, the markets,

or on the water front, the
North Vietnamese and the

South Vietnamese look alike.

And you can't tell them
apart until it's too late.

The sand-pans below
contain concealed

guerrilla terrorists
armed to the teeth

and loaded down with grenades.

Our night photo planes told
us that during the night

they had slipped
in from Cambodia,

but due to the
political restrictions

we couldn't hit them.

One thing bad about the
war, we couldn't shoot

until they fired at us first.

A lot of my buddies never
got a chance to fire back.

It's tough when
a politician gets

a hold of your trigger finger.

Sometimes we found their boats
hidden in marsh areas covered

with reeds, these, we destroyed
because the area was off limits

to the local populace.

Once the troops uncovered
an ammunition assembly

plant that was actually
below the surface

of the swampy terrain.

The troops found a lot of
grenades and explosives

with Chinese markings, the
products of munitions factories

in Red China.

When an area became heavily
overrun with Viet Cong,

we would pinpoint them
and call in the Air Force.

With our let the enemy
shoot first policy

we saved a lot of American
lives by not having

to drop our ground soldiers
into the hot spots,

but the bearded, bleeding hearts
at home and lefty politicians

soon put a stop to this.

I guess we weren't
supposed to hurt the enemy.

The kind of war we
were forced to fight

was bound to get us nowhere.

But worst of all, the
guys on the ground

might take an area or
a hill with great loss

of blood and life.

They would have to
withdraw and might

have to take it all over
again three months later.

We all felt more and more
frustrated as time went by.

Now I can understand why so
many of the people at home

wanted us to call it quits
and bring the troops home.

Most Americans at home
are honestly concerned.

But unlike any other war that
we were ever involved in,

we have a
communist-inspired front

in our streets working
on the civilities

of a lot of honest people.

They claim they are simply going
all out for peace, while a lot

of them burn the American
flag, stamp it into the ground

while waving the flag
of the Viet Cong,

who have tortured and
killed tens of thousands

of innocent civilians whose only
crime was that they resisted

joining the Red ranks.

Would you call a
person who backed

the enemy, a peace advocate or
a member of the enemy's forces?

Well, someone who backs our
forces, who has traveled

to Vietnam many times, who has
gone to all the combat zones

to entertain the
fighting men, and one

of the best loved stars
of the American public,

is Martha Raye.

She can tell it like
is, Martha Raye.

Thank you, Duke, from one
green beret to another.

I've just returned
from my eighth trip

overseas with our
troops, and I'm now

returning from my ninth trip.

I take it and my gear together
to go back home with my family,

and they're also
your family too.

Our troops are shocked at the
attitude of college officials

and others who stoutly maintain
there is no organized direction

to the [inaudible], that
all the demonstrations are

spontaneous and unorganized.

We may rest assure these
servicemen are not deceived.

The Reds have declared
in no uncertain terms

that they are going to destroy
the moral character of a

generation of young Americans.

And when they have
finished, there

will be nothing left to
defend ourselves against them.

And they're doing a
pretty thorough job

on some of our kids.

And while this is
happening, they

won't let us defend
ourselves in the manner

that all great military
minds advocate, to attack,

strike the enemy in
his own territory.

We keep coming back to this as
a central problem in our war

on communism.

Let Admiral Sharp tell it
to you the way he saw it.

The major problem was that we
were restricted in the targets

that we could hit.

We started in the southern
part of North Vietnam

and gradually worked north.

Will the result that the North
Vietnamese with the Soviet's

assistance were permitted
to build up their defenses

around Hanoi and Hai Phong.

So that when our
planes eventually

got into the
Hanoi-Hai Phong area,

they were met by the most
concentrated and accurate air

defenses that any
country has ever faced.

Even so, with their
very heavy defenses

and with the restrictions
are on our air attacks,

we were still able to damage
North Vietnam to the extent

that in the fall of 1967,
they were in great difficulty.

Had we been allowed
to go in 1968,

and hit the targets
that needed to be hit,

and keep the targets down
that we had already hit,

the war would certainly had
been over by the end of 1968.

If you aren't sufficiently
convinced by the admiral,

listen to one of the
Navy bomber pilots.

I think I'm speaking for 99%
of all the men that have been

to Vietnam, whether
in a flying status

or on the ground, when I say
that it's one of the most

frustrating experiences a man,
particularly a fighting man,

could go through.

I think I can say that all
of us who went over there,

and I know all of us
that were together

in my particular
group, went over

there with a
exhilarating feeling

that they were going
to go into battle

and do the job that
had to be done.

They were going to be allowed
to get to the targets.

And of course, we always
go in with the feeling

that we want to help the men on
the ground as much as we can,

and we do this by bombing
the necessary targets.

The logistics lines,
the munitions dumps,

the petroleum stations that
prevent the enemy from getting

this stuff down
into South Vietnam

and using it against our men
and, our allies, the South

Vietnamese.

But it wasn't long until
we realized that because

of the political
restrictions that were placed

upon this particular
war, it was to be

similar to the Korean
War, only probably worse.

And that we were not allowed
to get to these targets

that we knew were necessary
targets and vital targets,

to destroy them and to prevent
these supplies, and enemy

equipment, and enemy
soldiers from getting

into South Vietnam.

We knew that they
were going down there.

And we knew how they
were getting down there.

We knew where the targets were.

But there was so much
frustration in there

that when they came back,
and we told the people back

on the carriers, the
air intelligence people,

the admiral's war room, that
these targets were there,

that we'd like to go bomb them,
they were just as frustrated

as we were because
they had to then send

a message back to
Washington to get permission

to bomb these targets.

And this permission never came.

I recall when they
were first setting up

the missiles sites over there.

Missiles, at that time, had been
used against American aircraft

flying over North Vietnam.

But we came back and told
the responsible people

on the carrier that these
missile sites were going up,

that we could see
them down there,

they were getting
prepared, that we

ought to go back and bomb them.

But once again, our
hands were tied,

the admiral's hands were tied.

They had to go
back to Washington

through channels
with a message, and

the message came
back, no, we could

not bomb the missile sites.

Until the time came
that two of our planes

were shot down on these
missiles on a night

mission or an early
evening mission.

And the whole thing was they
tried to give the indication

that they had not known ahead
of time that these missile

sites were there.

And of course, this is
frustrating to a man

to see his friends, roommate,
the people that he has gone

through training with, go
down in a situation knowing

full well that it
could have been

prevented long before had
the politicians allowed

you to do so.

Now, when I say
restrictions once again,

I say restrictions,
such as these.

We could fly over
enemy air fields

where the planes were
sitting on the airfield.

We knew what they were there
for but we couldn't harm them.

These same planes could
come up behind our aircraft,

and shoot them down, and
climb back down on the deck,

and we were not permitted
to go after them

once they got to that airfield.

There was even
such a restriction

at the particular time I was
there that you could not shoot

an enemy aircraft until he had
fired at you, which is to say

that, if he didn't
shoot you down first,

then you had a chance at him.

I wish that some of the
liberal senators taking

on a negative stand
in this situation

to promote their own
political ambitions

could be put in the
same spot as our boys

overseas with one
arm tied behind them,

or maybe two, face
this treacherous enemy.

One time, we
couldn't bomb convoys.

Finally, we were cleared to
bomb these particular targets

but only so long as
they were on a roadway.

It doesn't matter if you knew
that this particular convoy

was carrying
munitions, supplies,

going into South Vietnam.

We knew their routes.

We knew where they
were going down Route 1

through Mu Gia Pass.

And as far as bomb
shortages at that time,

Mr. McNamara, who was
Secretary of Defense,

was decrying that there was no
substance to the information

that we were experiencing a
shortage of bombs, aircraft,

or flyers in the Vietnam area.

And Congressman Mitchell
had been on the carrier

and had personally
seen these missions

where we were taking off.

Loading with maybe
1/5 a bomb load.

An aircraft that could carry 24
of this particular type bomb,

we were carrying maybe
four of these bombs.

On some days, instead
of carrying bombs

to a target that clearly
called for bombs,

we'd be carrying rockets.

And when you'd ask your deck
officer why we were doing this,

he would say because we don't
have enough bombs to last

the rest of the month if we
carry them on every load,

or if we load the planes fully.

So it was obvious to us that
we were sending out five planes

on a mission, or four planes,
that were loaded with maybe

a fourth or a fifth of a load of
bombs, when we could have sent

one or two planes
with a full load,

and gotten the same job done
with a minimum risk of lives

and equipment.

Of course, you're talking about
a $3.5 million aircraft in case

you're not interested
in the lives involves,

but this is a thing that was
frustrating to us, you see.

Our only concern was
that we could get in

and be allowed to do the job.

When you send men into war,
you should send them in there

with the idea they are
risking their lives,

and for risking
those lives, they

should be allowed to do the
job, to take the action that's

necessary to minimize
the risk of their lives

and to get to the enemy
and get the job done

in a minimum amount
of time and get

back their homes and their
families where they want to be.

And this hasn't been
done in Vietnam.

And the only way
that we're going

to come to a successful
conclusion over there

is to defeat the enemy.

Just as bad as a
no-win restriction,

maybe worse, is the
policy of helping

the enemy to get
goods and munitions

with which to defeat it.

Does that sound idiotic?

We'll listen to a
young green beret

named Peter Stark who lost
both legs below the knees

in Vietnam.

The only way to
break communist will

is to break the communist back.

To do this, you must eliminate
their access to that material

which they need to wage a war.

You must eliminate their means.

The United States had never
significantly attempted

to eliminate their
means of war with which

they kill American soldiers
in the South Vietnam.

We have assured their main
supplier of war goods,

the Soviet Union, and its
satellite nation, its colonies,

which supplies 80% of all the
North Vietnamese war material,

we have assured the Soviet
Bloc countries that we will not

interfere in their
shipment of war goods

to the North Vietnamese enemy.

At the same time that we
have assured them we will not

interfere with his shipment,
we have continued our policy

of trading with the Soviet Bloc,
of sending strategic materials

to the Soviet enemy.

For example, in 1966, the United
States sent the Soviet Union

the entire technical
specifications

which they needed to
build a glycerol plant.

Glycerol is used in the
manufacture of explosives.

I think everybody's
heard of nitroglycerin.

Specifically, in
Vietnam, glycerol is used

as a detonator in booby traps.

Over 50% of all American
casualties suffered in South

Vietnam have come
from booby traps.

I do not think it can be
satisfactorily explained

to a man who has lost
his eyesight because

of a booby trap-- or to the
parents of a man who has been

killed on a booby trap
in South Vietnam--

why the government that sent
this man to South Vietnam

refuses to interfere not
only with the enemy receiving

this type of
weapon, but actually

helped the enemy to produce it.

A screaming example, late 1969,
we loaned Sweden $50 million.

Early 1970, Sweden loans $45
million directly to Hanoi.

For those of us
who have been there,

Vietnam is not a phony war.

It was and is a very real war.

It is not a limited
war because there is

no such thing as limited death.

We're glad to have fought
in Vietnam for the United

States of America
and for freedom

of the South Vietnamese people.

Many of my friends, your sons,
your husbands, your brothers,

and in some cases, your
fathers, have died fighting

the communist enemy in Asia.

You should be very
proud of these men.

They were good men.

They died for the
freedom of others.

No more can be
asked from any man.

They were willing to fight
because they know that

on that day that Americans
are not willing to fight

for their freedom.

On that day, America will no
longer have its own freedom.

Many people have not
been informed of the fact

that Vietnam is more than
just an isolated burstfire

war halfway around the world.

It has a much deeper
meaning than that.

Vietnam is one battle
in a war for the world.

It is a battle we are losing
not on the field of battle

but here at home.

The Soviet empire is expanding.

The communists are definitely
serious about their stated

goal of world conquest.

They are as serious as Hitler
and his National Socialist

Party were about world conquest.

All Americans must remember
that the Soviet enemy is

only 20 minutes away by rocket.

Finally, there was a great
hue and cry to get the Reds

to the so-called peace table.

After all proof to the
contrary over the years

some people still believe
you could talk the Reds

out of taking over our country.

Now, to get the
enemy to talk peace,

you usually bear down hard on
him so that he's had enough

and wants to get out.

Not us, not our
state department,

not our defense department,
we did just the opposite.

We made it easy
on the communists

by stopping the
bombing altogether.

Let Admiral Sharp
comment on that.

Then, in March of 1968, it
was decided to halt the bombing

of the vital areas
of North Vietnam

in order to entice the enemies
to come to the conference table

to negotiate a peace.

Before the North Vietnamese
even got to the conference table

and started negotiating,
we had stopped

all bombing of North Vietnam.

So here was a country
with tremendous air

power allowing an adversary
to fight from a sanctuary.

Were the communists
going to negotiate

under those conditions?

Certainly not.

They were going to delay
meaningful negotiations,

hoping that our natural
impatience to end the war

would get the
better of us, and we

would make concessions to
them which would result

in victory for their side.

Indeed when our bombing was
cut back in March of 1968,

the communists
proclaimed it a victory,

and a victory it really was.

So now we have been negotiating
in Paris for over two years,

and what have the results been?

Absolutely nothing.

We have made concession
after concession,

and the North Vietnamese have
offered absolutely nothing

in return.

They have simply used the
Paris meetings as a propaganda

platform from which to declare
that the United States is

the aggressor in the war,
that we must pull out all

of our troops before
they will consider

any meaningful negotiations.

So this is what we face as a
result of our all out efforts

to bring them to the
conference table.

What do the men who have
to do the fighting think

about the so-called
peace negotiation?

Right now we have people
that think that you can

talk with the
commies, and I think

history proves that you cannot.

I've looked at this enough, and
I am sure that people that are

much more experienced
in the field

of negotiating
with the Communists

would tell you the same thing.

The only time the communists
come to the peace table

is when they feel that they
have something to gain there

or for stalling.

And this means that
they have more time

to build up their
troops in the field

and to get more ammunition,
more troops into the battle,

and play publicity and
propaganda, particularly when

you have a situation like
we have in this country now

where people are expressing
their opposition to the war.

And of course, I can understand
some of this opposition

because the way the
politicians have used it.

They left themselves
wide open for opposition.

But the fact remains
that the only way

to stop the communist
action in Southeast Asia

is from a position of
unassailable strength.

That's the only thing
they understand.

For those of us who
have fought in Vietnam,

the peace talks have always
been, at best, futile,

at worst, tragic.

Tragic for those soldiers in
South Vietnamese who had been

killed because of the
improper and incorrect

use of the combination of
military and diplomatic means.

Correct diplomacy,
correct negotiations,

are used to shorten the
war, not to prolong the war.

The great statesmen that our
nation has had in the past

have been those statesmen with
the courage and resolution

to allow their military
do that job for which

the military is established.

Great statesmen are not people
who hamstring the military

and prolong the decision.

Peace negotiation and
peace depend on two things.

One is the will of
the enemy, the other

is the means of the enemy.

You must either
destroy the enemy will

or destroy the
means the enemy has.

Now, the United States
has always had the means.

The men and material
successfully wage

the war in Vietnam and win.

However, at the
policy level, we have

never had the desire to win.

We have never had
the will to win.

The North Vietnamese
communists, on the other hand,

have never had the
material or manpower

to defeat the United
States soldiers

on the field of battle.

Their leadership, however,
has the will to win.

They have the will, the
desire, and the determination

to conquer South Vietnam.

Communists are determined men,
they are very serious men,

they are very brutal men.

At this point I think we
should let General Clark

tell us how he managed
to get the Reds

to the peace table in Korea.

So after being at
Panmunjom, being in charge

of the negotiations there,
and our people being insulted

almost daily, I finally
plead with my government

to let me break off
the negotiations

and place on the
conference table,

a reasonable American
position, one upon which

we could sign an armistice.

When finally Washington
permitted me to do so,

we walked out.

And then I called
in my commanders

of the Navy, the
Air, and the Army,

and we sat around for days.

How could we hurt the enemy
within the limitations

imposed upon us?

And one by one with the
exception of permission

to bomb the Yellow
River bridges,

I had these
limitations taken off.

Our hands were untied.

And we hit the dams, and
we took out their power.

We hit their dams and
inundated their fields.

We attacked Pyongyang,
the capital of North Korea

after notifying the people
that we were coming.

And we just pounded
them until it hurt them.

And then about three
months later, Kim Il-sung

sent me a message, and said,
let's go back to the conference

table, and let's trade
prisoners of war and our sick

and wounded.

That's something we had asked
to do many months before.

So then we got down
to business and began

to work on an armistice.

Then General Eisenhower,
my old West Point comrade,

came over as the
President-elect.

And we had our plans
to present to him,

and I presented
them to him, how we

could win the war by
the use of the Naval

and Air power primarily.

I'm not a believer in slugging
it out man for man on the field

of battle with communists
because the American GI

is a very precious commodity.

And the communists don't
care how many of their men

they kill.

So not having had the
determination to win that war,

we got busy, as I was directed,
and we signed an armistice.

Now, that armistice was violated
by the communists the next day,

and it's been violated
by them ever since.

And as I signed that Korean
armistice I was convinced that

had we step out
and had the courage

to win in our first test
of arms with communism,

and win decisively, we would
not be in the predicament

and the mess we find ourselves
in at the present time

in Vietnam.

What's the answer?

One political leader
who hasn't kept silent

is Alaskan Senator [inaudible].

He went to Vietnam
to see for himself.

Our liberal Press has not seen
fit to spotlight his remarks,

here they are.

Well, the most brilliant
military men in our country

have said that we must win
in Vietnam, General Mark

Clark, General Al
Wedemeyer, General

Paul Harkins, Admiral Sharp.

The military
commanders in the field

have all said that there can
be no satisfactory conclusion

to the war in Vietnam
without a military victory.

We have the ships,
we have the guns,

we have the planes,
what is lacking?

We have the men, we
have the courage, what

is lacking is a will to win.

Richard Nixon, himself, has
said what is needed in Vietnam

is a will to win, but
our State Department

does not have a will to win.

In fact, they have
said that they do

not intend to win in Vietnam.

One of our top advisers to
the president, Dr. Kissinger,

has said, that military
victory in Vietnam

is neither possible
nor desirable.

This fuzzy thinking,
this no-win thinking

has resulted in the loss
of more American lives

than either World
War I or Korea.

It's resulted in the longest
war in American history,

certainly, the most frustrating
war in American history.

The question is
this fuzzy thinking

or is it something else?

With Congress rests the
constitutional authority

to determine foreign policy.

Congress must
reassert its authority

and determine the
foreign policy.

It must require that
military decisions

be made by military men.

Our men on the battlefield must
be given the chance to win.

In war there must be victory.

Some people are demanding
an abrupt pull-out.

They seem to believe
that the Reds will stop

fighting and killing
at once and that there

will be instant peace.

Well, let's hear again
from General Harkins.

If we pull out
abruptly, the Reds

will have a free hand as
they had when they took Hue

in that infamous Tet Offensive.

They massacred and mutilated
thousands of civilians.

There will be a frightful
massacre of those who have

resisted communism
in South Vietnam,

and perhaps in the
rest of the countries

of Southeast Asia such as Laos,
and Cambodia, and Thailand.

It may further open
the way to infiltration

and maybe attacks from
some of the other countries

such as Malaysia,
Indonesia, Australia, New

Zealand, and the Philippines.

The communists haven't stopped
in their world defensive

so far.

I think it's tragic
and unfortunate

that the people of
the United States

must be constantly reminded
that the communists have said

they were going to surround this
and they were going to bury us.

They said they were going
to take over Eastern Europe

and they have.

They tried to come
down through Greece,

and we helped to stop them.

They tried to come
through North Korea,

and with the aid of
15 other free nations,

we stopped them again.

They've taken over Cuba.

They're very active
in Latin America.

And now they're trying to come
down through Southeast Asia.

I would say they're pretty
well surrounding us.

I think it's far
better to stop them

on some faraway distant shores
than wait for another Pearl

Harbor, or perhaps, to try
to stop them on the shores

of the United States.

Tom Hayden has been
called America's most

decorated civilian to
have served in Vietnam.

He was in Hue after
the Tet massacre.

Listen to his account of how
the communists exterminate those

who oppose them, Tom Hayden.

A North Vietnamese
regiment captured

the ancient capital of Hue
during the Tet Offensive

in January of 1968.

The North Vietnamese
asked the Hue citizens

to join them and oppose
the Saigon government.

The people of Hue said no,
then came the massacre.

Over 4,000 civilian graves
have been found, many of them

were buried alive.

Over 1,000 people
are still missing.

Those in America who say that
the people of South Vietnam

support the communists,
refused to remember Hue.

They have forgotten
[inaudible] where

over 100 Motagnards
were murdered,

men, women, and children.

Here is the latest example
of the popular support

the communists have
in South Vietnam.

Saigon, Viet Cong troops attack
a South Vietnamese village

south of Da Nang.

Over 75 civilians were
killed and 85 wounded.

The survivors of the Viet Cong
invaded by reading Hamlet,

stated that the enemy
ran through the streets,

shooting anyone
they found, throwing

grenades into their homes and
into their civilian bunkers.

But some of the
news media will tell

you that the South
Vietnamese are

not fighting for their freedom.

That is a lie.

I spent over two
years with the people

and they are
fighting for freedom.

The Hue massacre should
prove that many of them

are dieing for their freedom.

We can't get out.

We lead a vacuum and
years to come we've paid

ten times the amount of blood.

And if we get no
response whatsoever

to our stopping of the
bombing and our initiatives

towards peace, it may be
that we will have to step

up and intensify the war.

And then if we
do, I'm sure we'll

bring the communist to
the conference table,

and we'll bring him fast.

[weapons firing]

[explosions]

When it comes to the
question of our pulling out,

I think one of the most
significant comments

was made by General [inaudible],
field commander, whose

troops were
surrounded and forced

to surrender at Dien Bien Phu.

[non-english speech]

General [inaudible]
does not speak English,

but in French, he
made it clear to us

that if the United States
leaves Southeast Asia

in defeat, on that day
the whole free world will

begin to crumble.

Ezra Taft Benson
offered one solution

that hasn't been given
too much attention

up till now, Mr. Benson.

I recently returned
from two weeks

in war-threatened
and war-torn Asia.

The men of Vietnam who
are ready to give their

all in the defense of freedom,
who worry about reports

from home of rioters, draft
card burners, and other citizens

many times more numerous, who
seem oblivious to the threat

to our freedom as
they continue to enjoy

their comfortable complacency.

Regardless of any question of
our involvement in Vietnam,

we're there and we're
involved, so what do we do now?

We should concentrate on doing
whatever is necessary to bring

our boys home, but before
we bring them home,

we should let them finish
the job most of them

thought they were
sent there to do.

Let the communists
see what good-natured

Uncle Sam can still do when a
bully picks a fight with him.

Drop those suicidal,
limited political objects

and launch a massive
military campaign.

Topple the Hanoi regime
and dictate rather

than negotiate the peace terms.

Then bring our boys home.

Will this bring Red
China into the war?

Red China is already in the war.

The best way to
get her out of it

is to let Chiang Kai-Shek
join us as he has requested.

He stands ready with
600,000 well-trained men

who know how to fight
under Asian conditions.

Our no-win policy in Vietnam
instead of promoting peace,

only sets the stage for settling
the problem, for the time

being, with a coalition
government of communists

and non-communists, and this
virtually ensures continued

war.

You know our troops
overseas, they

ask for so very little,
and yet they give

and give so very, very much.

Nobody wants a war.

God knows that, and
especially our troops that

are fighting one over there.

But as long as they are
fighting a war over there,

the least we could
do back home here

is just to give them the
support, the love, the dignity,

and the respect that they, our
flags and our country deserves.

And that's all they ask of you.

Thank you.

So we come back to the
men who fight the battle,

or are we all involved
in the battle?

Listen to Captain Wilson.

I went to Vietnam
to fight communism.

And when you get
to the base of it,

that's what Vietnam is all
about, communist aggression.

Communist aggression,
not only in Vietnam

but in Laos, Thailand,
Cambodia, and all

the areas of Southeast Asia.

We have communist aggression
right here in America right

in the streets every day, and
it's evident in the newspapers

if you read them closely.

Wherever we can fight
communist aggression,

we owe it to our
country to do so.

Communism is America's
number one enemy.

It has been for years and it
will be for years to come.

The only way to solve
the problem in Vietnam

is to take it to the
base of the problem,

and that is into the cities
and towns of North Vietnam.

We do not need to send
troops into North Vietnam.

The job can be
done from the air.

We knew it when I was over there
and we know it still today.

You have to take your aircraft,
the munitions at hand,

and go to North Vietnam and bomb
the targets and the facilities

that they use to wage war
against the other bordering

countries.

This is the only thing that
the communists understand.

You do it from an unassailable
position of strength.

You let them know that
you mean business.

You bomb their facilities
that they use to wage war.

You make it so unpleasant for
them at home that they have

to keep their troops at home
to look after the business

at hand, and they cannot afford
to send them across other

country's borders, violating the
sovereignty of these countries.

This is the only thing that
the communists understand.

It's the only way
to deal with them.

It cannot be done at
the conference table.

This is the only way to
win the war in Vietnam.

A choice made for us nearly
200 years ago by our founding

fathers is now up for review
in Vietnam and everywhere else,

in the Mekong Delta
and in the halls

of the Congress of the
United States of America.

There are over 3
million Americans who

had been and fought in Vietnam.

We have seen
communism in action.

We have seen what might be
termed relevant communism.

We have seen Marx and Lenin
taken off the library shelf

and put on the
backs of the people.

We will never
surrender to communism

because we know what it is.

There will be no Viet Cong in
the United States of America.

We will fight.

We know that there is a
possibility that we may not

triumph, but it is not
inevitable that the enemy

triumph if he is opposed.

There is no fate that must
fall on them however they act.

There is, however,
a fate that falls

on men if they refuse that.

We should win in Vietnam.

We can win in Vietnam.

We must help to extend
freedom, not allow

it to be foreclosed on us.

This is a challenge that
our generation faces.

This must be our goal.

Certainly, we could
not stand by idly

and see the communists
grab off chunks

of the free world at will,
some place we had to stop him.

And when we decided
to go into Vietnam,

we should have decided to
go in with a determination

to win that war and to win
it with the might of America,

mostly air and Naval power, and
we had the capacity to do so.

Now in Vietnam, I feel in
this second test of arms,

having learned a
lesson in Korea,

if I had had the
decision to make,

I would have closed
the port of Haiphong.

I would have not permitted
the paraphernalia of war

from friend and foe alike
to be delivered to that port

to kill our men eventually.

I would have attacked
with air every

remunerative military target.

in North Vietnam.

I would knock out
their railroads,

and inundated their rice fields,
and taken their dams out.

And I have found that
when the communists come

to the conclusion that they
cannot win on the field

of battle what they
set out to get, they

run to the conference table.

It is an extension
of the war with them.

It should be obvious by now
that the predicament we're in

is not the fault
of the military.

We should have stopped
the Reds in Berlin,

we should have kept
them out of Cuba,

we should have won
the war in Korea,

but we didn't, so let's not
blame the men in uniform

for our political mistake.

Maybe we should listen
to them in time of war,

and this certainly is war.

They say there's no
substitute for victory.

Maybe we should also remember
the words of Winston Churchill,

after Chamberlain's appeasement
negotiations in Munich in 1939.

Quote, "The government had to
choose between shame and war.

They chose shame and
they'll get war, unquote."

They got war.

Now, let's take a
look at our country.

Today, in the newspapers,
on radio, on TV,

we read, hear, and see riots
on campuses and street corners.

Crime is at all time high.

We read about our American
flag being hauled down by mobs,

burned and stomped
into the ground.

We hear the names
of these same mob

leaders over and over
from city to city.

They wave the flag
of the communist Viet

Cong, the flag of the enemy
that we're fighting in Vietnam.

The enemy that kills
our boys from ambush

and fades away into
political sanctuary.

And at the same time
here in America,

the commies are allowed to
teach in our schools, parade

through our streets
and our capital

while those in high position
choose to remain silent.

With all these
problems, I wonder

what would happen in America if
we all chose to remain silent.

Would crime come to a halt
without preventative measures?

Would the communist underground
movement to take over America

cease?

Would the communists leave
the free nations of the world

alone without our help?

Will they pull back across
the 17th parallel in Vietnam

if we withdraw our troops?

The answer is no.

Mr. Lincoln was right when
he said that to remain silent

makes cowards of men.

I plead with each
of you to reflect

on these facts of history.

Then I'd like to
speak for myself.

I believe we must vote
out of office, regardless

of political party, those
politicians who seek to appease

tyranny and promote anarchy,
and to vote for men who are

responsible and who will put
the welfare of our country

above their own
political ambitions.

We must stop communist
rioting inside America.

We must enforce the laws
that make crime illegal.

And if there should be
another 17th parallel,

we should not plead
with the communists

to get back, but warn
them, and do it only once.

To hell with world opinion.

We must speak up
and take a stand,

only then will this great
nation of ours survive.

[MUSIC - "BALLAD OF THE GREEN
BERETS"]