From the archives: Robert F. Kennedy on "Face the Nation" in 1967

Senator Kennedy if President Johnson were to feel next year that he could only win a reelection by asking you to replace a vice president Hubert Humphrey would you accept the Democratic vice presidential nomination in 1968 no I would not but I think there is no indication that he would ask me and I think that he's made his Alliance an association with vice president Humphrey and I think vice president Humphrey should continue as the nominee of the Democratic Party and I would support President Johnson and vice president Humphrey if they received the nomination of the Democratic Party from CBS Washington in color faced the nation a spontaneous and unrehearsed news interview with Senator Robert F Kennedy of New York whose new book to seek a newer world has just been published senator Kennedy will be questioned by CBS News correspondent Roger Mudd Tom wicker Washington bureau chief of the New York Times and CBS News correspondent Martin agronsky senator Kennedy you've repeatedly criticized the president's of Vietnam war policy and your criticism hasn't changed and many of your supporters feel and feel very strongly that the time has come when you should place your concept of the national interest over party loyalty and seek the presidency yourself if you truly want to change our policy in Vietnam what do you think of that reasoning well I have found it over the period of the last 18 months particularly very difficult to talk about some of these matters without getting involved in personalities when I criticized the war in Vietnam and a major speech back in February 1966 after the initial stories it was placed purely and the stories that were written and the the comments that were made were just on the basis of of a personality struggle between President Johnson and myself and it's been true really of the period of the last as I say 18 months or last year that it's always been on the basis of of the fact that I would like to still have President Kennedy in the United States I resent Lyndon Johnson as president the United States it's never really been analyzed on the basis of what my criticism and the and the source of my critics are the basis of my criticism I think that that having that a personality struggle rather than an issue question has been damaging to the country as a whole and damaging really to the consideration of these matters so I think that if I just decided to run or if I ran for the President of the United States of the Democratic Party that and not what I I would not strengthen the the question of these issues are the dialogue that is taking place in connection with these issues but in fact I would weaken it it would immediately become a personality struggle it would immediately become a struggle between me as a overly ambitious figure trying to take the nomination away from President Johnson who has deserves it because of the fact that he's not only president but serve the Democratic Party in the country as president for four or five years so I don't think that really I strengthen the dialogue strengthen the discussion of the issues but but in fact I would weaken it by by declaring for the Democratic Party Democratic senator ken does that mean then that you think given all the circumstances that exist today unfortunately though some may be given given all those circumstances that you think that the the nomination of in reelection of President Johnson is the best thing for the country because in all the circumstances he would be the best man well I expect that he's going to receive the nomination and I will support him I think that what one of the great problems that we're having at the moment is the fact that we're not really having much of a dialogue about some of these matters that's why I said a week or so ago that it's possible that if Eugene McCarthy declares and comes into the and and decides to enter some of these primaries there will at least be a discussion I think one of the problems in the country at the moment is the fact that there isn't communication between races and between various groups in the country that there is no real dialogue about Vietnam really anymore that we've taken to the streets that there's violence is this lawlessness that we frequently won't let those who disagree with us speak I think that the not only the Democratic Party suffers but the whole country suffers and our society suffers and I think that that the that it's possible that if Senator McCarthy decided to run as it's been suggested that that there could be a healthy element in that and the fact that we then get around to beginning to discuss these matters and exchanging view I don't think as I said earlier to mr. gronski that it's possible for me to do it because I don't think that I would be accepted on that basis but I think that it is possible that Senator McCarthy could and I think that if he performs that function and we get it out of the streets we get it out of marching into the Pentagon and as we did several weeks ago and we have a debate that it could be healthy for the country I think we can expect at the end of it that looking at tradition and looking at history that the President Johnson will be nominated but I think that that to have this kind of exchange can be very healthy and we're not getting it from the Republican Party certainly they haven't offered any program either in the domestic field or in the international field or about Vietnam that really is very helpful or very different from the Democrats so I think that that has been harmful support of President Johnson and vice president Humphrey applies after they received the nomination well I think it really depends on if assuming that Senator McCarthy goes into the races I gather from the newspaper reports he will I think that I would remain out of it until at the time of the nomination purely because I think it would be hypocritical for me on one hand to support many of these issues and many of the questions that I've heard Senator McCarthy speak about before to support his position and have some opposition to the president administration and yet support President Johnson against him on the other hand I couldn't support Senator McCarthy against President Johnson because there were many of the things that President Johnson stands for in the domestic field that I also support so I think that I would remain out of it support for the Johnson Humphrey ticket as I understood it applied before the convention and after the convention now in the last week there's been this refinement that you really meant to apply it only after the I never said one way or the other but I'm not I'm not gonna be coy about it I just when I made my statement I was the one that was being considered as a nominee and I thought really at that and I was not going to I was not interested in running I was not going to run and I thought that really every position that I took whether it be about the domestic problems what we needed to do in the cities the necessity of bringing the private enterprise system in the fact that we weren't doing enough in some of these areas or whether it was Vietnam or whether we what we were doing in the undeveloped nations of the world everything I said in connection with any of those matters was put in the context that this was a part of a campaign for myself as president the United States I was the only one that was being mentioned during that period of time we weren't really talking about the issues which I thought were extremely important so it was on that basis that I wanted to make it clear that I was not going to run for president the United States and that that I was not a candidate senator leaving hypocrisy aside this business of dealing yourself out of the campaign until after the nomination perhaps might seem excessively timid even self-serving for your own political future don't you feel that the issue of Vietnam is so important that you should participate in this debate yes I'm going to continue to and I'm going to continue to talk and as I've just finished a book which was mentioned at the beginning this program about my feelings about Vietnam and I'm going to continue to talk about these issues but I'm not talking about these issues as a competitor to anybody I'm talking about these issues as issues which I think are important to the American people and I'd like to have them examine on that basis I think that what we're doing at the present time Vietnam is a mistake I think the course that we're following is era but I'm saying that as a United States Senator and I want to have what I say analyzed on that and that's what I tried to make clear for some period of time I'm not doing it on the basis of trying to build up a political following so that I can grab the nomination from President Johnson what I am going to discuss the issues I'm going to discuss what I think should be done domestically and I'm going to and and I think that it's within the Democratic Party that we should have dissent I don't think that the dissent here in the United States are those who disagree should be confined to those who are young I think that we have when we sign up for the Democratic Party we don't say that we're never going to disagree I think that there's much to disagree about I mean we've done a great deal with in this country but there's also much to disagree about and there is much more that we can do and there's much more that we can do in my judgment not only in Vietnam but in other parts of the world that we're not doing and I'm going to continue to talk about those let's return to the war in politics in a different way do you think that this administration the administration of President Johnson can conclude a peace in Vietnam yes I think it's possible during this election year I think it's more difficult I think that it's possible to do I think that the indications of the Perry the last few weeks are that we're just going to go in the military field and then though we're not going to go to the negotiating table I think that under those circumstances we'll continue with the military effort and I think that that's going to get the casualties will continue to rise in both sides and my judgment using the Truman Eisenhower analogy if one exists do you believe that that it will take a new president to negotiate a settle no I think that President Johnson could negotiate a settlement I think he could negotiate a settlement I happen to disagree with the way we're going about it but I think it could be done well senator on the assumption that the indications you've seen of a more military emphasis in the next few months or the next year assuming that that is true how do you think then that the issue of Vietnam will affect the elections next year well I think it would be a great issue in people's minds and and and I'm matter terribly troubling to the American people as it is at the moment but I think it depends somewhat on who the nominee of the Republican Party is and even beyond that just looking at from a political point of view as the war goes on if it goes on as I anticipate it will that people will hold the democrats responsible for the fact that the war is continuing and that the casualties are considerable and that the cost is very great but I go back to the fact that I don't think that the Republicans are offering any alternative I don't think that any of the dialogue about what we should be doing in the cities what we should be doing about our rural poverty what we should be doing about education in this country what we should be doing about all of these other matters as well as Vietnam has been contributed to contributed it at all to by the Republicans are those who would expect to be the nominees of the Republican Party yes well now to the extent that within the Democratic Party Senator McCarthy begins to open up a real dialogue on these matters begins to provide a real alternative particularly in terms of policy particularly on Vietnam now isn't it true and I just ask you this as an experienced politician isn't it truth to the extent that he does that the more people who believe that you are the real alternative to President Johnson are gonna bring pressure upon you and increase their activities in your behalf I don't anticipate that that will occur but I'm going to continue as I have said and I'm not a candidate for the Democratic nomination senator I'm I don't you know no matter what I do and difficulty no I know I know you say what isn't that what is going to happen I I suppose now all kinds of things can happen I don't know what I can do to prevent that what I should do that is any different other than to try to get off the earth in some way Oh senator nobody wants you to get off the earth obvious I don't do nobody's trying to put you on a spot really Oh everyone appreciates the difficulty of your position but again trying to place politics aside and dealing with the issue of the national interest if you feel so strongly about the were in Vietnam do you really feel that President Johnson should run many people feel many people have indicated that the very fact of the president's policy in Vietnam has made it impossible for Hanoi to deal with him that it might be in the interest of ending the war and eventually in the national interest for him not to be reelected I have now you know I happen to disagree with what the position is but I once again I don't think that they're any easy answers to this matter and I don't know that I happen to have a different point of view but I couldn't guarantee to you that my point of view is is absolutely correct or that I know that it has the solution I disagree with what we're doing but I think that President Johnson has a perfect right to present his point of view and which is quite different to the American people and and they perhaps will support that do you disagree with the current evaluation that has just been given us by general Westmoreland the commander in South Vietnam by Ambassador bunker at the end of the war may be in view that within two years we may be able to bring troops home from but he said of course was that if North Vietnam doesn't escalate that we continue to do what we are doing and we continue to bomb them the north and they don't continue to ask they don't escalate that's one part of it the second if the South Vietnamese begin to do more well I think the history over the period of the last two years is they're going to continue to escalate they escalate in a different way as I point out in my book then we escalate they don't bomb Detroit and they don't bomb Chicago they don't bomb Los Angeles but the Russians send the more sophisticated weapons they send more men into the south and the casualties go up the casualties have gone up over the period of the last 18 months steadily so they're gonna kill more Americans I don't see how we can anticipate that they're gonna stand still as we escalate on our side the history of the war hasn't been that the second part of his question was the South Vietnamese would do more with the South Vietnamese in fact over the period of the last year have done less far less our casualties are greater than the casualties of the South Vietnamese now we are carrying the burden of the fighting we're carrying the burden of the war I've always said unless it's clear that it's their war and we're over there to help them that we can when now they've they've had corruption they've had a lack of land reform they've failed to put in the democratic procedures that I think that we should have in the democratic processes unless they change unless there's a drastic change the people of South Vietnam are not going to feel loyalty to them to Saigon rather than to the Vietcong and feel that it's worthwhile they are making a sacrifice they are making the effort the South Vietnamese Army is is really pulled out why isn't from that for instance in the battle Dokdo why why hasn't it been the South Vietnamese army that's gone up that hill why hasn't been the South Vietnamese Army that's been on the Demilitarized Zone and stayed there why does it always have to be Americans I think they should do what they should carry the bird now if they're going to do more of that and then North Vietnamese will not escalate which I expect that they will and the Russians can send them far more sophisticated weapons than they have already if all of those both those things come true then I think that we will be on well on our way to winning the war but I think there has to be a complete under Nate agreed your turn for the South Vietnamese and there has to be a complete change of policy in North Vietnam I haven't seen any indication of that up to the present time and I'd like to see the South Vietnamese do more I'd like to see them carrying this burden like to see them doing the fighting and not just Americans because I don't think there's any alternative to that we're not going to win unless the South Vietnamese begin to do more and make more of an effort and it shouldn't be just the United States and Americans doing it that's what I resent and I as I say I think that when we talk about that there's nothin it's nothin about this really being said within the Republican Party or what we should do within our own country and that's why I think the people and when we talk about the violence and the people walking out and the lawlessness there isn't there is no way for people to express their point of view and I think that this is most unfortunate in this country there is an unhappiness and unease within the United States at the moment and there has to be an outlet for it I you know I didn't and I think that that poses a very very important problem the Republican Party offers nothing we have to do something within the Democratic Party what is your view of the current form of the of dissent in this country you find it healthy and all the time no I don't I mean I think some of the wear turns to violence I think makes the the there's a point to the demonstration in front of the Washington Monument people disagreeing with our position and Vietnam there's a point that those who feel that we should do more and demonstrate as they do but when it gets to a lot of violence and when it gets to walking around and and committing acts of terrorism and when it gets to when it goes to not permitting another person to speak as they have not a vice president Humphrey or secretary Rusk I think it's a very very bad mistake but I and I well I just think it's a very very bad mistake senator your remarks about the trying to get the South Vietnamese to carry a larger share of the war there you've been associated with this war or with the effort in Vietnam for many years now in two administrations just recently there has been an emphasis within this administration on the fact that this war is being fought in the American national security interest because of a great threat from Asian communism and so forth now if that is the case it would it would follow that perhaps we ought to do as much needed to be done and would you address yourself to that and whose interest is this war well I think first we we were there you know I first going to your point that I've been involved in this and as I say in my book I have to have a share of responsibility and there are mistakes that have been made I've been involved in those mistakes but perhaps if you admit mistakes you're perhaps a little wiser than you were when you were committing them but have you be specific but could I just answer is one Vietnam I'll answer the first done mr. wickers question because I think this really is extremely important for us first we were making the effort there so that people had their own right to decide their own future and could select their own form of government and it wasn't going to be imposed on them by North Vietnamese the North Vietnamese and we had the support of the people of South Vietnam I think that's why we were involved in that involved in that struggle that certainly as the way I looked at it when I was in President Kennedy's administration and when I was with President Johnson now we've turned when we found that the South Vietnamese haven't given the support and I'm not making the effort now we're saying we're going to fight there so that we don't have to fight in Thailand so that we don't have to fight in the west coast of the United States so that they won't move across the Rockies but do we our whole moral position it seems to me changes tremendously one we're in there we're helping people we're working with them we're fighting for their independence second we're and we're killing the enemy and we're also killing many civilians but we're doing it because they want it now we've changed and we switched maybe they don't want it but we want it so we're going in there and we're killing South Vietnamese we're killing children we're killing women we're killing innocent people because we don't want to have the war fought in on American soil or because they are 12,000 miles away and they might get to be eleven thousand miles away our whole moral position changes it seems to me tremendously I mean do we have the right here in the United States to say that we're going to kill tens of thousands make millions of people as we have millions of people refugees kill women and children as we have there's 35,000 people without limbs in South Vietnam the 150,000 civilian casualties every year thousands of children are killed because of our efforts do we have that right here in the United States to perform these acts because we want to protect ourselves so that we don't have it's not a greater problem for us here in the United States I very seriously question whether we have that right and I think other people are fighting it other people are carrying the burden but this is also our war those of us who stay here in the United States we must feel it when we use napalm and when villages destroyed civilians are killed this is also our responsibility this is a moral obligation and a rude moral responsibility for us here in the United States and I think we forgotten about that and when we switched from one point of view to another I think that we forgotten about it and I think that it should be discussed and and they all of us should examine our own conscience of what we are doing in South Vietnam it's not just the fact that we're killing North Vietnamese soldiers or Viet Cong we're also responsible for tens and tens of thousands of innocent civilian casualties and I think we're going to have a difficult time explaining it to ourselves you feel that our moral position then is not really defensible that it can't well I think it's been badly undermined and I think that uh and I think it should trouble us I think the a picture in the paper of a child drowning should trouble us more than it does or the picture last week of it of a paratrooper holding a rifle to a woman's head it must trouble us more than it does all acts of aggression and act and and death and destruction occurs in war and sometimes wars are essential or necessary are going to occur but we should also consider the price that we're paying it's not just that the Americans that are being killed and the Americans that are being wounded and the price that we're paying so that we can't do the kinds of things that we should but we have an art moral position around the world we stand for anything that's different from the communist we have a moral position around the world and we can't lose that as it appears to be that we are doing in Vietnam why can't the President of the United States of the vice president United States travel freely around the world anymore it's because of Vietnam why can't they go through Latin America why can't they travel through Europe I can't even travel freely through our own country this is more than as somebody is described and said it's there maybe there are communists involved in this we should we should look at it in an objective way of what we are doing what we are trying to do and what this country stands for both within our internally in the United States and what we have to stand for around the rest of the globe if it means if this country's gonna mean anything and when we say we love our country we love our country but we love our country for what it can be and for the justice it stands for what and and and and what we're going to mean to the next generation we're not just it's not just live it's not just the land it's not just the mountains it's what this country stands for and that's what I think there's been seriously undermined in Vietnam and the effective it has to be felt by our people senator I wish we could continue what has turned into an extremely interesting and illuminating discussion but I regret we are out of time thank you very much for being here to Face the Nation

Channel: Face the Nation

Views: 595,570

Keywords: video, cbs, news

Id: jkbW5yJanzc

Length: 24min 14sec (1454 seconds)

Published: Thu Jun 07 2018