Seven Days in May

Epilogue

PRESS CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENT JORDAN LYMAN

Monday, May 20, 10:30 a.m.

(In attendance: 483)

the president: Good morning. I have several announcements.

First, the arrangements for the trip to Vienna are now complete, and Mr. Simon will have detailed information on that for you by noon today.

Second, I have one diplomatic appointment. When the Senate reconvenes I will send up a nomination for ambassador to Chile, to fill the vacancy which has existed in that post for the past several weeks. I am appointing Mr. Henry Whitney, a career foreign service officer who has demonstrated unusual initiative and skill. He is currently serving as consul general in Spain.

Third, I have accepted a number of resignations in the armed services. The officers are General George Seager and General Theodore F. Daniel of the Air Force. There will be a list available after the press conference, by the way. General Seager is commander of Vandenberg missile base, and General Daniel is commander of the Strategic Air Command. Also Admiral Topping Wilson, commander of the Pacific Fleet, and Admiral Farley C. Barnswell, commander of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, and Lieutenant General Thomas R. Hastings, commander of the First Airborne Corps of the Army at Fort Bragg.

malcolm waters, Associated Press: Mr. President?

the president: Excuse me, Mr. Waters, I have one further announcement. As you all know, the President has traditionally had three military aides-one each from the Army, Navy and Air Force. I thought it was about time a Marine was added, and I am appointing Colonel Casey as my Marine aide. He will be promoted to brigadier general. That's all I have.

hugh ulanski, United Press International: Could we have the full name of that Colonel Casey, sir?

the president: I'm sorry. That is Colonel Martin J. Casey. He is currently serving as director of the Joint Staff. I think some of you may know him.

merrill stanley, NBC: Mr. President, are we to understand that these five resignations you just gave us are in the same category as the Joint Chiefs, that is, because they opposed the treaty?

the president: Now, let's get one thing cleared up. It wasn't opposition to the treaty that brought on these resignations, but opposition of a formal and persistent nature after the policy of the government had been firmly settled. With that proviso, the answer to your question is yes. The five field commanders proposed to ally themselves with General Scott in formal defiance of government policy. That could not be tolerated.

merrill stanley, NBC: Mr. President, our switchboard has been swamped with calls on this Joint Chiefs thing.

the president: So has mine. (Laughter)

merrill stanley, NBC: Yes, sir. And most of them are to the effect that the public doesn't understand why so many had to be fired.

the president: Well, they weren't fired. They resigned. It is true, of course, that I requested the resignations, but the officers in question could have refused to submit them and could have carried the matter further. They preferred not to do that, and I think they were wise. Now, why so many? The resignations involved only those military officers who proposed to defy established national policy after it had been settled. As I said Saturday, we could not operate in that situation. No military leader has been disturbed because he expressed opposition to the treaty before it was ratified. In fact, Admiral Palmer has been advanced to a more responsible assignment, as has General Rutkowski. General Rutkowski argued very strongly against the treaty last year.

james compton, Knight Newspapers: Sir, you didn't make it clear in your speech Saturday to what extent you encouraged them to resign.

the president: Jim, I'll assume that's a question even though I couldn't hear a question mark on it. Let's just say I advised them to resign and they accepted my advice. (Laughter)

hal brennan, New York Times: Mr. President, we have an authoritative report that some intelligence information, involving Russia's intentions to abide by the treaty, accounts for your trip to Vienna to see Mr. Feemerov. Is that correct, sir?

the president: I'm sorry, but I will have nothing more to say on the Vienna conference until it is over.

hal brennan, New York Times: Then we may assume the report is correct?

the president: Now, Mr. Brennan, I am neither confirming nor denying anything. I am simply not discussing the subject. I'd like to be helpful, but I think it would not be useful for me to discuss it just now. You'll all be informed in good time.

ruth everson, New Orleans Times-Picayune: Mr. President, people in Louisiana are very worried about our country's safety with all these top officers being fired. Have you thought about that?

the president: I thought I made it clear on Saturday that I myself have no qualms. Every branch of the military establishment has many fine, experienced and devoted officers ready to assume command responsibilities. I think that is one of the great successes of our service academy system, and of course we have many fine officers from the ranks and from the civilian colleges.

thomas hodges, Minneapolis Star and Tribune: Mr. President, did you consult with the National Security Council or the Cabinet or other advisers on this?

the president: Not the NSC or the Cabinet as such, but I did consult most earnestly, and at some length, with certain of my advisers.

thomas hodges, Minneapolis Star and Tribune: I wonder if you could give us their names, please, sir?

the president: In this particular case, I don't believe it would be useful.

roger swensson, Chicago Tribune: Mr. President, many people find it hard to believe that the treaty alone was the cause of this mass exodus. Was anything else involved?

the president: The treaty stirred very deep feelings in this country. Men in high positions are not immune to deep feelings.

roger swensson, Chicago Tribune: Are you saying, sir, that this was also partly a matter of personalities?

the president: No, I am not. I am saying that the chiefs and I differed one hundred and eighty degrees on a matter vital to the security and future of this country and of the whole world. These differences were not susceptible of resolution.

grant church, Washington Star: Mr. President, you said Saturday that you would go into court today on the missile strikes. Is that still your intention?

the president: Well, on that I have asked the Attorney General to wait until this afternoon. I understand that there now seems an excellent prospect that the problem may be solved by then without our seeking an injunction, so I have asked him to wait, and keep in touch with the Secretary of Labor, who has been working over the weekend on the matter. But if there is no progress this morning, yes, we will go into court this afternoon as I indicated.

edgar st. john, Washington Post: Mr. President, there's been quite a lot of speculation over the weekend about the political implications of these resignations, since General Scott has been highly favored by many Republicans and even some Democrats. Do you foresee him as a possible Republican nominee against you next time?

the president: Eddie, you are not going to get me to announce for re-election. (Laughter) At least not today. (Laughter) It's possible that General Scott might be interested. Of course, I don't think he could win if I did run again, despite my, well, somewhat modest standing in a certain recent poll. (Laughter) Seriously, things do change quickly in politics, but I would be very much surprised, on the basis of certain information given me over the weekend, if General Scott decided to seek elective office. But let me say right here that I have the highest regard for his intelligence, character and dedication. I just happen to believe that he is misguided on some things.

a. h. cooledge, King Features: Mr. President, you said "some things." What are the others, please, sir?

the president: I meant that I believe him to be wrong on the central issue in this whole matter. By "some things" I meant the auxiliary questions that stem from the central issue.

ernest dubois, Los Angeles Times: Mr. President, have you had a chance to talk yet with the governor of California about the appointment of a successor to Senator Prentice?

the president: I think it would be in poor taste for me to do anything like that now, and it would be improper, and unnecessary, in any event. I am sure the governor will discharge his responsibility, at the proper time, without any help from me. I do want to say that it was most untimely, Senator Prentice's death, and his loss will be felt keenly in the Senate. It is no secret that we differed on some matters, but that did not diminish his stature, and I might say his influence, in my eyes.

helen updyke, CBS: Mr. President, on those field commanders you listed at the beginning, who is replacing them?

the president: In each case the deputy commander or chief of staff is taking over, for the time being.

kyle morrison, Baltimore Sun: Mr. President, no doubt you have heard that, in addition to the treaty, many military men felt that you have been remiss in not moving to restore some of the fringe benefits which have been eroded away from the services, and, according to some critics, have hurt morale. Would you have any comment on that, sir?

the president: Well, yes, Mr. Morrison. I spoke briefly of that on Saturday, as you know. I think their feeling has considerable justification. Morale in the services, or in some branches of them, could be improved, and I think this is one factor. We hope to send a bill to the Hill within two weeks. It will be sound financially, but it will be generous. I think we can work out the details quite quickly. I may have been a little slow on this, but only because there was so much else that had to come first, as I saw it.

john hutchinson, Chicago Sun-Times: Mr. President, on a different subject, have you made a decision yet on that vacancy on the district court in Illinois?

the president: Yes, I have, but I'm afraid that, with everything else that's happened in the past few days, I've forgotten. Just a minute.

(The President conferred with Mr. Simon.)

the president: Oh, yes. Frank reminds me. It is ... I intend to nominate Benjamin Krakow of Chicago. Mr. Simon says he was endorsed by the Sun-Times (Laughter) as well as by the bar association.

alan angell, Newark Star-Ledger: Mr. President, how did you learn that the officers you named today were still opposing the treaty? I mean the field commanders.

the president: Well, a president does have his sources of information. It so happens that the five whose resignations I announced today were all allied with General Scott in support of his planned course of action.

oscar lewis, Des Moines Register: Mr. President, are you indicating there was some sort of military cabal, or something, on this thing?

the president: No, I'm just stating the facts. All the men who resigned knew each other well, and they exchanged their views rather openly, and they did not keep their attitude a secret. They were just pulling the wrong way on a matter of established national policy, and you can't have that.

marvin o'rourke, Gannett Newspapers: Mr. President, there's been quite a mystery about a force of Treasury agents called into their offices Friday night. Could you help us on that, sir?

the president: No, I really can't. My understanding is that Secretary Todd had information of some kind of criminal operation afoot in the metropolitan area, but that it never really materialized. I will inquire into it, though, and see that Mr. Simon has information for you later.

william seaton, RBC: Mr. President, it was before my time, but I think that when President Truman fired General MacArthur in 1951 he did not object when MacArthur addressed Congress. How would you feel about that now as far as General Scott is concerned?

the president: I really don't think you can make a comparison of the two situations. President Truman took the action he did-I think you will find this to be the case, if you look at the record-primarily as a disciplinary matter. General Scott and I differed over something that went far beyond that, to the question of our national survival and our world leadership, our existence as a nation for many ... for many years of what I hope will be peace. I think your question is one of those "iffy" ones, really. I don't think Congressional leaders have it in mind, and I would rather doubt that General Scott would be receptive.

peter benjamin, United Features: Mr. President, this is a delicate question, and I'll try to phrase it rather precisely. There have been many rumors around here in the past few days that far more than the treaty was involved and that perhaps there was some idea, some indication, of ... well, of upsetting the government. Do you have any knowledge of anything in the military, the military forces, that would have been intended to alter or upset any of our present setup?

the president: I'm sure you would not want to be suggesting, Mr. Benjamin, even by a question, that General Scott sought to usurp any powers of the civilian authorities. That of course would be beyond understanding. I am aware, though, of these rumors, and I'd like to try to answer you as exactly as I can. I think then I won't have anything more to say today.

Now, this country has been in existence almost two hundred years, and our roots as a republic go back much farther than that. We were given the finest Constitution ever written by men. You know, it is unique. There is no political document like it in history, because it was written all at once, from scratch, but it still has lasted and it has been adaptable to changes the founding fathers could not have dreamed of.

That Constitution and the whole governmental structure that flows from it are taught as basic subjects, bread-and-butter, at the service academies, even more than at our other colleges and schools. The cadets and midshipmen there absorb it. And throughout their careers they live with it much more than do most civilians. They read it on their commissions, and it is part of their oath of office. They fight for it, of course, as junior officers, and as senior officers they never question its arrangements for ultimate civilian authority, no matter how much they may differ with the elected officials on some particular issue.

So, when you think about it, this is perhaps the finest tradition of our military services, and it is certainly one of the most important now, because with missiles and satellites and nuclear weapons, military commanders could take control of any nation by just pushing some buttons.

I am sure the American people do not believe that any such thought ever entered the mind of any general officer in our services since the day the country began. Let us pray that it never will.

malcolm waters, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President.