inputting this exhibit together and thinking about the future of space explanation, it established more of a foundation. even though the space program has moved on, things are very different now. and in the future, they're going to be very different. there is this beginning, this pioneering spirit mr. armstrong and cernan were part of with graduates of purdue. if it were not for them and that . of history, the 60's, we would not be where we are now to explore. weekend,hout the american history tv is featuring lafayette and west lafayette, indiana. we recently traveled there to learn about its rich history. learn more about the sister cities and other stops on c-span city to her at c-span.org/local content. you're watching american history

tv, all weekend every weekend on c-span3. >> coming up next on american history tv, former journalist and kennedy school professor examines presidential decision-making in the post-vietnam era. he discusses military complex as well is declared wars, including the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the national press club hosted this event. it is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> good evening. welcome to the national plus club. i am the club's 107th president. it is my honor to welcome all of you here this evening and those watching via c-span as part of this american history series. for a discussion about the impact of vietnam war has had on presidential decision-making over the past five decades. we could not have a more appropriate guest of honor tonight than marvin kalb, the award winning journalist for cbs

and nbc news. he was last news man recruited by edward r murrow to join cbs news, becoming part of the generation known as the murrow boys. for the mass 20 years, he has the kalb moderator of report and conducts interviews with well-known public figures who often do not consent to interviews, but they do with marvin kalb. earlier this year, he interviewed at the national press club, justices scalia and justice ginsburg. he followed that coup by interfering bob woodward and carl bernstein, drawing them out about the recollections of washington post editor ben bradley in what turned out to be the eve of ben bradley's death. tonight, the press club turns .he tables on marvin tell as to distinguish members of the are interview him, they

bill klein, who was president of the club when the kalb reports begin in 1994 and was chair of the history and heritage committee, and kendall leckie, the commander of the clubs post and former deputy managing editor at the washington kiplinger editors where he covered foreign and military affairs among other subjects. tonight, i'm not going to turn over the floor to these three very distinguished guests, but first i will start with deal, can, and you take it from there. thank you all for being here tonight as a guest of honor and thank you all for being here in person and via c-span. >> thank you very much. as a journalism professor at the american university's washington program, i would like to thank all of my students for coming tonight as well as the rest of you in the audience today. as the chairman of the club's history and heritage committee, or elected to your little bit about the historical significance of the american legion post.

founded on november 19, 1919 by club for support in the war, it was called the persian post in the blackjack post in honor of the american expeditionary force commander general john blackjack persian, who was an associate member of the club. in world war ii, it hosted a series of campaigns that offered free hot dogs and beer and a little entertainment to servicemen. at one of those, then vice president harry truman told his wife that he was going to the club. he was going to see the soldiers. in any trouble because back then it was an all men's club, what could go wrong? player, hess piano said donna the upper apn oh entertaining the troops that day. lauren bacall was there that day. her agent knew it good thing onn he saw one, hosted her top of the piano, she draped her legs over, look downloading the harry.

the photographers went wild. when that photograph appeared on the front page of every newspaper in the country the next day, his wife was not amused. 50 years later, when margaret truman, his daughter, spoke at the club and recounted the story, those truman women had no sense of humor. that became the iconic photo for the press club circulated to the media when lauren bacall died last summer. follow none that great tradition, i turn this over to a current american legion post commander, can do like he to tell us why we're here tonight. >> thank you very much. i can't top the harry truman story. i want to thank you marvin for joining us this evening. you have been a great friend to the national press club for many years. the american legion post has

been a part of the national press club for 95 years, actually as of this month, this is a 95th anniversary. partners of local many in the vietnam war commemoration, which is a program authorized by congress and organized by the department of defense. key to multiyear program the 50th anniversary of the war. as a partner of the post, conducting several programs each year to focus on the legacy of the war that to the lives of over 58,000 americans. this is the first of those programs. vice commander of our post, tom young, for all the work he has done in setting up's tonight event.

the commemoration recognizes the nearly 3 million men and women who served in vietnam. some nine million served during that. , 3 million in country, including our president of the national press club and we are delighted to also have him as a member of our post. the discussion of the impact of the war on post-vietnam use of u.s. military power is a great way to start our partnership program. there is no better to this there is no better person to discuss that issue than marvin cal. is fittingte that it that we are meeting in the murrow room of the national press club, room named in honor hiredard r. murrow, who marvin kalb at cbs news.

would you start with the first question? >> certainly. we are pleased to have with this martin kalb trade as you all know, i have worked with him for 20 years on the award-winning kalb report. marvin is both a great journalist and a great scholar at the international correspondence of cbs news he was in the thick of what happened in the nixon and ford ministrations. areg his many books haunting legacy, vietnam, and the american presidency from four to obama, and just recently, six months ago, the road to war, presidential commitments honored of the trade. just to start us off marvin, can 1975? what were you doing then as the war was coming to a rather disappointing and? >> first, let me thank the post

and the national press club for inviting me to speak about this very important subject. i want to start by saying that there are many better people than me to be doing this, but i am happy to do it. 1975, i was the chief diplomatic correspondent for cbs. i was based here in washington. i was absorbed with the fact that in my own lifetime there three- there had been major events that affected this country in a profound way. depression. i know i look 39, but i'm really 84. the depression was a very large part of my life as a kid. then there was world war ii. my brother went off to war. my brother-in-law went off to war could we all knew as a nation that we were involved in a war that we had to win.

then, there was watergate. and then, there was the vietnam war. two other massive events affecting the way in which this country up to today thinks about going to war, the way we go to war, the commitment by president 1941,gress, never since both have led american forces to fight, an important issue. country,this great united states of america, on april 30 was ignominiously vietnam.by north my god, how could that conceivably have happened? it did not make any sense. a great nation is not defeated by a country composed of what we used to disparagingly call

little men and black pajamas. how can they beat united states of america? but they did. it raised profound questions for the military. many did not want to acknowledge that they had participated in a lost war. but they had. what you do about that? what impact does that have on the military? what impact does that have upon the political system of the country? i country that always thought of itself as predetermined to win wars. we don't lose them. in world war ii, we called for unconditional surrender and we got it. it was as if it was coming to us. 1975, there were big questions to be answered, the likes of which we are still very much involved in today.

>> marvin, one of the first issues that i covered when i first started covering congress the wararly 1970's was powers resolution of 1973. excuse me. forgive me. >> it was a long time ago. >> no, no, no. i thought you were getting into the resolution of congress in 1964, giving johnson the right to fight and self it now. you're talking about the next one. please. >> it was probably the most direct legislative reaction to the war in vietnam. of course, it was designed to prevent the kind of mission vietnam.t got us into it passed overwhelmingly. it was vetoed by president next and. his veto was overridden.

it was a very popular piece of legislation. resolution remains on the books, but has been virtually ignored by our commerce and presidents. i would like you to talk about what happened. >> in 1973, again, i stand corrected. in 1973, remember that the war between united states and north vietnam formally came to a close in january, late january, 1973. theoretically, we were at peace. the war continued. on both sides there were violations. people were fed up with the war. there there were very few people who still supported fighting on behalf of south vietnam against the north vietnamese.

with people and open rebellion against the war, with the war itself a distinct political liability for many of the people running for office, they wanted to get us out. the resolution that formally got us out in 1973 of course never did. it was violated almost from the date that it was signed. the white house was never in favor of it. so the white house tried to endow it all with an illegitimacy, but the congress was up in arms because it had passed this resolution, wanted it signed into law. what the resolution said was that within six months the united states would stop sending all military supplies to selfie vietnam, would

stop providing them with military assistance of all kinds, and that was in fact correct. passed,t resolution was the south vietnamese lost in the north vietnamese one. that was not the intent of the legislation. but that was result of the legislation. the am thinking about system that was set up to require congress to take a vote when our troops are committed overseas or in a foreign conflict. or that has been ignored repeatedly. it is a relevant issue today. why do you think that congress allowing any president in

their multiple presidents involved to basically ignore that law? >> let me go back, if you don't mind, to a little bit of history. when the united states was attacked by the japanese, there was no question that the president was going to ask congress for a declaration of war. that is written into the u.s. constitution as one of the president's powers. one of the issues of united states of how it works when the issue is defending the american forces abroad to fight in a war. war.ught in the korean warsd numerous small leading up to the beginning of the vietnam war.

in 1964, lyndon b. johnson had in his pocket for the better part of the year a resolution by haveess authorizing him to absolute authority over sending american forces abroad. 2, and incident took place. at that time, six or seven north vietnamese took votes, attacked an american destroyer. it was late at night and stormy and comments are hearing -- ick was a commander and sent to mcnamara that they were being attacked. torpedoes were being launched and he wanted help. aircraftss, the

carrier was nearby area planes went to the defense. , a manof those planes named james stockdale who became a vice presidential candidate later on, he was a pilot at that time. he went over the area is down and he fired away at folks and he thought he may have hit but he knew that 4 others were badly hit. he went back thinking he had done a good job. the american ship was being attacked by the north vietnamese a tent in their defense and shot it up and went home and had a good night sleep. lyndon johnson at that time was ready to take his resolution out of his pocket and gave it to his friends on congress and say "

give me the authority to go to war." he was very unhappy where he really felt he got to know america and very unhappy that harry truman in 1945 had promised leadership of the congress that if he ever had to go to war, he would inform them and seek their approval. he did none of that. . instead. the un.n only by a fluke to get the resolution passed. he will -- johnson said he would not make that mistake again. but he still did not do with the cuttings in the middle of a presidential race area -- presidential race. he wanted to like a man of peace buffer. -- but firm.

he said another destroyer. ships wererican there in low and behold, two , the commander sent reports to the pentagon saying the north vietnamese were back and they are firing at us. whether none of the torpedoes hit. -- but none of the torpedoes hit. he began to wonder, could it be there is no attack at all? it is something else? and he put it ships into sharp upns and the radar picked blips of the ocean water hitting the side of the vessel. obese --nk they are bogeys, but today are not

torpedoes. he sent a message to washington saying i think i am totally wrong, nothing happening here. even though there was nothing happening according to the american commander on the scene, lyndon johnson had the idea that attacked me, they are attacking me again. later on he said, it is probably those -- i do not -- quote him directly. [laughter] he said he did not think to clean up the language that these navy boys got quite right. said this is my moment. and he in the leadership of the congress and gave them the resolution he wanted. the republican leader was a guy named ham andmo he said, mr. presidentck, it is for you to write the resolution and for us

to approve it. to behnson said, you have very clear what the resolution says. -- to give the president that absolute, uncontested right to use american military force and in defense of american national interest. he didn't say and southeast asian and did not save you know. sort of across the globe. , theion -- and by the way following day congress voted on this. senatee was 88-2 in the and 416-0 in the house. here, cantant point you imagine that kind of vote today?

unimaginable. there was still in those years belief on the part of both parties that when he foreign policy is certainly to war, both of us had to get together in the interest of the country. that does not exist today. it may exist in rhetoric but does not exist in action. time,ndon johnson at that ,he following day right after called in a group of reporters. i remember very clearly he said, "i want you all to be aware what the congress day-to-day was , all authorityl ."."he president

he presented -- he said the word ll" three times. since that time, in every war the u.s. has fought, it has been as a result of a presidential cases by aat in most congressional -- back in most cases by a congressional resolution but no longer a declaration of war. it out of the historical vocabulary. lyndon johnson talks at the time about why she did not ask for a declaration of were. -- of work. theaid during world war ii, entire nation was asked to and inute to a victory

that case, an unconditional surrender of the enemy. commitment andal johnson and nixon and ford, did not matter whether democratic or the president does not want to be in a position of asking the country for a total engagement. out andys want to way be a limited war. in the happening now ukraine, for example, could very well be only a limited war. capacity tohave the be a sarah halo -- bone cannot read the future. -- but we cannot read the future. for example, article five of the

north atlantic treaty organization says an attack on one is an attack on all. if putin decided tomorrow morning to move a small regiment of the army up to the border of estonia with 23% of the people are ethnic russian and so ethnic russians hounded to death by people who do not like us or the russian language or religion, i cannot allow that to happen you have to use it. ?hat with the united states do if estonia asks us and invokes article five, what would the u.s. do? what with the president do? when he be consistent? would he back away from it? i do not know. it all goes back to the president that lyndon johnson set.

war andther side of the i was struck in reading or in the short timeframe between nixon and resignation, who wanted peace for honor the lucky one it and the collapse of , it is a fool's error to as a hypothetical question. have comeietnam war out any different? >> a good hypothetical. my gut feeling is that it would've ended pretty much the way it did. reason, weerpowering tend to look upon the vietnam war and i been talking about it as an american exercise, it was

a north vietnamese exercise, too. they were driven by a powerful sense of nationalism. they wanted all of vietnam to be united. -- they wanted it united asked -- as vietnam. it happened to be run by shrewd, unscrupulous communist leaders who were determined not matter what the cost is a north vietnamese paid a tremendous cost -- price rather. they were going to get their way. they do not care how we got killed. killed a that if they limited number of americans, it would have an extraordinary impact inside of the u.s., but it didn't.

so my answer to your hypothetical question, i think it would've been pretty much the same. marvin, some of us in the room are old enough to remember the draft during vietnam and was incredibly unpopular and the last time the draft was used. you might say that in the draft was one of the casualties of the vietnam war. volunteer and much more professional military. how does that affect the way presidents and decisions on the use of military force? >> i think in a very significant way. two points. one, if there were a draft during the afghan war and the iraq war, i think the united states president would have been

obliged to conduct in a different way. the war, in both wars, they dramaticff with a very american use of power. and both times in afghanistan where they kicked out the taliban government and in iraq where they kicked out saddam hussein's regime and in both did itthe united states as a result of our overwhelming military force, especially in afghanistan at the beginning and in iraq in the first couple of months. it began to fall apart after that. but when it began to fall apart and more of where troops had to sentnt, the people being were drafted people, there would've this objection and political pressure to bear on

the president. he would not have had the freedom of action he has had. my second point is that freedom is noton, however, conducted as if the president european kingl having a personal army that he does send wherever he wished. still the united states of america and there has to be constraints one the action of the president when he is commit t that is why i think it is an excellent question and back to the 1973 resolution at the 1964 resolution of congress. , i can't stress this enough, i knew that when a nation like the united states

goes to war, it should not be the responsibility of just a numbernt and a limited of congressional backers pushing the majority. president what they both decided was the authority to send troops. i know others a counter argument. who else should do it is not for president? i do not have a quick answer. i have suffered over that for many years. i know in my gut that it is not right for there to be no visible, apparent constraints on presidential behavior. a little bit about how the vietnam war impacted the administration's. ," the iranianer

hostage situation, and and in thinking about what happened in vietnam play into how limited it was? >> and play in a very significant way. jimmy carter never wanted to use -- never.er, never in he said the one thing i will not do is send american forces to war. nixon did that, johnson did that. and then the hostage crisis happened and he had to do something. he did not know quite what to do. the argument in the white house ,nd the pentagon was very much if you are going to use military force, on the one side, use enough military force to accomplish your goals. if the goal is to go in there to liberate the hostages, great.

if there are people killed in the effort, yes. to the generals and said, you did not hear me, general, i do not want anybody killed. at which point the two kernels who were in charge of operation, colonel said, did you hear what the president said? we cannot use force at all. do not listen to him. we will do what we have to do. they went with a presidential force not use force but if they had to they would. the other argument was what could the military to? supposing they got into carolyn and they were the edge of liberating these people and the bad guys came in and started

shooting? are you guaranteed to get the people out. the answer was, no. jimmy carter went into that paying believing it was getting us into another vietnam war. he did not want to do it but you did it for political reasons. he wanted to get those people out. critics argue concern that so few of our political leaders have military experience -- >> are you concerned that so few of our political leaders have military experience? chris senator john mccain was on news hour earlier this week and he was asked a question similar to that, making the point that many of the new people going into the senate and house, have no military experience. and many of them have not traveled out of the united states. as senator mccain said, they had

limited international exposure. a very diplomatic way of putting it. but the senator added very quickly that he did not believe that a president had to have -- you believe you could learn quickly enough what the issues encounterny military and then you have to have something within you that has to what youhat -- with were composed of. characterstrength of to know that you were doing the right thing. did not think he really needed it. i always had a feeling, i will go with mccain's review, i had a feeling how much better it would that a new president had

kind of experience. for example, i am not making a political point. when senator obama became president obama, he never served in the military. he had very little international experience except what he picked up as an intelligent person. he did not have much of that. did it make any difference? my answer is, yes. i think it did. at the very beginning of the obama administration, the military and cia came to the new president and said, we are losing in iraq and afghanistan, both big-time. , 50,000fghanistan troops, we are going to lose it. now, you are a young, inexperienced democratic president.

the military comes to usa we need 50,000 bodies now or we are going to lose. what are you going to do? he went down to 33,000. why did he do that? he didn't want another vietnam. he felt it would be absolutely horrific for the united states to have to suffer another one of those losses. motivation, unquestionably was to avoid another vietnam, absolutely. how vietnam has played into american politics this entry. it is interesting how american politics reaches back to vietnam over and over again. john kerry and his legacy of vietnam and george w. bush and what he did, a national guard

with the service. y, he said it was not my priority to be in vietnam. all of these were issues. how does vietnam still play? >> it still place because it was the only were, major war that the united states has been engaged in where we lost. and for a great country like the united states to lose and were, that is a big deal. if we were a european country, if we were friends, if we were jump -- germany -- france, if we were germany, we would've lost many more. it is the natural flow of events. exceptional, partly geography, and we didn't until this loss it is natural that

presidents would not want to be the ones on guard duty with the united states losing another war. for example, ronald reagan, will had a masterful field for the american pulse. when he took over, one of the things he said to all the people around him, "you can send me anything you like. you can ask me any question you like. but i want to give you the answer now to a question that concerns the known. we are not going to have another loss like vietnam. it cannot happen on my watch. ." are a great country all of the words he used and he meant it. lost,en the united states

whether twitter 46 -- 246 marines in lebanon, you would've the united states would never allow that to happen. havere somehow or another hit the bad guys hard. and the cia came to world reagan and said, we know exactly who these people are and we know their hotel rooms. give us the order, mr. president , we could take that route if we have to. room if we have to. she would not allow it to happen. he was concerned, maybe excessively so with the possibilities of a war like vietnam. and he used phrases like that all of the time. suck us in.

he would not have it. >> margaret, exactly a year ago today i was in hanoi and was stunned by the transformation .hat has taken place the regime is still the regime, one party system, repressive anyways. the country has opened up economically and in many ways, you think we had one of the war. there are starbucks, kentucky fried chicken, you see no animosity to american visitors. you see american flags in many places. i wonder have you been back to vietnam? >> no, i have not. my brother has gone they very often. most time he goes back he's most was how in hanoi and he thinks it is a fantastic city.

the question a good friend of mine, who used to the president of ford's press officer and nbc correspondent, he was going to a documentary called "how we won the war." issaid what is obvious america is all over the place, not in a negative way. i think it's fascinating. , thewe have been doing united states has been doing in the last three years, is building up an interesting relations with vietnam. the nation that beat us is one of our great allies. why? because we both worry about china. now, anyone with half a brain during the vietnam war would have known any intelligence officer with the that more than 1000 years, the chinese and

vietnamese do not like each other. yet we went to war against the now because we were concerned that the chinese would send in to help the people they couldn't stand. for the last three years, when the building up this close relationship to the point where several months ago the united states agreed to sell a military convoy to the vietnamese. and we say we sell the hardware to them and has absolutely nothing to do with china. do you think the chinese believe that? no. way, vietnam is like an omnipresent irritants. it is over, it is done with, let's move on. we can't quite manage it. i always have the feeling that

, withe since world war ii the exception of vietnam, we have been prepared to settle for half victories, many victories were stalemates. korea ended in a stalemate. call afghanistan and iraq victories, god bless you. had panama in 1889. when you didn't need much to conquer panama, but president george h w bush and in the american people did, too. his ratings skyrocketed. entering the gulf war. american people love victories even if the enemy is a pipsqueak

and -- [laughter] >> it comes to a good question here. george h w bush and colin powell responded to saddam hussein's invasion by saying of you know, we lost and we are taking 500 people and they didn't go into iraq because george w. bush and kne that if you talk willw saddam hussein you on iraq. knew that if you toppled saddam hussein you on iraq. hussein andaddam the place went to hell and here we are. where is the lesson of vietnam?

chris the first thing you do is ask your father for advice. [laughter] w. in a new book that george rolled his father, he describes his feelings that maybe i should ask dad and maybe i shouldn't but he didn't want to put him in position.t i suspect it was a little more than that. i suspect it was the belief that data what not to commit american force at that level. one of the reasons i say that is , a man who work for his father as a national advisor, he wrote a fascinating piece in the "wall " arguing against the commitment of american forces. i think he wrote that after having cleared it with the president, george h w bush. and george w. bush was saying to himself, i think it's a very

close relationship, honest, loving relationship. president, we were you don't want to be told what to do. about the funny thing way we govern ourselves. presidents and do not take advantage of the amount of experience and knowledge that exists in this city. or in this country. can you imagine if president obama on a regular basis, not a deal but a rate -- big had all of the living presidents to dinner every couple of months and say, hey, what should i do? or the secretary of state to bring in former secretary of state. or create a national security team.

it does not have the constitutional authority to act but inform and advise. i think that would be wonderful. we do not have it. i do not know why. withhing that has to do the ego of president, i am not sure. it's sort of makes sense. we are going to let our audience asked -- >> one more question before we turn it over to you. , a. you say segues local one. someone who has been, -- what you say segues into what i am going to ask. -- judywho has been will learned the histories of lesson -- and do you think we have learned the histories of lesson? help mold our current policy?

not sure if this answer is in any way valid but over the last 20 years or so, we have had an increasingly dysfunctional government. when the upshot is that anything that makes sense is therefore something we should do. [laughter] and therefore the people and that ify probably feel they passed someone from a former administration to clue me and help them or advise them it would be a sign of weakness on their part. absurd, but sort of the way it is. way thisappreciate the country has functioned in a very, very difficult times. but i don't like the idea that

,e add to the problem self-inflicted political will making it more difficult for us to deal with the rest of the world. right now, it is double quotes. not just obama, going on with bush. -- right now, it is going on. people asking about the capacity of the united states. president.ty of the president obama, what he did last year on syria, i know the argument, but he [indiscernible] every reporter know he rolled up for one solid week the white the image of the united states about to go to war in syria and then on saturday

morning when there was something going on with the russians that either led to serious giving up his chemical weapons -- syria giving up its chemical weapons. he took a walk around the white lawn.grounds to our he came back and told war he is given up the idea. in the middle east, if you were an american banker, you ask what the heck is going on there? , usa, didn't like america i will tell you these guys cannot be depended on. as people who are in the -- and people were in the leadership of alabama, al anda, the islamic state -- people who are in the leadership

of the taliban, al qaeda, the islamic state, they say america cannot be depended on. the vietnam legacy, and the haunting legacy we speak of, that is there not just for us but all over the world. the legacy is mirrored in a very, very dispiriting way. do, we, it is in us to to think about what is in the better interest of this country. i think i am in a safe environment and i can say i think it is, but that's country in the world. -- it is the best country in the world. we have to prove it again. >> a good way to head over to questions.

a great student that there. a question over here, and you want to bring the microphone gentleman?o the >> see why i enjoyed this very much. i want to bring up the american presidents response to israel. you have seen different presidents handled conflict in israel. has it gotten more heated than it has today, how would different presidents from our past have held that and how easy the next president handling it if america was called upon to defend israel? >> thank you for the question. i think this chapter nine of "the road to war." there is a chapter happened to do, it makes an effort to answer

your question. but briefly. israeln relations with since the telling and eisenhower in the beginning of kennedy have been for the most part very good , very close relations with the united states providing israel , u.n. massive armament support, it has been a very close relationship. what is it based on? it is based on a series of sent by private letters the president of the united states to the prime minister of israel. it doesn't matter who the president or prime minister is. these letters do not have to be cleared by anyone in congress. , theyre for the most part have never been disclosed except

in presidential libraries some have been. our relationship with israel is now so close that if israel had to go to war again against an , israel's point, you, mr. president, provide us with the military hardware. we have our men and will fight our wars and we do not want you here but we want your stuff and you're backing at the u.n. the president has always said, you got it. it has become so close, the relationship and through the oncers, president ford told the israeli prime minister in 1975 i think, we will never

negotiate an agreement with an arab country. [no audio] it is a private statement. athink there ought to be understanding. i think there ought to be something mutual with israel. i say that into the book and i explained it. i think the situation is so dangerous that the possibility of israel having to fight a war is very real and very close. if it does have to fight and if he gets into trouble as it was

in the 1973 war one richard nixon came to israel itself and probably saved israel. again,ad that situation i will love for there to be a treaty so this really people and the american people know what is expected of their government. mystery and it is not a private deal between two individuals. to makeot the way foreign policy. i appreciate that is a hundred virtual suggestion -- controversial suggestion. but when you contemplate how dangerous the war in it -- in the world is and the depth of the american commitment already israel that at least i feel that ought to be cleared by congress and understood by the

american people. veryank you for a insightful analysis and we look forward to reading your book. what i get out of this is how intensely personal this decision is and it is not collaborative enough. you can't possibly have a national referendum on whether we go to war but the advisors that the president has been so important to look at the experience and the candor and willingness of a president to sacrifice his ego in this decision-making process. i could go on and on. solution?s the it is hard for us mere mortals to understand the magnitude, the intensity of the pressure and the time limits. we got rockets going back and forth and now in jerusalem.

was the solution? -- what is the solution? >> thank you very much. [laughter] >> i was sorry when general james jones left president obama .ational advisory an intelligent man. .> an interesting question why didn't somebody like general jones left? he found it was very difficult to get through to the president and he felt he had to. his position as a general opened that heo the pentagon was there. at the white house, which he wasn't. he made that very clear. it was almost an impossible situation for him.

i think he is a wonderful, great soldier and diplomat, by the way. very smart man. but to get to the heart of your question, so much of it relates to the nation of the american presidency and what it has toome and his relationships the political structure of the country. we've always known that people with money have a larger influence over policy than people without money. you said in your question "mere mortals." but the president are mere mortals and nixon found that out when he had to leave. the president is not larger than the law. so, what then becomes a possible , somethingone of it mccain said the other day that i thought was wonderful. going to do he was

as the new chair of the armed services committee was to call a series of hearings in which he was going to call in the very top thinkers on national security to have them debate about where we should go. that doesn't mean these guys make the law or policy but influence. people can ask questions on the florida senate. i think that is wonderful. to 1966 when back that senator from arkansas had hearings on the vietnam war and china. -- 1966, recognizing -- he brought in all the scholars. at of the great professors harvard, he brought him down here and he was brilliant in how the chinese think

of themselves and where they are in the world. his explanation was one under 80 degrees off -- 180 degrees off what was the common understanding of china. we were massively ignorant of what was going on there. and here was a smart man, talk to chinese history for 40 years and he knew what was going on. and if senator mccain now opened the doors to that kind of hearing, and that is a step in the right direction. a step in a good direction. >> a question here. through theake me mindset of the geopolitical, i'm sure you have reported on what caused president ford to make so many missteps that caused the

loss of life related? what was behind his rush to action? can you talk me through this? i am sure you reporting on it. chris i did. it is the second chapter. the reason i mentioned that is not only that i would like you to buy the book, but it is also timessues raised at the that exists to this day. afterappened immediately , i north vietnamese won believe it was six weeks later -- a transport ship with flagship --nage thank you. american flagship was attacked,

it was believed it was attacked by the north vietnamese. it was just south of thailand. i forgot the name of the sea there. and there were a number of people who were taken hostages. in gerald ford believe very strongly and instinctively felt it was unacceptable because we just lost in this war. if the message and now those out to the rest of the world, we not only lost the war but we cannot even get our own people back, that is the worst possible signal to send to the rest of the war. largemed up a very american counterstrike. and we went and hit the bad guys where it hurt and found and the

southern part of the them, there was a base after the hostages were probably there. >> it was in cambodia. chris thank you. -- >> thank you. probably there so we had to get them. said, attack and they attacks. , theyhen found after weren't there. she wanted to stop the attack. -- he wanted to stop the attack and was very sloppy all the way around. .hey were on an island lots of people were killed. one american helicopter with a lot of people were shot down. it was bad all the way around. it was not gerald ford's finest hour. loss of white the

a few marines, we managed to come upon the hostages and got them out. gerald ford spoke very probably at the accomplishment but it was not much of an accomplishment. the whole thing was designed to avoid the perception in different parts of the world has immobilized the united states, has made us incapable of taking any military action. presidentinger told ford the only kissinger could, "mr. president, you have to do this." he put enormous pressure on him to do something. it was one of those pathetic -- ales of a very small

huge american response because we do not want to think we. most of the world recognizes we are fairly strong, but still. chris a question here. were here at the national press club, i thought i would ask this question. in the decades after vietnam war, there has been discussions about the role of the press. it, it wasink about the first war covered by television extensively, color television, i might add. there were many lady seems think reported. impact thatee the and theg had on the war war coming to an end and the andcy and press reporting

the many wars we have had an utterly engagement since the vietnam war? that report was done by very courageous journalists who put their lives on the line. >> there are many courageous journalists out there now also trying to get the story. there -- ittoday is is said there is not enough money to provide enough reporters to really cover these wars extensively. i think that is nonsense. media,your question, the a word i despise, the media was not responsible for the vietnam war. newspapers are not that adventurous. there are not that courageous, not that bright, not that determined to go win a pulitzer prize. however, they go along with the

swings of the public. they ride with opm. they do not often present the opm. they heighten the opm -- they ride with the opinion. -- they do not often presented the opinion. -- they heighten the opinion. bernstein, they had a huge impact on richard nixon resigning. i do not think they cost it. and i don't think the records of vietnam caused our loss or those moments. they covered the story and some of them paid for their coverage with their lives. most of them returned. i was at a cbs gathering last

cameramen,k orders, soundman, like men, all men and women, not as many, who covered the vietnam war. i am not going to say it with deep, but there was a appreciation of the impact of that war and what it did to their lives. pride that add with my brother spoke for about five minutes there and pointed out the impact of vietnam had known him personally, the way it continues. and the reason that he goes back as often as he does. and it is very hard to find any

wereter who covered that it.ar, who simply forget it really grabbed them and holds on very tight. chris that might be -- >> that might be a great way, i do not see any questions from my students. >> you are all going to flog. be careful. chris one question. -- >> one question. >> i do. the night the senate did a presidential veto on an important subject we did not talk about. i was surprised you didn't mention tonight the effort led by senator of virginia to open up this whole issue and i assume you are aware. >> i am aware of what the senator and not what you said

early on. >> replacing the resolution to for bid nixon to go -- >> you are going back. >> i was in the gallery that night. theignorance of circumstances and your concept that congress needs to weigh in, then and now, unbelievable level of ignorance of the entire war despite them having distant observers when they were borrowing. it just seems there is a missing argument which is the competence or incompetence of congress to weigh in on these issues and also senior housestaff are, the iraq he resolution went through -- iraqi resolution went through and they got no press coverage for opposing it.

i just -- i will fall and the nostalgia. >> you raise an extremely important question at the heart of my attempt earlier on. you will get no argument from me that congress ought to play a larger role. when senator mccain put forth his proposal for a congressional vote on how far the united states should go, you notice there was very little quick , it is of the proposal sort of died in dead air. one of the reasons it does is there isn't that much current reach in the congress -- cco urage in the congress to step up

and come up with a decision it is the possibility that decision will lead to embarrassment on his part, problems with his reelection, difficulties with fundraising. all of the obvious points. at the heart of it is the inability of most of the the to rise produce above courage and to look to the larger interest of the company which was possible the ability .o get on the floor and talk i think it should get a hearing and deserve a hearing. maybe if they're watching this program, they will have a hearing. who knows? >> i think we're out of tim