The Clinton chronicle. (Clinton, S.C.) 1901-current, June 11, 1970, Image 10
*
tdjAjo^laJUy
LEADING TO CAMBODIA
Don't
PANIC#!
Some of Washington’s “doves”
have claimed they were “surprised”
and “confused” by our Cambodian ac
tion. Although we would not classify
our own Sen. Ernest Rollings as a
“dove”, he has been doing a lot of coo
ing lately and has joined the admin
istration’s critics concerning the Cam
bodian campaign.
In a column printed elsewhere on
this page, Sen. Rollings gives his view
point of the Cambodian episode.
For the record, we’d like to present
some of President Nixon’s comments
prior to his decision to send troops
into Cambodia to clear out Commun
ist supply areas
In a major policy speech on Viet
nam on November 3, 1969, which was
heard and read by millions of Ameri
cans, the President announced our pol
icy of gradual withdrawal, and the re
duction of our forces by 60,000 men
before the end of 1969. (Over 100,000
have now been withdrawn). But the
President also enunciated a very clear,
and in our opinion unmistakable warn
ing. He said:
“Along with this optimistic es
timate, I must—in all candor—leave
one note of caution ... I want the
record to be completely clear on one
point ... I want to be sure there is
no misunderstanding on the part of
the enemy . . .” “We have noted t’ e
reduced level of infiltration and the
reduction of our casualties and are
basing our withdrawal decisions par
tially on those factors.
“Hanoi could make no greater
mistake than to assume that an in
crease in violence will be to its own
advantage. I f I conclude that in
creased enemy action jeopardizes our
remaining forces in Vietnam, I shall
not hesitate to take strong and ef
fective measures to deal with that
situation.
“This is not a threat,” said the
President. “This is a statement of
policy which as Commander-in-Chief
of our Armed Forces I am making in
meeting my responsibility for the pro
tection of American fighting men
wherever they may be.”
On November 14 last year, in an
other major policy declaration, the
President said:
“. . . I reaffirm now our willing
ness to withdraw our forces on a
specified timetable. We ask only that
North Vietnam withdraw its forces
from South Vietnam, Cambodia and
Laos into North Vietnam, also in ac
cordance with a timetable.
“We include Cambodia and Laos
to ensure that these countries would
not be used as bases for a renewed
war.”
When, in April of this year, the
communists did increase their ag
gression on the Cambodian front,
stepping up their infiltration to an
estimated 80,000 armed troops and
guerilla fighters, they were, in ef
fect, calling our bluff.
Let us fervently hope that, this
time, the Communists got the mes
sage. The withdrawal program of
the United States does not contem
plate turning the people of South
Vietnam over to the mercies of the
Red killers. The war in Vietnam will
be over on the day that the Commun
ists cease their aggression and
withdraw their troops to North Viet
nam.
That may provide the hint of an
answer to Sen. Rollings’ question of
“. . . what in the devil are we fight-
for?”
THE DOOR IS OPEN
You really believe in the value of
an education, don’t you? Do you be
lieve it strong enough; to give up sev-
e^Whis a week for Several years?
There are at least 21 adults who be
lieve that strongly in education. They
are the 21 who completed their high
school education and received high
school diplomas recently through the
Adult Education program of Laurens
County School District 56.
These are people who had to give
up their schooling when they were
younger. Most of them are parents
with families to manage and care for.
They are people who work for a living.
With all these responsibilities they
still believe enough in education to
take the time necessary to return to
school and work for their diplomas.
Some of our iriends are attending
the Adult School and they are inspi
rations to us. They attend classes
faithfully and they do their home
work—often late at night after the
rest of the family has gone to bed.
They get tired and they get discour
aged but they stick with it. They have
a purpose.
These adults should be examples to
young people who drop out of school.
These adults once had to drop out of
school for one reason or another but,
through the years, they felt an empti
ness in their development and they
saw that their educational status was
a handicap. They were willing to
sacrifice their time and energy to fill
that void. It is so much easier and
simpler for the young, without family
or job obligations, to go on and com
plete their education.
If you know of someone who never
finished school, tell them about the
Adult Education program in Clinton.
The program is for persons ranging
from illiterate to semi-educated.
Mrs. Ossie Lee Rice said it well in a
recent letter:
“Education plays an important part
in life, as health does to the body. With
a good high school education, you will
have the knowledge and certain kimL
of skills that will help you in everyday
life, as well as in Christian work. Most
jobs today require at least a high
school education. Education helps you
get along better with people and to
exchange ideas with one another.
“The door to a high school eduea
tion is standing open—accept the op
portunity to go back. I did and I am
glad. I received my diploma in 196S
and I am still going to school. The
more I learn, the more I want to
learn.”
That last statement indicates a
truly educated person—“The more
I learn, the more I want to learn.’
Parson lones Says
Happy Recollecting
Dear Mr. Publisher:
I just got back from a meet •
log of a new dub in our com
munity. It’s called the “ old-
timers fellowship’. These older
citlms got together, not to dis
sent but to reminisce. Thepre-
sident of the organisation al
lowed as bow every time they
taflt ata* what used to be, folks
lust tuned up their noses and
rilk sway. He claimed they had
Mst as oncti right to talk about
k> food oi» ftps as young folks
...” and folks knew which war
you meant One old timer al
lowed as bow he remembered
when a car dkhi’t wear out be
fore it was paid for. Big Slim,
who was just old enough to make
the grorg) told how he could re
collect when withholding meant
keeping your pay check from
your wife.
Wen Sir, this kind of recol
lecting went on for two hours
without a tweak, tt was an ole-
timers laugh-in. Some of the
said deserve a spot
I don't think they’re
m
2-B—THE CHRONICLE, Clinton, S. C., June 11, 1970
UNITED STATES SENATOR
mmm.
....... r.':...
gap it might be well to point
out that the problem may be an
experience gap. Be good - and
remember the days when a fella
had to suffer for his sins in
stead of blaming ’em on his
parents. Take heart, tilings
could get worse!
Parson Jones
* * *
Episcopal Majority
To The Editor:
Episcopalian Christians
have been shocked to learn
of a shameful publication put
out by their national head
quarters staff in New York.
In a news release dated May
22, 1970. the members of the
Executive Council of the
Episcopal Church demanded
that our government effect an
immediate withdrawal of all
our armed forces now in
Southeast Asia.
These church leaders urged
the reduction of this nation's
strategic forces.
They voted their support of
the recent — and violent —
student riots that shocked
America. They justified these
riots by claiming our govern
ment is unjustly harassing the
Black Panther Party and is
misusing National Guard and
police forces to kill American
students. They called for a
voluntary church offering to
finance future student strikes,
and to finance “political
education campaigns” by
these striking students.
The majority of
Episcopalians do not at all
agree with the violent political
objectives and tactics of our
current church leaders. The
majority of us do not support
the foreign policy aims of the
communist nations and we do
not seek to contribute to the
slaughter of helpless millions
of Asians by our precipitating
immediate American retreat
from that area.
We deplore the killing of
American students and we
deplore the reigning
lawlessness in our land which
allows trained agitators and
agents to use our children ia
their deadly revolutionary
games.
We elected our present
church leaden to promote the
Gospel of Christ end the help
ing of mankiad — not to pro
mote revolution, anarchy and
racial strife.
We deny the competence of
these church leaders to direct
national and international af
fairs. We deplore their public
encouragement of stone and
concrete throwing mobs.
We deplore their defending
the Black Panther Party just
as much as we woyld deplore
their defense of the Ku Khix
Klan.
Whatever our political con
victions, the majority of
Episcopalians honor t h a
Biblical teachfa* that de
mands respect for legally con
stituted government
We do not wish for «r
Church to nt^r**
of God with any
pCmuCal OT fOCUU 9L
God’s Word is not to ba
fused with nun’s.
We urge government to If-
■ore me uiesjujunDie ana
unauthorised poBtiad
irumi fftrfoo of OUT Cl
cnurcn moors, ai uk
tjm» |
to
ing, peaceful and just ways,
to bring about a better society
in this land.
We pray that Christ will
silence the false prophets who
pervert His Word and mislead
and harm His people, and that
He will make us. and make
this country to be a blessing
to the nations of the world.
REV. PETER R. DOYLE
(Rector, Episcopal Church
of Our Savior)
Rock Hill.
Nixon Giving Away
Undersea Resources
If you are planning to var
nish a floor, consider the ap-
of a floor sealer
political power byi^Kikl Ia
vcrci* croupi u ibbi woo/Ky*
We wiahthe brave mb and
BY THURMAN SENSING
Elecutive Vice President
Southern States Industrial
Council
In recommending a treaty un
der the provisions of which the
United States would renounce
all rights to undersea resources
beyond the depth of 200 meters
(218.8 yards), the Nixon Ad
ministration proposes the most
colossal giveaway in the history
of this country. It is hard to be
lieve that President Nixon, in
view of his strong national in
terest stand on many issues,
has been fully advised of the
implications and effects of the
treaty proposed by his adminis
tration.
The sea floor pact statement
released by the White House
said the proposed treaty would
call for establishment of *an
international regime for exploi
tation of seabed resources* be
yond thy 200 meter depth. This
international organisation
would "provide for the collec
tion of substantial mineral ro
yalties to be used for interna
tional community purposes,
particularly econimic assis
tance to developing countries.*
What must be impressed qpon
the American people is that the
proposed treaty would deny to
the United States vast wealth to
which it is entitled and which
it is particularly well equip
ped to acquire.
The United States is the lead
er in ocean technology, espe
cially ocean engineering. Hund
reds of taxpaying, tree eater-
prise companies in the U.S.
have developed the equip
ment and the techniques for oil
drilling and mining in the
depths. Since 1946, more than
9 00C offshore wells have been
drilled by companies. President
Truman, in 1945, asserted A-
merican Jurisdiction over the
continental shelf, thereby
assuring protection of a vital
national asset
Bat toctomlocy to Mfvtog eta
rapid rale. The National Petro-
lem Coracfl pointed art tort
ns Qnnftve
will
frUUnc andavtantton in
depths of 1,500 tort(45TMtors)
The Cause of the Chaos
fr»m ^
ffht Bible
By your words you will be
justified.—(Matt. 12:37).
When we acquire the habit
of daily meditation we live our
lives more effectively. It helps
us to grasp a principle of
Truth and apply it where we
an 1 , in what we are exjH'ri-
encing. When divine order is
established in mind and heart,
then everything in life is
blessed and harmonized.
holders, this country should be
able to develop a vast new
source of wealth the conti
nental slope and adjacent ocean
floor areas. These submerged
lands, where there is "waiting
wealth,* are part of the North
American continent. They just
as much belong to the United
States as the cold regions of
Alaska. The American people
are entitled to the wealth that
lies off the coasts of the United
States and that can be obtained
by the know-how of U.S. free
enterprise.
It would be tragic beyond
words for tins wealth to be
turned over to an international
regime for distribution to coun
tries around the world, many of
them incompetent to run their
own affairs or antagonistic to
the United States and its free
society. It is hard to believe
that the American people, con
sidering their vital interests
and real needs, want the country
to propose or sign a treaty that
would yield their assets to an
agency of the United Nations or
anything similar. Yet that is in
the cards unless there is a
strong grassroots protest
The National Petroleum Co
uncil, in a definitive study of
undersea resources, has said
that "the continental shelf is
the frontal edge of the submer
ged continent ... it is the lo
gical starting point for localiz
ing the approximate outer limit
of coastal-state Jurisdiction.*
The Council said that the Uni
ted States "should promptly and
forthrightly assert (its) rights*
over the continental slope and
at least the landward portion of
the continental rise. To do
otherwise would he to deprive
the American people of wealth
to which they are entitled. The
denial would be for aD time.
It is dismaytog and shocking
that the nfenlntetration foiled
to heed the words of the Coun
cil and instead has adopted a
position TtrtnaQy identical with
to to ton felted Nations.
Very few people realize—and
none want to admit—that prior
to Cambodia, the Nixon policy
in Vietnam was one of retreat.
I say this as a factual ob
servation. not in criticism, be
cause the majority of the
people of America approved
this policy. There are two
ways to ‘‘protect the troops”
fighting a war. One is to at
tack and bring the enemy to
the conference table. The
other is to withdraw or re
treat. President Nixon, after
taking office, announced that
we did not seek military vic
tory in Vietnam and he set
his withdrawal policy. In No
vember and again now in
April he stepped up the rate
of withdrawal. Now what was
his policy on sanctuaries? He
announced it publicly when he
signed the Cooper-Church
Amendment on Laos and
Thailand into law on Decem
ber 29, 1969. The debate on
this score and the comments
afterwards are illuminating.
The charge was made that
Congress was undercutting
the President. The charge was
made that we were taking
away from his powers as Com
mander in Chief. The charge
was made that we were play
ing politics—that we didn't
trust the President. Mind you.
as I write, there are 68,000
North Vietnamese troops in a
sanctuary in Laos and Laos
has a 200 mile frontier along
the South Vietnamese border.
What happened? The Senate
passed the Cooper-Church
Amendment on Laos by a vote
of 80-9. And what did the
President do'* He approved it
- signed it into law. The day
after the Senate vote the Re
publican leadership met with
the President. Republican
leader Hugh Scott said the
Cooper-Church Amendment
was definitely in line with
Administration policy." Re
publican Whip Senator Griffin
stated. "I can report to my
fellow Senators that the Pres
ident is pleased with the
amendment and he recognizes
that it is in accordance with
his announced policy."
The President indicated
when he stepped up the with
drawal figure to 150,000 that
the policy was unchanged.
Forty-eight hours before going
into Cambodia. Secretary of
State Rogers appeared before
the committee in the House
and stated, "We recognize
that if he escalates and if we
get involved with Cambodia
with our ground troops, that
our whole program is de
feated.”
Obviously you can't pursue
a withdrawal policy for six
teen months, approve a con
sultation policy for third coun
tries and then launch into a
third country after consulting
South Vietnam for weeks and
not your own Congress. But
whether or not we go into
third countries, whether or
not we spread this war, is the
responsibility of both the
President and the Congress.
The President and Congress
jointly assumed this responsi
bility on Laos without poli
tics and recrimination. Why
not Cambodici? The Cooper-
Church Amendment com
mences with the following lan
guage: "In concert with the
declared objectives of the
President of the United States
. . ." I think it is important
that the President, the Con
gress and the country move
together in one direction.
I would never vote to with
draw funds from men on the
field of battle. W r hile I was
quoted accurately to this ef
fect, some of the news reports
gave the exact opposite im
pression. And let me state
once again, I oppose the Me-
Govern-Hatfield Amendment
to end the war It sets target
dates that immediately slow
down the withdrawal Once
set it puts us into a position
that could have us fighting
our way off the beaches in
Vietnam
I share the concern that the
•42.118 killed, 278,006 wounded,
1430 prisoners and 7949 other
casualties have not sacrificed
in vain But my immediate
problem is that an additional
329,000 casualties not sacrifice
in vain If you're not seeking
a military victory, if the pol
icy is retreat, if, from elec-
t ons, you will accept a Com
munist government, then what
in the devil are we fighting
for?
SENATOR STROM
k THURMOND
REPORTS TO THE
PEOPLE
Examining Our Defenses
The Senate Armed Services
Committee has been working
hard on the 1971 Military Pro
curement Authorization bill.
This bill lays down the authority
to buy the weapons and equip
ment which this country needs
to defend itself within the
months to come.
Every year, the Senate Com
mittee spends many long hours
carefully scrutinizing every out
lay proposed by our defense ex
perts. The Secretary of Defense
is responsible for devising the
programs necessary to carry out
the strategy of the President as
Commander-in-Chief. The Con
gress shares in the defense re
sponsibilities by authorizing the
Secretary to put these programs
into effect. But authorization
alone is not enough; at a later
date. Congress will appropriate
the funds to carry out the au
thorized programs.
TWO-STEP PROCESS
Thus Congress goes through a
two-step process in approving
every penny spent for our de
fense. During the authorization
step, the need for the program
must be established, and bal
anced against the available rev
enue. Most cuts are made at this
point: however, cuts may also
be made at the time appropria
tions are decided upon.
Aa am additMmal check upon
defenae spending, theme two
are kuidM in each
the.Coagreea by two sep
arate Committees; Anood Sere
lees Committee, aad
tions 'Committee. Whom
matters come before the Seomte
Appropriation Committee, I rit
om the Defemae Smheemmittee aa
a repremeatative of the Seaate
Armed Services Committee. Ia
I alas serve aa the Pre-
you begin to varnish.
These 'sealers penetrate the
fiheri of the wood, form ft:
-resistant surface which
not extend above the
at the wood and
make an excellent base for
ttftnpplfcatlon of varnishes.
MUttoe wfll aflow fraUacind
41 profeci* to water *pA>Qf
4,aoo - (,ooo fort
•s
logical
so that
are provided
COMMITTEE SPENDING
'ITS
The Senate Armed Services
Committee has always performed
its work with great care. Last
year the Committee pruned more
than $1.9 billion from the Ad
ministration’s request, in an ef
fort to cut overall spending. The
Committee has sometimes been
unjustly criticized: yet a group
of opposing Senators, who led
more than two months of hostile
debate against the authorization,
were able to cut only a small
percentage more.
These cuts were made not only
for the aake of economy but to
bring our spending in line with
our ability to pay. When meas
ured against the Soviet threat,
any cut-back is a grave decision.
This year, .there are three stra
tegic weapons systems that are
absolutely essential to the future
defense of our country. The Min-
uteman III intercontinental bal
listic missile, the Poseidon re
conversion of our Polaris system,
and the next phase of the Safe
guard antibaUistic missile sys
tem.
The first two of these pro
grams represent the application
of multiple warheads to our land
and sea-based missiles. These
multiple warheads, the so-called
MIRV, are critical to the reten
tion of a credible deterrent, in
the face of Soviet developments.
Similarly, we must not falter
on the ABM program if we in
tend to convince the Soviets that
we will remain invulnerable.
NECESSARY PROGRAMS
These programs are especially
necessary because of the present
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
(SALT) in Vienna.
The Soviets will never come
to terms on reducing nuclear
weapons if tlmy see that the U.S.
Senate is faltering in Us deter
mination to maintain these weap
ons at proper levels. The Soviets
will have no incentive to eat back
if they nee that the U.S. is cut
ting back without demanding
*^fhT Senate Armed Services
Committee has examined these
three programs, both this year
and in the past. They are essen
tial to keep our defenses strong.
The surest way to avoid an all-
out war is for the Soviets to be
convinced that we have both the
power to win and the will to win.