Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History

by Unknown

  We have no intention of widening this war.

  But the United States will never accept a fake solution to this long and arduous struggle and call it peace.

  No one can foretell the precise terms of an eventual settlement.

  Our objective in South Vietnam has never been the annihilation of the enemy. It has been to bring about a recognition in Hanoi that its objective—taking over the South by force—could not be achieved.

  We think that peace can be based on the Geneva accords of 1954—under political conditions that permit the South Vietnamese—all the South Vietnamese—to chart their course free of any outside domination or interference, from us or from anyone else.

  So tonight I reaffirm the pledge that we made at Manila—that we are prepared to withdraw our forces from South Vietnam as the other side withdraws its forces to the North, stops the infiltration, and the level of violence thus subsides.

  Our goal of peace and self-determination in Vietnam is directly related to the future of all of Southeast Asia—where much has happened to inspire confidence during the past ten years. We have done all that we knew how to do to contribute and to help build that confidence….

  One day, my fellow citizens, there will be peace in Southeast Asia.

  It will come because the people of Southeast Asia want it—those whose armies are at war tonight, and those who, though threatened, have thus far been spared.

  Peace will come because Asians were willing to work for it—and to sacrifice for it—and to die by the thousands for it.

  But let it never be forgotten: peace will come also because America sent her sons to help secure it.

  It has not been easy—far from it. During the past four and a half years, it has been my fate and my responsibility to be commander in chief. I have lived—daily and nightly—with the cost of this war. I know the pain that it has inflicted. I know perhaps better than anyone the misgivings that it has aroused.

  Throughout this entire, long period, I have been sustained by a single principle: that what we are doing now, in Vietnam, is vital not only to the security of Southeast Asia, but it is vital to the security of every American.

  Surely we have treaties which we must respect. Surely we have commitments that we are going to keep. Resolutions of the Congress testify to the need to resist aggression in the world and in Southeast Asia.

  But the heart of our involvement in South Vietnam—under three presidents, three separate administrations—has always been America’s own security….

  I believe that a peaceful Asia is far nearer to reality, because of what America has done in Vietnam. I believe that the men who endure the dangers of battle—fighting there for us tonight—are helping the entire world avoid far greater conflicts, far wider wars, far more destruction, than this one.

  The peace that will bring them home someday will come. Tonight I have offered the first in what I hope will be a series of mutual moves toward peace.

  I pray that it will not be rejected by the leaders of North Vietnam. I pray that they will accept it as a means by which the sacrifices of their own people may be ended. And I ask your help and your support, my fellow citizens, for this effort to reach across the battlefield toward an early peace.

  Finally, my fellow Americans, let me say this:

  Of those to whom much is given, much is asked. I cannot say and no man could say that no more will be asked of us.

  Yet, I believe that now, no less than when the decade began, this generation of Americans is willing to pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

  Since those words were spoken by John F. Kennedy, the people of America have kept that compact with mankind’s noblest cause.

  And we shall continue to keep it.

  Yet, I believe that we must always be mindful of this one thing, whatever the trials and the tests ahead. The ultimate strength of our country and our cause will lie not in powerful weapons or infinite resources or boundless wealth, but will lie in the unity of our people.

  This, I believe very deeply.

  Throughout my entire public career I have followed the personal philosophy that I am a free man, an American, a public servant, and a member of my party, in that order always and only.

  For thirty-seven years in the service of our nation, first as a congressman, as a senator, and as vice-president and now as your president, I have put the unity of the people first. I have put it ahead of any divisive partisanship.

  And in these times as in times before, it is true that a house divided against itself by the spirit of faction, of party, of region, of religion, of race, is a house that cannot stand.

  There is division in the American house now. There is divisiveness among us all tonight. And holding the trust that is mine, as president of all the people, I cannot disregard the peril to the progress of the American people and the hope and the prospect of peace for all peoples.

  So, I would ask all Americans, whatever their personal interests or concern, to guard against divisiveness and all its ugly consequences.

  Fifty-two months and ten days ago, in a moment of tragedy and trauma, the duties of this office fell upon me. I asked then for your help and God’s that we might continue America on its course, binding up our wounds, healing our history, moving forward in new unity, to clear the American agenda and to keep the American commitment for all of our people.

  United we have kept that commitment. United we have enlarged that commitment.

  Through all time to come, I think, America will be a stronger nation, a more just society, and a land of greater opportunity and fulfillment because of what we have all done together in these years of unparalleled achievement.

  Our reward will come in the life of freedom, peace, and hope that our children will enjoy through ages ahead.

  What we won when all of our people united just must not now be lost in suspicion, distrust, selfishness, and politics among any of our people.

  Believing this as I do, I have concluded that I should not permit the presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing in this political year.

  With America’s sons in the fields far away, with America’s future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world’s hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office—the presidency of your country.

  Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.

  But let men everywhere know, however, that a strong, a confident, and a vigilant America stands ready tonight to seek an honorable peace—and stands ready tonight to defend an honored cause—whatever the price, whatever the burden, whatever the sacrifices that duty may require.

  Thank you for listening.

  Good night, and God bless all of you.

  Speaker of the House James Wright Resigns as “Propitiation” for Ill Will

  “It is grievously hurtful to our society when vilification becomes an accepted form of political debate, when negative campaigning becomes a full-time occupation, when members of each party become self-appointed vigilantes….”

  Democrat James Wright came to the House of Representatives from Fort Worth, Texas, in 1954; after serving as Tip O’Neill’s lieutenant as party whip, he became Speaker of the House in 1987. Only two years later, he was embroiled in controversy over a series of ethical lapses that might have resulted in a minor rebuke but for an atmosphere of rancor in the House, rectitude in the media, and resentment among the voting public at the scope of unpunished political involvement in the savings-and-loan scandal. The House ethics committee found “reason to believe” that Speaker Wright had violated its rules of conduct sixty-nine times, the violations ranging from scheming to evade limits on outside income in a book-publishing venture to takin
g improper gifts from a constituent.

  On May 31, 1989, speaking to a full House with packed galleries, working from notes and text, Jim Wright first offered a detailed defense of the ethics charges leveled at him, which was not persuasive to most, but then touched a chord with a speech about “a frenzy of feeding on other people’s reputation”—the metaphor taken from sharks in a furious orgy of eating.

  ***

  MR. SPEAKER, FOR thirty-four years I have had the great privilege to be a member of this institution, the people’s house, and I shall forever be grateful for that wondrous privilege.

  I never cease to be thankful to the people of the Twelfth District of Texas for their friendship and their understanding and their partiality toward me. Eighteen times they have voted to permit me the grand privilege of representing them here in this repository of the democratic principles.

  Only a few days ago, even in the face of harsh news accounts and bitter criticisms, they indicated in a poll taken by the leading newspaper in the district that 78 percent of them approved of my services, and that includes 73 percent of the Republicans in my district. And I’m very proud of that.

  And you, my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, I owe a great deal to you. You have given me the greatest gift within your power to give. To be the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is the grandest opportunity that can come to any lawmaker anywhere in the Western world. And I would be deeply remiss if I didn’t express my sincere appreciation to you for that opportunity. I hope that I have reflected credit upon the people of my district who know me best, perhaps, and upon the people of this House who, next to them, would know me best….

  I love this institution. I want to assure each of you that under no circumstances, having spent more than half my life here—this House being my home—would I ever knowingly or intentionally do or say anything to violate its rules or detract from its standards. All of us are prone to human error.

  The Speaker of the House is in fact the chief enforcer of the rules of the House, and it’s really a wonderful thing that any member of the House may at his will bring questions against any other member. And under our rules that has to be looked into. And I have no quarrel with that nor any criticism of people who serve on the Committee on Standards. It’s a thankless job, and we have to have such a committee.

  For over a year—well, just about a year—I have ached to tell my side of the story. That to which I have to respond keeps changing, but today silence is no longer tolerable, nor for the good of the House is it even desirable. So without any rancor and without any bitterness, without any hard feelings toward anybody, I thank you for indulging me because I answer to you and to the American people for my honor, my reputation, and all the things that I’ve tried to stand for all these years….

  Having gone through this agonizing experience for about a year now—I mean, almost every day there’s a new story and a newspaper leak without any chance for me to know what’s coming next—no chance for me to go to the committee and answer it and say, “Hey, wait a minute, that’s not correct.”

  Maybe the committee, which is currently required to sit as a kind of grand jury and a petit jury both, ought to have a different composition rather than those who issue the statement of alleged violations being the same people who have to judge them. I think it clearly is difficult to expect members who have a publicly announced reason to believe there’s a violation to reverse their position at a hearing stage and dismiss charges against a member.

  Maybe, once a report of alleged violations is issued, the committee rules ought to allow the member to respond expeditiously and that to deny a member their opportunity to deny quickly can cause serious political injury. It’s unfair. Once alleged violations are announced, the committee ought to just immediately release to the member all the evidence that it could have to indicate that that’s happened.

  In my case, for example, the committee has yet to release any witness testimony or documents that it obtained during the investigation.

  Why hide the evidence? What’s there to hide? This ought not to be the kind of proceeding in which strategic maneuvering be allowed to override the fundament relations of fair play….

  It is intolerably hurtful to our government that qualified members of the executive and legislative branches are resigning because of the ambiguities and the confusion surrounding the ethics laws and because of their own consequent vulnerability to personal attack. That’s a shame. It’s happening.

  And it is grievously hurtful to our society when vilification becomes an accepted form of political debate, when negative campaigning becomes a full-time occupation, when members of each party become self-appointed vigilantes carrying out personal vendettas against members of the other party. In God’s name, that’s not what this institution is supposed to be all about.

  When vengeance becomes more desirable than vindication, harsh personal attacks on one another’s motives, one another’s character, drown out the quiet logic of serious debate on important issues, things that we ought to be involved ourselves in. Surely, that’s unworthy of our institution, unworthy of our American political process.

  All of us in both political parties must resolve to bring this period of mindless cannibalism to an end. There’s been enough of it.

  I pray to God that we will do that, and restore the spirit that always existed in this House. When I first came here all those years ago, in 1955, this was a place where a man’s word was his bond, and his honor and the truth of what he said to you were assumed—you didn’t have to prove it.

  I remember one time Cleve Bailey of West Virginia, in a moment of impassioned concern over a tariff bill, jumped up and made an objection to the fact that Chet Holifield had voted—in those days we shouted our answers to the votes and Holifield back there in the back—and Bailey said, “I object to the gentleman from California’s vote being counted. He came down and voted late.” He said, “He was not in the chamber when his name was called and therefore is not entitled to vote.” It was a close vote.

  Speaker Rayburn grew red as a tomato, and I thought he was going to break the gavel when he hammered. He said, “The chair always takes the word of a member.”

  And then, because I was sitting over here behind Cleve Bailey, I heard other members come and say, “Cleve, you’re wrong. Chet was back there behind the rail. I was standing by him when he answered, and his answer just wasn’t heard.” And others said, “You shouldn’t have said that.” And Cleve Bailey, crusty old West Virginian, came down here and abjectly—literally with tears in his eyes—apologized for having questioned the word of a member. And we need that.

  If I made mistakes—oh, boy, how many! I made a lot of mistakes; mistakes in judgment, oh yes, a lot of them. I’ll make some more.

  Recently—let me just comment on this briefly because it’s such a sensational thing and injury’s been done to me in this particular moment because of it. John, John Mack—many of you remember him, know him. I think a lot of you like him, respect him.

  I helped John one time in his life when he was about nineteen years old, twenty. I didn’t know him, never had met him. I didn’t know the nature of the crime he had been convicted of, I knew only that John Mack was a young man whom my daughter had known in high school. My daughter was married to his brother, incidentally—that’s how she knew about John. And she mentioned it to me. All I knew was that he’d been convicted of assault and that he’d served twenty-seven months in a Fairfax County jail.

  Contrary to what’s been published, I did not interfere with the court, I didn’t suggest anything to the court, I didn’t have anything to do with his sentencing. I really didn’t—didn’t know, and didn’t inquire. Maybe that’s bad judgment. I didn’t inquire as to the exact nature of the crime. The sheriff’s office in Fairfax County called and asked me if I would know of any job that I could help this young man get. They wanted to parole him; they said he’s been a model rehabilitated prisoner. And I gave him a job
as a file clerk, you know, $9,000 a year.

  After that he really blossomed and grew and developed, and those of you who know him can’t conceive, as I never could conceive when finally, just two years ago, I read in the newspaper the precise nature of that crime. It just didn’t fit his character. He married and had two beautiful children, wonderfully responsible, and I think became a very fine person.

  Now, was that bad judgment? Yes, maybe so. It doesn’t have anything to do with the rules, but it’s got all mixed up with it. And I don’t think, though, that it’s bad judgment to try to give a young man a second chance.

  Maybe I should have known more about it, but in this case I think—I think he has turned out well. and I don’t believe that America really stands for the idea that a person should ever, forever, be condemned, and I think maybe he ought to have a second chance. And that’s what I thought in the case of John Mack and, good judgment or bad, I mean, that’s it. And I believe in giving somebody a second chance.

  Have I contributed unwittingly to this manic idea of a frenzy of feeding on other people’s reputation? Have I—have I caused a lot of this stuff? Maybe I have—God, I hope I haven’t, but maybe I have. Have I been too partisan? Too insistent? Too abrasive? Too determined to have my way? Perhaps. Maybe so. If I’ve offended anybody in the other party, I’m sorry. I never meant to—would not have done so intentionally. I’ve always tried to treat all of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, with respect.

  Are there things I’d do differently if I had them to do over again? Oh, boy! How many may I name for you!

  Well, I’ll tell you what, I’m going to make you a proposition: Let me give you back this job you gave to me as a propitiation for all of this season of bad will that has grown up among us. Give it back to you. I will resign as Speaker of the House effective upon the election of my successor. And I’ll ask that we call a caucus on the Democratic side for next Tuesday to choose a successor.

  I don’t want to be a party to tearing up the institution; I love it. Tell you the truth, this year it has been very difficult for me to offer the kind of moral leadership that the organization needs, because every time I’ve tried to talk about the needs of the country, about the needs for affordable homes—Jack Kemp’s idea and the idea developing here.