Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572 of 824

Yes, the power of information is. The reports go from Vietnam to us via the correspondents. The reports go from Vietnam to Washington via the military chain of command, and the Secretary of War speaks with considerable authority there. And if the Secretary of War says, another twenty-five thousand will do it, there is some tendency to believe him.

With hindsight, is that good? I mean that perponderance of, that tips the balance towards believing the official report in Washington. From what was learned afterwards about Vietnam and the facts as they were coming out from Washington, was there a lesson learned from that?

This is in retrospect?

Yes.

In time of war the voice of Washington, of the executive in Washington, is always very powerful. It tends to dominate everything else. See World War II, when we had a Democratic president. This is not partisanship. There was a Democratic president, and what the White House announced, was it. The only difference between those two wars was, of course, in World War II the White House power was much, much greater because you had censorship. In Vietnam you didn't have much censorship, but you had two conflicting channels of reporting: the military one, and the journalistic one. And it was a brand new situation which culminated,