Data concerning clearance of General White's speeches (period Sept. 21, 1960, to Apr. 25, 1961)-Continued 5. General White's state- Apr. 10 before Senate Apr. 11 "These same forces could also contribute substantially to a general war effort" (p. 4). "Now, let me turn to Air "potential enemies" (p. 7)... "Could place one-eighth of the "Another significant element "event of war" (p. 11).. Apr. 25 Apr. 25 "Today the Chinese are not "and defeat a first-class western power" (p. 4). portends a grim picture for the future" (p. 4). ... "and defeat major power. portends a potentially grim picture for the future. Data concerning clearance of General White's speeches (period Sept. 21, 1960, to Apr. 25, 1961)-Continued "and their concentration on ⚫ the unquestionable ca- "weapon systems have been developed to overpower either (p. 10). "aircraft, ballistic mis siles, and possibly in made by the Soviet as- there was ever any do. Mandatory.. (DSR has no record Not given copies of this special etc. Do. .do. do. Senator STENNIS. Will you proceed? SPEECH CONTROL ENDORSED IN SPITE OF LOW-LEVEL REVIEW Mr. KENDALL. General White, going to your statement, and particularly that portion of it in which you say: I believe that military officers' public speeches and writings are controlledand should be. The chief question here is how and to what extent that control is exercised. Now, of course, we are concerned here primarily at this stage with the question of policy review. What are your views about the propriety of you, as a four-star general, being required to submit your public statements for clearance and policy review? General WHITE. I think it is a proper policy. I never in any way resented it as a matter of principle, nor even in detail. I found it on occasions frustrating. I will not hesitate to say I think I was a pretty busy man as Chief of Staff, and some of the changes that were made in speeches were sometimes, I thought, unnecessary from my point of view. But I was not the final judge in the matter, and most of them were not worth arguing about, considering the time available and the processes through which one had to go in order to get changes. I would say that on a few occasions, when I felt that the alterations in speeches that I had to make were of great importance, I think I won all the points on appeal. Mr. KENDALL. But you have never had any objection to submitting your speeches for review, and you have uniformly done so? General WHITE. None. I feel it is a necessary process. Mr. KENDALL. You have made reference by saying that the question is how and to what extent that control is exercised. Do you think that the present system is adequate, or do you have any ideas as to how it might be improved? General WHITE. It is pretty difficult for me to think of a better way. I have, naturally, read some of the testimony as reported in the press of preceding witnesses. I think there are some aspects of it, perhaps, that have not been brought up, and I may be exposing some of the internal workings, but let us recognize and I will step right up and say I was one of them-I rarely personally wrote a speech myself. I have heard that there were low-level censors who review these speeches, but the truth of the matter is also that relatively low-level personnel wrote the speeches in the first place. Now, obviously, the final draft was seen by the principal in almost. all cases who was making the speech or making the presentation, but the bulk of the work in the normal course of events was done by one or more staff officers. In my own case a number of staff officers were involved in the formulation of the speech, usually with preliminary discussions with me as to what the general tone and direction would be. They would draft it. I would see a semifinal draft. In the meantime, these officers would be working with the Department of Defense Public Information Department as to whether there were things that Finally, the draft would come to me, and in the normal course of events there would not be anything I would object to in the changes. Sometimes there were changes that I could not find any good reason for, but, after all, in the overall context the import of the matter was insufficient to take the time to fight it. Now, there were a few instances I can recall where I did make an issue of it, and, as far as I know, I won my point in every case. Mr. KENDALL. In the process of examining these changes that were made, General, were you able to detect any particular consistent pattern of established policy, or did it seem to be hit or miss, depending upon the judgment of the individual reviewer? General WHITE. There were certainly inconsistencies. You have been good enough to furnish me with a copy of the speeches that were mine where there were changes made, and I had forgotten the matter, but immediately there is a very good example. Is it all right to refer to this? Mr. KENDALL. Yes, sir, that is what we have it there for. General WHITE. Somewhere back about-I was given an opportunity to see this by the Department of the Air Force yesterday before I came over here, and I noticed this-maybe this is not the one I saw. Yes, the center of the third page from the end in which my original reading was: I consider the total power represented by the Soviet aerospace strength to be the greatest threat in the history of our country. In this particular presentation the change was required or suggested from the original "to be the greatest threat," to "to be perhaps the greatest threat." This happened to have been, I think, a speech that was repeated, and in a subsequent or an earlier one the matter of "perhaps" was not required to be inserted. Well, I would not fight over whether "perhaps" was my personal opinion. I think so, but I will not fight over the "perhaps." But I cite there a complete inconsistency, and there have been others of that type. Mr. KENDALL. But that particular change was a mandatory change, and it is stated that the responsible agency is unknown, but it is believed to be the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs; is this correct? General WHITE. That is what this says. I do not really remember. SPEECH REVIEW NECESSARY TO CONTROL INTER-SERVICE RIVALRY Mr. KENDALL. The abstract here, General, suggests that there were a number of substantial changes in your speeches. Did you ever feel at any time, or do you now feel, that you were muzzled? General WHITE. No, I do not. Mr. KENDALL. On the question of freedom of speech, General, do you feel that a person who dons the uniform as a military officer necessarily suffers some abridgment or curtailment of his right of free speech? |