tv The Presidency President Lyndon B. Johnson Vietnam War Press Conference CSPAN November 11, 2017 8:01am-8:51am EST
at 11:30 a.m. eastern, join us for a live program with historians mark atwood lawrence from the university of texas at austin, and -- of columbia university. they will take your calls and tweets about the state of the work in 1967. next, president lyndon b. johnson explains and defends his a november policy in 17, 1967 white house press conference in the east room which was carried live by radio and television. this is about 40 minutes. >> good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. i am glad to take your questions. this you think that at point, our force levels in vietnam will begin to level off? or do you think more troops may be needed in the future. consideredpreviously and approved the recommendation of joint chiefs of staff for our force level. general -- discussed with me, and he anticipates no increase in that level. we are getting close to the end of your fourth year in office. you are being subjected to a regular personal criticism, young -- am senator preacher in williamsburg. --onder how you
surprise.ot a 35 men whoof the preceded me. no public official, certainly not one that has been in public life 35 years, as i have, would fail to expect criticism. there is a different type of criticism. there is a difference between constructive dissent and stormtrooper bullying and howling and taking the low-end of your own hands. i think that the president must partyt those in the other will frequently find it necessary to find fault and to toplain and to attempt
picture to the people that the president should be replaced. i think it is also true in all parties, that there are divisions. we do not all think alike. if we did, one man would be doing all the thinking. so we have divisions in the parties. perhaps more than i share sometimes, but i am sure the republicans think that, too. so when you get into the political year with the help and device and abetting that the president -- that the press can do, and the assistance that the opposing party can do, because they tried to destroy you in order to have a place for themselves, and you take the divisions in your own party, and they concentrate. it does seem to mount up at
, and occupy a great deal of public attention. but i don't think it is unusual for a president to be criticized. that seems to be one of the things that go with the job. say iny of us want to failed, or i made a mistake, or we should not have done that. this shouldn't have happened. it is always easier to say that someone over there is wrong and the president is more or less a lightning rod. at least, i have seen that in this country. they justly, and i think, very wisely, went into korea. -- pollsterssters
have a poll with gallup, and that position was approved 81%. six months later, when sacrifices were evident and the problems again appeared, the same pollster, talking to the same people, saw the number go from 81 to 26. those numbers have happened in all of our crises, economic, domestic, international. the president learns to expect them and learns to live with them. the important thing for every man who occupies this place is to search as best he can to get the right answer. try to find out what is right and do it without regard to the polls or criticism. >> a good many americans -- worth trying just to see if north vietnam would respond?
>> north vietnam has responded. their statement this week was in the hanoi newspaper in response to my statements from the , very clear and compelling, and i think it should answer to any person in this country who has ever felt that stopping the bombings, alone, would bring us to the negotiating table. hanoi made it very clear in response to my -- that their position, in effect, was the same as it has always been, and the same as it was enunciated in ho chi minh's letter to me, which ho chi minh made public. there are some hopeful people and some naive people in this country, and there are some political people. but anyone that really wants to know what the position of north vietnam is should read what the
spokesman of north vietnam said. that is best summarized and mr. ho chi minh's letter to the president that he made public, on the record, that he has never changed. all these hopes and dreams and idealistic people that go around , theyslead and confuse weaken our position. >> do you have any evidence that the viet cong might be moving toward the position of wanting to negotiate separate from hanoi? if so, what would be your attitude toward negotiating with them? handle my prefer to negotiations through our withmatic channels whosoever we may negotiate. i don't think this is the place to do a negotiation. we are very anxious to find a solution that will bring an end sothe war, and as we stated many times, we are ready to meet and discuss that with the
officials of hanoi and the viet cong. they will have no problem in having their voice fully heard and considered, but i think it wait untiltter to the opportunity develops along that line and do it through our trained clement's. -- through our trained diplomats. >> this wednesday, you are going to complete four years in the office of president. what have been your greatest satisfactions and disappointments? >> i think we had better do that a little later. i can't tell all the good things that have happened, or the bad ones either, in a 30 minute press conference. i would be charged with filibustering. -- wek that this primarily want to think of the future, not the past. it has been almost two centuries
since our revolution, and since .e won our freedom we have come a long way during that period, but we have longer terms of education, health, city statistics. farm statistics. people as there are poor -- four people out of every 10 in the world who can't spell cat or right dog, we have much to do. dog.ell cat or write from head start to adult education, men and women learning to read and write for the first time. have raised that we our contributions from the federal government to higher education from 16% to 24%. and the last four years, while the states have remained -- we have made revolutionary strides
in education and health, and conservation, where we are probably taking in as much land in the public domain for the first time in years as we are letting out. we feel that we have brought a degree of stability in our international relations to this hemisphere, through the alliance for progress with our meetings with gillespie. we are working with other nations, making material advances and helping underdeveloped nations. we are very pleased with what has come out of our meetings with the germans and the british , our trilateral talks. what has come out of our round of meetings. the several treaties we have negotiated with the soviet union , and the one we are working on so hard now, the
nonproliferation treaty. we are happy that there are 9 million more people with good paying jobs today than when i came into this office. things in the past, and we should accept that they end. we want to preserve them, but the important problems are ahead. what is the next century going to be like? the third century? as long as there are ancient centuries -- ancient enemies around the world, and illiteracy, ignorance, disease, poverty, and war, there is much for government to do. we are working on that now and will be talking more to you about that in the months ahead. >> mr. president, we know your talks this week with -- the general and the ambassador, what is your sense of the progress in vietnam? >> i will repeat their assessment because they are the
ones in the best position to judge things locally. i will give my evaluation of what they have said. heartk every american should swell with pride at the competence and capacity of our leadership in vietnam. -- iieve that our allies believe, and our allies believe, we have superior leadership. it is the best that the united states and produce inexperienced, judgment, -- in experience, judgment, and training. i have had three meetings with general westmoreland. our american people like when we get in a contest at any time, whether it is in a war or an election or a football game. they want it decided quickly, and they get in or get out, and they like for the
opposition to go down like this. that's not the kind of work we are fighting in vietnam. -- the kind of war we are fighting in vietnam. we have made our statement to the world of what we would do if we had prominence in that part of the world in 1954. we certainly would stand with those people in the face of common danger, and the time came when we had to put up or shut up, and we put up. and we don't march out and have a big battle each day in a guerrilla war. it is a new kind of war, so it doesn't move that fast. -- trying to be fully responsive to your question in the time allotted, i think we are moving more like this. and i think they are moving more like this. instead of straight up and straight down.
we are making progress. we are pleased with the results we are getting. we are inflicting greater losses than we are taking. pleased amidst the horrors of war, and more people have been killed trying to vote in south vietnam than by bombs in north vietnam, according to north vietnam's own figures. in the midst of all the horrors of war and guerrilla fighting in south vietnam, we have had five elections in a period of a little over 14 months. there was doubt whether we could have any. 1789 -- not 13 months, but 13 years to get a constitution with our anglo-saxon background and all the training we had. to think that here in the midst of war, when the grades are popping like firecrackers all
is two thirdsat or three fourths of the people that register and go vote and have five elections and 13 months, and through the -- democratics s process, select people at the local level, a senate, president, vice president, that is encouraging. the fact that the population -- andree control has back under communist control has constantly gone down is an encouraging sign. the improvement made by the south vietnamese themselves, putting in reforms and announcing other programs, and improving their own army, it is a matter of great satisfaction to ambassador bunker and general westmoreland. we have a lot to do, a great many mistakes have been made. we take two steps forward and
take one back. it is not perfect by any means. there have been many days where we get a c minus instead of an a plus. are making progress. we are satisfied with our progress. our allies are pleased, and every country i know in that with whatis familiar is happening thanks it is absolutely essential that uncle sam keep his word and stay there until we can find an honorable peace. have any doubts about it, mr. ho chi minh, who reads our papers and listens to our radio and looks at our television, if he has any doubts, i want to disillusion him this morning. we keep our commitments. our people are going to support the men there, and the men there are going to bring us an honorable peace. mr. president, on oil may be
interpreting the current public opinion polls to indicate that you will be replaced next year -- hanoi maybe interpreting. how it willnow affect the campaign in this country. i think that whatever interpretation hanoi might make that would lead them to believe that uncle sam, whoever may be ,resident, is going to pull out and it will be easier for them to make an inside deal with another president -- they will make a serious misjudgment. >> are you going to run next year? >> i will cross that bridge when i get to it as i've told you so many times. president, there are increasing statements from capitol hill that say your tax bill is dead for this session of congress. the part any plans on of your administration to try to revive this before congress leaves, and if not, what plans might you have next year to avert this inflationary trend we had been told will be coming
echo -- will be coming? >> we will have a tax bill just as quickly as we can get it. we think the sound, proven fiscal policy requires it. we will do everything that the president and administration can do to get that tax bill. i would be less than frank if i didn't tell you i have no indication that mr. mills or mr. burns of the ways and means committee is likely to report the tax bill before they adjourn. ineel that one of our favors the administration has been a high inability to convince congress of the wisdom of fiscal responsibility and the necessity of passing a tax bill, not only for the effect it will have on the inflationary developments, but the effect it will have on the huge deficit that we are running. and i think one of the great mistakes of the congress -- that the congress will make, that mr.
ford and mr. mills have taken this position -- i think they will live to rue the day they made that decision. because it is a dangerous decision, and unwise decision. --hink the people of america none of whom want to pay taxes. any pollster who asks if you want to pay more taxes, of course you would say i don't. if they ask, do you want inflation, t1 prices to increase by 6%? do you want a deficit of $35 billion? to spend 35 billion more dollars than you are taking in? i think the average citizen would say no, at the height of our prosperity, when our gross national product is $850 billion, when we look at the precedents of what we've done in past wars.
in korea, when president truman asked for a task increased -- a tax increase, the people supported him. this request has been before the congress since last january. i finished most of the appropriation bills. it looks like out of a hundred $45 billion, they roughly cut $1 billion. but they have cut several billion dollars from revenue, because of in action. because people don't like to stand up and do the unpopular thing of assuming responsibility that the men in public life are required to do sometimes. i know it doesn't have to be your poll or your popularity. we have to have traditional taxes to fight this war abroad and fight the problems in our cities at home, but i think we can do it with the gross national product we have. i think we should do it, and i think that when the american people and congress get the full story, they will do it. we have failed up until now to
convince them, but we will continue to try in every way that is proper. senator mccarthy says he is considering opposing you in the presidential primaries because he believes it would be a healthy thing to debate vietnam in the primaries for the party and most of the country. do you agree with him, and what effect do you think this will have on your candidacy? >> i don't know how i will be after all this opposition develops as far as my state of health, but i am healthy today, and i don't know where his criticism will contribute to my health or not. i don't know what senator mccarthy is going to do. knows whate that he he plans to do. i think we had better just wait and see until there is something there, and meet it when it is necessary. think there is so
much confusion and frustration and difference of opinion in this country about the war in vietnam? >> i think there has always been confusion and frustration and difference of opinion when there is a war going on. war,nk the revolutionary only a third of the people thought that was a wise move, a third posted, and a third on the sidelines. when all of england came down -- they didn't quite make it. not until andrew jackson and the results of new york came in. the next morning, they came and told the president they wanted to congratulate him, that he had been right all along. in the next is true war when the congress overwhelmingly voted to go in and later passed the resolution that had grave doubts about it, and some of the most bitter speeches were made they couldn't be published. they had to hold a publication
for a hundred years. i don't need to remind you what happened in the civil war. people were in the white house begging lincoln to concede and work out a deal with the confederacy. when word came to him of his thatries, they told him pennsylvania was gone, that illinois had no chance. those pressures come to a president. of what president roosevelt went through, president wilson in world war i. he had senators that gave him serious problems until victory was assured. i think now when you look back on it, there are a few people who would think that wilson or roosevelt or truman were in error. we are going to have these criticisms, these differences. nobody likes were, all people love peace. but you can't have freedom without defending it. president, the foreign
aid authorization has been cut back nearly one third from what you requested. what is the impact of this economy? >> i think that at a time when the richest nation in the world is going for more prosperity than it has ever had before, and when we carefully tailor our requests to the very minimum that we think is essential, the lowest request we have had in itrs, and then congress cuts 33.3%, i think it is a mistake. i think it is a serious mistake. i think it is when you consider that billion dollars that we are attempting to save, out of the $850 billion we will produce, that we ought to reconsider that decision, because what we are doing with that money not only can give great help to
underdeveloped nations, but that in itself can prevent the things that caused war, where you are required to spend billions to win it. a littleather have preventative measures, and i think that every dollar we spend on our foreign assistance, trying to help poor people help themselves, is money well spent. i don't think we overdid it. i don't think we went to far -- went to bang far, but i think congress has in the reductions it has made. -- i cut out all these foreign expenditures, but when the trouble develops, the people are starving and the people that are ignorant and illiterate and disease, war has sprung up and we have to go in, we will spend much more than we would if we had taken an ounce of prevention. mr. president, some people on
the air and in print accuse you of trying to label all criticism of your vietnam policy as unpatriotic. would you tell us whether you have guidelines in which you are unable to separate conscientious dissent from irresponsible dissension? >> no, i have not called anyone unpatriotic. i have not said anything that would indicate that. i think the wicked flee if when no one pursue. are irresponsible and make untrue statements and ought to become should send careful when they are dealing with a problem involving their man at the front. deal of a great difference, as i said a moment ago, between criticism and
responsible dissent, all of which we insist on and protect. ,nd stormtrooper bullying throwing yourself down the road and smashing windows, every time a person attempts to speak, to try to drown him out. we believe very strongly in preserving the right to differ in this country and the right to dissent. if i have done a good job of anything since i have been president, it is to ensure that there are plenty of dissenters. [laughter] and not a person in this press corps can write -- can't write what he wants to write. and most of them do. . say want and i want to protect that. and i think congress wants to protected. but if i, by chance, should say -- i'm not sure that you saw all
the cables on this, and you are exactly right. let me explain the other side of it. i would hope that you would not say i am lambasting my critics. someone. am assailing what i am trying to do is theerve my right to give other side. i don't think one side ought to dominate the whole picture. so what i would say is, let us realize that we are in the midst of a war. let's realize there are 500,000 of our boys out there giving their lives to win that war. let us ask ourselves what it is we can do to help, and if you think you can make a contribution to helping them by expressing your opinion and dissenting, then do it. but then if the secretary of state starts to explain his viewpoint, don't send out instructions all over the country and say when he starts to talk, wrap your feet.
then when he comes in to the senate, all of you do this, i'm a press inhere is this country that insists on the right to live on the first amendment and be protected by, and doesn't tactics limit the first amendment and they would be wiped out. i think it would be good for all of us to take a new, fresh look at this dissent and we welcome responsible percent, but there is a great deal of difference between responsible dissent and what has been taking place in this country, which i consider extremely dangerous to our national interest and not very helpful to the men fighting the war for us. i have never said anyone was unpatriotic. i do not question these people's motives. i do question their judgment. i cannot say that this dissent
has contributed much to any victims -- victories we have had . i cannot say these various proposals that range from a senator to a county commissioner to a mayor of a city have really changed the general west moreland's plan or bunkers approach. the papers are filled with it every day. i think you have to consider it for what you think it is worth and make your own judgment, and that is the theory of the first amendment. we do not stop the publication of any page pairs -- papers. we just appeal to them to remember they do not have the privilege for the moment of being out there fighting. think before you say something that hurts instead of helps. most people's intentions are good. we do not question their motives . we have never said they are unpatriotic, although they say some ugly things about us.
people in glass houses should not be too anxious to throw stones. mr.president -- >> president, is your aim in vietnam to win the war or seek a negotiated solution? our goals areson: consistent, we seek a trade deal with the atlantic charter where the many statements that we have made to the congress in , the secretary of state has made dozens of times, and i made enough that i thought all of the preachers in the country had heard about it. [laughter] that is namely to protect the security of the united states, and we think the security of the united states is definitely tied in with the security of southeast asia. second, to resist aggression. when we are a party to a treaty that says we will do it then we carry it out. i think that if you saw a little
that wasthis room trying to waddle across the floor and some bully came along and grabbed it either hair and started stopping it, i think you would do something about it. we thought we made a mistake when we saw hitler's moving across the landscape of europe and the concessions that were made by the men carrying umbrellas at that time, and i think in retrospect we felt that was -- in 1954 under the leadership of president eisenhower, we had the treaty and it was debated and considered and gone into very thoroughly for the senate. the man who presented that treaty then said, this is dangerous. we have to put up or shut up. notice in asiae as we refused to serve notice in europe years ago, that we will
resist aggression and we will stand against someone who seeks to destroy a little company -- country. that treaty, i did not vote for. senator kennedy did not vote for it, the late mr. president. 82 senators did not vote for it and they knew what was in that treaty. and the time came when we had to decide whether we meant what we said when we said our security was tied into their security, and that we would stand in unison in the face of common danger. now we are doing that. we are doing it against whoever out there promotes aggression. we are going to do whatever we think is necessary to protect the security of south vietnam, and let those people determine for themselves what kind of a government they have.
we think they are moving along very quickly in that direction to developing a democratic procedure. second, we are going to do whatever it is necessary to do to see that the aggressor does not succeed. and those are our purposes, those are our goals, and we are going to get a lot of advice to do this or do that, and we are going to consider it all. for years, west point has been turning out the best military man power produced anywhere. for years we have had in our specialservice, trained people and we have in 110 capitals today the best brains we can select. rain,our constitutional the president must look to the secretary of state, to his foreign policy, his ambassadors, to the views they expressed, to the leaders like the joint chiefs of staff, general west moreland and others, carefully
consider what they say and do what he thinks is right. that is not going to please a county commissioner or a mayor or member of legislature. it never has in any war we have been in. the leaders on the military committees, the leaders in other posts, the speaker of the house opposed the draft and woodrow wilson's administration. the chairman of the foreign relations committee almost has always found a great deal wrong with the executive in the field of foreign policy. there is a division there, and there is some frustration. those men express it and they have a right to and they have a duty to do it, but it is also the president's duty to see what substance they have presented, how much they thought out, what implementation they have, how much knowledge they have received from janitor will --
general wes moreland or bunker. whether you think you ought to follow their judgment or follow the judgment of the other people , i do that every day and some days i have to say to our people, let's try this plan that senator x is suggesting, and we do. even though we may have some doubts about what may be accomplished, if it is a close question, we will bend to try to meet their views because we think that is important. the united nations before but we may try it again because they have hopes and they believe this is the answer. we will do everything we can to make it the answer. i do not want to hurt its chances by giving any predictions at this moment. thatll consider the views everyone suggests.
>> on august 10, 1964, president lyndon johnson signed the gulf of tonkin which gave him broad powers to wage war in asia. incident inugust 4 the gulf of tonkin. american history tv visited the national security archive at george washington university to learn about numerous declassified documents that have shed more light in the gulf of tonkin incidents. , theam tom blanton director of the national security archive.
we are on the top floor of the main library at george washington university, in a books -- in a room full of boxes of declassified documents. most of what we get today is digital. what is fascinating, now that we can look through historians' work, inside historians' work, the actual text of the intercepts of the north vietnamese conversations, and then listen to president johnson's phone call as he is talking with the secretary of defense mcnamara, and begin to realities two huge that were not known to the public at the time. one, the north vietnamese attacks on the second of august, 1964 were provoked by us. they were not the unprovoked aggression that was presented to the american public as the basis for our bombing back.
in fact, we were running all of these secret patrols called de soto patrols, top-secret. coastal defenses tested to figure out how north korea's radar worked and how they would respond, and intercept their communications from their headquarters and their torpedo boats. as part of an ongoing pressure on the north vietnamese. ontheir attacks on our boats the second of august where presented as unprovoked aggression when in fact we had provoked them, so this was one of the big secrets. the president knew it. the defense secretary . we have got them on tape talking about it. this certainly had something to do with that attack and president johnson knows about it. >> i think i should also -- or we should also, mr. president, explain this up plan 34 a.
there is no question what that has bearing on. friday night we had four tipi boats from vietnam manned by internationals attack two islands, and we expended 1000 rounds of ammunition against them. we probably shot up a radar station in a few miscellaneous holdings, and following 24 after -- hours after that with this destroyer. >> say that the dirksen. >> during the second of august attacks, there was a ton of electronic intelligence and signals intelligence in between the boats directing them all the way through the period of the attack and the withdrawal of the damage to the ship's. on the fourth of august, you have the destroyers reporting torpedoes in the water. there is no electronic signaling
. there is no communication being picked up. coordinating these attacks. the summary, which the top policymakers used, we secretary's ships and all the rest were ok. -- sacrificed two ships and all the rest were ok. when you go back to the original you see the word "comrades." summary, youo the see the word "boat." now believe are people who were wounded on the second of august, not shot on the fourth of august. there was no attack on the fourth of august. looking at these originals, which is what the national security agency must have done -- should have done at the time but did not. instead, they prepared a chronology that would show irrefutably what the president said on national television.
>> the initial attack on the destroyer maddox on august 2 was repeated today by a number of hostile vessels attacking two u.s. destroyers with torpedoes. >> we are live at the national archives in washington, d.c., when they have just opened an exhibit on the vietnam war. we are here with jerry sego. why are you out here with these vietnam era helicopters? >> to help the archives bring attention to this remember vietnam series, and help us, our continuous goal to honor the vietnam veterans by our display with a vietnam era helicopter. >> sometimes the vietnam war is referred to as the "first helicopter war."
why is that? helicopter, the utilization of it, it was multiple uses. the helicopter took the place of trucks, jeeps, and other equipment used in other wars. that is lacking troops -- medevac him troops from the safer.as if you believe it is safer, it actually was. arriving along roads that could be ambushed, and even though they took aerial fire, they could pinpoint a man to a place quicker. a lot of things was learned by utilization of the helicopter, like our medics today used the helicopters. it brought a whole new industry out there for the use. >> can you tell us about your own personal experience? when did you serve in vietnam?
did you volunteer or were you drafted? >> all helicopter pilots were volunteers. it was not something you were told you were going to do. i flew lift ships and gunships a total of nine months, and then i went to maintenance which was not necessarily safer than being shot at every day because in tontenance you were subject engine failures, transmission failures, hydraulic daily or's, -- hydraulic failures. i do not know which is most dangerous, being shot or aircraft straight out of maintenance. even though the maintenance guys did great jobs, there were things that happened even with new equipment. i produced a great aircraft, but things happen to them. from one danger to another with a helicopter in vietnam. >> when were you there? central in the
highlands in 1968 and 1969 with the 52nd aviation division. >> can you describe a little bit what a typical day would be like? >> you would get up in the morning, the assigned your mission. some mornings you would know what your mission would be the next morning. it could be hauling supplies to the field to troops, taking commanders to observe the troops. it could be inserting lurks into the field or taking into insertions with 20 or 30 helicopters or even more and large groups of troops into the field. this helicopter is an oh-58. commanders could go out and see where the troops were and what they were doing. it was used as an observation helicopter where it would go out with two gunships and your gunships could be charlie moles
or mike malls and our two cobras, and it would fly low level along the roads in order to drive -- draw fire. when they would draw fire, you would get out of the way and your gunships would come in and lay the fire in the area they indicated. for you could fly around fields. the primary objective was to draw fire to locate troops, or locate the enemy. enable your foreign gunships to come in and lay down fire in that area. it consists of a pilot and an observer to mark the area where the fire was coming from. your gunships islet -- gunship pilot would be the gunner pilot in the front, new at all times where this bird was and where his 12:00 was so if you could say he was receiving fire from 9:00, he could immediately know where that was by looking at the
helicopter. both he and the pilot new where to start training their fire over that area immediately. >> how long did you stay in vietnam? >> i was there a year. it was nine months in lift ships and gunships and three months in maintenance. >> and when you came home, did you have a career in the military? >> no, ma'am. i got out and worked for an architectural firm until i retired. >> do you miss working with the helicopters? how often do you get out and talk to the public about your service? >> i stayed away from military because i was busy and raising a family for about 10 years. then i became involved with the national vietnam helicopter pilots association before we formed the north carolina association. we found there was a need to bring these and educate the public, as well as educating
schoolkids and just the general public, and bringing honor to the vietnam vets by doing this. we have been doing this for 25 years from pennsylvania to .lorida, kentucky, tennessee we have had over 300,000 students and schools go through these aircraft. not only can we take them to a school is a historic item, we can also relate to their course of study, other courses of study . in doing this it may enable a student to pick a course of study they never thought about. the way we move the aircraft around, we take them to places you would not be able to take normal aircraft. we have been into the mountains of kentucky and virginia into places where normally kids and adults -- we will have as many adults as kids -- come out to view the aircraft. we are bringing history to people who might not otherwise be able to see the aircraft.
>> thank you for talking with us. >> thank you. our coverage this veterans day weekend on american history tv continues as we look back 50 years to the vietnam war . all day today and tomorrow, we will bring you live coverage, archival film, and hear from veterans and antiwar protesters. former defense secretary chuck hagel and his brother tom served side-by-side during the vietnam war. retired lieutenant daniel bolger interviews the brothers in the focus of his book. the national archives hosted this one-hour event. many of those who have served in the military and gone through combat together refer to their comrades as brothers, and today we are privileged to hear from two vietnam veterans who were both comrades in arms and