Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen (I’m sure there are no brothers or sisters present). My mission today, should I decide to accept you, is to explain away for you certain state­ments alleged or purported to have been made by President Ron which have been de-contexted, malconstrued, or otherwise reported upon by various demagogic individuals and their non-fraternal organizations, Now it is deniable but true that at times The President has mis­spoken slightly, but that is due primarily to his unusually healthy imagination. Some of the quotes he has had occasion to use were not actually ever said point-blank, not precise­ly in those words. They may have, at times, been said in other ways, perhaps meaning other things, relatively, But as Press Secretary Larry Spoke, “perhaps the figures were a little bit off. But it made the point well, didn’t it?”

So let us begin where we left off in the previous picture: in Veetnam. In January of 1978. Ron was said to have said that “French Indochina was freed by the French a few years after World War II.” Now as you may unfortunately be aware, the French did not actually free Veetnam with all their hearts, but were persuaded to do so by the Veetminh when they all met together at Dien Bien Phu a full nine years after World War II ended. What Ron really meant to say was that Veetnam was freed of the French, not by the French.

Ron went on to say in the same broadcast that the Geneva Convention provided for two separate Veetnams, North and South. As we now know, the provision was actually for one Veetnam, with national elections to be held two years later. Of course it doesn’t really matter since the United States didn’t sign the accords and therefore was not obligated to bone up on every detail. But just for the sake of argument, why did Ron say there were to be two countries? Well, although the partition was to last for only two years, Ron felt that during any trial separation both sides should be accorded full recognition of their rights as free and individual half-nations, and therefore he decided to give them both the benefit of his doubt, retroactively.

Ron went on to report that Ho Chi Minh refused to hold the scheduled elections in 1956. In fact it was President Eisenhower, through our friends the South Veetnamese, who refused to hold the elections. Ike noted at the time that due to malnutrition and brain damage, 80% of the people would have voted for Ho. Did President Ron confuse Uncle Ho with Uncle Ike? Folks, you have to remember that if we had not stopped the elections, the enemy would have. So it was our duty to Rescue the defenseless victims of Ho-ism from the northerly nonelections, and help them build a better airport.

Speaking of airports and paving projects generally, let us note the President’s statement that “there is today in the United States as much forest as there was when Washington was at Valley Forge.” Well, statistically, there is only 30% of that. But the figure is not adjusted for inflation, which would show that there are now no forests at all. This is obviously untrue although perhaps something to work towards. The point Ron is making, however, should be well taken. There are as many trees now as then. It’s just that the United States is 500% larger as it is than as it was. Would you begrudge us a little acquisition, as seems to be so fashionable these days? Or would you prefer that the nation’s capitol were still in Philadelphia, all in all?

Now getting back to Veetnam—and we’d like to—why did Ron say, in 1965, that we should pave over the whole of Veetnam and put parking strips on it, and still be home by Christmas? Well, he was simply expressing his concern for the development of Veetnam’s economy; it was felt at the time that with our donation of a large parking lot they would be provided with the incentive to build the associated shopping center before the Christmas rush. However, the plan was not accepted by the ultraliberals then running the war. And pragmatically, much of the paving that was in fact done in South Veetnam was needed for our military bases, and unavailable for other commercial enterprises.

Why did Ron say that we have no deterrent whatsoever to the 945 Soviet warheads aimed at Europe, when in fact we have some 5000 warheads on submarines and another thousand in bombers? Well, Ron has a firm belief in the value of land and doesn’t think you can stand tall in the water or on thin air, which is really only good for the production of facts and figures.

Ron went on to state that the Soviets invest 13% of their GNP in military spending—two to three times the level that we invest. However, our GNP is twice the size of theirs, so we are investing approximately the same actual amount. And in fact, the Pentagon estimates that the U.S. and NATO outspent the Warsaw Pact by $300 billion in the past decade. Well, what Ron meant to convey was that the Soviets have increased their defense spending as against the previous decade by a higher percentage than has the U.S. Though we have no figures on this, it has not been proven to be untrue.Why did Ron state that the Soviet Union enjoys a decided edge in military power over the United States, and then reply in the negative when, a month later, he was asked whether he would trade American forces for Soviet forces? The answer is simple enough: the enormous expense to the taxpayer of teaching English to the new army acquired in such a deal.

Why did Ron, in January 1983, quote Vladimir Lenin as having said that promises are like pie crusts, made to be broken, when in fact Lenin was, in that statement, describing the attitude of his enemies? Well, obviously Ron was not in the strictest sense of the word Quoting Lenin. He doesn’t believe it is the place of an American President to quote Lenin, although some pundits have suggested his image might be improved if he began to quote Marx—Harpo, of course.

Why did Ron say, in May 1982, that submarine-launched nuclear weapons can be recalled after launch, when in fact they cannot? He referred to the fact that the President who authorizes their launching can be recalled. Thus we can use our democratic freedoms to cancel the effects of the launchings—at least in spirit.

Why did Ron say, in January 1983, that we don’t have the military-industrial complex that we had when President Eisenhower spoke about it? He said it, interestingly enough, because it is true, and true on two counts. The military industrial establishment is different now, in that it is bigger, and so it is essentially not the same one. And secondly, Americans no longer have a complex about it.

Why did Ron say, in March 1983, that when the United States was the only country in the world possessed of nuclear weapons we did not blackmail others with threats to use them, when in fact we did warn others of their possible use, to wit: USSR 1946, China 1950 and 1953, Veetnam 1954 and the 1960’s, Cuba 1962. Simply put, these were not blackmails. These were sincere warnings, as proven by the earlier Japanese examples. And if you look at the record, these warnings helped to secure peace through strength: China is today our ally, and the loss of Veetnam and Cuba from our stable of stable nations simply reveals the need for More Peace through More Strength.