Vice President Ford: "Why I Will Not Run in '76": An Exclusive Interview

A  I don't think the President should go up to the Committee as a whole and testify. There may be another way to do it. And there are, I think, some alternatives being examined.

Q  What sorts of alternatives?

A  One would be to have the Committee chairman, a Democrat, and the vice chairman, a Republican, go to the White House; or perhaps the Committee could submit some questions and have the President answer them in writing. I don't know all the alternatives that are being discussed, but I do know that some are under consideration.

WHY WATERGATE "HAS FESTERED"—

Q  Looking back, where do you think the Administration went wrong in its handling of the Watergate case?

A  Somebody should have been held responsible and fired at the very outset. If that had been done, I think there would have been nothing like the turmoil that we've seen. Either someone was negligent in not pressing for the kind of action, or else it was hoped that time would take care of the problem. But it hasn't. And the net result is that this problem has festered and festered and festered.

Q  Do you believe there was a deliberate cover-up attempt at the White House?

A  I really don't know that. I don't believe—and I say this strongly—I don't believe that the President himself had any knowledge of the operation.

Somebody, somewhere along the line, did not come clean with the President.

Q  Do you feel the Special Prosecutor and his staff are proceeding in a fair and impartial way in their investigations of Watergate and related cases?

A  As far as I can see, the answer is yes.

Q  Looking ahead, how can something like Watergate be prevented from happening again? Do you think that we need new laws?

A  We don't have to pass new laws to discourage people from doing the sort of thing the Watergate conspirators did break into the Democratic headquarters. That kind of act is already covered by criminal statutes.

It seems to me one problem was that there weren't enough people over at the Committee for the Re-election of the President who had had practical campaign experience. Nobody with such experience would have approved such a stupid thing as breaking into the Democratic headquarters. Even if it had been successful, it would have been absolutely without any benefit at all. You can get information from most campaign committees simply by reading the newspapers. There was just nothing that would justify that kind of stupid operation.

As for the alleged cover-up, I don't think you have to pass any more laws to deal with such actions, either. Those involved will be brought to court, either for perjury or for obstruction of justice or whatever they may be accused of.

Q  Do you believe the President's "operation candor" is succeeding thus far?

A  It has made a decided change in public opinion. And yet, there's a long way to go. The pendulum, as I see it, has begun to swing. But the President can't stop now. He's got to expand it and continue at the same pace that he has been going the last few weeks.

Q  How much of a setback has resulted from the recent disclosures of gaps in those White House tapes?

A  I think it's too early to assess that. The thing that has to happen quickly-or as quickly as possible—is to reveal the content of the tapes that are available. If they contain what I believe they contain, that will be extremely helpful.

But all the public knows, so far, is that, first, the tapes weren't going to be released by the White House, and then, when they were released to the court, there were gaps or there were tapes that were missing altogether. Nobody has yet heard what's on the tapes—and that's got to be made available.