Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-04-18
Rockefeller on Cuba

Your April IL editorial,
Unworthy Politicking," about
Gov. Rockefeller's remarks on
Cuba, is not up to your usual
standards of knowledgeable
and fair comment. Somehow
I have the feeling that you
are politicking some yourself.
You are remiss on two i'm
portant counts.
First, you reject Rockefel-
Ter as presidential candidate
on the Cuba part of his press
conference. Actually, Rookie
Teller touched on several
other national issues of major
Importance. And he did quite
well with them. Furthermore,
Rockefeller is to be judged by
his entire record (not just one
press conference) by the fair
minded people who make up
most Of the electorate, If not
by The Star. 1t may be said
that he has established him.
self as one well qualified to
Judge events in Latin Amer
lea through his service in the
Government and otherwise.
The real nub Of the Cuban
problem is the failure Of
President Kennedy to reveal
to the American people the
substance of his secret ne
gotiationS with Khrushchev
and the agreement made re-
garding Cuba which binds the
United States. That is what
worries the average Ameri-
can and I must say that
Rockefeller or anyone else
certainly has a right to sur
mise and wonder just what
did happen and what our
President committed us to.
Ralph r.. VIII.
Your editorial, Unworthy
Politicking" reprimands Gov.
Rockefeller for intimating
that our President is appeas-
ing the Soviets.
l have no political love for
Mr.. Rockefeller, whom I con-
slider an opportunist Of the
first water. But, can it hon.
estly be said that President
Kennedy is not appeasing the
Soviets? / am sure he does
not like doing so but, in my
opinion, that is exactly what
he is doing and has been do
ing ever since Khrushchev
agreed to take the missile
bases out Of Cuba and asked.
or suggested that we do the
same thing with regard to
Turkey and Italy. We are
taking them out. are we not?
Moreover, can it be anything
else but appeasement to allow
thousands of Russian troops
to continue to stay In Cuba
with no true prospect Of get
ing them out except by force
or threat Of force? If throw
ing away our Monroe Doc
trine is not appeasement. what
is? If permitting the Soviet
Communists to continue to
hold Cuba In bondage 90
miles from our shores is not
appeasement. what is? In
fact, letting them get a hold
there in the first place was
appeasement.
ClarksOn ]. Beall.
-
So II is unworthy poll
ticking" TO deplore the Ken
needy administrations ham
ding OF the Cuban situation,
Dear mel
Why is this administration
importuning Congress for
more and more millions TO
fight communism in far away
Laos and South Wet Nam
while at the same time II
sends our armed forces into
the Caribbean. not TO fight
communism 90 miles from
our shores, but 10 protect
communism from a handful
OF Cuban patriots2 AS II this
were not enough 1t has en-
listed the aid OF the British
TO help harry them.
The people OF Southeast
Asia are happy 10 have our
millions but they have al
ways been apathetic and in
different about fighting COM
munism. The Cubans, on the
other hand, are q fiercely pa
triotic people. They have
been betrayed by a trusted
leader and have seen their
land overrun by thousands
Of Russian troops In defiance
OF the Monroe Doctrine. All
they ask is a chance 10 get
In there even II the odds are
overwhelming, and do some
thing about IL, They do not
need everlasting proddinR as
our friends In Southeast
Asia do. They know about
communism and they hate IL.
So we protect the Com
munistsI How can you bear
it7
Ruth ID. Boyer.