DECLASSIFIED
E.O. 12958, Sect. 3.6

By. NARA, Date 5/26

TELCORN
Rogers/Kissinger

9:33 a.m.

3/12/71

R: Did you get your to bed early last night? Don't answer!! I was calling Al to pass on some thoughts about our report. One has to do with Greece. He wants to take out the political prisoners but I don't think we can escape from saying something. We have commented 50 times on it in NATO and all over the world. In view of Lowenstein, if we don't recognize it as a problem, we will be laughed at.

K: But the President doesn't want to have a public issue.

R: The best way is to take the heat off.

K: Could Pederson send over some language?

R: On Brazil, I don't feel so strongly. We can scrap it. A soft reference would be helpful. We are trying to be ______.

K: They are mentioning torture and that's too far.

R: On the M.E. I think I have to do it. I am prepared to change words but I cannot in this summary on the M.E. say less than what the President did. On the question of territory. The rest is --

K: I don't remember. The only concern was not to have the thing in an uproar again but no need to say less than the President did.

R: The whole speech is reproduced so there will be no uproar. I will have Dick talk to Al Haig.

K: The intention is to have it as close to what you want.

R: I can see the problem on Greece and Brazil.

K: On the M.E. I think we should have it the way you want.

By NARA, Dato 5/26

TELECON
Amb. Wm. Sullivan

3/12/71 11:00 a.m.

S: I have a problem coming up and would like to get some guidance. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, Zablocki subcommittee has meetings on the POWs starting on March 23. I am hearing that some of the members have a tricky proposition which may be somewhat difficult for Administration officials to handle. Let me explain it. They start from the Statement that the President has left the impression from his last press conference that he will announce a troop withdrawal on April 15 or thereabouts which will set a rate of withdrawal which will except an unspecified residual force used as a bargaining weapon against them for the prisoners. He also says he will do this at about the current rate of withdrawal; they say there have been 60,000 from January 1 to May 1 so that's about 16,000.

K: That's nonsense.

S: Well they go through their multiplication and figure that 16,000 into 284,000 works to 19 months and that is December 1, 1972. They say the President is in a sense saying the U.S. will withdraw all forces by . . . If that's the essence why don't we instruct Bruce to say we are willing to make a withdrawal on that schedule if they will release the prisoners. They are saying this falls within the time. The question is why don't we put forward in Paris a proposal that we will withdraw by December 1, 1972 or some specific date if they will release the prisoners. This is the essence of what we are saying -- why don't we say it formally?

K: We don't want to lock ourselves into a deadline for obvious reasons. This proposition that we'll have troops there as long as the President wants is bound to be reversed.

S: Yes, but this is the most tricky reversal. We can say they won't accept that, but they can say we won't know till we ask. This has started to brew in the press. Elizabeth Drew put this to the Secretary in this TV program.

K: What happened to his press conference yesterday by the way?

S: I don't know; it was cancelled. I don't know if it will be rescheduled. What do you think?

K: Let me give a little thought to that. I can tell you the policy, but not the answer to give. Let's both give it a little thought.

S: It might come up in our peoples' press briefings in the next few days.

K: Yes, let me think of the best formulation. We certainly don't want that now.

By. NARA, Date 5/26

TELECON

Amb. Wm. Sullivan

3/12/71 11:00 a.m. page 2

S: They are going to have Administration witnesses come last so they'll have this laid out in advance and it will have to be waded into.

K: Let me give it some thought.

S: Any spurts of inspiration will be appreciated, and we may have to do some footwork with our Vietnamese friends too.

By NARA, Dato 5/26

TELECON

Prof. Galbraith

3/12/71 11:40 a.m.

K: I talked to our mutual friend Gloria the other day and she tells me you will be back here trying to unseat our Administration. She told me you would be in town the evening of the 23rd. I wonder if you would be free for breakfast on the 24th?

G: I'd love to, sure. If you don't think a meeting between us followed by my meeting with the Democratic Advisory Committee would hurt both of our reputations.

K: We were friends before I was active in politics.

G: I always have heard you were non-political and not active in politics. But now I'm just wondering if I'll have to give equal time to Bill Rogers.

K: Let's say tentatively in my office. At 8:30. Where are you staying in case there's some change?

G: At the Hay Adams. And if anything comes up please do let me know.

K: Good, delighted to see you.

G: What was worked out with Harvard?

K: I had to resign but the department has an informal agreement not to fill my spot for two years.

G: That's wonderful. I'm pleased by that. I'm just answering a letter in the New York Times. You'll be pleased to know Walt Rostow is now defending the bombing of World War II. . . . You get out of a country I hear mentioned and you'll be unbeatable.

K: The economy is still a problem. But to have another President beaten on Vietnam is not good for the country. This is what the democratic process is for but to have another morality play deflop in 1972 would be bad for the country.

G: Looking forward to seeing you Henry.

K: Yes, the 24th at 8:30.

TELECON
Amb. Cromer

3/12/71 3:05 p.m.

NARA, Date 5/26

C: I have some thoughts about the Middle East which I have been asked to pass on to you. Jarring is coming down today?

K: I think so, yes.

C: I would like to send out a note to you. If you would like to talk about it I'd be glad to, if not I won't waste your time.

K: You never waste my time.

C: I believe Jarring is dining with Joe Sisco tonight, is that correct?

K: Right.

C: And I have authority to pass these thoughts for what they are worth to State. I think it best if you see them first and if you think they are worth passing on, give me a call or have one of your people call and I'll pass it to State.

K: I'll be at a meeting until 5:00, so I'll be calling you between 5:00 and 6:00.

C: That's absolutely perfect.

K: Good.

C: Thank you.

By NARA, Date 5/26

TELCON
Robt Semple/Kissinger

4:57 p.m.

3/12/71

S: You caught me with a mouthful of coffee. I am calling you because even though we have an agreement with the Washington Star that we can run their materiel as we do ours, Mary McGrory is syndicated. So I was going to re-write.

K: I will read it again to see if there's anything I violently object to.

S: How come you are not in Key Biscayne?

K: I am slipping. I want to go the Gridiron dinner, being a masochist. Let me see-- I always meet with students and peacegroupts and I never talk about it. I don't do it to give the Administration publicity but so concerned people feel they are being listened to. This was part of it. It was arranged by Brian McDonnell who I partly persuaded to stop fasting. He wanted to bring these people in. We discussed nothing about the Berrigan case. It was entirely about the role for society and the war. That was all.

S: Right. Did you make any progress? I asked Davidson the same question. He said you never know about things like that.

K: I wasn't trying to convince them. This is not for publication. This is a deep problem and our big task has been to be able to get through the war in a way that concerned people feel there was someone they could talk to. I don't try to change their minds. I try to show them that seriously concerned people and people who share their objectives have come to different conclusions.

S: Good. That's the point.

K: I don't want to give a different perspective to the plot as Mary says.

S: I don't want to repeat Mary's errors. The only one you say -- it's not a long story. It doesn't say a hell of a lot. Have you seen it?

K: I was just handed a copy.

S: I will give you a chance to read it. I found a conscience quote.

K: This guy said it but I didn't. I think it would sound self-serving -- there's nothing unusual. I do it about once a week.

S: That's the point I was going to make.

K: I don't talk about it.

S: I know it. That's the point I will make,

K: That I would appreciate if you do write about it at all.

S: On the conscience business, forget about it?

K: Yeah.

S: One other question. Have you given any thought to seeing the others?

By NARA, Dale 5/26

Semple/Kissinger

4:57 p.m.

3/12/71

K: I have to discuss it with the lawyers. I don't want to interfere with the case. I don't know any more about the case then I read in the newspapers.

S: Thank you and enjoy yourself tomorrow. Hope you don't get too big a rousing (?). What will be fun is the other demonstration outside by the women.

W: I feel I have established my feelings about ALL women.

By NARA, Dalo 5/26

TELCONE
Dan Rather/Kissinger

5:14 p.m.

3/12/71

R: I am sorry to bother you on such a trivial matter but it's nailing down the McGory article and whether it happened and the account is correct.

K: The event happened but had nothing to do with the plot. It was like any I have which I have every week with members of the peace movement to hear their side and talk with them. It was not intended for publicity and I don't want to discuss it. It had nothing to do with the plot and I don't want to try to change their positions. It was an attempt to bring about the motivations of everyone.

R: Brought about by Brian McDonnell?

K: I have known him since his fast. I have seen him for a year without publicity. This was a misunderstanding of ground rules by the participants.

R: The story didn't get out at your initiative?

K: Absolutely not! This was not a criticism of others but a misunderstanding of the ground rules.

R: We are not making a big thing of it. I just wanted to be sure it happened.

K: I didn't say I was the conscience of the Administration.

R: I wanted to ask you about that.

K: That may have been his characterization. My meglomania takes extreme forms but not quite that.

TELECON

Betty Medsger (Washington Post)

3/12/71 5:15 p.m.

NARA, Dato

5/26

M: Thank you for returning my call. It's in regard to the meeting you had. Was the alledged conspiracy discussed at all?

K: No.

M: Okay. What was your opinion of it?

K: I don't want to talk about the meeting. I see many people from peace movements and don't do it for publicity.

M: Was there an agreement that it wouldn't be discussed?

K: I was under the impression that it wouldn't be, but these are serious people and that was a sincere misunderstanding.

M: Would you like to discuss this particular movement?

K: If I am ever going to have another of these meetings I would like to do it with the assurance that these people aren't going to be used by me.

M: And the reverse I am sure.

K: They obviously understood the ground rules differently than I. The only thing about that story that is wrong is that I do not consider myself as the conscience of this Administration. That was his interpretation.

M: And you think it important to have meetings with members of the opposition?

K: I think it very important and important that the people who were involved don't think this is a political maneuver. Try to transcent some of the bitterness. I wish I could be more helpful, but I think you will understand it would be destructive to talk about it.

M: Was it a pleasant session?

K: I think it was a very pleasant session, yes. If you'll excuse me, I've got another call I've been waiting to get all day.

M: Yes, thank you.

TELCORN
Cahill (NY Daily News)

5:17 p.m.

3/12/71

NARA, Dato 5/26

C: We wanted to talk to you about the McGrory story in the Star and specifically the point you made that you apologized for the sex-starved quote. Said it was a misquote and explained it to Cardinal Cooke.

K: Let me make clear that the purpose of the meeting had nothing to do with the plot. It was a chance for a peace group to express themselves to a senior official and on a private basis and the story didn't get out of here. That remark that was subscribed to me was out of context and it's true I called Cardinals Cooke and Deardon and apologized when it appeared 6 weeks ago. Before there was any reaction. As for the last, I don't want to comment on that story because it was intended to be as a means of keeping contact with people who are disturbed and it was not meant for publicity on our side.

C: Was it a success from your point of view?

K: I don't know. We had a serious and respectful discussion which is all one could expect.

C: I talked with Davidon and he said there was a chance that you might resign your position.

K: What makes these meetings impossible is people going around quoting. They asked about mass exterminations. I support the President 100% and if they say I am not that's not true. If there are circumstances where someone cannot work for his government that's true (?) but that's not true here.

C: Did the question of nuclear weapons enter the discussion?

K: Let the others talk as much as they want to on the content. I didn't say this as a political thing. I would not have used a conversation with such a group to convey policy of the Administration. I wanted to see if it was possible to have human rapport with a group that is violently opposed and not a vehicle for policy views.

C: I appreciate your call.

TELECON
Lee Byrd (AP)

3/12/71 5:25 p.m.

By NARA, Date 5/20

B: I am calling with regard to your meeting with the Berrigan co-defendants.

K: No, there were no co-defendants.

B: They were if you read the account and find it accurate.

K: None of the participants were co-defendants.

B: They were termed that way.

K: No, co-conspirators, not co-defendants. There's a big difference. None of these people were indicted. The story was based on a misunderstanding of the ground rules by the participants. It was supposed to be a private meeting, like many similar meetings I have had with concerned groups. I don't feel that I should describe it. The intention was not to give them any . . . To convince them of our sincerity . . . this is not for quotation incidentally.

B: All right.

K: Our intention was just to give them the sense that concerned people were trying to manage affairs of the country. The story is essentially correct; one part is not: where it says I imply that I am the conscience of this Administration.

B: That was their assertion, was it not?

K: That's right.

B: Do you mind if I quote you as saying it is essentially correct with the exception of that one thing?

K: No, I prefer not to be quoted.

B: ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

K: You can certainly quote me as saying I have many meetings of this kind and I feel that in order for them to be meaningful I feel it best that I not comment on them.

B: All right. Thank you.

TELECON
Ambassador Cromer

3/12/71 5:40 p.m.

NARA, Date 5/26

K: I read your letter and papers and think you might pass them on to Sisco, at least the papers, not the letter. To give you a sense of the President's thinking -- this is between you and me and the Prime Minister of course -- he would like to slow down some who are trying for the Nobel Prize too eagerly. If it is done too rapidly the danger is it might produce a blow-up. Therefore, we particularly appreciate your handling it in this manner. If you could convey it to them that you are relaxed about it. I think it's a very creative one and we would support it here. We are trying to prevent a big diplomatic offensive until we know what the traffic will bear.

C: Very wise of you. It seems to me that if this is put to the Israelis without a pistol at their heads they might change choose them on their own.

K: I think you are right.

C: Thank you Henry very much indeed and I'll use my discretion.

By NARA, Dato 5/26

TELECON

Ron Ziegler

3/12/71 5:50 p.m.

K: You've probably seen the ticker stories. If not, you will soon.
On the Saturday meeting?

Z: Oh yes, I've seen not only the ticker but the story in the Star.
Why did you do that Henry?

K: If you knew how that came to pass you wouldn't believe it. I thought
I was seeing a group of seven Swarthmore students. This guy brought these
guys instead. This is structly for you -- we might as well make a plus of
it. I decided, and Haig agreed, that I might as well talk to them. These
people are not indicted; they are just part of the group. The position I've
taken is that I see a lot of people opposed to the Administration to listen to
them and give them the sense that we are open to their concerns, even if
we can't share their conclusions. I won't say what happened at the meeting--
it was not a political gesture.

Z: Okay.

K: Don't you think that was the most dignified way to handle it?

Z: Yes. How is the war going?

K: We've found a five-sided structure. . . .

Z: I'll be damned; we've found COSVN.

K: Do you think this is damaging?

Z: No. If we had sat down and planned it we wouldn't have done it,
but this has happened and it's okay. So what? It gives us a little color.
We're all to brittle; we should loosen up a little.

K: I'd like to but you people won't let me.

Z: You're loose enough Henry. I'm talking about the rest of us.
Who did you talk to?

K: Rather called, and someone from AP and someone else . . .

Z: Okay.

TELCON

Mr. Kissinger/Richard Kleindienst

7:22 p.m., March 12, 1971

NARA, Dalo 5/26

HAK: Listen, I tell you I am mortified by this event.

K: Don't worry about that, Henry. We just want a factual, objective account of what has occurred with respect to the case. It is for my eyes only. If any statement is going to be made, we will be talking to you about it. Any comment made, you have to make.

HAK: What do you want?

K: Where this was and how it came about, what was said. No comment on it, just the actual facts.

HAK: How about tomorrow?

K: Understand you have a dinner thing tonight.

HAK: I can tell you what I have now about the substance. If that's enough, I can send it over now.

K: Are you going to be at the White House tomorrow?

HAK: Yes, but let me just read one paragraph I have (read from the minutes of the meeting -- )

K: Send that over tonight. I gave one of your secretaries the instructions of how to get here. If I need anything more, I will call you tomorrow.

HAK: What could be the legal implications?

K: On the basis of that, probably nothing. Get that over tonight, if I want to talk to you, I'll call tomorrow.

HAK: Right.

K: We want to know what the framework of the situation was. Hereafter, I wouldn't if -- I would be very careful ...

HAK: I didn't know they were coming in, they were already sitting in the Situation Room when I learned they were here. I thought it would do more damage to throw them out and have them say I refused to meet with them then to listen to the substance of what they had to say.

By. NARA, Date 5/26

TELCORN

7:22 p.m., March 12, 1971

K: Did the two people involved say anything about the Berrigan
case?

HAK: At the end, one of them said the next time they wanted to bring
in a defendant the next time they came back.

K: Well, send over what you have. Nothing to get upset about and
I don't want you to get upset. We are the lawyers in the case
and want to look at what the implications are.

HAK: I will send it over within the hour.

K: I gave your secretary instructions on how to get here.

HAK: It will not be released.

K: Not to be released, it is just for our people and the lawyers.
If there is anything to be released, it will only be only after
consolation with you.

HAK: Right.

K: Okay.

wgh

DECLASSIFIED
E.O. 12950, Sect. 3.6

NARA, Dato 5/26

TELCON
P. Flanigan

early a.m.

8/12/71

F: The Amb. came in to see me last night and is now here. The State Dept is wishy-washy.

K: You can't have that and convey our outrage and say you mean it. The President took a personal hand and if they don't listen it will get worse.

F: Did you see the telegram?

K: Yes and completely opposite. The letter was tough. Do you want a copy?

F: No, it's not important.

K: I want to be sure you are not caught without knowing.

F: I have read the cable. The State Dept. said we will keep you informed from here.

K: Alex came in saying they should run it and if they had run it there would be an agreement now. They would have given them what they asked for. I said no change in present arrangements

F: You should check with the President on how he wants to deal with the Japanese and the other three countries. I think they will give the ball game away. If the President's interest is the textile industry, they know State is what it is. We have another problem. The President talked about space cooperation with Europe. We expressed concern about giving away information for 10% of ______. He agreed. We are told now that Europe didn't really want to do it. But I want to know what you think about it.

K: I will talk to David about it next week.

F: Thank you. I enjoyed the evening and to bring that beautiful femal in to berate me on FCC was one of the big disappointments of my life.

K: I enjoyed the dinner.