SAN DIEGO UNION 13 JUNE 1974 (28)

Kissinger Makes A Point

Americans can be forgiven if they were somewhat startled by the picture of an emotional Henry Kissinger denying with a quavering voice some hard questions from the press about his role in the wiretapping of persons who had access to national secrets—and his threat to resign if the matter were not promptly and completely cleared up.

This is the same Henry Kissinger who remained tireless, unflappable, good humored and poised during 33 days of the toughest negotiations in recent times in the Middle East. Rumor and innuendo are clearly harder to take than the demands of militant Arabs and Israelis.

Were Mr. Kissinger to resign it would prove nothing. As he is aware, that would only increase exponentially the gossip which he deplores. As all public officials do sooner or later Mr. Kissinger appears to be ending his honeymoon with the press. Eventually the secretary of state and the media will find a balance in their relations and, based on experience to date, we would forecast it will be a generally moderate one.

Nevertheless if his tense remarks cause Americans to pause and take a hard look at some negative aspects of Watergate which fail to occupy enough public attention he will have done his nation another service.

For instance, is duly and legally authorized wiretapping improper, the secretary asks, when 10,000 classified documents are leaked by persons in violation of oaths they took to maintain secrecy? Clearly the United States of America stands to suffer

greatly if this sort of thing is tolerated.

And is it proper for officials in Washington to leak selectively and anonymously documents that tend to erode the credibility or challenge the honor of a public figure they don't happen to like? This is common practice—the vindictive gossip of tattile tales who do not themselves have to face public accountability for their acts—and it damages the image of all American officialdom.

This loose approach toward both law and morality appears to be contagious. Material presented to a grand jury, for example, that must of necessity remain secret to protect the rights of those under investigation, is leaked routinely—and not always accurately—to the press.

The Senate Watergate Committee was literally a rumor sieve. House Judiciary Committee members leak details on their closed hearings and give opinions freely on whether or not they believe that the President should be impeached although, by their subpoenas, they admit that they do not have enough evidence to judge either guilt or innocence. Even the special prosecutor's office, which has hired deaf mutes for messengers as a security precaution, has not been immune from fueling the Watergate gossip fires.

The very same Americans who became properly indignant when a common criminal is not afforded the full protection of the law appear to believe that the rules of fairness and decency do not apply to public figures. This, really, is what has Mr. Kissinger upset. Truly it is the anomaly of our time.

A YEAR AGO this month, the President's authority to draft men into the armed forces of our country expired. Actually, at his direction, the Defense Department had stopped drafting on January 1, 1973, but for the next six months the President could have reversed that decision had he chosen to. For a year, though, the All-Volunteer Force has been forging ahead on its own. We believe it worthwhile to see where it stands today and particularly so far as the maritime services are concerned.

Very recently we were privileged to attend a briefing at the White House where we heard a distinguished senior official of the Defense Department state unequivocally that in his view the AVF to date is a "tremendous success." He subsequently emphasized that, as of now, it is much farther along than had been anticipated and that on June 30 would be only 1½ per cent short of its end-of-fiscal-year goal. In terms of people, that percentage shortage means 28,000 people—20,000 in the Army and 8,000 in the Marine Corps.

That's a pretty rosy picture. It might lead one to believe that the worst is over so far as the services being able to achieve their recruiting goals is concerned. Our own estimate of the situation is somewhat different from that described above. We won't argue with the basic facts. But we will gently chide those in the Defense Department for not frankly including a few "ifs" at the end of their optimistic estimates. And we firmly believe the public should be fully apprised of the extent of those "ifs."

In the first 10 months of the first year of the AVF, the Navy had recruited 98 per cent of its pure numbers goal, the Marines 89 per cent. On the basis of that one set of statistics, it would appear that the two maritime services were over the hump. But there is far more to the story than those statistics would indicate. For one thing, if the needs of the fleet are to be met, the Navy must recruit enough young people with technical aptitudes, and with desires to enter the more complicated technical fields, who can be properly trained and then funneled to the fleet in an orderly fashion. But the Navy isn't doing that—although it's trying to. Not only is it having difficulty in swearing in those who are capable of being trained to maintain a nuclear reactor or sensitive electronics equipment, it is finding that new recruits are shunning many of the ordnance and engineering ratings. To add to its troubles, in far too many key ratings, first-term re-enlistments of those already in uniform are disastrously low; in many rates, fewer than 10 per cent of the first-termers in them are re-enlisting, and over 50 rates are manned at less than 100 per cent. The upshot is that attempts must be made to train inordinate numbers of new recruits—many of whom are either lacking in desired technical skills or in motivation—in key rates so they can fill empty billets aboard ship and in aircraft squadrons. It doesn't take a management expert to comprehend the ultimate effect of having to rely on marginally qualified and insufficiently motivated personnel to maintain today's ships.

showing that an also fall into Menton concerned, which is being given diplomatically. As a result, the proportion of MGMs in the armed forces is sional requirement.

Aside from economic problems of which services are finding a never-ending effort. To their credit is the forthrightly and highest priorities in resources, and consistently impressed with the Navy's recruiting Command on Capitol Hill for work ceaselessly arduous, the Navy has overcome the animosity of educators who insist on arm's length and away from services in all likelihood charges a great deal those educators have to meet what might seem to continue to draw strength and stamin› g other personnel in.

We believe the good start. We also are unwise restrictions on make-up of the services themselves. Continuing on to the overall picture provides enough full-time country by themselves; IF we have tatives and educators access to young men, the Navy League successful in increasing the need for the finest those services which possible.

Those are a lot of goals to fulfill, the AVF are fulfilled, the Congress should have the authority to the President. The AVF will be an asset to the Navy.

So far as the Navy is concerned, full-scale

SPECTRUM
Varying shades of personal opinion on current issues

NICK THIMMESCH
CBS RADIO NETWORK

JUNE 21, 1974

WST

I'm Nick Thimmesch.

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger made a big fuss in Salzburg, Austria, and declared that his honor was at stake. But he left the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to uphold his honor, and that's leaving them with the bag. If that Committee doesn't clear him of certain allegations, Dr. Kissinger declared, he would resign. So that leaves Chairman William Fulbright with quite an assignment indeed.

Well, I sat through all of Dr. Kissinger's confirmation hearings last fall, and I must say that he was understandably evasive on the question of his role in the now celebrated White House wiretapping episode, and also on the question of David Young, his longtime associate who wound up as co-chief of the now notorious plumbers.

Actually, Kissinger has testified for many hours on these questions. The Committee also has heard the testimony -- though not sworn -- from Elliot Richardson, then Attorney General, and his Deputy, William Ruckelshaus. Mr. Fulbright's Committee now has an additional resource -- the FBI records themselves -- which are a subject of controversy. But what the Committee hasn't had -- and should get -- is testimony from the real live human beings involved in both the wiretapping case and the plumbers episode. The key figure in both instances is General Alexander Haig, now White House Chief of Staff. He was Kissinger's deputy during the wiretapping and plumbers periods. FBI records show that he was a participant in the wiretapping effort. Sworn testimony before congressional committee -- plus sworn affidavits from defendants -- show that Haig was aware of the existence of the plumbers, and also had a role in one of David Young's assignments as a plumber.

But even more important, Haig was in complete and constant tandem with Kissinger through this period. They were hand in glove, just as Mr. Nixon was hand in glove with Kissinger.

Mr. Fulbright's Committee has a duty to call Haig to testify on wiretapping and plumbers. They should also hear from some other people. On wiretapping, they should hear from William C. Sullivan and Robert Haynes of the FBI, former Attorney General John N. Mitchell, and perhaps some of Dr. Kissinger's staffers and newsmen who were tapped. On plumbers, the Committee should get testimony from David Young, Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, H.R. (Bob) Haldeman, Egil Bud Krogh (now in prison) and Press Secretary Ronald Ziegler, named in a Colson affidavit.

If Senator Fulbright's Committee really wants to remove the clouds over Kissinger -- as Dr. Kissinger so dramatically demanded -- then witnesses must be called to testify. Otherwise, this whole undertaking is a fake. Senate resolutions mindlessly signed, attesting to Kissinger's veracity and integrity are indeed useless, as Fulbright himself was honest enough to declare.

This is Nick Thimmesch for Spectrum.

The diverse opinions expressed on SPECTRUM are those of the commentators themselves and should not be attributed to CBS or any of its affiliates
Produced under the supervision of CBS News, 524 West 57 Street, New York, New York 10019 (212) 765-4321

NANA 6-21-74

SAY IT STRAIGHT!

Now, a Get Kissinger Movement For Immediate Release

By VICTOR LASKY

North American Newspaper Alliance

WASHINGTON NANA — Gradually it's beginning to sink into the minds of many Americans that the Nixon Administration is being victimized by an unholy alliance of hate-Nixon fanatics in both the media and Congress.

Which is why the witch-bunt against Henry Kissinger may be serving a
useful purpose.

For it brings into sharp focus the lengths to which the get-Nixon
crowd is willing to go to bring into disrepute anyone who has served
the President and the nation with such great distinction.

And, as a result, the anti-Kissinger campaign appears to be
back-firing. People now are asking themselves whether this obsession
with Watergate hasn't gone beyond the bounds of decency.

The campaign against Kissinger was triggered by a series of leaks of
supposedly confidential material out of the supposedly top-secret
hearings of the House Judiciary Committee currently looking into
impeachment.

When Kissinger returned from his exhausting journey for Mideast
peace, he was asked at a press conference whether he had hired a
lawyer to defend himself against possible perjury growing out of his
denial before a Senate committee that he had initiated a series of
wiretaps five years ago.

That question got to the secretary, as did a lead editorial in the
Washington Post which quetioned whether Kissinger had been truthful.

Said the Washington Post:

'Neither Dr. Kissinger's world prominence nor his importance to Mr. Nixon's defense against impeachment should spare him scrutiny any less close than that accorded to other Administration figures touched by one or another branch of the poisonous Watergate tree.'

More

LASKY, ADD ONE

In the first place, nothing in the accusations has anything to do
with Watergate. That is a smear term and an outright distortion of
what occurred early in the Nixon Administration when it was
discovered that the White House was leaking like a sieve.

The fact is that the Nixon Administration had every legal right to
seek to determine who was responsible for illegally leaking out
national security secrets.

The issue involving Kissinger is simply whether he had 'initiated'
wiretaps aimed at plugging those dangerous leaks.

Kissinger said all he did was hand over to the FBI names of
individuals who had access to national security secrets.

But that didn't prevent Anthony Lewis, the New York Times columnist,
from stating flatly that Kissinger had 'lied' about his role in
wiretapping.

The next day, the New York Times itself more decorously accused the
secretary of being vulnerable 'to the charge of dissembling about
his role in this distasteful affair.'

Dissembling, of course, is a polite word for lying.

And, as everyone knows, the New York Times never lies. It only
dissembles.

For Kissinger this was all too much. In Salzburg, he threatened to
resign if the impugning of his integrity continued.

So this is how far we have descended in the witch-hunt against the
Nixon Administration which has enveloped this federal city.

END-LASKY-NANA-74

# NIXON TESTIMONY IS READ AT TRIAL

He Denies Authorizing the Search for Ellsberg Data
—Kissinger on Stand

By LINDA CHARLTON

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, July 10—
The defense in the trial of John
D. Ehrlichman concluded its
case today with testimony from
President Nixon, whose sworn,
written answers to six ques-
tions submitted by the defense
were read aloud to the jury
by Judge Gerhard A. Gesell.

Mr. Nixon, in his replies,
said that he had set up the
“plumbers” unit largely “to
prevent and halt leaks of vital
security information,” that Mr.
Ehrlichman had “general super-
visory control” and that he had
told Mr. Ehrlichman that its es-
tablishment was “a highly clas-
sified matter” not to be dis-
cussed.

He also said that he first
learned of the break-in at the
office of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding,
Dr. Daniel Ellsberg's former
psychiatrist, on March 17, 1973,
and that he had never author-
ized a search of Dr. Fielding's
files.

The testimony from Mr.
Continued on Page 16, Column 1

COMMENTARY 6.27.74

# Lenience Important
In Kissinger Probe

By Norman Cousins

It seems virtually certain that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will give Henry Kissinger the "clearance" he says he needs in order to continue as secretary of state; but even this vote of confidence will not dispose of the essential issue.

That issue is whether it is possible for a man to
make mistakes in office and still be of great
value to his country.

In short, do we allow any margin for error in
men who are elected or appointed to high office?

OBVIOUSLY, THAT question can only be
answered in the particular and not in the
abstract. A lot depends on the kind of mistakes
or wrongdoing we are talking about.

There is a big distinction to be made between mendacity and murder, between neglect and conspiracy, between a lapse of judgment and stark irresponsibility.

Also, the extent of harm involved is critically
important. One of the first questions considered
by a court has to do with the degree of harm that
may have been done. A man who has been
assaulted and who has nothing more serious
than a bloody nose may have a good case against
an assailant, but he would have an even better
case if he had been knocked down or had suffered a broken jaw.

How serious are the misdeeds of which
Kissinger has been accused? He is not accused
of complicity in the Watergate horrors or in the
subsequent coverup; He is accused of having or-
dered a tap to be put on the telephones of some of
his subordinates at a time when the White House
was trying to track downleaks to the press. He is
also accused of having lied about the matter to a
Senate committee.

First of all, no law would have been broken if
Kissinger had in fact ordered a wiretap. The
authority for such an order is within the
province of the White House. There is a moral
issue here, of course, and it must not be
minimized. The invasion of privacy, even for the

purpose of tracing leaks, is a serious business;
but no law was broken if, in fact, Kissinger or-
dered the phones of his subordinates to be tap-
ped. A Senate committee might have a difficult
time in censuring or condemning a Cabinet of-
ficer or the President's right-hand man on this
account.

The matter of false testimony, however, is far
more relevant and serious. If the Senate com-
mittee believes that Kissinger was less than
candid in his testimony, it might issue a state-
ment criticizing or even censuring him on that
score, but there are gradations even in censure.

The last thing in the world that the Senate
would want to do, on the assumption it does not
believe Kissinger is guilty of serious miscon-
duct, is to be disproportionate in its judgment,
or to raise questions that would prejudice
Kissinger's ability to conduct his office.

SHOULD THE FACT that Kissinger has per-
formed superbly in office be a factor in the
evaluation of the Senate committee? I believe it
should: It would be absurd; I submit, to dismiss
or ignore the fact that this man has done more to
save human life than any statesman in modern
times. Largely because of him, the chances for
peace in the world are probably better than they
have been in a decade.

And his period of greatest usefulness may be
just ahead of us. No man is indispensable, but it
is foolish to deprive ourselves of someone who,
through the force of his intelligence and his per-
ceptions, has demonstrated the kind of
leadership in world affairs that might spare the
human race of a holocaust.

Imperfections come with the human con-
dition. The kinds of imperfections now involved
in the charges against Kissinger are not outlier
dish. They do not have a Watergate dimension.
The American people can afford to be
magnanimous. We would only be hurting our-
selves if we were not.

(C) Norman Cousins

Mayors
Request
'Détente'

Alioto Appeals
For Urban Aid

SAN DIEGO (AP) — The nation's mayors have asked the Nixon administration and Congress to cut back on defense spending and give more money to America's cities.

The U.S. Conference of
Mayors concluded its 42nd an-
nual meeting on Wednesday
with virtually unanimous adop-
tion of a resolution calling for a
realignment of government
spending priorities.

The new president of the con-
ference, San Francisco Mayor
Joseph L. Alioto, appealed to
the President to forge "a
domestic détente" with urban
America."

"The essence of détente is the willingness of the most intracatable party to yield a point and then make certain concessions," Alioto, a Democrat, said in his acceptance speech.

Close Relationship

Alioto did not deliver all his
prepared remarks, but said he
stood by them and repeated
them in a news conference
later.

He also said the mayors
"want to establish a close work-
ing relationship with the
President."

In other action Wednesday,
the delegates elected New
Orleans Mayor Moon Landrieu
as conference vice president
and president-elect. Newark
Mayor Kenneth Gibson was
elected chairman of the con-
ference advisory board, putting
him in line to become the first
black president of the
organization, in 1976. Both
Landrieu and Gibson are
Democrats.

The conference, dominated
by Democrats, avoided any
direct confrontation with the
President on the Watergate and

Clark Mollenhoff

Kissinger Picks Friendly Panel

WASHINGTON—Dr. Henry A. Kissinger's emotional threat to resign as secretary of State has many earmarks of a clever play to force a formal vote on his integrity in the friendly Senate Foreign Relations Committee before the question comes before a less friendly committee.

The secretary of State knows he may never be in a better position to force the issue than in the wake of his phenomenal diplomatic victories in the Middle East.

He also realizes his vulnerability to criticism concerning his testimony about his role in wiretapping of government employes and newsmen.

THE RESULTS which may follow from incomplete testimony are shown dramatically in the case of former Atty. Gen. Richard Kleindienst, who entered a plea of guilty after failing to answer fully the questions of the Senate Judiciary Committee in his confirmation hearings.

Kleindienst's misrepresentations and misstatements, made in April, 1972, were all but forgotten until the question came up on the fringe of the Watergate investigations by Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski.

Senate Testimony

In his Senate testimony, Kleindienst left the impression his only contact with the White House concerning the ITT antitrust case had been with Special Assistant Peter Flanigan.

Sen. Marlow Cook, R-Ky., had said, "As I recall there was no discussion concerning the (ITT) report other than perfunctory remarks regarding delivery and an expression of appreciation for the assistance rendered to Mr. Assistant Atty. Gen. Richard) Mcaren?

Kleindienst said, "Yes."

In all his replies, Kleindienst overlooked very pointed discussions in

which President Nixon protested McLaren's actions on the ITT antitrust matter. These discussions were hardly ones Kleindienst would have forgotten, for they caused him to threaten to resign as deputy attorney general.

Some members of the special prosecutor's staff believed Kleindienst should have been prosecuted for perjury for failing to relate the involvement of President Nixon in the ITT controversy.

Kleindienst initially had felt protected in the controversy by his friendly relationship with Judiciary Committee Chairman James O. Eastland. D-Miss. However, he saw that protection collapse under a 3-way pressure from the House Judiciary Committee, the Senate Watergate Committee and Special Prosecutor Jaworski.

THIS IS NOT unlike the current position of Dr. Kissinger, who already has made an explanation on his wiretapping note that satisfied his friend, Chairman William Fulbright, D-Ark. But, that involvement is now coming in for closer scrutiny in several other forums.

At the request of the Nixon administration, Chairman Fulbright locked up the transcripts of Dr. Kissinger's latest "clarifications" on his knowledge of the activities of David Young, a former National Security Council staff member and a member of the notorious "plumbers" of Ellsberg break-in case.

Chairman Fulbright also has never revealed that his committee had possession of FBI documents which seemed to contradict Dr. Kissinger's explanations that he had no role in "initiating" the wiretaps on 17 people, including four newsmen.

Until the House Judiciary Committee started investigating the questionable domestic surveillance practices, documentary evidence relevant to Dr. Kissinger's purported contradictions

remained buried in the Foreign Relations Committee safe, the FBI files and in State Department records directly under Kissinger's control.

The defenders of Kissinger contend the wiretapping was not illegal and that it was a necessary step to deal with a serious breach of security through "leaks."

The central question on Dr. Kissinger's integrity does not involve the legality of the wiretap or whether it was justified for stopping security leaks. The main question is: Did Dr. Kissinger, under oath in his confirmation hearings, deliberately misrepresent or misstate his role and responsibility for 17 specific wiretaps?

Early Showdown

In what Dr. Kissinger has referred to as "the poisonous" atmosphere created by Watergate, the secretary of State has seen that even a Cabinet officer might be held accountable for misstatements at some future time.

Rather than take a chance with serious damage to the Senate Watergate Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, Special Prosecutor Jaworski or in one of the several trials in which he may become involved, Dr. Kissinger chose an early showdown when his reputation is at its peak.

IT IS ALMOST as if Brer Rabbit was demanding that Brer Fox throw him into the briar patch.

To demonstrate their faith in Dr. Kissinger even before the new reinvestigation started, seven of the 17 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee were among the 52 signers of a resolution of confidence in "the integrity" of Dr. Kissinger.

It is obvious that those senators believe Dr. Kissinger is an indispensable man and that the normal standards do not apply to testimony given by national heroes,

Des Moines Register and Tribune Syndicate

SPECTRUM

MURRAY KEMPTON
CBS RADIO NETWORK

JUNE 22, 1974

I'm Murray Kempton.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's investigation of the charges that our Secretary of State is a liar is an unusually feeble gesture even for a body as withered as our Congress. Even when it cares to struggle with the executive branch, the Senate generally brings to its scrutiny of official sins an eye which, on its sharpest days, couldn't track an elephant with a bleeding nose across a field of snow.

And, in this case, the Foreign Relations Committee is bound to set about its business with the special torpor appointed for any arm of a Senate, a majority of whose members have already announced in advance that Secretary Kissinger is a man whose "integrity and veracity are beyond reproach."

It would be unfair to say that where truth is the test Mr. Kissinger is any worse than our recent average for Secretaries of State. What is curious is that Mr. Kissinger's self-esteem insists that he be declared better than the rest of the breed by Act of Congress.

The appeasement of his vanity will require a number of senators to bend themselves like pretzels, and that would be a cruel duty to moral bodies less abnormally flexible. To appreciate what he asks and gets from them, we need only notice the case of Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania. Last July, a month or so before Mr. Nixon was legally required to cease our air assault upon Cambodia, the Senate began to worry that he might increase the bombing in order to get in as much of his worst as he could before the deadline. Senator Scott called Mr. Kissinger and was assured that the Administration intended no escalation. He conveyed this assurance to the Senate; and two days later the Administration stepped up the bombing of Cambodia. The Hugh Scott who was the victim of our Secretary of State's deception is one of 52 senators affirming our Secretary of State's veracity.

If we are to believe that Mr. Kissinger always tells the truth, then a number of other honored personages must be outright liars. Mr. Kissinger swore that he had no important part in ordering the tapping of the telephones of his assistants in the National Security Council; he is contradicted by the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover. Mr. Kissinger swore that he did not know that the Air Force was falsifying its reports in order to keep the 1969 bombing of neutral Cambodia a secret not from our enemies but from our citizens; and he is contradicted by a former Secretary of Defense and a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But no matter, Duty is all. Patriotism forbids the Secretary of State to tell the truth about his actions and patriotism equally forbids the Senate to tell the truth about the Secretary of State.

I'm Murray Kempton with Spectrum.

Tom Braden

# 'I'm Sorry Henry Lost His Cool'

As I first heard the story from Secretary of State Henry Kissinger—oh, way back—a couple of years ago, it went like this:

He was sitting in his office in the White House and he got a call to report at once to the President.

There—with Mr. Nixon in the Oval Office—were J. Edgar Hoover and then-Attorney General John Mitchell. The President was pounding the desk with the flat of his hand. These leaks to newspapers—they must stop. You, he tells Kissinger, you give the names of the people of your staff who had access to this information; you give them to Mr. Hoover here and we'll find out who's doing the talking.

Reporters? Reporters were added by Hoover. "Plumbers"? He never heard of "plumbers" until he saw the word in the newspapers. Thank heaven.

Now that's the way I first heard the story—and here an acknowledgement is in order.

Journalists—like other people—have friends, and Henry Kissinger is an old friend. I believed his story and, despite contrary testimony, I still do.

What, after all, is the contrary testimony?

First, memoranda from the late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Should we believe Hoover? Search the files of the

FBI and you will find that all officialdom throughout Hoover's lifetime ordered wiretaps, but—according to J. Edgar Hoover—J. Edgar Hoover never did.

Second, a comment on the tapes from the President of the United States seeming to say that Kissinger ordered wiretaps. Do you believe the President of the United States? Does anybody?

Oh, I'm sure Henry Kissinger put his case in the best possible light when he was testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said he didn't "initiate" the taps. Well, that word is subject to interpretation. Sometimes a man makes a request he knows his boss wants him to make. Does he "initiate" the request? May it not be said in a larger sense that his boss did?

But I'm sorry Henry lost his cool. I thought he looked like a gauleiter standing there before the cameras at Salzburg. Remember that story about the German airline pilot? He welcomes the passengers aboard, tells them to sit back and relax. "We'll have a comfortable flight," he says and then, pronouncing his words slowly and positively, he adds, "as long as you do exactly what I say."

As a reporter, I have to say that gauleiter was Henry Kissinger at his press

conference. But as a friend, I make excuses for a friend.

Henry Kissinger is tired. Wouldn't anybody be tired after all that shuttle diplomacy? All those details to remember? All those people to win to his point of view? All those miles to travel and not enough sleep?

And Henry Kissinger was looking for praise. Wouldn't anybody look for praise if, after settling a war between bitter enemies, he'd arranged for his boss to make a tour in triumph of countries which would have spurned him a month ago?

It must hurt to expect praise—and to be called a liar instead.

Another excuse comes to mind. Henry Kissinger just got married. There's nothing like a new wife to make a man look to his honor and to find quarrel in a straw.

But withal, it must be said that it was not Henry Kissinger's finest moment—that blowup in Salzburg. And it won't do him a bit of good. The facts will come out.

When they do, I hope he can greet them with that candor and lightness and gaiety which is his customary style. The world will then excuse him. As we say of the heavyweight champion with a hangover, "He had one coming."

© 1974, Los Angeles Times

SPECTRUM

JUNE 21, 1974

I'm Nick Thimmesch.

The diverse opinions expressed on SPECTRUM are those of the commentators themselves and should not be attributed to CBS or any of its affiliates.
Produced under the supervision of CBS News 594 West 57 Street, New York, New York 10019 (919) 765-4391

NYTimes

6-21-74

# Kissinger and Petersen

By Tom Wicker

WASHINGTON, June 20—Six weeks away from Watergate seem to have made no difference at all. Like Old Man River, it just keeps rolling along. Like a river, too, it keeps eating away at its own banks until it appears as if everyone and everything in the vicinity may ultimately be engulfed. Has any episode ever so glaringly disclosed the corrupting nature of power and the tendency toward mass ethical blindness at the heart of modern institutional life?

The latest example is that of Henry Petersen, the Justice Department career professional who once had an enviable reputation for incorruptibility and nonpartisanship. His supervision of the early Watergate investigation has, at the least, raised questions about his conduct. By his own admissions to the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, Mr. Petersen oversaw an investigation that was "snoekered" by untruthful or secretive witnesses from the White House and the Committee to Re-elect the President; and he did not push his own suspicions of high Administration involvement—suspicions of which, in fact, he was "ashamed."

Mr. Petersen also sought to make more of a distinction than others are likely to see between treating political figures "gently" and treating them "with restraint." After all, net effect of the "restraint" with which Mr. Petersen and Earl J. Silbert conducted the original Watergate investigation was that their inquiry never got past the tip of the iceberg. Yet, when Senator Sam Ervin and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee raised questions about these matters, Mr. Petersen erupted in anger.

"This is a terrible, terrible thing," he shouted at Senator Ervin. "Do us justice, will you?"

The justice Mr. Petersen seems to want is not to be questioned at all about his supervision of the Watergate investigation. To him, it is an unjustifiable questioning of his integrity to ask, for example, why he allowed Secretary of Commerce Maurice Stans to give a deposition rather than testify before a grand jury that could cross-examine Mr. Stans.

Mr. Petersen's reaction was reminiscent of that of Secretary of State Kissinger, when the latter returned from his Middle East triumphs to find himself under renewed questions about his part in the wiretapping of seventeen officials and newspaper report-

## IN THE NATION

ers during the first Nixon Administration. Mr. Kissinger, too, reacted angrily; ultimately, in his remarkable Salzburg news conference, he demanded, in effect, that the questioning stop and that he be cleared of the charges, on pain of his resignation.

In Mr. Kissinger's case, this may not have been quite the tactical error at first supposed, nor even the reaction of a man exhausted to the point of losing his good judgment. Henry Kissinger happens to be about the shrewdest manipulator of the press ever to get himself quoted as a "senior official" telling the public what he wants it to know. The major effect of his Salzburg performance was to get the United States Senate virtually on record that he was an honest man who ought not to be questioned by the bloodthirsty press. Mr. Kissinger also created considerable public sympathy for himself and shifted the focus of the controversy; now the question is not so much whether he did anything he shouldn't have, but whether the press should have raised such embarrassing questions about a man who was busily creating a generation of peace.

Mr. Petersen probably will not succeed so well. Senator Ervin and the Senate committee are not as good targets as the press; Mr. Petersen's anguish was a little shrill by comparison to Mr. Kissinger's beautifully measured sorrow; and Mr. Petersen has not been bringing us a generation of peace, if anyone has.

It is surely to be hoped that the Ervin hearings on the Silbert nomination—which is to say on the early Watergate investigation — and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's inquiry into the Kissinger wiretap charges will result in the exoneration of both Mr. Petersen and the Secretary of State. Too many once-respected officials already have been shown to have succumbed to the lust for power or the need to go along with their peers and superiors; more defendants would be a drug on the market, but the nation could certainly use a few examples of men who defied the pressures of power and conformity.

But neither Mr. Petersen nor anyone else is likely to prove himself such a man by banging on tables and denouncing those who inquire into his conduct. In the long run, that conduct will speak for itself, and louder than anyone can shout.

THE WASHINGTON POST, F

Joseph Alsop

# The Hounding of Henry Kissinger

"Do we really want the responsibility of hounding from office the most ad-mired public servant in the United States?" This is now a serious ques-tion, which a good many politicians, thinkers and, above all, key persons in the media ought to begin asking them-selves.

It is a serious question, in turn, sim-ply because the eventual resignation of Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger is a far stronger possibility than any-one seems to imagine. His threat to re-sign has been called "petulant." He has been accused of being unable to "take it." There has been a lot more nonsense of the same sort.

But it is neither petulant nor over-sensitive (although it may be a bit old fashioned) to insist you must resign unless your name is promptly cleared when you have been publicly accused to "dissembling" and even "perjury." These were the accusations levelled at Dr. Kissinger by certain elements in your. friendly media—who will have the major responsibility if the United States eventually needs a new Secre-tary of State.

Also, none of the factors in Dr. Kissinger's personal situation appear to be dimly understood in this sewage-sump of a city. First of all, he is not where he is today from love of power or from desire to make a great name or from other similar motives. If sim-ple ambition had been Dr. Kissinger's guiding star, he would have quit long ago, when the quitting was good.

One of the two men he consulted on the problem in 1973 was David K. E. Bruce, now the leader of our liaison

mission in Peking. Ambassador Bruce very strongly urged Dr. Kissinger to leave in the general glow of universal adulation that would then have sur-rounded him. He was intensely tempted to take this advice, and he came very near to doing so.

The other close friend he consulted gave greater weight to the simple fact —which is still a fact—that the present U.S. government without Dr. Kissinger did not bear thinking about. On this ground, Dr. Kissinger was told it was his plain duty to stay. He has the strong, gratitude-based patriotism that one often finds in refugee-Americans. He stayed, from duty and against his better judgment.

In the present cirsumstances, Dr. Kissinger cannot expect to depart from Washington in the same glow of general adulation. The hounds are al-ready baying on his traces. But he would be ludicrously modest, if he did not foresee that his departure would be regarded as a major catastrophe by everyone for whom he has the faint-est respect. In short, the temptation to quit is still extremely strong.

To these basics, some further factors also need to be added. His beautiful wife, Nancy, much prefers cities that are not sewage sumps; and as her hos-pitalization indicates, life in the dregs is not good for her health. Further-more, only iron will and an iron consti-tution have thus far saved the Secre-tary of State himself.

He has a hernia of the diaphragm, which can be exceptionally painful to those who are over-tired and over-weight. He is one of the unlucky mil-

lion who respond to extreme exhaust-ion by over-eating; and he has been both over-tired and over-weight for many months on end. Under the cir-cumstances, one has to admire the ex-treme stoicism that went into Dr. Kissinger's memorable feat of diplomacy in the Mideast.

Besides all this, finally, one must consider one last unknown factor of re-ally decisive significance. As Dr. Kissinger has said, quite frankly, he long ago resolved to resign his office if he found himself beginning to be dragged into the Watergate quagmire.

The Secretary of State did not take this resolution from vanity, or from ap-prehensiveness. He took this resolu-tion solely—and quite rightly—because he concluded that he could not con-tinue to do his job at the State Depart-ment with the hounds on his traces, and all serious dialogue drowned by the hounds' loud baying.

That is precisely what began to hap-pen at the savage and disgusting home-coming press conference, which was about all the thanks Dr. Kissinger got locally for his great feat in the Mid-east. Thus this matter of the Secre-tary of State's resignation may not end with the review of all the facts by the Foreign Relations Committee.

Above all, there is the role of your friendly media. In the media, the level and character of the public dialogue is determinded, for good or ill. And that is why the country will mainly have the press to thank if the hounding goes on until Dr. Kissinger leaves of-fice.

© 1974, Los Angeles Time

SPECTRUM

PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
CBS RADIO NETWORK

JUNE 20, 1974

I'm Phyllis Schlafly.

When Oliver Cromwell had his portrait painted, he instructed the artist, "Paint me as I am, wart and all." Television is a medium which does exactly that. It presents an unretouched picture with all the warts and wrinkles. Television is also a window which looks into the soul behind the face and voice, as no other medium can. It is almost impossible to conceal from the TV camera emotion, evasion, hate, guilt, lying or nervousness.

Thus, Richard Nixon lost the Presidency in 1960 on the night of the first Nixon-Kennedy debate when television revealed that Kennedy had superior confidence in his capacity for leadership. Edmund Muskie kicked away his hope to be President the day he lost control of his emotions in a snowstorm in New Hampshire with the TV cameras mercilessly grinding away. Thomas Eagleton was dropped as a Vice Presidential candidate after that Sunday when he faced the press on television and the public saw the beads of nervous perspiration on his forehead.

To this list we must now add Henry Kissinger. The television closeups of his temper tantrum in Salzburg revealed him as emotionally unstrung, his voice quavering and tears in his eyes.

It is a cause for concern that this man who trembled in public is the same one who ordered a strategic alert of our nuclear forces on October 25. He subsequently promised to explain what Soviet action could possible have justified that emergency alert, but he has never explained it to this day. We still don't know whether the alert was caused by a real Soviet threat or merely by Kissinger's emotional distress.

If Kissinger's Salzburg behavior was authentic, then the television closeups revealed him as too unstable to have his finger on our nuclear trigger. If Kissinger's behavior was not a genuine reaction to a keenly-felt personal injury, then it must have been a dramatic act to arouse sympathy among the press and Congress and thereby avoid cross-examination on crucial issues.

In either event, it is time to get on with the business of questioning Dr. Kissinger. After we resolve the question of whether he did or did not order the 17 wiretaps, then let's move on to asking the life-or-death question of why he ordered the strategic alert last October.

I'm Phyllis Schlafly for Spectrum.

THE ROSCOE DRUMMOND COLUMN

RELEASE DATE: Wednesday, June 19, 1974

WHY KISSINGER SPEAKS OUT

by Roscoe Drummond

WASHINGTON--What crimes are being committed in the name of exposing the crimes of Watergate!

They are many and the stench more than fills the nostrils.

A way must be found to stop them--not at the behest of the President, not primarily to satisfy the secretary of state, but because they are meanly and heedlessly hurting this precious nation.

The crudest, the ugliest, the most reckless of them all is the faceless effort to destroy Henry Kissinger's service to the country by innuendo and leak.

The accusers allege but do not substantiate their allegations that Kissinger had more to do than he said with ordering wiretaps of some of his subordinates and four newsmen in an effort to protect sensitive diplomatic information.

The basis of the accusations is hinted at but not disclosed.

(MORE)

Page Two...ROSCOE DRUMMOND...June 19...not disclosed.

Those who drop selective items of innuendo hide in
the shadows of the House Judiciary Committee--whether they be
members of the committee or staff--and refuse to come out into
the open to explain what they are doing and why they are doing
it.

Star Break

It reminds one of the evil days when Sen. Joe
McCarthy smeared American diplomats by proclaiming: "I have in
my hands a document" and then proceeding to accuse them of
being traitors and spies without ever disclosing any evidence.

Some say that Secretary Kissinger should not have
allowed himself to be angered by the attempt to defame his
character. Some say that he should turn the other cheek and
remain dumbly and stoically mute.

I believe that the secretary is doing exactly the
right thing in confronting his accusers and their accusations--
accusers who seem quite willing to undermine the peace-diplomacy
of their government if, by doing so, they can further their
political ends.

It's time somebody spoke out against these tactics,
and no one can do it better than Dr. Kissinger.

Investigate and expose the crimes of Watergate?
Certainly--right to the bottom and right to the top.

(Paragraph continues)

Page Three...ROSCOE DRUMMOND...June 19...to the top.

But the egregious offenses of Watergate do not justify egregious
offenses by those wishing to take advantage of Watergate.

If Watergate defiles our political system, which it
does, it is also true that the crimes of leak and innuendo
also defile the political system. It is vital to call a halt
on both.

The matter of the wiretaps, which were legal and
proper, is only one part of the tactic which outrages the
secretary of state. The day after President Nixon put American
forces on a limited worldwide alert to warn Moscow against
sending troops to the Middle East, some correspondents planted
questions at a press conference implying that this action was
just a Watergate gimmick. Thereupon these same commentators
used their own questions as proof that such innuendoes were in
circulation.

The use of such tactics has now become so bald and
blatant that a liberal columnist like the conscientious Marquis
Childs leads the protests.

What disturbs Childs is "the way each new blow at
the Nixon Administration brings an almost gleeful gloating," and
he adds:

(MORE)

Page Four...ROSCOE DRUMMOND...June 19...and he adds:

"The stable will have been cleaned out and that will be a satisfaction. But what comes after in a battered and bruised system appears to be of little concern to those crying loudest for blood."

Copyright 1974, Los Angeles Times

THE NICK THIMMESCH COLUMN

RELEASE DATE: Tuesday, June 18, 1974

KISSINGER'S GENIUS

by Nick Thimmesch

WASHINGTON--Henry Kissinger has succeeded, through maneuvering and emotional outburst, in politicizing the question of whether he lied under oath before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last September. Thus his genius is demonstrated again.

He has summoned all manner of support. Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) thumped mightily and, in defending Kissinger, charged one newspaper with "treason" for printing FBI documents contradicting Kissinger's sworn testimony. Meanwhile, liberal columnists wail in print that we can't lose dear old Henry.

Fifty-one senators, most of whom haven't even read Kissinger's testimony, signed a resolution proclaiming that Kissinger's veracity and integrity are "above reproach." Seven of these senators are members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which Kissinger has asked to reinvestigate him.

Thus, the seven have decided Kissinger is innocent before they put their minds to the task. "That doesn't make much sense to me," observed Sen. George Aiken (R-Vt.), who makes sense more than anyone else in the Senate.

(MORE)

Page Two...NICK THIMMESCH...June 18...in the Senate.

Great men quake because Kissinger threatens to quit if people don't lay off him. Remember, folks, Kissinger threatened to quit one other time if President Nixon was impeached. And when Kissinger worked for Nelson A. Rockefeller, he continually threatened to quit if he didn't get his way, and once Rockefeller shocked him by accepting his resignation.

The Kissinger situation is important because the credibility of the Foreign Relations Committee, the whole Watergate investigation and Kissinger himself are in question. It is in Kissinger's best interest that the committee conduct a thorough investigation of Kissinger's role in wiretapping and the plumbers, not to determine whether those activities were illegal but to determine whether Kissinger's sworn testimony about them was truthful and accurate.

If Fulbright's committee goes through another drill like last September when Elliot L. Richardson recited in executive hearings what reads like a lawyer's case for his client, well, that will only raise more clouds.

The reopened hearings should be public. All FBI and other relevant documents should be available to committee members. And the key people involved in the wiretapping and plumbers' episodes should be called to testify. This latter requirement is important.

(MORE)

Page Three...NICK THIMMESCH...June 18...is important

Thus, on wiretapping the following should be called
to testify under oath: Alexander Haig, now chief of White House
staff; William C. Sullivan, assistant FBI director when the taps
were placed; special agent Robert Haynes, then FBI White House
liaison; John N. Mitchell, then attorney general, and those
staffers and newsmen who were wiretapped in this episode,
providing they do not have civil suits against Kissinger.

When the wiretapping story is settled to the
committee's satisfaction, then the question of Kissinger's
prior knowledge of the Special Investigative Unit established
by President Nixon in the summer of 1971 should be probed. In
particular, Kissinger's knowledge of David Young, who helped
head this unit later nicknamed the "plumbers," should be
carefully explored.

Kissinger testified under oath that he had no
knowledge of the plumbers by that or any other name, and that
he did not know that David Young was concerned with internal
security matters. A subsequent revelation that Dr. Kissinger
listened to a tape David Young made as part of the plumbers'
work amounts to a challenge to that sworn statement.

(MORE)

Page Four...NICK THIMMESCH...JUNE 18...statement.

Moreover, John Ehrlichman and Charles Colson, both indicted in the plumbers case involving the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, have submitted sworn affidavits that Kissinger was the leading advocate of an active response to national security leaks and was particularly exercised and angry over Ellsberg.

So, for the plumbers' aspect, the following should be called to testify under oath: Haig; Ehrlichman; Colson; H.R. (Bob) Haldeman; presidential press secretary Ronald Ziegler (named in the Colson affidavit); Egil (Bud) Krogh, now in prison for his part in the break-in, and David Young.

Young could be the key witness because he was loaned from Kissinger's staff to Ehrlichman when the plumbers were formed. Young, when he worked with Kissinger, had intimate knowledge of security matters and confidential documents and thus was potentially useful in checking on information leaks. Young, by luck, escaped prosecution for the break-in by pleading immunity here and by having his other case dismissed on the West Coast. Young's whereabouts aren't known now, and he has become a mystery figure.

(MORE)

Page Five...NICK THIMMESCH...June 18...figure.

Now Kissinger and his sycophants can rant and rave
about how this accomplished secretary of state must be saved
at all costs, and that the press is ganging up on him.
Actually, Kissinger was a low-priority figure to the legions
of investigative reporters here, and it is only because certain
information about his role in wiretapping and the plumbers
emerged that newsmen got around to looking into his situation.

Kissinger has asked that Fulbright's committee
reopen the hearings and review his situation so his name can
be cleared. Otherwise, Kissinger says he'll resign. Kissinger's
wishes should be met. There should be a full-scale
investigation of the allegations, complete with all documents
and witnesses.

If Fulbright's committee fails on this, and if
newsmen, publishers and congressmen are cowed by Kissinger, the
whole Watergate story will turn out to be a fake, a fairy tale
which followed Camelot by 10 years.

Los Angeles Times SYNDICATE

Times Mirror Square / Los Angeles, California 90053 / Telephone (213) 625-

THE NICK THIMMESCH COLUMN

RELEASE DATE: Saturday, June 15, 1974
Sunday, June 16, 1974

KISSINGER'S BAD SHOW

BY Nick Thimmesch

WASHINGTON--Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger, the international celebrity who wins huzzahs as secretary of state, will get righteous support from some after his Salzburgian outburst. But in the long run, Kissinger hurt himself, his nation and the cause of world stability.

Dr. Kissinger should learn who he is. He is not the President in Charge of Foreign Policy. It is the President of the United States who makes foreign policy. The secretary of state advises on it, helps shape it, enunciates and administers it.

For Kissinger to stamp his foot and threaten to quit if the House Judiciary Committee and the press don't lay off him on the matters of his involvement in wiretapping and the "plumbers," well, it's so highhanded it begs precedent.

What was he doing, going on strike for better working conditions on the eve of a very important presidential mission to the Middle East? Presidents Kennedy or Johnson would probably have fired him on the spot. (Paragraph continues)

Page Two...THE THIMMESCH COLUMN...June 15-16...the spot.

But Kissinger evidently thinks that he is so big and important
that he can upstage the President.

Besides being an extraordinarily bad show of manners
and a jarring action on the Middle East trip, Kissinger's
tantrum must have profound effect on the minds of the leaders in
the Kremlin, Peking, the Middle East and Europe. Is this
Kissinger so self-important, they might well ask, that he is an
entity to himself and not to the U.S. government?

I know of no public figure in Washington who has had
a more favorable press in recent years than Kissinger. Newsweek
magazine foolishly depicted him as Superman, and Time, which
must be edited by ninnies these days, had him as Merlin the
Magician. If anything, Kissinger has had all the best of it
from the press.

He is neither Superman nor Merlin. He is a gifted
strategist, a stolid negotiator and a man who has benefited
greatly from the extraordinary opportunities and latitude given
him by Richard Nixon. Were it not for Mr. Nixon, Kissinger
would still be shuffling around as a Harvard professor,
appreciated in his national security world but not by the big
world.

(MORE)

Page Three...THE THIMMESCH COLUMN...June 15-16...world.

In crybabying about his honor being impugned, and
innuendoes, and all the rest, Kissinger is only emphasizing that
he asked for it. Sure newsmen roughed him up at his first press
conference after his triumphant return from the Middle East, but
that's the ball game in Washington these days, and as Sen.
George Aiken (R-Vt.) put it: "The damned fool. Can't he take
it? That's part of the business, being criticized."

There is gathering evidence that Dr. Kissinger did not
tell the whole truth when he testified under oath last September
about his role in the wiretapping of 17 staffers and newsmen.
Nor was he as forthcoming as possible on the question of how the
Special Investigative Unit (later called the "plumbers") was
formed, or what his knowledge was of its activities.

Had Dr. Kissinger, in his testimony last September,
defended the right of a government to protect the
confidentiality of its national security information and
admitted that he was a principal in the efforts to provide that
protection, he wouldn't be in the mess he's in now. Instead,
he depicted himself as a passive participant in these
legitimate--at the time--activities. That's the sum and
substance of it.

(MORE)

Page Four...THE THIMMESCH COLUMN...June 15-16...of it.

Now it's up to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was haphazard in its interrogation of Kissinger on these matters, to conduct a full-scale, open investigation. It's also up to Kissinger to really stand up like a man and clear the record.

Around Washington there is a curious alliance now of Kissinger fans (many of whom detest Mr. Nixon and Republicans) and loyal Republicans who are damning the press and the Judiciary Committee for leaks and such which caused Kissinger to erupt. Strange, but the Nixon-haters now defending Kissinger never complained about leaks which hurt Mr. Nixon and his other top lieutenants in recent months.

If some of Mr. Nixon's men are charged with or convicted of perjury, and if Dr. Kissinger's unsatisfactory answers before Sen. Fulbright's committee could wind up as perjury, the rule of law should be the same. Isn't that what the righteous in this town have been arguing ever since Watergate broke out all over?

George F. Will

Congressional Panic Over Kissinger

Things got a bit hectic in World's Greatest Deliberative Body the other day. Senators tumbled over each other, spraining ankles and straining ligaments in their rush to endorse a resolution declaring that Henry Kissinger's "integrity and veracity are above reproach."

Never let it be said that our government is full of Hamlets who allow the native hue of their resolutions to be sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought.

Why, even the Secretary of Commerce, a gentleman named Fred Dent, rather grandly announced that he has "confidence" in Mr. Kissinger's integrity. You ask: "What does the Secretary of Commerce know about the complicated issues involved in the current controversy?" Don't ask.

Ask instead about the significance of the remarkable government-wide reflex to rally 'round Mr. Kissinger.

This reflex involves more than a proper respect for Mr. Kissinger's exemplary patriotism and momentous achievements. It also involves palpable panic, especially in Congress.

Until now the spoor of the Watergate beast has led directly toward Mr. Nixon and those unpleasant friends of his—Messrs. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson, Mitchell, et al. But now there is evidence that the most admired man in America, Mr. Kissinger, has done some dishonorable things, like misleading a Senate committee about his role in a secret and dishonorable wiretapping program.

Until now some people actually have enjoyed Watergate. But now they are faced with the possibility that there may be some evidence damaging to Mr. Kissinger, and suddenly Watergate just isn't fun anymore.

Unfortunately, the charges against Mr. Kissinger are numerous and specific. They cannot be blown away by a Senate "resolution." Too many people—some identified, some identifiable—

By Auth for the Philadelphia Inquirer

dispute Mr. Kissinger's sworn testimony that he did not initiate, and was a reluctant participant in, the wiretapping of his aides.

As is the case with us all, fatigue magnifies Mr. Kissinger's flaws, and even when he is in the pink he does not suffer criticism gladly. He is not used to hearing unpleasant questions. Sycophants on his staff and in the press revolve around him like satellites around a sun.

In Salzburg, at his version of Mr. Nixon's 1962 "last press conference," Mr. Kissinger resembled a duke addressing very minor barons as he decreed to the Senate: Affirm my veracity, or I will take my bat and ball and structure of peace and leave town.

His message was not original: *Apres moi le deluge.* The senators touched their forelocks and scrambled to sign an affirming resolution.

Actually, were Congress to follow the evidence about Mr. Kissinger's veracity wherever it leads, crops would still grow and songs would still be written. But the Senate would rather declare Mr. Kissinger "above reproach" before getting bogged down in evidence.

So we are probably in for another despiriting episode of unresolved accusations and suspicions. Just for the record, and before confusion becomes total, let us be clear about what the issue is.

Mr. Kissinger and Special Prosecu-

tor Leon Jaworski think the wiretapping was legal. Perhaps it was. But pending court challenge will decide that. Anyway, the legality of the wiretapping is not the issue.

Mr. Kissinger says that much of the information that is embarrassing and infuriating him is coming from leaks. That is true, but not the issue.

The issue is: Was Mr. Kissinger so ashamed of his role in the wiretapping that he—as we say in Washington these days—"did fail and refuse to answer accurately and fully" questions asked at his Senate confirmation hearings?

The words quoted are those of the charge to which former Attorney General Richard Kleindienst pleaded guilty.

THE WASHINGTON POST, TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1974

Joseph Kraft

# Wiretaps: The Myth of National Security

The latest fuss over Henry Kissinger obscures the truly interesting question which now arises in regard to the national security wiretaps. The question is: Why did John Doar, as head of the impeachment inquiry being conducted for the House Judiciary Committee, bother to look into the taps at all?

The answer, of course, is that the wiretaps had almost no connection with national security. They come within the ambit of an impeachment inquiry because a mountain of evidence shows that the taps were a particularly dirty business done in violation of the Constitution and the laws and even internal governmental procedures for reasons of White House intrigue.

Consider, first, the discovery of the wiretaps. The records compiled from the taps were not found in the files of the FBI where such material is usually stored. On the contrary, they were found, largely by accident, in the White House office of John Ehrlichman. But what were they doing there?

Well, they had been removed from the FBI files by William Sullivan, an assistant to J. Edgar Hoover, in 1971. Sullivan passed them to Assistant Attorney General Robert Mardian for storage in the White House. According to testimony from Mardian, Sullivan was afraid that J. Edgar Hoover "might use" the material to put pressure on the administration in order "to maintain his position as director." But if the wiretaps were legitimate national security

matters, how could Hoover have used them to put pressure on the administration?

Well, for one thing, there was the identity of the persons subjected to wiretaps and other surveillance. Two White House officials—John Sears and William Safire—had absolutely no responsibility in the national security field. Three White House officials—Morton Halperin, Anthony Lake and Daniel Davidson — were under surveillance for months after they voluntarily resigned from the White House staff.

Two others—Colonel Robert Pursley and State Department Counselor Richard Pedersen—were privy to the secrets of their immediate bosses: Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird and Secretary of State William Rogers. But Laird and Rogers did not know of the taps, and the general assumption is that the White House was basically checking up on the two Cabinet members.

Then there is the tenuous relationship between the leaks and those placed under surveillance. The original wiretaps,

for example, were supposedly generated by a story published in The New York Times by William Beecher on May 19, 1969, about the secret bombing of Cambodia.

The first taps went out on three people on the National Security Council staff—Davidson, Halperin and Helmut Sonnenfeldt—who had no knowledge of the Cambodian bombing. Two others on the NSC staff—Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig, then a colonel—were not tapped.

Beecher was not originally tapped. Moreover, the whole question of the leak is dubious. The story was originally carried in The London Times as an account from an eye-witness observer. It seems unclear why Americans should not have been privy to the bombing all along.

Finally, there was the manner of the tapping itself. In my own case, there was not even the usual approval for a wiretap by the Attorney General. John Ehrlichman ordered the wiretap, after

discussions with the President. He had it carried out by two men associated in a political capacity with the White House, and with no authority as law enforcement officers. One of the men, John Ragan, was not even a government employee.

Dr. Kissinger seems not to have known about the tap at a.l.—though he was the key figure in all national security matters. I have not been able to find any sensitive national security material in columns I wrote when the tap was applied. Since the President, in the transcript of his February 28, 1973, conversation with John Dean, refers to material which Kissinger was leaking to me, I can only conclude that I was placed under surveillance by Nixon and Ehrlichman as part of an inner White House operation to check up on Kissinger whom I had known for years.

The point of all this is that the so-called national security taps conducted by the Nixon White House had no serious basis in reality. They are not to be compared with the taps conducted through regular channels by past administrations. They represent a tale of stupid and illicit activity generated in the White House by unavowed self-doubts, and they bear on the impeachment inquiry if only because they show how cynically the President and the men around him used the principle of national security as a cover to do whatever they liked.

© 1974, Field Enterprises, Inc.

> "A mountain of evidence shows that the taps were a particularly dirty business done for reasons of White House intrigue."

Acquisitions
from
Asia

Asia was exciting! And your wishes for something new under the sun sent us there, looking for the right things at the best possible prices. Now, hand-picked for you in Mainland China and Vietnam, exotic home accents you can afford. Shown are just sampling of our: A Shiwan ceramics 7.50-$18; B. handpainted porcelain snuff bottles $60; C. porcelain ginger jars $10; D. yellow/green pottery vases & stools 18.50-$60; E. brown & multi-color elephant stools 49.99; F. soapstone carvings $5-$135; G. handpainted stones $10-$14; H. table elephants 9.99; J. blue-glaze ceramics 4.50-$15. See also our authentic Chinese antiques. Gifts, all stores. (Not all items at all stores.)

FROM KING FEATURES SYNDICATE, 235 EAST 45th ST., NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

FOR RELEASE MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1974

PHILLIPS: Those bent on destroying Henry Kissinger are ignoring national security needs and the precedents of secret diplomacy.

ATTEMPTING TO DESTROY KISSINGER

BY KEVIN P. PHILLIPS

WASHINGTON (KFS) — Judging by some of the documents floating around Washington, it may be true that Henry Kissinger fibbed to the Senate about his role in wiretapping subordinates suspected of possible national security leaks. But even if that proves to be the case, my own response is: So what?

Then and now, Secretary Kissinger was America's foremost diplomat, and diplomats must do many things that they pretend not to do. We can safely assume that since World War Two, dozens of senior U.S. diplomats and officials have found it necessary to stretch the truth in giving routine methodological assurances to Congressional Committees.

If Henry Kissinger is in trouble today, it's because of the Watergate reign of terror. Previously, liberals chose to ignore the fact that his background suggested security-consciousness. But all three of Kissinger's great heroes — Austria's 19th Century Prince Metternich, Germany's Otto Von Bismarck and France's Charles de Gaulle — relied heavily on domestic surveillance and espionage techniques to backstop their "Grand Game" of international diplomacy. Operators like Metternich, Bismarck and de Gaulle, always in secret communication with this or that faction or foreign office, needed tight security in order to do their thing.

Why the Surprise?

In policy terms, at least, Henry Kissinger is widely recognized as a product of the Metternich-Bismarck-deGaulle realpolitik tradition. Why should we be surprised that Kissinger has also used surveillance and wiretap techniques? However, even his worst enemies can't point to more than minor episodes — absolutely inconsequential in comparison with Prussian, Austrian and French practices.

When you think about it, America has expected Henry Kissinger to be a 20th Century Metternich — which to some extent he has been — while encumbering him with legislative witch-hunters, powerful newspapers thrilled to print stolen classified documents, and a New York-Washington cocktail circuit that makes heroes out of Daniel Ellsberg, Alger Hiss and company. It's amazing that Kissinger's secret diplomacy has done so well for so long.

Prince Metternich would be astonished at Kissinger's forebearance. From the 1815 Congress of Vienna until the middle of the century, Metternich scored his great international coups — mediating here, negotiating there — while maintaining a virtual police state at home. Visitors to circa 1830 Vienna were astonished at the number of government spies and informers. Daniel Ellsberg would have been arrested at the frontier.

(MORE)

BY KEVIN P. PHILLIPS

xx frontier.

No Historical Context

Among the great failings of today's Watergate climate is a lack of historical context. Media and Congressional Robespierres, in trying to destroy Henry Kissinger, are ignoring not only national security needs but the precedents of secret diplomacy. Similarly, the Nixon Administration is being attacked for political practices — outside of Watergate — that have been standard for years. Can anybody who remembers FDR's political use of the WPA, Robert Kennedy's wiretaps or LBJ's cronyism possibly believe that these things begin with Richard Nixon?

A footnote: Even former Watergate Prosecutor Archibald Cox is souring on Congressional Watergate behavior. In a June 11 speech to the Harvard Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, Cox compared some of the tactics of the Senate Watergate Committee to those used by the late Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950's. And he pointedly criticized intellectuals and the press for not pointing out and denouncing these similarities.

"Headline Henry" Kissinger is no favorite of mine, but the attempt to destroy him is extremely unfortunate — except insofar as it may help alert public opinion to the extremism now afoot in Congressional and media circles.

Distributed by King Features Syndicate

(MP)

WASH. POST 6/17

# Kissinger Backed by Ruckelshaus

By Bob Kuttner

Washington Post Staff Writer

Former acting FBI Director William D. Ruckelshaus yesterday supported Henry A. Kissinger's account of the role the Secretary of State played in the FBI wiretaps of 17 government officials and newsmen.

Ruckelshaus, who first investigated and confirmed the existence of the taps a year ago, said Kissinger's role "is pretty much as he's described it."

At issue is whether Kissinger misrepresented his involvement in the tapping to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during hearings last September on his nomination to be Secretary of State. At that time, Kissinger assured the committee that he merely provided the FBI with names of officials with access to the leaked documents.

However, FBI memoranda supplied to the House Judiciary Committee—and also leaked to the press—indicate that Kissinger's office initiated 14 of the 17 taps. It was those leaks and the inference of deception or even perjury that prompted Kissinger's threat last week to resign.

See TAPS, A8, Col 1.

AY COURSE

Fri., 9 a.m.-4 p.m.

JUNE 24th

call 483-2033

INVITE YOU TO:
session

employing our graduates
with The American Society

espected travel school in
ommittee includes top ex-
Our training staff is com-
Holland America Cruises,
c, Inc., Frommer Travel
ies. On the job training
gency is available to stu-
ge throughout the course.

e has an outstanding record
our graduates.

from suburban areas, we are
possible.

raining Courses, Inc.

L.W., Washington, D. C.

83-2033

A 8

Monday, June 17, 1974

THE WASHINGTON POST

‘Initiate’ Is Key Word

# Ruckelshaus Backs Kissinger Account

TAPS, From A1

Ruckelshaus suggested that the confusion is over the word, ‘initiate.’

“In the sense that he supplied the names, he initiated it.” Ruckelshaus told interviewers on the program “Face the Nation” (WTOP, CBS). “But his definition of initiation is that it wasn’t his idea to tap; he simply complained about the leaks.”

Other officials friendly to Kissinger have suggested privately that Hoover’s memos identifying Kissinger as instigator of the taps can be explained as a familiar bureaucratic device intended to protect the FBI by placing responsibility elsewhere.

However, Ruckelshaus offered another explanation.

“There was a previously determined program to stop leaks,” Ruckelshaus said, adding that the program called for Kissinger’s office to provide the names of suspected leakers.

“In the process of supplying those names, it may well have been described in FBI memoranda that this was a request coming from the National Security Council or Mr. Kissinger...”

Ruckelshaus confirmed that he did not interview Kissinger as part of his investigation. And he agreed that “there are

questions” about why some persons with “only a peripheral, if any, relationship to national security” were among those tapped.

On related topics, Ruckelshaus said he believes some of the Watergate sentences imposed after plea bargaining were too light, and that President Nixon has not yet disclosed all pertinent Watergate information.

“My guess is that there will be more surprises,” Ruckelshaus added.

Ruckelshaus resigned as deputy attorney general last October over the firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox.

W. D. RUCKELSHAUS
... sees "more surprises"

## Russell Baker:

Most people who have given up reading the news from Washington, which is to say most of the last sane people left in the country, are probably baffled by Henry Kissinger's sudden entry into the general farce there. It is like seeing Othello wander into the second act of "Hair," strip down to blue jeans and start climbing the scenery.

To savor the full essence of the thing, you have to understand that Kissinger is angry because he has been accused of lying in a small way. A diplomat, goes the ancient wheeze, is a man prepared to lie for his country, and most of us probably assumed that Kissinger was as prepared as the next diplomat to do his duty.

But now, lo and behold, Kissinger is not content with merely being recognized as a genius; he wants to be proclaimed a man of absolute veracity and threatens to do no more service for the state unless Congress declares him an honest man.

IT IS HARD to tell what has

happened to Kissinger's celebrated judgment. Being declared an honest man by Congress would strike most of us as a social embarrassment akin to being chosen man of the year by the Mafia.

That Kissinger is now demanding that this iron laurel be pressed upon his brow testifies to the derangement which is epidemic along the Potomac. Any man in full control of his faculties would surely rather be known as a small-bore liar than pronounced honest by Congress.

Understanding the dispute about whether Kissinger has played fast with the truth requires a medieval scholastic's intellect capable of caring how many angels can dance on the point of a pin.

The question is whether he "initiated" wiretaps that were placed on telephones of friends, colleagues and reporters. Kissinger told the Foreign Relations Committee that he did not "initiate" the taps. They were "initiated" by others, he said, and he merely supplied names of men who

might fruitfully be listened in on, after the higher decision was made.

TO MAKE any sense of this requires a fine understanding of what government people mean by "initiating" something, and the trouble here is that they don't really mean anything that can be defined without Philadelphia lawyers, all of whom are now relocated in Washington debating the meaning of "an impeachable offense" and "presidential privilege," which don't really mean anything either.

Kissinger's trouble arises because the newspapers published a "leaked" FBI paper stating that "original requests" for the taps "were from Dr. Henry Kissinger or Gen. Alexander Haig," who was then Kissinger's deputy.

Publication of the "leaked" FBI paper produced the final twist of the comedy by giving the government's people another chance to repeat their well-rehearsed "shame on the leakers!" act.

The aim of the splendid old routine is to change the subject so that everybody will stop thinking about the main plot line and start worrying about the evils of journalism.

The argument assumes that whatever the deviousness or lying or criminality may be that has come to light, the greater evil is having it appear in the newspapers. And so, when the "leaked" FBI paper made things awkward for Kissinger, the government people replied by crying "shame on the leakers!"

If this practice were common in non-government life a man could murder his wife, tuck the body in the back lawn and count on the police to put all their energy into pressing trespassing charges against any busybody who reported a grave-sized mound behind the petunia patch.

In real life somebody would suggest taking a look at this unfortunately published evidence, but this is not going on in real life. It is going on in Washington, which is a comic book.

# Washington Is a Comic Book

STAR. NEWS 6-17-74

Richard Wilson: # Shot in Dark Stung Kissinger

Sometimes it helps to get the record straight before arriving at conclusions, and that certainly is the case with Henry A. Kissinger's threat to resign.

He confesses that he was "discombobulated" on his return to Washington from his brilliantly successful Mideast negotiation by being rudely confronted with a question at a press conference on whether he had retained counsel to defend himself on perjury charges.

This was the only question from that rugged press conference in Washington which Kissinger cited as flustering him into answers that could be exploited as showing he was hiding something. Therefore, he held another conference in Salzburg, Austria, giving a fuller explanation of his connection with national security wiretapping and plugging "leaks" of national security information, saying if he were not cleared of shady implications he would resign.

Surely this question about perjury must have been asked by a steely-eyed investigative reporter with backup information or documents. But, in fact, the question was not even

about wiretapping and it was asked by a 27-year-old political science graduate named Peter Peckarsky who held credentials as representing a semi-weekly newspaper published in Cambridge, Mass., called "Tech." This publication is one of several campus-circulated papers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but, according to Peckarsky, it is not financed by nor editorially responsible to MIT.

PECKARSKY SAYS that no one helped him frame the question, that he had no information not already on the public record to predicate it, that it was based solely upon surmise which might arise from reading the record. In other words, a shot in the dark. But it certainly sounded as if this young man knew something. His question was a doozy and worth printing in full as an example of the "new journalism."

Reading from paper, Peckarsky asked: "Mr. Secretary, on Sept. 7, 1973, you testified under oath before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in response to a question on your knowledge of David Young's activities, that you

did not — quote — 'know that David Young was concerned with internal security matters' — end quote.

"On Feb. 6, 1974, you testified under oath before the Senate Armed Services Committee — quote — 'the next morning' — and that would be Dec. 23 and (or?) 24 of '71 — 'I went to Mr. Ehrlichman's office and he played a part of the tape of the interview with Admiral Welander conducted by David Young, which concerned the alleged theft of documents from my office by that Navy yeoman' — end quote.

"I WONDER if you could:

"(A) Reconcile these two statements;

"(B) Tell us whether or not the special prosecutor or any other prosecutor or agency of the United States Government has contacted you with reference to a perjury investigation of the statements; and

"(C) Tell us whether or not you have consulted and retained counsel in preparation for a defense against a possible perjury indictment?"

KISSINGER ICILY replied:

"I have not retained counsel, and I am not conducting my office as if it were a conspiracy. I stand on the statements that I have made and I will answer no further questions on this topic." In Salzburg, however, Kissinger did undertake to reconcile his statements about David Young, who had been appropriated from his staff by John Ehrlichman to become involved in the "Plumbers" operation which Kissinger denies he knew anything about.

The record is being set straight herein for one good reason. From Kissinger's discombobulation by a question containing academically irresponsible surmise rose a whole series of editorial attacks distracting Kissinger to the point of demanding that his honor be affirmed.

This does not reflect much credit on the way honorable public men are subjected to innuendo, defamation and attack in press conferences. Nor upon the way press conferences are being used as demolition sites for the good as well as the bad in the Nixon administration.

ASBURY PARK PRESS

Established 1879 as THE SHORE PRESS

J. Lyle Kinmonth, Editor, 1895-1945.

Wayne D. McMurray, Editor, 1945-1974

Ernest W. Lass
Publisher

Thomas B. Tighe
Editor

E. Donald Lass
Executive Editors

Jules L. Plangere, Jr.
General Manager

Thomas W. Jobson
Managing Editor

A22

Asbury Park, Thursday, June 13, 1974

## The Attack on Kissinger

NST

Perhaps Secretary of State KISSINGER was super-sensitive when he threatened to resign unless the questions of his involvement in a minor wiretap incident is resolved. Possibly he has a right to be. After almost five weeks of aggressive and yet delicate diplomacy that produced a cease-fire in the Middle East, the Secretary of State is now accompanying President NIXON on another, effort to promote amity among historically hostile nations. Despite his amazing stamina, Mr. KISSINGER must be weary, a condition that nourishes petulence. Moreover, there was ample justification for his emotional proposal to resign. In the brief interval between his missions to the Middle East he had earned applause for his tireless and promising diplomacy. But as though to drown out the cheers, he was confronted with a barrage of questions implying a degree of guilt in a trivial and legal wiretapping case. Even

though former Attorney General RICHARDSON said that Mr. KISSINGER "was not the originator, in the fundamental sense of the word, of any of these taps," the Secretary of State is still being hounded.

Mr. KISSINGER insists that the suspicions and innuendo to which he is being subjected question the credibility of his office and interfere with the performance of his duties. In other words, they are destructive of the national interest.

Most of those who insist on harassing Mr. KISSINGER express the hope that he will continue as the most effective secretary of state in recent history. They should sustain this hope by discontinuing their efforts to embarrass him. We do not imply that even a high-ranking statesman should be immune from charges of serious misconduct. But he should not be the target for a barrage of vapid imputation.

## Beyond the Prison Gates

For a variety of reasons there has been great reluctance on the part of publicly paid officials to grant taxpayers a clear view of publicly supported prisons. But the situation is beginning to improve, thanks to industrious newsmen, forward thinking politicians and those prison authorities who realize that exposure

government. The result has been highly limited access to the jails and prisoners, many of whom are awaiting trial, and subsequently a clouded view of what goes on behind the prison gates.

If effective prison reform is to be realized, the public must have an accurate picture of prison conditions.

CABINET MEMBER

Jack Anders

Inside the

The American people are entitled to know more about the historic grand jury which named President Nixon an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Watergate crimes.

The 23 grand jurors, selected from all walks of life, watched the Watergate drama develop behind guarded doors. They heard the secret testimony; they listened to the presidential tapes.

Four were absent when they met on March 1. The remaining 19 voted for the first time in history to accuse an American President of criminal conspiracy. Were they fair to Richard Nixon? Or were they out to get him, as he has said of his accusers?

We have broken through the secrecy, which has surrounded the Watergate grand jury. Inside sources have described the closed-door drama; we have had access to actual transcriptions. We are now

Bulletin

SAMUEL BOYLE and MALCOLM A. DEANS, Assistant Managing Editors.

CLAUDE LEWIS, Associate Editor

Vice Presidents - WILLIAM L. McLEAN, III,

ALBERT SPENDLOVE, JOSEPH G. ELLIOTT, RICHARD W. CARPENTER,

JACK BETSON, Circulation Director; RICHARD POWERS, Production Manager; REGINALD BEAUCHAMP, Assistant to the President; JOHN A. FLYNN, Treasurer.

48

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1974

A

Keep things in focus

## Dr. Kissinger's ordeal

Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger's emotional outburst in Austria — including his threat to resign — was the entirely human reaction of a man momentarily goaded beyond endurance.

Here was a man who, for 34 grueling days, single-handedly carried out the most exacting and exhausting form of diplomacy and who achieved at least the making of a miracle in the Mideast.

Only months before, even the thought of the tentative accord Dr. Kissinger worked out between Israel and its Arab neighbors would have been dismissed as an impossible dream. Yet, an agreement bringing the disengagement of Israeli, Egyptian and Syrian troops had been reached and Dr. Kissinger very naturally showed great satisfaction in his achievement.

While he was given the credit he deserved, and undoubtedly expected, in many quarters for this, Dr. Kissinger also found himself the target of public suspicion and criticism — much of it from unidentified sources — for the part he played back in 1969 in the placing of FBI wiretaps on the telephone conversations of 13 government officials and three newsmen.

These wiretaps, it ought to be kept in mind, grew out of the concern of Dr. Kissinger, then President Nixon's principal adviser on national security, over the "leaking" of what he regarded as critical national security material.

Although the distinction seems to have been lost on some, those wiretaps and the leaks which aroused Dr. Kissinger's personal concern have not been linked to the shameful political and other "Watergate" crimes which have stained so many others in the White House.

Now, long afterwards and as he was accompanying President Nixon on an unprecedented visit to Middle East capitals in an effort to consolidate the gains made in his own mission, Dr. Kissinger found that the wiretaps authorized in 1969 to detect leaks of official information threatened to overshadow everything else. A press conference

last Thursday, upon his return from the Middle East, became what Dr. Kissinger described as a "cross-examination" on the wiretaps. He was asked if he had retained a lawyer to defend himself against possible charges of perjury in testimony he gave the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on his role in these wiretaps.

Dr. Kissinger requested that the Senate committee reexamine the testimony he gave in this regard and it is fitting that the committee has agreed. It would be beneficial for the committee to finally clear the air of the confusion that has developed over the entire matter. It may be impossible to determine just who specifically requested that the wiretaps be instituted. Dr. Kissinger insists that he did not, but explains that he cooperated in the operation once it was officially ordered, and knew nothing of the spy team of White House "Plumbers."

Dr. Kissinger is not above open criticism or accusation. If there are flaws let them be brought out: But he should not be made the victim of any misdirected drive to bring down anyone with a White House connection. He has been too good and faithful a public servant for such treatment, and there is a need now to keep things in focus and to remember that what is at stake could well be the first real peace in years.

I well recall a number ago a man hauling over a road with a pair of horses good puller and another less quently getting stuck in a and whipping the good horse him out.

I have often wondered if not a parallel here presen governor proposes to add tax to gasoline to repair Pennsylvania, especially as so much money given to ab men for relief.

Perhaps the cost of poth in the highways is over 9 labor from the time the used is taken from the

## Street choristers brighten scenes at City Hall

I would like to share a and unexpected treat ex on a Saturday afternoon sing through City Hall Cour

As I drew near the opera center, I was surprised voices singing in beauti- anced harmony, unaccomp- in perfect pitch, what sou- Gregorian chant.

A group of 15 young male and female stan- mally in a half circle with members conducting, ga- hour concert of chorales rigals of the pre-Bach pe- r simply and in perfect taste-

Then the leader announ- they were the Renaissan- Singers of New York, and etly moved on. After some- ing, I learned that the pre- the group's activities was provided by the wander- strels of medieval times, ti- ing the pleasure of hearing music to those who had lit- tunity of hearing it otherw- a wonderful idea!

Judging by the express- prised pleasure on the fa- passersby who remained and applaud, this concert was a success.

## Praises are sure

Frederick Ulmer's recei- in the Philadelphia. Bu- symphony from the bird- bright and shining descrip- ture all around us, in morning hours, of a dawn-

I enjoyed reading it and an early riser about 5:00 not earlier as he wrote hour it is great to be aliv- serve and absorb the fre- growing things in the ga-

The Miami Herald

JOHN S. KNIGHT, Editorial Chairman

JAMES L. KNIGHT, Chairman

LEE HILLS, Publisher ALVAH H. CHAPMAN, Jr., President

DON SHOEMAKER, Editor BEVERLY R. CARTER, Gen. Mgr.

GEORGE BEEBE, Associate Publisher

LARRY JINKS, Executive Editor

JOHN D. PENNEKAMP, Associate Editor

RON MARTIN, Managing Editor

6-A

Friday, June 14, 1974

LETTERS TO

$20 P

# Dr. Kissinger and the Nation Are Entitled to Full Truth

NST

SMALL wonder it is that most of Washington and nearly all of the nation have hastened to console Secretary of State Kissinger in his anxiety over a challenge to his personal integrity.

He has done the impossible by bringing diplomatic artistry to play on the most troubled area of the world. In the very midst of his triumph he was not allowed to enjoy it in full but was compelled, or felt he was compelled, to answer to accusations that he was less than candid in testimony given to the Senate at the time of his confirmation.

President Nixon could, of course, settle the threat of resignation by announcing that he would not accept it in any circumstances. To his administration as to the national interest, Henry Kissinger comes close to being what really cannot exist, and that is the indispensable man.

Unfortunately, the whole matter is tilting out of perspective. Dr. Kissinger has highly vocal enemies at both political extremes and in between. Some cannot forgive him for defrosting the Cold War through detente with China and Russia. Others, including some of its victims, consider wiretapping an attack upon their integrity, too. The man in the middle must now ask for the truth and hope that it is not delayed.

Diplomacy is political action abroad and political action must be based on a coordination of morality and power. Dr. Kissinger has shown the Middle East

how the power of logic can overcome hatred and fear, and he has been successful in part because he has behind him the physical strength of a great nation which has established itself, by itself, as the custodian of peace in the Middle East.

Yet the question of morality will not be spirited away by threats of resignation and by reorchestrating the caterwauls of anti-media politicians, including Florida's Sen. Edward Gurney who is in a predicament of his own. On our Viewpoint Page today we carry an article from Knight Newspapers Washington Bureau explaining how Dr. Kissinger's concern about "unnamed sources" and "selective leaking" derives not from some newsman's biased imagination but, from official records.

It is a misfortune that these records are supposedly locked in equally official secrecy. We said long ago that the closed House hearings on impeachment inevitably would produce leaks and would be subject to distortion. Such are the uses of secrecy — as the Nixon administration has practiced it in Watergate, too.

Thus it is imperative to let it all hang out, for the nation cannot trifle with morality if it is to be true to its noble origins. We cannot believe other than that Henry Kissinger will be strengthened by the search and discovery of truth, with everything set in perspective, and sent on his way to further service to his country.

"You think you've seen the best of it? ... You ain't seen much of it. Those were the words just as me at my neighborhood service by its manager when I got my car filled up. It should come as no surprise he was referring to last year's gas crisis. The glut predicting without foundation in fact.

The windfall profits announced by the major oil companies (cases, over 100 per cent) have put to work not for future action as they would have used

## New High or Our Still a Crutch?

It is indeed strange that countries, which for years have not been this drug illegal. Do they know that the proponents of marijuana do not know? Isn't it strange when other nations have not mined that marijuana is a danger to the well-being of their countries, is now time to make it available to the citizens of the United States.

We do not need legal controls. We need people who are capable of standing on their own two feet, not look for a "way out" as a problem. I feel sorry for people trying to justify their use of drugs because of their inability to control alcohol is bad (and legal) as a letter writer complains, should then legalize all drugs that need for a high? Better that should be taught that any temporary and when you come all the problems that induced the need for high are still with them.

In drug counseling, we use pression that you must "turn kid's head around." Don't confuse alcohol and marijuana. Just tell me that they can live well w

Patrick Owellis

The Honorable Mr. Kissinger

Henry Kissinger, the Chancellor from Graustark, is finally in trouble with the press. It is big trouble. It was started by a magazine the Columbia Journalism Review, that most people outside the news business have never heard of. And it has led Kissinger to the bizarre demand that his "honor" be officially confirmed. If it isn't, he says, he'll resign.

If honor is understood to encompass honesty, Kissinger is going to have hard going. He has been backing off his original claims of innocence for more than a year. And, like any Prince Charming forcefully notified that Snow White is really a strumpet, the press is having at him for its own sins of infatuation.

"Nowhere is the admiration of Henry Kissinger more apparent than in the blurb-like superlatives of his press clippings," Roger Morris, a former Kissinger aide, writes in the latest Columbia Journalism Review. Morris marvels at, and documents, the "separate peace" that Kissinger, uniquely among the Nixonites, has made with the press.

Stung by this, and confronted with certain news developments, the press has suddenly declared open season on Kissinger. In particular it is gnawing hard on an old bone, Kissinger's involvement in the wiretapping, from 1969 into 1971, of his subordinates and journalists. On this issue, the public record is available, and it is no comfort whatever to Kissinger. Very briefly, and with a number of interesting side issues ignored, here it is:

May 15, 1973—In an interview with R. W. Apple published in the New York Times, Kissinger acknowledges for the first time that he conferred with J. Edgar Hoover on the problem of leaks of national security information. Apple quotes Kissinger as "certain that he did not 'ask for any particular form of investigation or ask that any particular individual be investigated.' " This quote goes undenied and unrepudiated.

May 29, 1973—Kissinger tells a press briefing at the White House that his "office" had supplied the names of his staff members whose phones were tapped. Asked what he meant by "office," he said he himself was responsible.

Sept. 7, 1973—Kissinger testifies before the Senate.

Foreign Relations Committee that he agreed to the wiretapping on the advice of Hoover and John Mitchel, then the attorney general. "I had been in government only four months and it didn't occur to me to question the judgment of these individuals," he explained. The committee chucked the question of Kissinger's involvement around, like a rattler at a convention of snake handlers, for several days. It got hints that Kissinger was more deeply involved than he had said he was. But it didn't pursue them with much zeal.

Thursday, June 6, 1974—Kissinger acknowledges a role in starting the wiretaps but insists, "I did not make a direct recommendation" that they be carried out.

Tuesday, June 11—Kissinger insists on absolution or resignation and explains: "... my office did not initiate any requests for wiretaps that were not triggered either by a security violation or by [other National Security] criteria...."

In one year and 28 days, he had moved from a denial that he had asked for any wiretaps to a denial that any of the wiretaps he'd asked for had been for reasons other than national security. And he had coupled this last denial with the demand that his honor be affirmed else he would abandon the conduct of our foreign affairs to less able and (we are to assume) less honest men.

(The entire controversy was avoidable. Kissinger initially denied involvement in the wiretaps to avoid

the embarrassment of acknowledging his role in initiating them. As I've written before, no invasion of privacy by the Nixonites is so understandable as this one. Reports of deliberations on the most sensitive questions of foreign policy and national security were finding their way into the press. Any administration would have been frantic to plug such leaks. But Kissinger didn't want to offend civil-libertarian academics. So he denied everything initially and continues to deny as much as remains deniable.)

On the evidence so far available, Kissinger cannot be said to have committed the offense of perjury in his appearances before the Foreign Relations Committee last September, when his nomination to be secretary of state was under consideration. Committee members did not press him fiercely about the tapes, or much of anything else, on those occasions. But it is clear enough that Kissinger did weasel and equivocate. He told less than he knew and took less responsibility than belonged in his lap.

Kissinger had not been honest about the tapes before his confirmation hearings, he was not honest during them, and he has not been honest since. He has, to be sure, edged closer and closer to honesty, under the press of disclosures which have implicated him more and more deeply. But his chain-link cycle of ac knowledgments hardly sustain his claim to "honor." They indicate, instead, that in his heart he has no more faith in the democratic process or commitment to candor than any other member of the Nixon crowd.

'In one year and 28 days, he had moved from a denial that he had asked for any wiretaps to a denial that any of the wiretaps he'd asked for had been for reasons other than national security.'

Newsday 6-13-74

99

Journal Star

A-6

PEORIA, ILLINOIS, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1974

CONTINUING

The Peoria Transcript

The Peoria Journal

The Peoria Star

Established 1855

Established 1877

Established 1897

Kissinger Resign?

Even had he spoken without tears in his eyes and a voice with a tendency to break, Henry Kissinger would have been totally believable when he said it would be impossible to conduct foreign policy in the climate being created and that hence he would resign if these constant queries about possible wiretaps on his part aren't concluded.

It ought to be settled one way or another and put behind us, and it is a rather oddly manipulated business in the first place. What happened isn't really all that obscure. It just provides a gimmick for endless harassment.

This latest comment by Kissinger reminds us that in response to a question he previously said that if Mr. Nixon resigned (or was removed) he would leave government also— for the same reason. He simply said he couldn't function effectively under those conditions.

Some thought should be given to this basic reality and its potential political impact.

Henry Kissinger has behind him the most remarkable series of diplomatic coups in modern history. He has thus far been a winner all the way. The man has no reason to imperil that record and work under adverse conditions.

He can quit and play it safe. If he quits while he's ahead, as the saying goes, where does that leave him and the rest of us?

It leaves him as an international mirade man, almost.

Where does it leave the rest of us? Why, most certainly with or without Mr. Kissinger we are going to get into trouble again. We will inevitably, sooner or later—and probably sooner—face new crises of one kind or another.

With Mr. K. on the sidelines, it would be a safe bet that both the American people and the leaders of other countries involved in crisis are going to set up a world wide cry of "if" regarding Kissinger.

"If Kissinger were in Washington, we wouldn't be in this mess!" and "If Kissinger were here, we could work this out!"

He has now such an enviable record that nobody not even Kissinger, himself, can successfully compete with it. And if he quits, he doesn't have to! But God help his successor!

Consider in turn, either way, what that means in 1976!

What candidate for President will be able to claim he can have the help of Henry Kissinger? And what political effect would a Kissinger-candidate alliance have?

If Kissinger resigns on his present record—unscarred—immense!

That will be the case also, of course, if Kissinger stays on the job—and doesn't stub his toe.

It is a unique situation, already.

What makes it really potent is that there isn't a thing manipulative about Kissinger's work-or-quit situation.

He has no reason to ruin his record by working under conditions that he regards as unworkable. Importantly, those conditions for him are somewhat different than in some other cases.

Kissinger will not sign on as the figure-head for a President making foreign policy, obviously. Neither is it possible for Mr. Kissinger to make foreign policy over a President's head. No pledge of independence, even, would be worth a hoot. The President is the President.

Hence, what is required is what now clearly exists—a view of the world and the realities of what goes into a successful foreign policy that is shared by the President and Mr. Kissinger. They have to think alike.

It is significant that Henry Kissinger did not intend to accept Mr. Nixon's offer and appointment in the first place, and only did so after hours of conversation with Mr. Nixon in which he discovered their "world views" were, indeed, remarkably of the same texture—that they understood each other very well.

This makes resignation credible, and future employment highly selective.

Politically it strongly suggests that severe critics of Kissinger's foreign policy in the Vietnam days—before it worked so spectacularly in so many fields—could likely never go into a convention with the prospect of having Mr. K. as their foreign policy chief.

Indeed, the only fellow who could be reasonably sure of it besides Nixon, himself, would be Nelson Rockefeller whose adviser Kissinger was before Nixon on hired him.

It adds an unusual note to the whole political brew and may explain, also, why some people would like to smear Kissinger any way they can.

He's a threat, a genuine threat, to the political ambitions of a number of Democrats and Republicans alike.

But what his enemies of that sort had best recognize is that if Henry quits while he is ahead, he becomes a bigger threat to their ambitions than ever!

And Henry knows it!

C.L.Dancey

v078nl
v078

r

4

salzburg-kissinger lead

kissinger was referring to allegations stemming from reports he had ordered wiretaps on administration officials who had access to national security documents that were leaked to the press.

in his confirmation hearings before the senate foreign relations committee sept. 15-17, kissinger denied ordering the taps.

he said then he had provided the names of officials who had access to the documents, but had not suggested the taps nor did he ever order them used.

he also said he had received only infrequent reports of the taps and then only for 10 months. this all took place when he was president nixon's national security adviser.

tapes of conversations between nixon and other officials recently heard in the house judiciary committee supposedly quoted the president as saying kissinger had initiated some wiretaps.

kissinger told a news conference last week the president must have been under some +misapprehension+ or the tape was unclear.

however, at that news conference he changed his version slightly by saying he had never +directly+ ordered any wiretaps. (more)

as1351gmt jun11-74

v081 n l
v081

r

5

salzburg -- kissinger lead

kissinger disclosed he had sent a letter to sen. j. william fulbright, democrat-arkansas, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, suggesting that the panel reopen its hearings on the wire tap controversy.

he said he would break off from president's nixon middle east trip and return to washington to testify if necessary.

asked if he would withdraw his threat to resign if fulbright's committee gave him a +clean bill of health,+ kissinger responded: +yes+

he said there might be other ways to quiet the controversy, but did not specifically suggest any.

during a senate foreign relations committee hearing on foreign aid last week, kissinger again repeated his earlier statements. some committee members suggested it might be necessary to reopen the matter, if only to support the secretary's statements.

with aides only explaining that the secretary +wanted to get some things off his chest+, kissinger summoned newsmen to the 18th century guest house on short notice.

facing a crowd of correspondents and a bank of cameras in a high-ceilined drawing room, kissinger spoke extemporaneously for more than a half hour, then answered questions for another 30 minutes. (more)

fc/ft1402mgmt June-11-74