Tom Braden

WASHINGTON POST - 22 AUG. 1972

PAGE 19

War II.

# McGovern's Zig-Zag on Briefings

SEN. GEORGE McGOVERN is a little bit worried about the effect of his refusal to accept a briefing from Henry Kissinger.

McGovern's staff is worried, too. They do not want it to appear that McGovern is unwilling to listen to the facts. But neither do they want Kissinger or President Nixon to be able to criticize McGovern for campaign statements which they might allege are based on secret briefings.

It was this last reason which caused McGovern to turn down the presidential offer. If his refusal seems to evoke a negative public reaction, McGovern can still accept the Kissinger briefing. Meanwhile, he has designated Paul Warnke, formerly deputy to Clark M. Clifford, President Lyndon B. Johnson's last secretary of defense, to accept the briefing on his behalf.

Circumstances indicate, however, that McGovern underwent several changes of heart about the Kissinger briefing. Originally, McGovern accepted the invitation and a date was set in his Senate office. That had to be canceled because it

was scheduled during the week when the nominee was occupied with the Eagleton affair and with choosing a new running mate. Kissinger then suggested another date and got the Warnke nomination in reply.

IT WAS President Nixon's idea that Kissinger should brief McGovern at the beginning of the campaign and that thereafter the job should be taken over by the Central Intelligence Agency director, Richard Helms. Briefings by the CIA have been given to presidential candidates not in office since 1952. In that year, CIA's Office of Current Intelligence briefed candidates Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. In 1956, the same office briefed Stevenson. In 1960, CIA Director Allen W. Dulles personally briefed candidates Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. In 1964, Republican candidate Barry Goldwater declined to be briefed. But the pattern was restored in 1968 for both Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace though Director Helms did not carry on the Dulles

precedent of doing the job himself.

McGovern's change of mind about the Kissinger briefing avoided what might have been an embarrassing confrontation. It is difficult to imagine Kissinger telling McGovern about the quantity of bombs dropped on Vietnam during a given week without provoking McGovern's sense of outrage.

The senator from South Dakota believes that the Nixon-Kissinger policy of trying to hammer North Vietnam into accepting their terms by turning the country into a bomb pit is immoral. Moreover, he thinks it will not work.

IN ADDITION, he is suspicious of Kissinger's frequent trips to Paris. He sees them as a sign of desperation. If North Vietnam has not accepted President Nixon's terms by October, McGovern thinks it possible that the President and Kissinger will soften their terms, perhaps to the point of tossing South Vietnam's President Thieu overboard. Thus the President could go before the electorate having fulfilled his promise to end

the war. His terms would be McGovern's terms, camouflaged no doubt by language. In any event, such a move would destroy one of McGovern's principal campaign issues and might destroy his chance of getting elected.

So much for the way McGovern sees Kissinger. Kissinger, on the other hand, views McGovern as the man who stands beween himself and a negotiated settlement. The President's latest terms are the best that have ever been offered. Kissinger expected North Vietnam to accept them. Kissinger believes that the only reason the enemy continues to refuse them is the possibility that George McGovern will be elected and offer better terms.

McGovern and Kissinger are acquaintances who see each other occasionally in Washington. But events have made them natural enemies. Each believes that the other is dead wrong. Each believes that the other is secretly plotting his downfall. Under the circumstances, perhaps it is just as well that a formal confrontation will not take place.

© 1972, Los Angeles Times

3

WALL STREET JOURNAL
22 AUGUST 1972 P-14

Textron Pentagon Sales
Of Helicopters Off 50%
Since '68 Vietnam Peak

*By a WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter*

NEW YORK — Textron Inc.'s sale of Bell helicopters to the U.S. military has sagged about 50%, or $220 million a year, since the peak of the Vietnam war in 1968, G. William Miller, president, told the New York Society of Security Analysts.

But he said commercial and foreign helicop-
ter sales rose in that period by about 40%, to
approximately $100 million, based on expected
1972 figures.

And he repeated his prediction made at the
Textron annual meeting in May that this year's
net will exceed the record $76.1 million, or $2.14
a share, of 1969. Last year the company earned
$71.8 million, or $2.06 a share.

But Mr. Miller declined to forecast specific
results, and instead invited the analysts to a
a guessing contest. The analysts were asked to
submit predictions of the company's 1973 per-
share earnings rise, to the nearest tenth of a
percent, on paper ballots the company passed
out. The prize for the winner: a complete set
of the company's new Gorham china.

Mr. Miller also disclosed that Textron had purchased on the open market 300,000 of its own shares, offsetting part of the 1.8 million shares the concern issued in its recent acquisition of American Research & Development Corp. He said the company hopes to purchase a full 1.8 million shares to eliminate any dilution of equity.

Robert S. Ames, president of American Re-
search and senior vice president of Textron,
said American Research will sell "in due
time" certain "nonventure" stock holdings, but

NEW YORK TIMES

22 AUGUST 1972 P-40

Undeclared War Is
Not Unconstitutional

To the Editor:

Your editorial ["The Real Issue,"
July 31] purports to rely on an article
by Professor Alexander M. Bickel, but
it misreads that article. Professor
Bickel does not contend, as you do,
that the war in Vietnam is unconstitu-
tional because Congress failed to pass
a resolution "declaring" that a state
of war exists between the United
States and North Vietnam.

Professor Bickel fully accepts the
fact that the United States, like every
other nation, has the capacity under
international law to engage both in
"declared" wars, invoking the law of
war, and signalling maximum hos-
tility, and in limited, "undeclared"
Wars, involving the measured use of
force in time of peace for the purpose
of redressing violations of international
law. The Supreme Court made it clear
as early as 1800 that the Constitution
fully respected the distinction between
"declared" and limited wars in inter-
national law.

Professor Bickel's thesis is quite
different. He argues that the Tonkin
Gulf Resolution, which put Congress
behind the President's interpretation
of the SEATO Treaty, was unconstitu-
tional because it involved an excessive
delelegation of legislative power to the
President. According to Professor

Bickel's theory, the Javits Bill, which
you supported, would also be uncon-
stitutional, for it contemplates the
possibility that both treaties and Con-
gressional resolutions could be enacted,
if they specifically authorized the
President to use force in the future.
In any event, Professor Bickel's theory
is contrary to a consistent pattern of
practice going back to Washington's
first Administration, and to all the
judicial precedents on the subject,
starting with Justice Story's opinion
in Martin v. Mott.

The "real issue" about Vietnam in
the campaign, as Senator Cooper has
said, is that responsible leaders of
opinion should not rewrite history.
Through the SEATO Treaty, and suc-
cessive votes of Congress and deci-
sions of the President, reaffirming its
policies for many years, the nation
did commit itself to a line of policy
which many now regret, and wish to
change. Those decisions were not
made secretly, behind closed doors.
They were made by Presidents and
Congress after extended debate, and
fully understood and supported by
public opinion at the time. We only
confuse and deceive ourselves by pre-
tending that these events never hap-
pened, or can be exorcised as uncon-
stitutional and void.

EUGENE V. ROSTOW

New Haven, Conn., Aug. 10, 1972
The writer served as Under Secretary
of State for Political Affairs, 1966-69,
and is now Sterling Professor of Law
and Public Affairs at Yale Law School.

he didn't say which affiliates he considered
nonventure.

Mr. Miller announced that Textron had
completed its acquisition of Valentine Holdings

Ltd., an Australian publisher of greeting cards,
business forms and other printed products. The
previously announced price was about $10.8
million.

4

Sada said that his many
speeches throughout last year
in that their interests in the
Middle East were threatened.

all the SAM-3 crews,
stopped their activities."

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, FEB. 25, 1972

Irving Wallace

An interview
with Kissinger

By Irving Wallace

Special to The Sun-Times

MIAMI BEACH — "Well, what did you think of the Republican Convention?" Henry Kissinger asked me.

IRVING WALLACE

Kissinger and I were sharing a post-convention breakfast Thursday morning in the bright yellow living room of his Villa 72, overlooking the water on the grounds of the Key Biscayne Hotel.

"I was about to ask you," I said. "I thought it was slick, smooth, dull, more like a television

show than a political gathering. It lacked conflict. I thought you'd have invented some to make it more interesting. But a lot of people said they enjoyed it."

Kissinger nodded. "Yes, there was nothing unexpected. Personally, I thought the Democratic Convention was better. More exciting to watch. But they've done poorly ever since."

"Do you still think Nixon will be re-elected in November?"

I had first posed this question to Kissinger at a private dinner party in Beverly Hills where we had met some months ago and he had talked intimately for a good part of four or five hours to my wife and myself. At that time, he thought President Nixon's chances for re-election were "very good." I felt Mr. Nixon might be vulnerable on "the economic issue" this fall.

Kissinger said he didn't know much about economics, but listening to economists around the White House he'd heard there was going to be an upsurge in the stock market this year "and things are going to be great."

Thursday morning he felt even more confident of a Nixon victory. "I feel sure the President will win," he said.

I reminded Kissinger that in our first talk he had assessed the various Democratic candidates. He had found Sen. Edmund Musko indecisive, unable to make decisions about even little things. He had thought Sen. Hubert Humphrey the warmest of the Democrats, "although he suffers from a major weakness, the necessity to have to be loved by everybody." He had known Sen. Edward M. Kennedy the best, and believed Kennedy was really waiting for 1976 when there would be no incumbent to run against. We had not even bothered to discuss Sen. George McGovern.

"Now can we talk about George McGovern?" I asked.

"Certainly," said Kissinger. "But I don't want you to quote me on McGovern. You can attribute what I say to 'some friend said' or 'some source said.'"

Very well. Some source talked about McGovern. I can't say more.

An 'independent'

"You once told me, Dr. Kissinger, you were not a Republican, that you were really a Democrat, that you had worked for more Democrats than Republicans—"

Kissinger interrupted, "I'm not a Demo-

crat. I'm not a Republican, either. I'm an independent."

"All right. Since you consider yourself an Independent, what if Sen. McGovern beat Nixon on this fall and became President. Do you think you could become a foreign policy adviser to him, if he invited you?"

Kissinger gave me an owlish look. "Possibly. But I wouldn't want it, really. It just wouldn't be right after all the foreign policy planning I've done for President Nixon. Of course, I'd always be available to help him in any way I could."

"To get back to Nixon," I said. "I remember my wife telling you how worried she would be if Nixon were re-elected."

Kissinger smiled briefly. "Ah, your wife, I like her. She's bright and attractive."

"She told you that perhaps Nixon was doing a lot of good things that he didn't truly believe in because he was conscious of public opinion now, of responding to the people, so that he

could be re-elected. Then my wife said to you, "But heaven help us if he is re-elected and doesn't have to worry about public opinion and can do the things he really believes in." You disagreed. You felt Nixon would be just as responsive to public opinion in a second term. Do you want to talk about that some more?"

"I haven't changed my mind," Kissinger said. "Any fears about the President's second term, with no governor on him, fears about hisesenating the war or whatever, are groundless. I see absolutely no problem. In fact, I believe if President Nixon wins a second term he'll be even more conscious of his responsibility to serve and serve well. I truly think he could devote even more time to his job."

A difference noted

As we chatted along over breakfast for almost an hour-and-a-half, I became more and more aware of how different Kissinger was

here in Key Biscayne from the way I had found him at the Beverly Hills dinner party several months ago. On that social occasion — Joanne Carson, Johnny Carson's ex had been his date — Kissinger had been easier, freer, almost charming. He had been eager to prove to us he was not Mr. Nixon's man, but his own man. He had been alert, personal, unguard ed.

On that occasion, my wife had been sufficiently taken in by him to spontaneously put an arm around him and say, "I like you a good deal, and I don't know how in the hell I'm going to explain it to my son."

When she added that our son had been a Maoist, Kissinger had said, "I have nothing against anyone being a Maoist. Tell your son I like Maoists very much. I like Mao and I'm attracted to the Chinese. I've spent more time at least 55 hours with them than your

Turn to Page 55

16 Part I—Mon., Aug. 28, 1972

Los Angeles Times ★

# NIXON'S STARS

Continued from First Page

Graham came in a black jacket and checked gray trousers.

Asked if he would be neutral in this campaign, Mr. Graham said: "Let's just say I'm leaning." He is an old friend of the President, which is why he was invited to the reception for entertainers, a White House spokesman explained.

When the party was well under way, Mr. Nixon arrived and spoke for about 10 minutes. He thanked those of his guests who had appeared at the White House ("and not even be able to deduct it from your taxes"), and promised the rest that they would get the chance over the next four years.

"We now have our own projection set in the White House," he said. "That's one of the reasons I ran again." He likes movies, he repeated, but not the X-rated ones. "We had an R one night and I said:

"That's as far as you can go.'"

Others invited included Desi Arnaz, singer Eddie Fisher, June Allyson, Judy Canova, Bob Crosby, Vic Damone, Mrs. Sammy Davis Jr., Jimmy Durante, Connie Francis, Bonita Granville, Virginia Grey, Susan Hayward, Lanie Kazan, Sammy Kaye, Gail Patrick, Victor Jory, bandleader Lester Lanin, William Lundigan, Jimmy Stewart, Red Skelton and Tex Ritter.

A Response for Henry Kissinger

Continued from First Page

must say in addition—and
I do not say it in any way
to detract from your affec-
tion—that you seem to
have been equally attract-
ed by the power of the
man.

Highly intelligent wom-
en seem to have a magnet-
ic attraction for men who
wield power—and we both
know that Henry wields
as much power in Wash-
ington as any other man—
with the exception of
R.M.N.

I saw the film you did on
Henry for French televi-
sion and I admired its
qualities of sensibility and
understanding for the
kind of man Henry is and
the enormous pressures he
faces.

But, frankly, the part of
the book I admired most
had nothing to do with the
love story. One-way love
stories have never ap-
pealed to me very much.

It was your description
of the inner workings of
the White House that fas-
cinated me the most. Here
was the picture the public
rarely gets of men at work
under the most difficult of
circumstances. But not
just ordinary men.

The fate of the planet is
in their hands. It is a riddle of life or death, wheth-

er they realize it or not
(and, unfortunately, some
do not realize it but con-
sider it like a game of
chess). Thousands of peo-
ple will not die in Viet-
nam, Biafra or in Ban-
gladesh, walls will not be
built in Berlin, or the most
powerful persons in China
will not be killed on the
outcome of the Fisch-
er/Spassky match, but all
of those things can happen
as a result of the kind of
advice people like Henry,
or Walt or McGeorge give.

To peer behind the doors
where they make those de-
cisions and to see them at
work as you have done
from your unusual van-
tage point is important for
all of those who have not
been there.

The White House—for
better or for worse—is
unique in the world. You
cannot walk through its
doors, even if you do so for
a period of time, without
feeling you are somewhere
special. That quality of the
White House came
through clearly in your
letter to Henry. I found
his suggestion that you
should get the Pulitzer
Prize for fiction most un-
just.

I also found fascinating
your description of Hen-

ry's early life and how a
poor boy, born in Germa-
ny, an immigrant to this
country, could rise to a po-
sition of such influence
and power in his adopted
country before he was 50
years old.

Anyway, I am glad you
put your letter to Henry in
the form of a book. It
would have been too bad
to waste such a fascinating
document in a private mis-
sive to a man who ob-
viously didn't appreciate
it.

I assure you that if the
unpredictable arrives and
G.S.McG. beats R.M.N.
you will be invited back
for another look. Your
talents and personality
should not be wasted.

From Henry, and par-
ticularly from me,

Best regards,
PIERRE SALINGER

PS: After I had left the
White House and during
the brief time I was a ju-
nior senator from Califor-
nia with a position not
nearly as powerful as Hen-
ry's, a young French jour-
nalist came to interview
me. I ended up marrying
her. It was the best deci-
sion I ever made. That's
why I really feel sorry for
Henry.

PIERRE S.

August 27, 1972

LOS ANGELES TIMES

Sunday, August 13, 1972 Philadelphia Inquirer 7-F

# Besides a Book, What Did She See in Kissinger?

By SALLY QUINN
*Special to The Inquirer*
*And Washington Post*

WASHINGTON. — Danielle Hunebelle is worried that Henry Kissinger might be upset over the book she wrote about her relationship with him.

The 49-year-old French woman, who is widely respected as a journalist, editor and filmmaker, wrote "Dear Henry," in which she tells how, in the process of interviewing the President's national security adviser, she fell in love.

There are those who have accused Miss Hunebelle of writing the book for money and publicity, saying she is another Clifford Irving and the book is a fraud. After several hours with her, it seems more plausible that she is after something else. Henry.

ACTUALLY, Kissinger and Miss Hunebelle have spent little time together. She interviewed him over a two-year period, first for an article, then for a TV documentary, and there were a few lunches and dinners, some phone calls and letters. She admits her love was unrequited.

Miss Hunebelle wrote the 224-page book in 12 days, between July 14 and July 28, 1971. It started out as a letter, was provoked by Kissinger's visit to Paris on his way back from Vietnam because he failed to call her.

"This is the only intimate

portrait of Henry Kissinger in the world," she says. "He told me that I was the only one in the world who really understood him."

DANIELLE Hunebelle is a woman whose professional career has been exemplary. To write a book like "Dear Henry," which would make her a laughing stock in some quarters, Miss Hunebelle had to have been convinced, however incredible it may seem, that she was really in love with Henry Kissinger. She is a woman with a creative, imaginative mind and she has obviously created a relationship with this man.

"I'm the world's Henry Kissinger expert, believe me," she says. "He is a man full of contradictions. He is dechire (torn apart). He has a tremendous debt to Nixon. Who else would have put him in the White House? He is half soldier, half monk. He puts his entire pride in loyalty. I suppose he is more clever than Nixon. He's not cruel, but you know..." she declares with great authority, "He is a dictator in spite of himself. He suffers no competition in his field and in my opinion that is a mistake. Also, I've never met a man who knows less about women than Henry. I still adore him. He is still a part of me. I was not scorned by him. I have all the men in my life I could want," she says.

WHAT IT WAS about Henry that appealed to Miss Hunebelle is a complex matter and one that she herself is still contemplating. "His personality is so strong and yet he is so shy," she says. "It is the combination of his innocence and his Machiavellianism." But even she admits that after their first uneventful dinner date, "nothing had happened except in my head." Sources say Henry Kissinger would go along with this.

Miss Hunebelle says the first question everybody always asks her is: "Did you go to bed with Henry Kissinger?"

"I always ask them," she says with a certain prudery, "if they are doing research for the Kinsey report."

Since Danielle Hunebelle decided long ago she would never marry, what would she have

wanted out of a relationship with Henry Kissinger anyway? She has two daughters, 14 and 16, each by different fathers.

"My life is built about two or three close relationships with men. If one dies, I will die. They are like pillars to me. I wanted Henry to become one of them. Maybe I feel a sisterly feeling for him. Because I am not sexually attracted to him, I never expected this to happen to me. Any relationship is a creation if it's a success. It's much more important than a marriage."

"I'm the world's Henry Kissinger expert, believe me. He is a man full of contradictions... He is half soldier, half monk... He is a dictator in spite of himself... Also, I've never met a man who knows less about women..."

—Danielle Hunebelle

To enjoy TV more, get the Sunday Inquirer's TV WEEK. It's a complete television magazine in a convenient top-of-the-set size. It's the best thing on TV.

B-N3ch, and All That Stuff

Members of The Times editorial board were unanimous in agreeing that proper notice should be taken in these columns of the victory by Bobby Fischer over Boris Spassky for the world chess championship, but having reached that meeting of minds we ran into trouble. The chess players among us promptly took off for a long Labor Day weekend. Among the editorial writers who were left none knows much about chess; to be perfectly blunt, none knows a damned thing about it. (Such ignorance of a subject, we can hear some readers say, has never stood in our way before, but we will let that pass.) The problem we faced was how to salute a champion in a game whose rules, tactics and object are to us completely mysterious.

Oh, we had tried to understand, dutifully following all the reports from Reykjavik, at least down to the point where those funny numbers and letters started to show up—RxR, B-N3ch, R-B3, that sort of stuff. Chess players, we are told, are able instantly to grasp the intellectual strength and grace of these symbols, to comprehend their deepest implications. To our mind, alas, the little code has all the charm of a formula in organic chemistry, which we don't understand either. For all we knew and still know the Sicilian Defense was a moat dug around Palermo in some ancient war, and R-B3 is a new ingredient in toothpaste.

The only glimmer we got was when it came out that Henry Kissinger had talked to Fischer on the telephone, an act that invested the proceedings in Reykjavik with an undoubted if still obscure political significance. Perhaps Kissinger sent in a play, as Mr. Nixon did once with the Miami Dolphins. Perhaps he too, like us, was simply trying to find out what was going on.

Well, anyway, it's all over now, and the new champion is an American, and he has collected a

kitty of $150,000, and that, as they say in Iceland, ain't codfish. We are pleased for Bobby Fischer. Rumor has it that he is not exactly known as Mr. Nice Guy, but he was in a chess match, not a popularity contest, and the decisive consideration was brilliance, not personality. And so, admitting that we are part of the bewildered majority of Americans to whom chess is a baffling puzzle, we congratulate him, though secretly wishing we knew what it was all about.

Brazilians in the Dark

O Estado do Sao Paulo is the one major newspaper in Brazil that has consistently defied and ignored the military government's vague but heavy-handed rules of censorship. Politically conservative, independent and influential, O Estado do Sao Paulo has continued publishing real news about actual events while other publications and broadcasters have succumbed to the stifling hand of the censor.

Now O Estado do Sao Paulo has felt that hand. Censors have been reading each edition before permitting its distribution. The newspaper's sin: ignoring the government's ban on all news about the pulling and hauling within the government over the successor to the president, Gen. Emilio G. Medici, who retires in 1974. The government promulgated this particular ban in April; it fears that public discussion about Medici's successor will undermine his authority in the last two years of his term. In the name of stability, the government by such acts is pushing Brazil, the greatest nation of South America, into a slough of ignorance.

## For Guard

cept at the snack bar, where a few of hardy women works. A guardsman says to one, "Hey, baby, what are you doing after reveille?" He is noncommittal.

At the camp swimming pool, an enlisted man becomes a legend one day while he is chatting with the only woman there — an officer's life. The conversation ends when the officer himself storms into the pool area (in uniform) to break up the huddle.

At Camp Roberts (as at other military installations), the typical enlisted man walks around most of the time with his head down and his eyes on the ground. This is so he don't see an officer and have to salute.

In recent months, the mood has come more relaxed in the National Guard, however. Guardsmen are now allowed to wear their shirts on the outside of their trousers and to pull up their sleeves. Nitpicking and harassment have been greatly reduced.

Gone is the time when a young lieutenant, for no apparent reason, should order his men to change their uniforms five times at one summer camp formation. (By a strange coincidence, after the last change, a veteran sergeant collided roughly with

Please Turn to Page 6, Col. 5

Lyndon, where the public is slipping out of the habit of routinely reelecting its congressmen, and that the House may be subject to some of the electoral forces that produced such vast changes in the composition of the 1972 Democratic National Convention. This fall's elections should show whether the voting public has changed its habits and, in doing so, changed the political environment within which House members work.

Meanwhile, the House remains an institution at least superficially untouched by the upheavals of the last eight years of American politics. More House members have been reelected in the years of the Vietnam war—1966, 1968, 1970—than in any other three successive elections in American history:

—In 1968, when the Vietnam conflict prompted Lyndon Johnson not to run again for President, 91% of the incumbent congressmen were reelected—the highest such percentage since the ratification of the Constitution.

—In 1970, 87% were returned to office, and the difference was due to the larger number of House members who ran for senator or governor.

—Even in 1966, when the Republicans gained 47 House seats (the biggest party shift in the last dozen years), 84% of the incumbents managed to hold on to their jobs.

Over the last eight years, turnover in the House has been minimal; 62% of its current members have been serving continuously since Lyndon

tent with government, paradoxically, more congressmen have been reelected than ever before.

This would have surprised the framers of the Constitution, who conceived the House as a barometer of public opinion.

Since the full body was to be elected every two years, short-term shifts in voters' opinions could be registered; whereas the Senate and the President, chosen less frequently (and, originally, more indirectly), could be counted on to modulate momentary passions.

But on the major issue of the last eight years—the Vietnam war—the House has not been much of a barometer. It did not hold a record vote on the merits of the war until June, 1971, although the issue has been the subject of spirited debate in the Senate and in senatorial and presidential elections for several years.

This reluctance to deal with a controversial issue makes sense for the representative who is concerned mainly about winning reelection indefinitely. Why risk all of the built-in advantages of incumbency by taking stands on issues which, by themselves, might cause large numbers of constituents to vote against you? Vietnam is such an issue; so, in many districts, are gun control, aid to parochial schools and busing.

But aside from issues which arouse strong emotions, most congressmen are relatively free to vote

Please Turn to Page 6, Col. 5

urt

The Warren Court

Chicago Tribune, Thursday, August 31, 1972

18- Section 1

P

A Fort

Bob Wiedrich

# Tower Ticker

There are two obvious sides to Dr. Henry Kissinger, the White House adviser on national security.

One is that of the international emissary, jetting his way around the globe to pave the way for President Nixon's particular brand of personal diplomacy.

The other is Dr. Kissinger, the suave playboy, bipping about Washington and other world capitals, downing Dom Perignon, 1964, and escargot bourguignonne with such Hollywood dollies as Zsa Zsa Gabor, Marlo Thomas, and, most recently, the glorious Jill St. John.

This is the gay, carefree side of the man who lurks among world leaders. And no one denies him these indulgences. For he is truly a man under the gun.

Now there emerges, however, a third Henry Kissinger, a completely different sort of cat.

Here is a man of wholesome tastes, who leans toward the fresh, windblown, long-limbed look of a Kentucky bluegrass filly and prefers to savor the lush bloom of a lithe lass in her early twenties over candlelight and hamburgers.

In recent months, Dr. Kissinger has appeared to be phasing out his glamorous associations in favor of the more simple life.

He apparently has chosen to share his few off-duty moments from affairs of state with Diane Sawyer, a former Louisville beauty queen, whose rosy cheeks and classic ante-bellum innocence belie her own demanding chores as administrative aide to Presidential press secretary Ronald Ziegler.

While at the Western White House, the two have been observed quietly dining in Newport Beach restaurants far removed in atmosphere from the plush gourmet palaces of the Champs Elysees.

In many ways, this chapter in Henry Kissinger's private life may herald a new day.

If he just lays off the dill pickles and raw onions, he'll be all right. We don't imagine those garlic-laden French snails got him too many good-night kisses while embracing the charms of Hollywood!

On the Beat: That column we wrote yesterday about the factual faux pas

an even 27,000. Asked later to reconcile the two figures, Ziegler explained with some embarrassment that the boss was wrong:

"For some reason, the President must have had the figure 500 on his mind."

People and Events: Former Laugh-In star Jo Anne Worley opens tonight at Arlington Park Theater in "Goodbye Charlie" with Roger Perry. . . . And Sig and Gina Sakowicz are Marty Allen's guests at his Flamingo Hotel opening tonight in Las Vegas. . . . The Aladdin Hotel in Gamblersville has a new entertainment director, Mitch DeWood, a former comedian from way back when. . . . Gaslight Clubs chief Burton Browne is on the mend at Columbus Hospital, following an appendectomy.

Chicagoman mezzo soprano Judith Auer is singing for her supper across the Atlantic aboard the S.S. France, en route to Switzerland where she will resume her studies at the Zurich Opera Studio. A former Martha Lipton student at Indiana University, Miss Auer plans to audition with major European opera companies soon. . . . Israel Bonds honors millionaire W. Clement Stone at an Oct. 4 banquet in the Ambassador West.

Around Town: De Paul University basketball coach Ray Meyer's wife, Marge, is a patient at St. Anne's Hospital. . . . Palmer House managing director Bill Edwards plans a cocktail reception Sept. 5 to honor outgoing Chicago Convention & Tourism Bureau president Tom Meagher and his successor, Frank Sain. Then the party of 80 will take in Phyllis Diller's opening night show at the Empire Room.

Bill Contos and Wally Phillips, that brace of incurable braggarts, were launching at Chez Paul with Merrill Chase and Louis Goldblatt when Contos told of the set of golf clubs that Chi Chi Rodriguez had given him. Not to be outdone, Phillips brought up his set of clubs, the gift of Lee Trevino. So now the quartet plans to play together next Wednesday at Bryn Mawr Country Club.

Odds and Ends: Ticker condolences to Federal Judge William Bauer on the

battleline
AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION

July 1972, Vol. VI, No. 7

GUN CONTROL

Why It Won't Work Pages 4, 5

CHILD CONTROL

Agenda for Action Pages 5, 6

BUSING UPDATE

Political Jiu-Jitsu Page 6

IN THE STATES

Keystone Ratings Pages 7, 8

A Sophisticated Lunacy

The so-called SALT treaty awaiting confirmation by the U.S. Senate marks a disastrous inversion of American ideas on national defense.

Just how disastrous does not seem generally understood. More than any other accord in recent years between the United States and the Soviet Union, this agreement tips the Cold War balance—perhaps irrevocably—in favor of our enemies. It is a massive triumph for the “disarmament lobby” in America on matters of fundamental national strategy.

In essence, the SALT agreement represents adoption by the Nixon administration of the most extreme ideas of disarmament theorists who came to power under former Pentagon chief Robert S. McNamara. These ideas are so incredible it is hard to believe the most liberal Democrat would embrace them; what we are witnessing now in the SALT accords is an endorsement of such notions by a regime supposedly staffed with conservative Republicans.

Considerable attention has been paid to the relative numbers of weapons permitted the United States and the Soviet Union under the so-called interim agreement, which is not subject to Senate ratification. It has been pointed out by such authorities as Sen. Henry Jackson, D-Wash., and Sen. James Buckley, C-R-N.Y., that the figures on paper allow the Soviets a latitude of development denied America. The United States is permitted to have some 1,054 land-based ICBMs, the Soviets 1,618; the United States is permitted to have 710 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the Soviets 1,016; the United States is permitted to have 44 missile-firing submarines, the Soviets 84; and so on.

These numerical disparities are disturbing enough in themselves, since they bind the United States to given force levels while extending to the Soviets room to press their strategic arsenal forward to uncertain limits. Sen. Jackson observes, for example, that the 1,618 figure for Soviet missiles is our intelligence estimate, not a figure the Soviets have themselves supplied. All we really know under this agreement is that we will “freeze” our

weapons deployment, while the Soviets have enormous range to improve their defenses as they can.

Bad as the interim agreement is, however, it is not the worst of the matter. Were the issue before us simply one of dealing with existing weapons systems and adjustment of quantities, the six-months' cancellation clause would provide us with a fail-safe device. We could theoretically get out of the agreement, step up production, and recoup at least in part our numerical shortcomings. Far more chilling is the stance we have assumed toward new weapons systems, the area in which the mind-set of the “disarmament lobby” has most clearly become controlling.

Crux of the problem is the conversion of the Nixon administration to peace-by-disarmament theorems of the liberal Democrats it was elected to replace. The scope

HENRY A. KISSINGER
Leading proponent of U.S. disarmament

of these conceptions, their calamitous effects for America,
and the degree to which the Nixon regime has embraced
them are most clearly suggested by the formal treaty
limiting antimissile defenses.

To understand the gravity of this compact, it is neces-
sary to note that the ABMs virtually ruled out by its
terms could have been the greatest weapons for peace
and freedom the world has ever known. These weapons,
after all, are purely defensive, threatening the life of no
one. Their sole purpose is to save lives, not to take them,
and to protect the nation which has them from enemy
attack. Fully developed, they could provide millions with
relative invulnerability against nuclear death.

Given all this, why the insistence on banning ABMs?
The answer may be found in the convoluted thinking of
the disarmament lobbyists, according to whom it is not
a bad thing but a good one for the people of the United
States to be exposed to nuclear devastation. This creates
a "balance of terror," in which our civilian population is
exposed to attack along with that of the Soviet Union.
The resultant condition of "stability," it is supposed,
gives maximum incentive to disarm. Therefore "destabil-
izing" elements like ABMs, which could protect our people
and tip things in our favor, should be avoided.

These notions are an outgrowth of the "convergence"
theory which became increasingly dominant in the early
1960's. As formulated by officials like McNamara and
Walt W. Rostow and in esoteric papers like "Study
Phoenix" and "Study FAIR," it was in America's interest
to weaken itself and build up the Soviet Union. By aiding
the Soviet economy and cutting back our own military
powers, it was imagined we could reassure the Kremlin,
avoid becoming "provocative," and advance the cause of
peace. Out of this exercise would emerge a "structure of
agreement" and progress toward disarmament.

Ultimate point of such reasonings was that the United
States, in crucial particulars, should not be stronger than
the Soviets. Our object was preceived to be that of keeping
everything in "balance." This theory as it applies to ABMs
was spelled out by disarmament theoreticians like Jerome
Wiesner and Walter Millis. Wiesner put it in 1960 that
"a missile deterrent system would be unbalanced by the
development of a highly effective antimissile defense
system, and if it appears possible to develop one, the
agreements should explicitly prohibit the development and
deployment of such systems."

In 1965 as head of an advisory panel reporting to Presi-
dent Johnson, Wiesner updated this counsel by saying that
"the political posture of the Soviet Union is delicately
poised at the moment; it is very clearly in the U.S. interest
to avoid such actions as might deflect the Soviet govern-
ment from a course of improving its relations with the
West," and that a general disarmament agreement on
offensive weapons might be unbalanced by continued
development of ABMs. His panel concluded that "these
considerations argue against ballistic-missiles defenses . . ."

This advice was carried even further by liberal military
analyst Millis, writing in a controversial volume called

The Liberal Papers. He tossed out the idea "that a genuinely deterrent policy would require the United States to co-operate with the Soviet Union in insuring that their retaliatory force was as invulnerable as ours and that our population was equally exposed to attack with theirs." Millis observed that such ideas might seem "fantastic," but that this was "the end toward which American-Soviet policies were tending."

Millis was all too correct. The idea proposed in some-
what Aesopian language by Kennedy-Johnson advisers
and termed "fantastic" by so liberal a writer as Walter
Millis has been adopted lock, stock and barrel by the
administration of Richard M. Nixon, elected as a con-
servative Republican and supposed hard-liner on defense.
Under Nixon's ABM treaty, it becomes our national policy
to leave our civilian population hostage to the possibility
of massive nuclear death, in the slender hope that we shall
thereby maximize "balance" and enhance the prospects
of disarmament.

Signs that the Nixon regime was heading in this direc-
tion have been apparent for some months. Back in 1969,
the President himself, urging adoption of the limited
Safeguard ABM, noted that this system did not provide
for population defense and therefore was not "provoca-
tive." A fuller statement of the same position was offered
last summer by then-Defense official David Packard, who
told the Senate Subcommittee on Arms Control that
"those Safeguard sites planned for initial deployment in
ICBM fields defend some of the most sparsely popu-
lated portions of the United States. To an opponent in-
terested in maintaining a secure second strike retaliatory
force, this part of the Safeguard deployment offers little
threat."

(Continued on page 4)

July 1972, Vol. VI, No. 7

battleline

AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION

Battle Line is published monthly by the American
Conservative Union, 422 First Street, S.E., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20003 (phone Area Code 202-546-6555)

Second class postage paid at Washington, D.C.

Address all editorial matter, letters to the editor, subscription inquiries, and changes of address to: Battle Line, 422 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

CHANGE OF ADDRESS: Send old and new address (including either the mailing label or envelope from previous issue) with Zip Code number, to Battle Line, 422 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

UNDELIVERED COPIES: Send notice on Form 3579 to American Conservative Union, (Battle Line) 422 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

COPYRIGHT, 1972 by the American Conservative Union

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE: For non-members of ACU — $10 yearly; for members of ACU — $7 — yearly (included in annual membership dues).

Page Two

Battle Line/July 1972

*(Continued from page 2)*

The ABM treaty confirms these hints, and then some. By its terms, both parties would be limited to ABM deployment in only two locations, with no defense for civilian populations at large; prohibited from developing sea-based or other such ABMs; and prevented from transferring ABM technology to other countries. These conditions represent a complete and total triumph for the Wiesner view that we must leave our cities hostage to potential devastation.

How far the disarmament theoreticians are willing to go in pursuit of such dreams may be gathered from a recent report in *National Review* by arms control authority Donald Brennan. He observes that, under the Democrats, such ABM planning as we experienced was carefully contrived *not* to be effective: "*At McNamara's instruction, the Sentinel system design . . . had some specific weaknesses introduced to make the system more easily penetrable by the Soviets.*" As incredible as this sounds, it is fully matched by the testimony of Packard last summer concerning weaknesses introduced into our offensive weapons, specifically the accuracy of our MIRV warheads: "*This administration made a deliberate decision not to improve the accuracy of our MIRV . . . to what was and is technically feasible.*"

The emerging picture may best be described as one of sophisticated lunacy: To reassure the Soviets and advance disarmament, we are *not* developing purely defensive weapons which could save millions of American lives. We are leaving our cities to perform as sitting ducks in obedience to disarmament theory which has never worked in the past and shows little sign of working now. We have deliberately *weakened* our own defensive and offensive weapons in order not to provoke the enemy. Such is the shape of American national strategy on defense.

The rationale provided for all this by Dr. Henry Kissinger is that the Nixon administration can do no other: Congress has failed to provide the necessary money, the agreement will prevent the Soviets from getting further ahead, etc. A reading of the record shows this to be nonsense: The introduction of weaknesses into our MIRVed weapons, by the administration's own testimony, was an executive decision, not mandated by Congress. The verbiage adopting the Wiesner-Millis theory of peace-through-civilian terror has been an executive decision, not mandated by Congress. Kissinger's own utterances, virtually duplicating the Wiesner-Rostow-*Liberal Papers* line on Cold War policy, have certainly not been mandated by Congress.

Equally telling, neither the President nor his subordinates have taken to the American people the case for defense of our cities, a measure which the public would undoubtedly favor if the truth of the matter were made sufficiently plain. In his *National Review* piece, Brennan notes that the present policy line makes as much sense as placing thermonuclear mines under Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, *etc.*, with agreement to have similar bombs

under Soviets cities, so that either side could blow the other up at will.

The American people, we imagine, would reject such a proposal as absurd. They would also reject the SALT agreement if they understood its bizarre implications. The grim truth is that the Nixon administration has accepted the most far-out notions of Robert McNamara and his team of disarmament lobbyists and unless the Barry Goldwaters, Strom Thurmonds, and John Towers stand forth in vigorous protest, this unbelievable theory will be imposed as the permanent policy of the United States.

We urge our readers to write or telegraph their opposition to the SALT treaty to these three senators, as well as to others with whom they feel their words may have influence. Each may be contacted by addressing him at: Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 20510.

## Gun Control . . . Again

The assassination attempt against Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace has stirred new interest in gun control legislation, breathing life into several bills that heretofore were moribund.

The present controversy revolves around several bills before the House and Senate that would curtail, in varying degrees, the individual's constitutionally guaranteed right to own weapons. Sen. Philip Hart, D-Mich., has a bill under consideration that would forbid outright the ownership of any kind of handgun. In the House, Rep. Abner Mikva, D-Ill., has proposed legislation that would make it unlawful for any additional handguns to be sold in the United States. This particular bill would permit those who presently own handguns to keep them and is almost identical to the plan put forth by Rep. Emanuel Celler, chairman of the key House Judiciary Committee, as an addendum to his own firearms control bill.

With the support of ADA, Common Cause, the National Council of Churches, and other left-liberal organizations banded together to form a new handgun control coalition, the Senate Judiciary Committee just recently reported out the latest gun-control legislation, a bill to ban the sale of the so-called "Saturday Night Special." Sponsored by Senator Birch Bayh, D-Ind., the bill was approved 12 to 2, after a slightly watered-down version offered by Senator Roman Hruska of Nebraska was defeated. The Nebraska Republican later joined with Senators Hart, Kennedy, Burdick, Tunney, Fong, Cook, Mathias, Ervin, Thurmond, and Gurney in supporting the Bayh measure.

The lone dissenters were Senators Eastland and McClellan. Meanwhile, the House Judiciary subcommittee has begun its own hearings on the matter.

Gun control lobbyists are promoting the deceptive notion that there are among these proposals "legislative options" which could possibly help reduce the dangers of private firearms in America without damaging the interests of those who wish to hunt, or others who have a legitimate need for firearms. But the impact of such proposals, should they pass, would be chiefly to disarm the law-

Page Four

Battle Line/July 1972

REP. JOHN ASHBROOK

PAUL D. BETHEL

ROGER A. FREEMAN

HENRY HAZLITT

## Conservative Experts To Testify

ACU has been active in coordinating conservative testimony to be given at the platform hearings of the Republican party to be held in Miami Beach during August 14-16. ACU will maintain a headquarters in the convention city to promote conservative positions at the Republican gathering. To date, the following noted conservative spokesmen have applied to testify:

* John M. Ashbrook (R-Ohio).

* Paul Bethel, President of the Citizens Committee for a Free Cuba and editor of *Latin America Report*.

* Marvin Edwards, editor of *Private Practice* magazine, author of *Hazardous to Your Health*, and a vigorous opponent of socialized medicine.

* Roger Freeman, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Peace & Revolution, and widely quoted authority on free enterprise and limited government.

* Henry Hazlitt, syndicated columnist, author of numerous books on economics, and the nation's outstanding opponent of a guaranteed annual income.

* Manolo Reyes, Miami newscaster, and expert on the Soviet military build-up in Cuba.

* David Nelson Rowe, professor of political science at Yale University, and a leading critic of Communist China.

* Antony Sutton, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Peace & Revolution, and the nation's most knowledgeable opponent of trade with communist nations.

Battle Line/July 1972

Page Three

NBC NEWS, LONDON

HK

In case the Democrats in
Miami are not providing you
enough laughs already . . .

RAY SCHERER

town's engineer and
Mr H. G. Perry finds
any of responsibilities
broad direction, from
labour force of more
men to the municipal
ulum opened in 1940.

the less-common
to look after street
and wiring of council
a relic of pre-national-
lays when the corpora-
ed the electricity com-
d a £250,000 livestock
and abattoir.

facelift rather
new start.

The change
more model
would not
down a re
century show
known as
Buildings.
which woul
gully and
better than
worse.

Kettering
even more

## ANCENT SORGE (WHOLES

Food Distributors

D WAY ROTHWELL ROAD KETTERING

ne: KETTERING 4841

tors of FINDUS products to the retail
lying the hotel and catering industry. Also
cabinets and frozen food packs suitable for

The President and Mrs. Haig pin promotion to Major General on Alexander Haig, No. 2 man at National Security Affairs. Kissinger's "good right hand," he has 27 years in Army but demeanor of a professor or diplomat.

# Keep Your Eye on Al-
Gen. Alexander Haig, That Is.
His Star Is Rising.

by Lloyd Shearer

SAN CLEMENTE, CALIF.
With the exception of the President, no one in the Nixon Administration has been more publicized than Henry Kissinger, Nixon's National Security Affairs adviser.

Yet Kissinger does not work alone. He heads a staff of 110 including messengers, secretaries, researchers, and braintrusters, all self-effacing, hard-working men and women, none of them known to the public.

Of late, however, one of Dr. Kissinger's loyal and intrepid band of devoted slaves has begun to surface.

Mark his name carefully: Maj. Gen. Alexander Meigs Haig Jr.

At 47, Al Haig is tall, blue-eyed, and

more handsome and sex-appealing than secret agent Kissinger whose deputy he is.

Soft-speaking and tactful, subtly ambitious with just the right amount of ruthlessness, Al Haig is second in command at National Security Affairs. He is Henry's "gute rechte hand" (good right hand).

## Checks on Vietnam

It is he who holds together the dedicated "low profiles" who work for Kissinger while Henry cavorts in strange and foreign lands. It is through him that the mountain of position papers on Vietnam, the Middle East, the Soviet

Union, South Africa, and ad infinitum is funneled. And it is he, without fanfare or publicity, who wings off to Vietnam every six months or so, to assess first-hand for the President how things are really going.

Last month Haig returned directly to San Clemente from his eighth trip to Southeast Asia and briefed the President on conditions in Vietnam and Cambodia. He was then trotted out on a non-attribution basis to the press, which described him as "an unidentified, high-ranking source."

Although Al Haig has spent the past 27 years in the Army, "my entire adult life," he neither looks nor behaves like

a military prototype. He is not obsequious. There is no rigidity to his mind, which is open and inquiring, or to his speech, which is academic and articulate.

Haig could very well be taken for a college professor or a diplomat, which in a sense he is. For diplomacy is certainly a requisite in getting on with taskmaster Kissinger whose tolerance quotient is low and personnel turnover high.

Last month when Henry invited Haig to the swank Bistro restaurant, one of Kissinger's favorite restaurants in Beverly Hills, along with actress Sally Kellerman, Soviet Ambassador Anatoli Dobrynin, and a flock of screen colony Republican fat-cats, several waiters mistook Haig—heaven help him, for an actor.

## Probable inheritor

Should anything happen to Henry, like being appointed Secretary of State, or being incapacitated by one of his scorned girlfriends, Haig most probably would inherit Kissinger's job.

Although philosophically Kissinger and Haig see eye to eye—both are conservatives—Haig as foreign affairs adviser to the President, would certainly avoid the spotlight Kissinger, by his nature, attracts.

To begin with, Haig is a happily-married, churchgoing Roman Catholic.

Son of a lawyer, he was born in Philadelphia, attended parochial grade school in Cynwyd on the Main Line, moved up to St. Joseph's Prep and studied two years at Notre Dame before his appointment to West Point came through in 1944.

His brother, a priest, is president of Wheeling College in West Virginia, and his sister, Regina Meredith, an attorney in Pennington, N.J.

Like many young men, Al Haig set his eye on a service academy appointment because it was a financial necessity. "My father died when I was 10," he explains, "and I had pretty much to fend for myself in terms of economics. I had newspaper routes, worked for the Post Office, the Atlantic Refining Company. I even worked as a floorwalker in the ladies' department of John Wanamaker's (a well-known department store in Philadelphia) to support myself."

## On to West Point

Haig earned enough money to attend the University of Notre Dame, which he left at the end of his sophomore year after majoring in arts and letters. He was graduated from West Point in 1947, last of the three-year wartime classes, and academically was ranked 214 in a class of 310.

As a second lieutenant he was ordered to Japan where he played football for the division team, and was fortuitously assigned to General MacArthur's deputy chief of staff as an administrative assistant.

In Tokyo at a musical recital he met an attractive pianist named Patricia Fox

4

PARADE • AUGUST 20, 1972

whose father just happened to be M'Arthur's deputy chief of staff.

"She was playing Chopin," Haig recalls. "She was quite good, and I was impressed both by the piano-playing and her looks, so I made a point of getting to know her. The result was that we got married in Tokyo and honey-mooned in Japan, and after that I had to go to Taiwan and from there to the war in Korea."

## Three children

The Haigs have three children: Alex, 20, a junior at Georgetown University; Brian, 19, who's just finished his plebe year at West Point, and Barbara, 16, who attends parochial school in Arlington, Va.

A fast perusal of Haig's military career reveals a proper mixture of desk duty, field duty, luck, and good contacts.

He fought in Korea, was invalided out with hepatitis. He commanded an armed company in Fort Knox, pulled stints at West Point and Annapolis, served as operations officer in a tank battalion in Germany, then got assigned to Georgetown University for graduate study. With a master's degree in international relations, he wound up in the Pentagon, working on top-level Middle East and European affairs in the international plans and policy division.

In 1961 when the Central Intelligence Agency fouled up so badly on the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Kennedy desperately turned to the Army for help. He ordered Cyrus Vance of the Defense Department to take over Cuban affairs. Vance brought in Major Haig as his military assistant.

It was during the Kennedy Administration that Al Haig began to earn a well-deserved reputation as a bright, perceptive, industrious administrator who could subordinate himself to the demands of more volatile superiors. He also developed expertise in the political and diplomatic aspects of military affairs. In the course of his work Haig met Joe Califano, then the Army's general counsel.

## Moving up

When later, Cyrus Vance was appointed Robert McNamara's Deputy Secretary of Defense, Vance wisely moved both Haig and Califano up with him.

Subsequently Lyndon Johnson came to believe that Joe Califano was the source of much of McNamara's creative brilliance. He insisted that Califano be transferred to the White House, a move which immediately provided Haig with influential contacts in the highest echelons of government.

Although Califano, a Democrat, is no longer in government—he is a senior partner in the prestigious Washington, D.C., law firm of Williams, Connolly & Califano—he and Al Haig remain the closest of friends and see each other frequently.

Says Califano: "Al Haig is one of the new breed of sophisticated Army officers. He knows politics, international

attars, and how to get along with people. He has a first-rate mind, and he i not afraid to speak it. He was my deputy in the Pentagon, and he argues brilliantly and forcefully. Once you hear him out, he will go along with the decision. But he is a man of great integrity."

Haig returns the compliment. "Joe Califano," he says, "is one of the most brilliant men I've ever worked with." Haig also applies similar superlatives to describe Henry Kissinger.

Kissinger, in turn, predicts flatly, "One day Al is sure to become Chief of Staff of the Army or maybe chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He has all the attributes: intelligence, diligence, discipline, and experience."

The Haig-Kissinger mutual admiration society was founded in December of 1968, Haig was then a deputy commandant at West Point, the equivalent

of dean, and Kissinger was working at the Hotel Pierre in New York City, putting together a foreign affairs staff for the newly elected Nixon.

As Haig recalls it, he received a telephone call from Gen. Andrew Goodpaster, either one of the most brainy or overrated officers in the Army (depending upon whom one talks to), informing him that "they were taking a look at me as a possible military adviser on the staff of the newly reinvigorated National Security Council."

## Queried by Kissinger

"When I met Dr. Kissinger," Haig narrates, "he asked some very brief questions. He explained that he was interested in a military man who was a field soldier and a commander and not so much a military intellectual."

Since Haig had commanded troops in Vietnam in 1966, and had in fact won a battlefield promotion for leading troops in action on Route 13 near An Loc, Kissinger decided he might do. He asked Haig to report to Washington where Haig soon began preparing daily brief-

ings for Nixon on the world situation.

"Concurrently," Haig remembers, "Henry gave me some work to do in an organizational way in tailoring the staff as he developed experience with it."

## Arguments rare

A former member of Kissinger's staff who worked with Haig recalls "In the early days. Al's job was not particularly well-defined. But it quickly became apparent to some of us that his outstanding virtues were reliability and obedience. He rarely argued with Henry, in contrast to the academic types who did, and being a military man, he never questioned authority. He respectfully did what he was told to do, and he made no waves. He never constituted a threat to Henry's position, which back then was not nearly as secure as it is now. And in time Henry came to rely

upon him, and even more important, to trust him."

Haig phrases it differently. "Over a period," he explains, "Henry and I developed a special rapport. From my perspective I found most of his views compatible with mine.

"The first time he suggested I go over to Vietnam to assess things for him and the President was in January or February of 1970. Since then I've gone back almost every six months. Usually the trip is at a juncture in the situation which requires a personal assessment for the President. He and Henry don't rely totally on reports from the field. They're much too prudent for that."

Last month on July 13th, Sen. Barry Goldwater, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the guests at a $100-a-plate Republican fund-raising dinner in San Diego, "I predict that in the next month or 60 days the war will formally be over."

When General Haig was asked to make a prediction on the same subject, based on his past knowledge and his most recent inspection trip, he smiled and shook his head negatively.

Kissinger and Haig relax at San Clemente after a working session with Nixon. Should Kissinger take up another post, Haig is regarded as likely successor.

"I think prediction is no more than an intellectual exercise," he demurred. "What can I say that we have arrived strategically, militarily and in a sense, psychologically, at a point which makes the character of this particular juncture somewhat different from past crisis periods."

"I think many times Americans have a great tendency to look for a millenium in which struggles will stop. I don't think the world is made that way. All I can say is that the chances for peace, in my opinion, are better now than they have ever been, that the character of the conflict will be fundamentally modified."

## Assesses Hanoi drive

When asked how he assessed the North Vietnamese offensive which began on March 30th this year, Haig replied: "I believe they had a number of objectives. One was to destroy the ARVN (South Vietnamese Army) as a fighting force, if not physically, at least in the context of inflicting a psychological defeat. I think, too, that they hoped to establish some territorial strong points, enclaves, from which they could raise the North Vietnamese flag and stake a legitimate claim for whatever political negotiating solution would be arrived at."

"There's no question that the persistence with which they hit such objectives as An Loc, Kwantom, and Hue gives credence to the fact that they were willing to pay almost any price, because they suffered severely there."

"I don't believe they've accomplished their objectives," he went on. "The enemy initiatives have dropped off. They've taken very severe local defeats. ARVN morale is on the rise, and at this juncture they're as strong if not stronger than before they were attacked. I would see an improving situation for the South Vietnamese. Now I don't mean to imply," he hastily hedged, "that there will be no local setbacks and that there won't be some sharp fighting from time to time. But I believe that with U.S. air and naval power, they will hold."

## Stimulating—but

Haig, who puts in a 13- to 15-hour day as Kissinger's deputy, assigning, supervising, and reading the endless papers prepared by Henry's foreign affairs specialists, says that he finds the desk life intellectually stimulating, challenging, and rewarding. "But at some time," he concedes, "I'd like to return to the Army, which after all, is my chosen profession."

In Army circles, the word is that Al Haig, now a two-star general, is headed for four-star rank.

"No matter who's elected President," one envious colleague declares, "Haig can't miss. His good friend, Joe Califano, is general counsel for the Democratic Party, and his good friend Henry Kissinger, is tops with Nixon. On all sides he's surrounded by friends. Al's star is rising."

5

ZCZC HGA332 310917 NHA149

00 HCA HLB LED LCE

KISSINGER 8-31

WITH NIXON

HONOLULU, HAWAII, AUG. 31 (UPI)--PRESIDENT NIXON AND JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER KAKUEI TANAKA WILL ADOPT "SPECIAL MEASURES" TO COUNTER THE TRADE BALANCE HEAVILY IN JAPAN'S FAVOR, WHITE HOUSE ADVISER HENRY A. KISSINGER SAID WEDNESDAY.

HE ALSO SAID EMPEROR HIROHITO HAS ACCEPTED AN INVITATION TO MAKE A STATE VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES AND PROBABLY WOULD COME SOMETIME EARLY NEXT YEAR. A SPECIFIC DATE FOR THE VISIT, HE SAID, WILL BE SEEN LATER THIS YEAR.

KISSINGER SAID THE TANAKA AND NIXON WILL DISCUSS AT THEIR TWO-DAY SUMMIT HERE BOTH THE IMMEDIATE PROBLEMS OF A TRADE DEFICIT THAT HAS RISEN TO 4.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND LONGER-RANGE SOLUTIONS.

"WE WILL TALK ABOUT BOTH--AND NOT IN A SPIRIT OF CONFRONTATION," THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF FOREIGN ADVISER TOLD NEWSMEN ABOARD THE PRESIDENTIAL JET EN ROUTE TO THE MEETING.

AMERICAN AND JAPANESE OFFICIALS HAD ALREADY HELD EXTENSIVE PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS ON THE PROBLEM, HE SAID.

KISSINGER DENIED RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN, STRAINED LAST SUMMER BECAUSE NIXON DID NOT CONSULT JAPAN BEFORE ANNOUNCING HIS DECISION TO GO TO CHINA AND IMPOSING A SURTAX ON IMPORTS, WERE STILL IN A BAD WAY.

KISSINGER SAID THAT NOW JAPAN HAS BECOME A MAJOR ECONOMIC POWER, THERE HAS DEVELOPED "A MAJOR TRADE IMBALANCE AND THAT OBVIOUSLY CREATES SOME PROBLEMS." BUT HE EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THEY WOULD BE WORKED OUT IN A SPIRIT OF COOPERATION.

p076

d czzceeyyx

147

PEOPLE IN THE NEWS

HONOLULU AP - Henry

A. Kissinger, friend of Hollywood stars as well as world leaders, says he is thinking about going into the movies.

President Nixon's top foreign policy adviser joked about a movie career when newsmen who were aboard the presidential jet en route to Hawaii asked him about his future plans. Im thinking of going into the movies'- I've got the connections now, he smiled.

Kissinger has had frequent dates with Hollywood stars, the most recent with Jill St. John, who accompanied him to a reception at Nixon's California home Sunday night.

Kissinger also was asked about reports that he had been offered a $2 million advance for a book on his White House years.

He replied he had not had any discussions with any publishers about writing his memoirs and will not while he is in his present job. But, referring to the $2 million figure, he said, I read in the paper that that's what they're worth.

08-31-72 05.44apd

p033
r czczyyzyy

773

HONOLULU Nixon-Tanaka take 2: Luce

Nixons schedule for today was confined solely to official business, however. Henry A. Kissinger, his foreign policy adviser described the morning meeting with Bunker as a review of the situation in Vietnam and the search for a negotiated settlement of the war.

Asked if Bunker was leaving his post after six years of service in Vietnam, Kissinger said, Certainly not before the election.

In welcoming Tanaka at a state arrival ceremony in a Hickam hangar, Nixon said:

May we always meet as we meet today, working for the great goals of peace in the Pacific and peace in the world.

Tanaka responded by noting the increased national strength of Japan and saying:

With this in mind, we wish to strengthen further the already solid foundation of friendship and mutual trust between Japan and the United States and to promote even more wide-ranging cooperative relations in the coming years. I earnestly hope that my meeting with President Nixon will mark the beginning of a new era of constant dialogue between our two countries.

Flying to Hawaii Wednesday with the Nixons were Secretary of State W. illiam P. Rogers, Undersecretary U. A. LEXIS Johnson, Assistant Secretary Marhsall Green and Kissinger.

Kissinger told reporters a Nixon-Tanaka communique had been blocked out in general terms in advance of the Hawaii summit, as a result of a Kissinger mission to Tokyo earlier this month and meetings between Japanese leaders and the American ambassador there.

The foreign policy specialist said the communique would be reasonably specific on the crucial trade topic. H. L. SAID BOTH IMMEDIATE AND LONGRANGE ECONOMIC PROBLEMS WILL BE DISCUSSED, and not in a spirit of confrontation.

An estimated 5,000 Hawaiians turned out to greet the Nixons when they arrived in a rain shower. Although few political signs were in evidence, neither was there any evidence of protest.

Democratic Gov. John A. Burns headed the welcoming committee and pledged to Nixon our loyal support in his talks with Tanaka.

The President and Mrs. Nixon will fly back to the Western White House at San Clemente, Calif., FIDAY AFTERNOON TO SPEND THE LABOR DAY WEEKEND BEFORE RETURNING TO Washington next Tuesday via San Francisco.

06-31-72 02.14apd

Confidential

Foreign Report

Published by The Economist Newspaper Limited,
25 St. James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG

1261 6 September 1972

Contents

Olympic diplomatic hopes blown sky-high

Bonn's deal with the Chinese

New Polish pressures on Brandt

Nixon's reassurances to Europe

Peru sticks to the middle way

Mounting tension in Madagascar

The massacre of the Israelis in Munich threw into disarray elaborate plans to use the Olympic games as a cover for high-level diplomacy in a number of fields. Much of this was openly reported in the daily press - for example, the scheduled visit of President Pompidou, and Mr Heath's talks with Herr Brandt, Herr Barzel and Mr Lynch. But the tragic irony is that the terrorist outrage blew sky-high the chances of useful exchanges on the future of the Middle East.

One significant visitor to Munich in the past ten days has been Mr Heykal, the editor of Al Ahram and Egypt's most influential commentator. He is known to have expressed the desire to talk privately with the Americans and with representatives of other western countries - and in particular to meet Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's chief adviser on foreign affairs (though Kissinger, being Jewish, has never personally handled the Middle East question).

The main object of Kissinger's planned private visit was to confer with Herr Brandt and other leading German officials on the question of MBFR (mutual and balanced force reductions) and on the related question of the projected European security conference. Kissinger's intention at the start of the week was to spend three days in Munich, and then fly on to Moscow on Sunday for talks with the Russians. Even before the attack on the Israelis, American security men had the gravest misgivings about his projected trip to the Olympics; there are grounds for believing that the CIA was opposed to it.