ents, ended safely with
the Pacific.

The fifth manned voyage to the moon — by far the most extensive in terms of on and scientific experimentation in startling suspenseful fashion that human endurance have a new threshold in a hostile

december. The Nixon Administration has decided—wisely, we believe—that additional moon missions would be unjustified for two reasons:

- Time will be needed to digest the vast accumulation of data and material from the six moon explorations in the Apollo series. There would be progressively diminishing returns from more moon landings in the next few years that would be essentially repetitive of previous expeditions.

- Spending priorities require that space projects be more down-to-earth in terms of prospective benefits for mankind. It is in line with this objective that the NASA budget is being re-structured toward earth-orbiting systems and development of less costly means of space travel.

Relative to the latter goal, U. S. and Soviet space scientists announced just last Monday agreement in principle to work jointly in building a scale model of an advanced docking system superior to what either country has produced on its own.

Cooperation in space well might be a topic for fruitful discussion when President Nixon visits Moscow in late May. Meanwhile, the completion of another spectacular, although far from flawless, moon exploration by American astronauts has confirmed again that the challenges of space are formidable.

John M. Young, Thomas and Charles M. Duke Jr. intensive training for 12 this mission, rehearsing until it was second. But technical problems moon landing six hours, the schedule out of whack, have adjustment of time-produced early signs of heavy workload had to be a shorter time.

Errors resulted, neither had been likely to the circumstances. Capt. Over a wire, snapping it experiment to measure low the moon's surface. Col. Duke had left the to close a switch on the fore jettisoning it. That out a plan to crash the moon and, by reading the earn more about its geo-

## It form isn't enough

I'll recuperating from smuggle with Form 1040, comfort, but not much, I Revenue Service an-filling out returns will ear. It's a promise we've

and take the standard deduction. Tax-payers in this category have relatively little trouble completing their returns now.

Taxpayers who itemize deductions or have income other than wages encoun-

material in our guide.

The agent says we should concentrate on eliminating the widespread "pirating of old valuable policies." We are concentrating on this. We have a law and a regulation which makes fraudulent "pirating" illegal. We enforce it.

One of the reasons this "pirating" is possible is because neither the public nor the agents have the facts about life insurance. Our guides attempt to do what the insurance industry itself should have done long ago—give the public the information it needs to make intelligent insurance decisions.

The public wants the facts. That's why we are receiving 5,000 requests for our guide daily from all over the world.

HERBERT S. DENENBERG
Commissioner of Insurance,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Harrisburg.

## Beware Kissinger

To the Editor:

For 20-years you have been warning the people about "McCarthyism," but you have never defined the term nor traced its origin for your readers.

May I ask you to warn your public about the very imminent dangers of Kissingerism which is here and now? You have not once uttered a word of protest about this man whom no one voted for, yet who controls the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, Secret Service, and President Nixon.

Henry Kissinger represents the advocates of world government, and each sinister step of his is in that direction. Have you informed the people of this conspiracy? Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy would have done so long since, had he lived.

MARGARET SHERIDAN
Philadelphia.

## Keep loyalty oaths

article only proves how very many
pressures are exerted to slowly kill

ers of the "goldlined" land
Since there are millions

## More on the War

## U. S. role in Vietn

To the Editor:

What is the moral position of the heads of government when they smugly deplore the breaking of windows on streets at home while they order fleets of B-52s with swarms of Phantom jets and miscellaneous bombers to break windows (and heads) with two-ton bombs all over Vietnam?

RICHARD V. WORTHINGTON M.D.

the partition? Of the 100,000 in North Vietnam after the war, who had a gun at their

God knows we have made mistakes but if critics such as Pell, the New York Times, ton Post, etc. were just co-sincerely in error, at least aghile they would come out as favor.

Kissinger keeps the faith

By James Reston

HENRY KISSINGER has got beyond the news. He is like most of the men of power in Washington: He is going to be left to the psychological novelists. It is easy to criticize the role President Nixon has given him as principal foreign policy adviser, negotiator and private spokesman in the White House, but leaving that aside for a moment, it is hard to deny Kissinger's obvious intelligence, unfailing discretion and ceaseless energy.

His latest secret trip to Moscow, following on his quiet and meticulous preparation of the President's mission to Peking, is only the most dramatic illustration of the confidence and power Nixon has entrusted to him. And it is a tribute to them both that this confidential relationship endures despite Kissinger's insistence on expressing his independent judgments, even when these go against the President's inclinations and decisions.

Just before the White House announced that Kissinger had been conferring for four days with Brezhnev and Gromyko in Moscow, Rep. Morris K. Udall, D-Ariz., made a report to the House Civil Service Committee in which he accused Nixon of building up a "palace guard" of White House advisers who shape national policy without having to answer to either the Congress or the American people.

Well, it is true, and it is hard to deny, as Udall charged, that this growing system of private unaccountable power, protected by "executive privilege," goes against the spirit of separate and equal constitutional powers. Even Kissinger, who grappled with such questions as a professor at Harvard, would agree that this is a valid constitutional question.

But there are human as well as constitutional questions involved here and given the President's assignment which would go to somebody else if not to Kissinger, Kissinger's performance is beyond anything any other White House aide, from Franklin Roosevelt's Harry Hopkins to John Kennedy's McGeorge Bundy or Lyndon Johnson's Walt Rostow, has been asked to sustain.

To master the details and complexities of the President's agenda in Peking and Moscow, to keep the summit meetings alive while American troops are in Taiwan and American bombers are over North Vietnam, to keep the

fundamental differences straight and still find areas for agreement and common interest — all this is hard enough.

But Kissinger has taken on other responsibilities almost as delicate and arduous. Somehow he has managed to keep a narrow line of communication open to the President's critics in the universities, the Congress and the press. He has been loyal to the President, without ignoring or evading the opposition or assuming bad faith on the part of those who oppose the war.

And this has not been easy. He has been scalded and villified by many of his former university colleagues and even by some of his oldest friends in the university community, but he has heard them out. He has tried to get around the constitutional question and the charge that he was both powerful and unavailable by meeting privately with Chairman J. William Fulbright of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other members of the Congress and submitting himself to the most searching questions.

He has been asked many times why he serves an administration whose policies divide the nation, why use all this intelligence and energy for all this pointless misery and death? But, for all his doubts about the bombing and his yearning for unity, he does not accept the premise and goes on believing in the President's objectives.

So many ugly things have been said about all this and even thrown in his teeth: He loves power, loves all the notoriety and the secret trips in the night, and the opportunity to put thought to action in the Kremlin and the Forbidden City, (who wouldn't?) But through it all he has attempted many things most of his colleagues in this administration have avoided, and rescued a certain respect others have been denied.

All this is obviously subject to argument, beginning with Udall's question about whether even good and intelligent men should be given such power beyond reach of the Congress, but something still has to be said for Kissinger.

How he performs this delicate and dangerous role is a miracle which defies physical and intellectual endurance. He felt confident about the President's visit to Peking because he had been there and probed the quality of Chou En-lai's mind. A couple of weeks ago he was worried about the Moscow trip because he had no feeling about Brezhnev. Now, presumably, he has. But how he goes on at this pace is a mystery, and intelligent and tough as he is, maybe even a danger.

We have a government now of men, not really of laws and accepted procedures. We have an alliance with Chou En-lai but not yet with China. But if this is the way it is to be, it is not Kissinger's fault, and he is a man. He is an instrument of the President, but he has played his role with astonishing courage, patience and skill.

Reston, vice-president of the New York Times, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist.

FBIS 29 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

N. VIETNAMESE COMMENT ON KISSINGER PARIS TALKS

C061420 PARIS AFP IN FRENCH 1340 GMT 6 MAY 72 C

(TEXT) PARIS, 6 MAY--IN AN INITIAL STATEMENT FOLLOWING THE CONFIRMATION BY THE WHITE HOUSE OF LAST TUESDAY'S SECRET TALKS IN PARIS BETWEEN HENRY KISSINGER AND HANOI REPRESENTATIVE LE DUC THO, THE NORTH VIETNAMESE DELEGATION TO THE PARIS CONFERENCE ON SATURDAY STRESSED THAT THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE IN THE AMERICAN POSITION.

THE DELEGATION SPOKESMAN, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TOLD THE PRESS THAT THROUGH CONTACTS WITH THE OPPOSITE SIDE THE NORTH VIETNAMESE HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION REFUSES SERIOUS NEGOTIATIONS. IT MAINTAINS ITS WELL-KNOWN POSITION, GOING AS FAR AS TO UNILATERALLY INTERRUPT THE WORK OF THE PARIS CONFERENCE ON VIETNAM. THE ACTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES IN VIETNAM AND THE STATEMENTS OF THE PENTAGON SPOKESMAN CONCERNING THE STRENGTHENING OF U.S. FORCES IN VIETNAM BY THOUSANDS OF MARINES AND A LARGE NUMBER OF SOLDIERS ARE ALL THE MORE INDICATIVE OF THE POLICY OF THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION, WHICH CONSISTS IN INTENSIFYING THE WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST THE VIETNAMESE PEOPLE IN THE TWO ZONES AND OPPOSING A CORRECT SOLUTION OF THE VIETNAMESE PROBLEM.

THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION MUST ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM ITS WAR-MONGERING POLICY AND ITS OBSTINATE ATTITUDE INV THE NEGOTIATIONS, THE CONCLUDED.

6 MAY 1514Z EH/MA

New Ping-Pong Diplomacy

Three U.S. Labor Chiefs, Briefed By Kissinger,
On Strange Mission to North Vietnam

By Victor Riesel

WASHINGTON:-- It is believed in circles with the highest foreign policy expertise that a three-man American labor delegation which arrived in North Vietnam on March 17 has been playing political ping-pong in Hanoi for National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger. The temptation is to call the mission mysterious. Certainly it has Dr. Strangelove overtones.

It could be that this tiny phalanx is the opening wedge for more overt and direct official contact in the image of the visitation to Mao.

The three labor men, ostensibly on their own peace mission, could in some fashion be murmuring about official peace. It could be just a junket. I doubt it. At least one of the labor men was personally briefed by Dr. Kissinger on March 9 in the White House.

Furthermore, the national president of one of the unions officially represented on this mission to Hanoi tells me flatly, "unequivocally," that the invitation came indirectly from the U.S. State Department. A spokesman for Secretary of State Rogers just as flatly denies this. But he does say the Department knew of the trip.

Ostensibly the invitations came from the (North) Vietnam General Con-
federation of Labor which is the power bloc inside the North Vietnam Communist
Party Central Committee. They were received in the U.S. about two months
ago. One went to the Teamsters' house intellectual, husky, urbane St. Louis-
based fifth national vice president Harold Gibbons -- who at one time was
mentioned in the highest White House circles as a possible fellow traveler to
Peking with President Nixon.

Harold is the closest thing the two-million member Teamsters ever had to being a one-man international affairs committee. He is an ex-Norman Thomas-type Socialist with a long labor record ranging from organizing WPA workers to setting up labor schools, to organizing warehousemen and airline employes over four decades.

He has been close to Dr. Kissinger, he says. And on the night of Feb. 14, at about 10:30 p.m., he told me he had been in touch with the President's National Security Advisor at the latter's frequent invitation. And Gibbons has been gung-ho on building bridges to the Orient.

About a month ago or so, he contacted the other invitees -- David Livingston, president of District 65 of the independent Distributive Workers, a small but heavily interracial militant union, and Pat Gorman, elderly secretary-treasurer of the 500,000-member Chicago-based Amalgamated Meat Cutters (AFL-CIO). Gorman, long an avowed Socialist, just couldn't go, so he deputized one of the union's vice presidents, Clifton Caldwell of Boston. One union spokesman says this had to "be cleared with the State Dept." -- which said later it never heard of the whole thing, officially.

( MORE )

Livingston is the leftist of the lot with a long-ago record of leading the 1945 (World War II) "Bring the Boys Back Home" campaign in the Pacific. He's a tough infighter, not too well these days, but quite deft in any Marx-Lenin discussion. So is Gibbons.

The latter became the "pusher" on this venture. He went in to see his own chief, Teamsters president Frank (Fitz) Fitzsimmons, for a policy discussion. Fitz reckoned this was a personal venture. No blessings from the Brotherhood. Nor any money either. Nor any encouragement from the inner sanctum. If Gibbons' union work could be handled by someone else and Harold wanted to pay his own way, well, okay.

Then Gibbons called the National Security Council. He wanted a briefing. He was told to come in. He did on March 9. He and Dr. Kissinger talked for a long time. And then the trio flew off to a flower-strewn welcome in Hanoi and many public exchanges of a desire for peace. And some private talk about prisoners of war.

The thoughts of hard-nosed Gibbons and Livingston as flower-bedecked emissaries is hard to conjure. But apparently the reasoning somewhere in the State Dept. or the Kissinger "operation" is less difficult to analyze.

It can be presumed that some policymaker decided a labor delegation was in order. How could there be a rapport with a "people's" land without representation from the American proletariat. But the national AFL-CIO is adamant. No exchanges, no delegations, no relations with what it calls the "phony unions" of Communist lands.

But the Teamsters and the Distributive Workers are independent. The Meat Cutters' leaders generally have opposed the AFL-CIO leadership on foreign policy. There is the Auto Workers, but its chief Leonard Woodcock, a Fabian Socialist himself, is dedicated to the political destruction of President Nixon. As for the Auto Workers' former foreign affairs chief, Victor Reuther (just officially retired), he is planning an anti-war demonstration in front of the White House.

So, if Dr. Kissinger wanted to go into Hanoi as he went into Peking in ping-pong days, the three-man delegation is just the kind he'd use. It may be just a junket, Yet it could very well be, as Lenin loved to say, a junction in history.

( All Rights Reserved )

From PUBLISHERS-HALL SYNDICATE
401 North Wabash Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611

AMERICAN OPINION

Volume XV - Number 3

CONTENTS - MARCH, 1972

<table><tr><td>Oh, Henry!</td><td>Gary Allen</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Robert E. Lee</td><td>E. Merrill Root</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Immigration</td><td>Honorable John G. Schmitz</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign Policy</td><td>Medford Evans</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>The N.E.A.</td><td>Alan Stang</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>De Libris</td><td>Medford Evans</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>From Poetry</td><td>Edited by E. Merrill Root</td><td>93</td></tr><tr><td>Cover Portrait</td><td>Daniel Michael Canavan - Cover</td><td></td></tr></table>

Dear Reader:

In a decade of editing this journal, finding fault, and grumbling about the duplicity of public figures, we have noticed that there are two things that will be believed of any man whomsoever, and one is that he has an immodest interest in handsome women. Come to think of it, we have forgotten the other thing.

As we go to press, *Time* and *Newsweek* have just published cover features on Henry Kissinger, devoting themselves to pusillanimous chat about the "Assistant President" and his acquaintance with assorted beautiful ladies. Since *Life* magazine did the same thing the week before, it seems apparent that the "Liberal" press is in the throes of a campaign to make President Nixon's chief "advisor" appear human. The patronizing message comes through like a shout: "After all, anyone Zsa Zsa Gabor likes can't be all bad." Maybe not, but it would be a good idea to reserve judgment about the matter until after you've seen what Gary Allen writes of Henry Kissinger beginning on the next page.

From the hero of the contemporary *Time*, we ask that you move beyond Kissinger ("non ragioniam di tor, ma guarda, e passa") to Professor E. Merrill Root's magnificent essay on the American hero Robert E. Lee. The great G.K. Chesterton called Lee the last of the heroes. But after reading Allen and Root, the courageous article by Congressman John Schmitz which begins on Page 29, and Alan Stang's powerful exposé of the National Education Association, beginning on Page 49, we think you might be moved to give even Chesterton an argument.

What makes American heroes of men like Lee and Root and Stang and Allen and Schmitz, the lack of which leads other gifted men like Kissinger to vanities of power and betrayal? Values, perhaps. Certainly it involves an absolute commitment to our land and her traditions above those of all others. But what activates this commitment to faithfulness, what ignites it in some and not in others? Robert E. Lee gave us the answer with his own life, and defined it in a single sentence. "Duty," he said simply, "is the greatest word in the languages of men."

Sincerely,

Editor
ROBERT WELCH

Managing Editor
SCOTT STANLEY, JR.

Associate Editors
THOMAS J. ANDERSON
MEDFORD EVANS

FRANCIS X. GANNON
ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY

E. MERRILL ROOT
Contributing Editors

GARY ALLEN
HILAIRE DU BERRIER
FRANK MACMILLAN

GEORGE S. SCHUYLER
ALAN STANG

HAROLD LORD VARNEY
DAVID O. WOODBURY

Assistant
Managing Editor

MARIAN PROBERT WELCH

Publisher
RICHARD N. OBER

Advertising and Promotion
BRUCE TAYLOR

Circulation Manager
CHARLES G. METZGER, JR.

Editorial
Advisory Committee

The following group of distinguished Americans gives the editor comments and advice which are helpful in determining the editorial policy, contents, and opinions of this magazine. But no responsibility can be attributed to any members of this Committee for any specific articles, items or conclusions which appear in these pages.

K. G. BENTSON
LAURENCE E. BUNKER
F. GANO CHANCE
MARTIN J. CONDON, III
ROBERT B. DRESSER
WM. J. GREDE
CLARENCE MANION
N. FLOYD MCGOWIN
W. B. MCMILLAN
LUDWIG VON MISES
ROBERT W. STODDARD
ERNEST G. SWIGERT

AMERICAN OPINION - is published monthly except July by Robert Welch, Inc., 395 Concord Ave., Belmont, Massachusetts 02178 U.S.A. Subscription rates are ten dollars per year in the United States, twelve dollars elsewhere. Copyright 1972 by Robert Welch, Inc. We use almost no articles except those written to order to fit our specific needs, and can assume no responsibility for the return of unsolicited manuscripts.

Second Class Postage Paid at Boston, Massachusetts, and at additional mailing offices.

# OH, HENRY!

## Henry Kissinger, One-World Swinger

Gary Allen, a graduate of Stanford University, and one of the nation's top authorities on civil turmoil and the New Left, is author of Communist Revolution In The Streets, and of the explosive best-seller, Richard Nixon: The Man Behind The Mask, just released by Western Islands. Mr. Allen, a former instructor of both history and English, is active in anti-Communist and other humanitarian causes. Now a film writer, author, and journalist, he is a Contributing Editor to AMERICAN OPINION. Gary Allen is also nationally celebrated as a lecturer.

■ HENRY Kissinger has been the darling of the Establishment media ever since last summer when he emerged from his two-day visit behind the Bamboo Curtain. Presidential advisors are usually about as well known to the general public as third-string guards on the football team at Montana State, but Kissinger has become a household word. The former Harvard professor even rivals Jackie Kennedy for space in the movie magazines.

Typical of the Batman prose which has been draped about him was this little horror from the *New York Times* of July 17, 1971:

> Who but Henry A. Kissinger could have slipped into mainland China, arranged a future chat between Premier Chou En-lai and President Nixon, and kept it all a secret? Only the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs could match the Orientals at scrutinyability....

The 48-year-old foreign policy

expert manages the development of Presidential diplomacy while creating the illusion that he is a full-time permanent floating cocktail party guest of honor. That takes dazzling intellect, fancy footwork, beguiling aplomb and, it sometimes seems, mirrors.... He has been described as "Nixon's Svengali" and as the President's Metternich, discussed on the floor of the Senate as "Secretary of State in everything but title."

The only other person in the White House who may know precisely what Mr. Kissinger represents was clearly relieved when Mr. Kissinger decided last January to give up his tenure at Harvard to stay on in Government. "Frankly, I cannot imagine what the government would be like without you," Mr. Nixon wrote to him.

In protocol, says one of his secretaries, Dr. Kissinger comes "just below God." The *New York Times* calls him "the President's proxy," and *Cosmopolitan* coos of Mr. Nixon's superman that he is "the Man of Steel, whom the President can trust with the world's biggest and best secrets."

In Washington, the definition of power is access to the President and possession of information valuable to him. U.S. News & World Report remarks that Kissinger "spends more time with the President in the latter's office than any other member of the official family." According to *Time*, "He sees the President an average of 90 minutes a day, apart from

MARCH, 1972

1

formal meetings of the National Security Council." Eugene Risher of United Press International notes of Kissinger:

> He probably spends more time with Nixon than anybody except Mrs. Nixon, much of it alone in relaxed and private discussions. At every international conference the President has held, Kissinger has been at his side. He briefs Nixon on world developments for about 15 minutes each morning and spends at least another hour in the President's oval office each day. Virtually every piece of paper going to Nixon on foreign policy, intelligence, or defense passes through his hands.

In a slip of the tongue, White House Press Secretary Ronald Ziegler recently referred to Kissinger as "Secretary of State Kissinger." Ziegler quickly corrected the faux pas, but then declared the slip "off the record." United Press International reported it anyway, for there can be no doubt that the Press Secretary was right the first time. "Liberal" columnists Evans and Novak declare that the Harvard Professor's authority is "revolutionary," and confirm that "Kissinger's influence, as a direct result of Mr. Nixon's wishes and Kissinger's own unique expertise in the mysterious ways of the bureaucracy, has also been extended over Secretary Melvin Laird's Defense Department."

This is a very interesting position for a man who had to be issued a ninety-day security waiver when he was appointed. Certainly that waiver effectively quashed any investigation into Professor Kissinger's subversive connections. The President is well aware that, after an official is ensconced in high public office for three months, it is virtually futile for the F.B.I. or any other security agency to produce an adverse security report. All of which suggests that we might profitably rummage about in Dr. Kissinger's past before

inspecting his present, so that we might prophetably look into his, and our own, future.

By now every American who can read knows that Heinz Alfred Kissinger was born in Germany and emigrated to the United States in 1938 as a result of Nazi persecution of Jews. Following graduation from high school with scholastic honors in 1941, his highest ambition in life was to become an accountant. Fate, in the form of World War II, intervened.

While he was a private in the Army, Kissinger's potential somehow came to the attention of Dr. Fritz Kraemer, a fellow German refugee serving in American military intelligence. Kraemer saved young Henry (who had by now changed his name from the Germanic Heinz) from latrine duty and had him promoted into the Counter-Intelligence Corps. At first Kissinger was used as an interrogator, but after the fall of Germany he was made administrator of a large German town.

Within a year, through his capabilities and connections, Kissinger was governing a whole district. By now he was once again a civilian with a $10,000-a-year Civil Service job, a remarkable amount of money in those days for a foreign-born youth of twenty. But the bug of ambition had bitten young Henry and he realized that he needed a college education.

In the fall of 1946, Henry Alfred Kissinger entered Harvard, where he was taken under the wing of Professor of Government William Yandell Elliott. In recommending Kissinger to Phi Beta Kappa, Elliott was later to observe that Kissinger is "more like a mature colleague than a student.... his mind... is Teutonic in its systematic thoroughness." Newsweek tells us of their relationship: "Elliott, who became Kissinger's mentor throughout his student days at Harvard, was himself a consultant to five U.S. Presidents and probably helped persuade Henry to set his sights higher than professional distinction."

2

AMERICAN OPINION

What *Newsweek* neglects to mention is that Professor Elliott was one of those Harvard Leftists whose names had cropped up in 1953 during Senate Hearings on the Institute of Pacific Relations (I.P.R.). After thorough investigation, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee found the I.P.R. to be "an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda, and military intelligence" used by the Reds to help deliver China to Mao Tse-tung. To quote further from the official findings: "Members of the small core of officials and staff members who controlled IPR were either Communist or pro-Communist." Yes, Professor Elliott knew how the world was run. And he obviously informed Henry. *Newsweek* continues:

> ... after being appointed to the Harvard government faculty in the mid-50's, [Kissinger] became intimately associated with two prestigious organizations located in that peculiarly American midway between the academy and the government: the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. And from these two convenient jumping-off points, it was just a short hop for the Harvard professor to enter government service as an expert on foreign affairs.

Through Elliott, Kissinger was initiated into the Council on Foreign Relations, the club of Establishment *Insiders* in which Elliott was himself an important member. So important is this organization to the subsequent rise of Henry Kissinger that we must spend a few moments describing it.

Although the nation's leading titans of finance, politics, commerce, the academy, and communications belong to the C.F.R., until recently it has eschewed publicity as Count Dracula avoids the sign of the cross. Following repeated exposure by a handful of Conservative authors,

however, the C.F.R. has recently allowed certain carefully selected information about itself to appear in the Establishment media. A feature story on the Council by Anthony Lukas was carried in the *New York Times* of November 21, 1971. Lukas was obviously aware of the charges made over the years by Conservative opponents of this legion of An era's unelected rulers. For example, he states:

> One of the most remarkable aspects of this remarkable organization, whose 1,500 members include most figures who have significantly influenced American foreign policy in the last 30 years, is how little is known about it outside a narrow circle of East Coast insiders.... Most newspaper references are brief notations that some notable has spoken there (omitting what he said, for all Council proceedings are off the record).

While the *Times* correspondent does admit that the C.F.R. has made American foreign policy for thirty years,* it is what he omits that is most interesting. Nowhere does Mr. Lukas tell us that there are well over a hundred members of the Council on Foreign Relations who hold high positions in the Nixon Administration — including, most especially, “Assistant President” Henry Alfred Kissinger.

The *New York Times* obviously assigned Mr. Lukas to act as the magician in charge of making the rabbit disappear into a (cocked) hat ... so that those who have been disturbed by Conservative exposure of the C.F.R. will once again return to their siestas. Nothing is said of the largely unseen men behind the scenes

*Mr. Lukas reminds us in the *Times* that "everyone knows how fraternity brothers can help other brothers climb the ladder of life. If you want to make foreign policy, there's no better fraternity to belong to than the Council."

MARCH, 1972

3

at the Council on Foreign Relations who select or reject Presidential candidates, staff Administration after Administration, and set national policy. When Joseph Kraft, a longtime member of the Council, calls Henry Kissinger "the second most powerful man in the world," he means of those men who visibly hold power. As Disraeli observed, "the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined." These are the men who took a political has-been, shattered after his defeat for the governorship of California, and made him President. And they are the men who picked up an obscure but brilliant young refugee and made him the "Assistant President" of the United States.

Writing in the *Boston Globe*, Bernard Collier refers to Kissinger's "endlessly lucky career." That is absurd. Henry Kissinger became destiny's tot because the *Insiders* who are now creating our destiny recognized his talents and selected him as their agent for the shaping and molding of American policy.

The owlish Kissinger sailed through Harvard on the wings of four scholarships, including the Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship for Political Theory. He thereby established an early alliance with the Rockefeller family, a powerful force in the Council on Foreign Relations. One day the Rockefellers, like the man from Hertz, would put him in the driver's seat at the White House. Meanwhile, Kissinger had by 1954 earned his doctorate at Harvard and was already a consultant to a number of government agencies. At the same time he was teaching at Harvard and running a group called the Harvard International Seminar which, according to *Time*, was bankrolled by the Central Intelligence Agency using foundations as conduits.

Martin Mayer writes in *Cosmopolitan* for January 1972 that in 1956: "When the Rockefeller Brothers Fund was formed, essentially as an investigative arm of the Rockefeller Foundation, Kissinger,

while continuing to serve as associate director of Harvard's Center for International Affairs, was made director of its Special Studies Project." Also in 1956, when the job of Managing Editor of the C.F.R.'s *Foreign Affairs* magazine opened up, C.F.R. Harvardians McGeorge Bundy, Arthur Schlesinger, and William Elliott recommended Kissinger for the post. Instead of taking that job, however, he became a research secretary for the C.F.R. and launched into the writing of a book on nuclear weapons. According to Bernard Collier, "He worked with single-minded concentration on it. He lived with his wife in a New York apartment, and when he came home at night he forbade her to talk to him because it would interrupt his train of thought."

The *New York Times* tells us that in 1957 when that first book, *Nuclear Weapons And Foreign Policy*, was published it "brought Kissinger to the attention of scores of politicians, diplomats and military men and became a source book for American policymakers." That was obviously the plan. The flyleaf acknowledges that it was published by Harper & Brothers for the Council on Foreign Relations. *Nuclear Weapons And Foreign Policy* was particularly dangerous since instead of using the usual Marxist rationale for creating at a World Government, it arrived at that point through an apparently hard-headed analysis of Communism. It had the unique distinction of being praised by both *National Review's* James Burnham and security risk Julius Robert Oppenheimer.

In *Nuclear Weapons And Foreign Policy*, Henry Kissinger argued that the most effective deterrent to Communist aggression was the knowledge that the United States would employ nuclear weapons from the very outset. Quotations from this book were cited in a number of Conservative journals at the time of Kissinger's appointment by Nixon, the object being to show that the C.F.R. protégé was a Conservative

4

AMERICAN OPINION

Presidential Advisor Henry Kissinger is now being portrayed as a playboy spy who runs about the world outsmarting top Reds. Yet virtually every piece of paper on foreign policy, intelligence, or defense which reaches the President must now go first to Henry Kissinger. Picked up as a Harvard student by Professor W.Y. Elliott of the C.F.R., supported by Rockefeller grants through college, and immediately made a staffer for the Council on Foreign Relations, Kissinger was Nelson Rockefeller's foreign policy advisor in 1968, when Nixon picked him for his top job after meeting Kissinger only once at a party. This though the Harvard Professor had shown such contempt for Mr. Nixon as to refuse to write Conservative campaign speeches for him and had said publicly: "That man Nixon is not fit to be President." Henry Kissinger is a longtime disarmament advocate, early promoter of no-win wars, and author of the plan used by Robert McNamara to "reorganize" the Pentagon. And yet Kissinger is now so powerful that he boasts of his authority: "The President is under the illusion that he is giving instructions."

MARCH, 1972

5

and an anti-Communist. This glossed the fact that in his next book, *The Necessity For Choice*, Kissinger stated that he had re-thought his previous stands, the ones praised by anti-Communists, and had decided they were wrong. Discussing this about-face, Chalmers Roberts observed in his column in the "Liberal" *Washington Post* for December 3, 1968, that Kissinger "later decided that it was doubtful that the United States would know how to fight a limited nuclear war and therefore a conventional strategy should first be employed in case of Communist attack."

Kissinger had now become an advocate of the sort of "limited" no-win ground wars into which we were betrayed in Vietnam. You see, Henry said, "The Soviets cannot profit from limited war." Which is totally absurd. The Soviets have profited enormously by fighting America by proxy in both Korea and Vietnam.

Instead of relying upon a nuclear deterrent, Professor Kissinger now proposed that America put her faith in disarmament treaties. In *The Necessity For Choice* he put it this way:

> This is the measure of the task ahead: simultaneously with building our capabilities for limited war and our conventional forces, we will be embarked on arms-control negotiation of crucial import. Our leadership must convince public opinion that we have to increase our military expenditures even while making earnest efforts to negotiate on arms control.*

Henry Kissinger has been deeply involved with the nuclear disarmers for many years. According to James Reston of the C.F.R. and the *New York Times*:

> Kissinger worked very closely with Jerome Wiesner, Thomas C. Schelling and others on the formulation of "the strategy of equilib-

> rium" for dealing with the Soviet nuclear threat.... This stable deterrent system, it should be noted, did not rest, as Mr. Nixon's campaign speeches seemed to rest, on the assumption that the United States must always have a clear superiority in military arms over the Soviets.

Schelling and Wiesner, both "Liberal" Democrats and members of the Council on Foreign Relations, are two of the foremost leaders in the effort to disarm America. They openly oppose American military superiority over the Communists. According to Joseph Kraft, Professor Schelling was Kissinger's closest friend at Harvard and advocates a U.N. "Peace Force" with an "invulnerable nuclear deterrent" used as a "strategic force absolutely committed to preventive war." The "Liberals" have always told us that "preventive war" against the Communists is unthinkable, but Kissinger's closest friend at Harvard proposes using nuclear weapons against any country resisting the World Superstate. He specifically advocates nuclear bombing of the United States should it oppose the world dictatorship of the United Nations.†

Kissinger has himself been a participant in at least one of the Pugwash Conferences on disarmament, those peri-

* Kissinger writes in the preface to this book: "I must say a word about two other institutions which have given me encouragement and support: the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Council on Foreign Relations.... Five years ago, the Council on Foreign Relations gave me my first opportunity to work systematically on problems of foreign policy. My relations with it have remained close and my admiration for it has, if anything, increased. ... In 1958-59 I had the privilege of acting as research secretary for a discussion group on Political and Strategic Problems of Deterrence...."

†For the ugly details see Dr. Thomas Schelling's *Strategic Problems Of An International Force*, quoted in "Inspectorate," *American Opinion* for May 1965.

6

AMERICAN OPINION

odic meetings of radical American scientists and politicians with their Soviet counterparts. These Conferences are sponsored by pro-Soviet activist Cyrus Eaton, whom the Reece Committee to investigate foundations discovered to be a secret member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Pugwash Conferences were often the target of Republican attacks during the Johnson and Kennedy Administrations.

But then Henry Kissinger is amazingly bipartisan. He has been an advisor to every Administration since that of Harry Truman. As Ray McHugh of the Copley News Service observes:

> Kissinger is the man who wrote the so-called Rockefeller Commission Report on the Defense Department in 1953 that suggested major moves toward centralization of the defense establishment. President Eisenhower did not invoke many of the recommendations, but the Kissinger plan later became the blueprint for Robert S. McNamara's reign in the Pentagon.

> Kissinger's Pentagon reorganization ideas alienated many professional military officers....

My, my, isn't that interesting! Robert McNamara and Henry Kissinger are, of course, both members of the ubiquitous Council on Foreign Relations. But wasn't it those very McNamara policies that Mr. Nixon, who has also been listed as a member of the C.F.R., pledged during his 1968 campaign to repudiate? You just know it was.

During the Kennedy Administration,

Kissinger was special consultant to J.F.K. on the Berlin Crisis.* If the President's decision to accept the Berlin Wall as a *fait accompli* was not a product of Kissinger's advice, at least he has never repudiated it. President Kennedy soon appointed Henry Kissinger to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, whose stated goal is not only to disarm us, but to transfer American arms to an all-powerful U.N. military force. Kissinger certainly knows that the military arm of the United Nations, as represented by the Under-Secretary for Security Council Affairs, has by America's agreement been headed by a Communist since the founding of the United Nations.†

Henry Kissinger's star continued to ascend during the Johnson Administration as the President used him on three highly secret missions to Vietnam, two of them to North Vietnam itself. Of course, during the period that he was advising Democrats Kennedy and Johnson, Kissinger was also foreign policy advisor for Nelson Rockefeller — a fact indicative of the power and influence the Rockefellers have in Washington no matter which party is in power. According to the late *Look* magazine:

> When Nelson Rockefeller decided to run for President in 1968, Kissinger tutored the New York Governor through a series of seminars designed to reformulate Rockefeller's thinking on foreign policy. In fact, one reporter who interviewed Rockefeller was directed afterward by the Governor's office to Kissinger to find out just what Rockefeller had meant.

Henry Kissinger's attitude toward Richard Nixon was revealed in the *Wall Street Journal* for December 3, 1968:

> When the Republican Convention in Miami this summer picked Richard Nixon for President, one of the most disgusted onlookers was a

*Henry Kissinger has remained loyal to the Kennedys, and according to *U.S. News & World Report* of July 14, 1969, he is "a professed admirer of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy — a man whose policies were anathema to rank and file Republicans."

†See *American Opinion*, January 1972, "Get US out!"

MARCH, 1972

7

45-year-old Harvard professor named Henry Kissinger. "All of us Rockefeller-rooters were disappointed, of course," recalls a Kissinger teammate, "but Henry was really bitter."

So crestfallen was Kissinger, according to Bernard Collier in the *Boston Globe*, that "When Rockefeller had lost for sure, Henry was seen weeping." Collier says: "The alleged Kissinger quotation that is most often repeated is: 'That man Nixon is not fit to be President.'" And, Mr. Kissinger's contempt for Nixon continued for some time, as *Newsweek* observes in its issue for December 22, 1969:

> He received an immediate offer to help write nominee Nixon's speeches but turned it down because, a former associate recalls, "Henry doubted that he could write anything that Nixon would be willing to use." But he did remain in informal contact with both the Nixon camp and members ofbert Humphrey's foreign-policy task force.

Apparently his C.F.R. contacts would have assured Kissinger the same position of importance in either a Humphrey or Nixon Administration. Certainly Henry has never even pretended to be a Republican. *Look* said that Kissinger is a "political independent" who likes to think of himself as 'liberal.'" Columnist Nick Thimmesch adds that "as a political independent, it is doubtful that Kissinger even voted for Nixon."

Nonetheless, Henry A. Kissinger was President-elect Nixon's first major appointment. We are asked to believe that it was fate, the result of a casual meeting that proved to be love at first sight. The *New York Times* for December 3, 1968, tells us that "Dr. Kissinger has known Mr. Nixon less than a year - they met at a Christmas party at the home of Mrs. Clare

Boothe Luce — but Mr. Nixon said he knew Mr. Kissinger long before through his writings [*for the C.F.R.*]." We are apparently supposed to believe that Richard Nixon appointed Professor Kissinger to the most important position in his Administration on the basis of this happenstance meeting at a party. Obviously the President-elect made the appointment on the advice or at the direction of others.

The *Deseret News* of Salt Lake City can afford to be less coy than the *Times*. It tells us the truth about how Kissinger came to be selected as Mr. Nixon's Colonel House: "In the end, it was Rockefeller himself who brought Nixon and Kissinger together. 'Rocky set up the job for Henry,' says a former Rockefeller aide, 'because he... thought it might give him (Rockefeller) some voice in foreign policy.'" *U.S. News* confirmed this in its issue for November 1, 1971, as follows: "It was on the advice of Governor Rockefeller, who described Mr. Kissinger as 'the smartest guy available,' that Mr. Nixon chose him for his top advisor on foreign policy." And *Cosmopolitan* adds: "... Though nobody says it in so many words, apparently Kissinger did not accept the offer until he had talked over the situation with Nelson Rockefeller."

Just why Rockefeller, who could not even deliver his own state's electoral vote to Nixon, should be naming the key man for the Nixon Administration is a point which concerned Americans should ponder. It is both ironic and sad that even the Conservative weekly, *Human Events*, was at the time gloating that Rockefeller and his allies had been shut out of all key posts in the Nixon Administration.

Nelson Rockefeller, whose brother David is Chairman of the Board of the Council on Foreign Relations, had advocated the establishment of a sort of "Assistant President" in 1960, when Nixon made his first run for the White House. This "first secretary," according to the *Wall Street Journal* of June 23,

8

AMERICAN OPINION

1960, "would be answerable only to the President; he would determine long-range policy .... He would have the status of prime minister, as it were, and he would outrank the Cabinet members." As Rockefeller saw it, there would be two positions. One man for foreign affairs (Kissinger), and one for domestic affairs (originally Arthur Burns, now George Schultz). Upon announcing the appointment of Kissinger, President-elect Nixon revealed that his job would be to plan "long-range policy."

In making the appointment, Mr. Nixon said several men had been under consideration, but: "I felt that at this time there was a need to bring to government someone who had never had that responsibility before." While this was in line with Candidate Nixon's pledge to bring "new leadership" to America, it was not in line with the facts. As we have seen, Kissinger had been an advisor to the previous three Administrations. Asked whether the appointment meant that he was embracing ideas expressed by Mr. Rockefeller, the President-elect responded: "As we approach these problems, we are going to approach them without any inhibition with regard to statements that have been made in the past by those in the planning functions."

If you can make heads or tails of that artful circumlocution, please explain it to me.

The American voters should have opened fire as soon as they saw who saluted when Nixon ran Kissinger's flag up the pole. The Far Left went into fits of ecstasy. The *New York Times* of December 4, 1968, quoted Professor Adam Yarmolinsky (C.F.R.) of Harvard, the notorious Leftist who was responsible for the Kennedy appointment of Robert Strange McNamara to be Secretary of Defense, as declaring: "I will sleep better with Henry Kissinger in Washington. He has the kind of judgment, balance and ability to see that the President is exposed to the whole spectrum of views he

should get." The *Times* then quoted Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (C.F.R.) as declaring: "I think it's an excellent appointment. It's very encouraging. He's the best they'll get. He asked for my advice a few weeks ago and I urged him to accept." Professor Schlesinger added that he did not think Kissinger would have accepted the job if he had believed Mr. Nixon's campaign speech calling for arms superiority over the Soviet Union.

George F. Kennan (C.F.R.) also "applauded" the selection. And John Kenneth Galbraith "called the appointment of his friend 'a good one.'" James Reston (C.F.R.), apparently the Establishment's chief media spokesman since the retirement of Walter Lippmann (C.F.R.), declared Mr. Nixon's choice of Kissinger "a reassuring sign that the new administration is going to make a serious and objective reappraisal of its security programs and priorities." The ancient radical Max Lerner noted, "It is also a happy choice because of Kissinger's high standing in the intellectual community." And "Superliberal" Joseph Kraft (C.F.R.) wrote:

> The best augury to date for the incoming administration is the article on Vietnam just published here in Foreign Affairs by Henry Kissinger. Nobody can tell how the new foreign policy team named by President-elect Nixon will respond to the challenge of events. But at least the way is finally open to play it straight with the Communist world.

*Business Week* reported that the appointment of Kissinger "should banish the notion that Nixon might pursue any simplistic sort of anti-Communist policy in the world." And the delight of the Establishment *Insiders* generally was summed up by Joseph C. Harsch, another member of the C.F.R., who observed in his column:

MARCH, 1972

9

Politically, Professor Kissinger belongs to the "Eastern Establishment."... Kissinger has grown up in the foreign policy group which revolves around the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Here he came to know, and work with, the whole cluster of top men in banking and industry who make up the true inner core of the so-called "Eastern Establishment."

William F. Buckley Jr., the Establishment's certified voice of reasonable and respectable opposition, cooed that Kissinger was the "anti-Communist at Harvard." Buckley had also given his perfumed seal of approval for Nelson Rockefeller to be Nixon's Secretary of State. Apparently Mr. Rockefeller accepted by proxy!

Time magazine wrote of Kissinger: "Bonn, London and Paris may disagree on a score of issues, but they are in happy unanimity in their respect for him; even Moscow is not displeased." You can bet Moscow was not displeased! But those who voted for Nixon had every right to be. Throughout his campaign Candidate Nixon had proclaimed: "We cannot be led in the '70s by the same men who led us from disaster to disaster in the '60s." Yet Nixon's very first move was to appoint one of the architects of those disasters to the most important position in his Administration. According to Establishment spokesman James Reston:

> Dr. Kissinger, who took his doctoral degree at Harvard under McGeorge Bundy [C.F.R., and now head of the Ford Foundation], has been concentrating on precisely these problems for years at Cambridge and at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, and it is significant that he has the respect of most of the foreign policy experts who have served the last three presidents.

The more it changes, the more it remains the same. When a new Administration enters, Team One of the C.F.R. returns to the foundations and the academy, and Team Two takes its place under the banner of "New Leadership."

As the President's chief advisor on foreign policy, Kissinger now sits at the apex of a pyramid of vital committees. The most important of these is the 25-man National Security Council, charged with formulating U.S. defense polices. Henry Kissinger helped President Nixon bring "New Leadership" to America by picking twenty-three holdovers from the Kennedy-Johnson Administrations for that Council — a fact almost totally ignored by the Establishment media. Columnist Anthony Harrigan, who did comment, said:

> Nixon Administration supporters who closely observe the defense establishment and who count themselves as realists in military and foreign policy issues were shocked recently when they saw the full list of new National Security Council members.

> Dr. Kissinger has assembled a staff made up of people identified with the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations and with such individuals as McNamara, Rusk, Rosnow and Katzenbach. To many people, the list will appear to be nothing less than incredible.... The Kissinger selections would fit in nicely with a Hubert Humphrey or Edward Kennedy Administration.

The New York Times quoted a "knowledgeable Johnson Administration official" as admitting Kissinger's staff was comprised of "virtually all in-house people." Another observed that holdovers from the Kennedy-Johnson Era would outnumber newcomers from the academic world or Nixon's campaign organiza-

10

AMERICAN OPINION

tion. The disgusted American Conservative Union, a predominantly Republican organization, declared in its *Battle Line* for February-March 1969:

> But what all this means should be clear to any conservative who still possesses his reason. Whatever policies in foreign affairs President Nixon may choose to follow, the apparatus he has established to execute those policies is controlled by the very liberals who have weakened American power and prestige for two decades.

Most of Kissinger's staff was put together from McNamara's "Whiz Kids" and the staff of Walt Rostow, who was three times refused security clearance. For instance, an early member of the Kissinger staff was Daniel Ellsberg, who was part of a special panel of foreign policy experts working to formulate Nixon's Indo-China policy.

All policy options devised by the various important Administration committees filter up to Henry Kissinger, who in turn synthesizes them for the President. Kissinger is at the apex of the system, and while the claim is made that he passes on all recommendations to the President with total objectivity, he would be less than human if his own very strong views were not reflected in the presentation. As Kissinger remarks about his job: "I make very sure to tell the President of the choices various departments recommend and the implications of each. Usually, he asks which I'd take and I tell him."

David Landau of Harvard writes in the *Los Angeles Times* that Kissinger "is the single authoritative carrier of national policy besides the President himself." Professor Kissinger's disdain for advice from *hoi polloi* of the Cabinet and Congress has become legendary, and is described by Landau in the *Los Angeles Times* of July 18, 1971, as follows:

Kissinger felt that the Presidency was the only office of government which could determine and execute foreign policy in the way it should properly be conducted. Congress was an impediment; its members, by and large, were not properly schooled in the hard-fought, intricate practice of diplomatic affairs and were more likely to respond to the uninformed concerns of their voters, to the shoddy tug-and-pull of the popular political process, than to the arduous twists and turns of great-power relationships....

His feelings are similar toward the academics who parade to Washington to peddle their ideas. And when one sets aside popular opinion, Congress, the bureaucracy and the academic community, there remains the President alone. The inescapable conclusion is that Kissinger's only meaningful constituency is a constituency of one.

Mr. Nixon has made much political capital with rhetoric about the necessity of decentralization. But the national security system which Kissinger has set up for the President is centralization personified. As Landau puts it:

> Such a policy of threat demanded a high degree of centralization – and the resulting Nixon-Kissinger policy structure was designed to circumvent those forces in government, such as Congress and the Cabinet bureaucrats, which were considered extraneous to that approach.

So centralized is the decision-making process that there is some indication that Henry Kissinger may be more important in setting foreign policy than even the President. While discussing the Indo-Pakistani War, the arrogant Kissinger told the

MARCH, 1972

11

other members of the Washington Special Action Group meeting at the White House: "The President is under the illusion that he is giving instructions."

Does Henry Kissinger ignore the President's instructions with impunity? One wonders. Certainly President Nixon recently took another giant step towards centralizing power in the hands of Kissinger by giving him absolute control of all intelligence activities. On November 5, 1971, U.P.I. reported:

President Nixon has ordered an overhaul of the government's intelligence operations by creating a special committee headed by Dr. Henry Kissinger, the White House announced today. The announcement said Kissinger, presidential advisor on national security affairs, will supervise an intelligence committee to be set up within the National Security Council.

Reporting to him will be Richard Helms, director of the Central Intelligence Agency; the attorney general; the undersecretary of state; the deputy secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Naturally, the White House said it was making the changes to "increase efficiency and improve quality," but David Kraslow of the *Los Angeles Times* indicates that the changes are being made because the White House is unhappy with the fact that the various bureaus of military intelligence are "alarmist" about Communist plans, whereas the C.I.A. and Kissinger take a more reasonable view. Columnist Flora Lewis adds the following:

> There is also a concern that the reorganization, which makes the President's national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, top dog over intelligence, will centralize the system so much it will become a

> tool for White House aims, not an outside source of technical expertise.

General Nathan Twining voiced similar worries over such centralization of intelligence as early as 1966 in his book *Neither Liberty Nor Safety*. Well aware of what it could mean, Twining warned:

> If I were more inclined to hysteria and gloom with respect to the future health of our military forces, I would take very seriously the comments of one of my former staff officers, who in 1961, made the following observation:

> "The first thing which a revolutionary coup attempts is to seize control of the communications system, the public information system, and the intelligence system of the government in power which is being overthrown. Even though there has never been an overt coup in this country, it seems to me that our government is creating a very powerful machine, a machine possibly subject to the whim and the control of a single agency. This agency is not now despotic, nor is it interested in the overthrow of the system of government which is America's heritage. However, I worry about the people who will come later and so, I must also worry about this constant erosion of our traditional system of checks and balances and the interference of free communications with the American people."

Kissinger watchers have remarked that the President's security advisor is suffering from an absolute case of Acton's Disease. Henry is getting precariously close to absolute power – and it shows. According to Bernard Collier in the *Boston Globe*, he had a traumatic childhood and a domineering mother, and as a result

12

AMERICAN OPINION

Mr. Kissinger arrives in Peking. At his right is top espionage agent Huang Hua, now Mao's man at U.N.

Henry “broods and worries and wrestles with quilts.” Collier continues: “He will have small nasty tantrums, sometimes so close together that they seem like one big one....” Kissinger’s close friend Joseph Kraft remarks that “His suspiciousness is proverbial.” *Life* describes him during his days as a professor:

> At Harvard he was seen as a tense, driven man with a prickly personality that made him as many enemies as friends. He was proud, impatient, intolerant of fools and suspicious of those who seemed potential competitors. “Sooner or later,” said a man to whom it had happened, “that thin link of trust Henry had with anyone would break and then he would be a devastating adversary.”

Working for Kissinger is reputed to be akin to spending life in a pressure cooker. A former member of the Kissinger staff spoke of him to writer Noel E. Parmentel: “He’s got us all buffaloed.” He can

(and will) lift your security, get you a foundation black ball, bong you at the colleges, put you in Coventry. He’s got spies in every department. He’s running the Ministry of Fear. All his phones are tapped and he keeps long dossiers.”

Another former Kissinger employee bitterly refers to Henry as “Dr. Strange-love,” and uses adjectives such as “selfish, cunning, calculating, power-mad, and publicity-obsessed.” This former staffer declares: “In my book Hank Kissinger is a suspicious, fearful misanthrope surrounded by people who are compelled to maintain a low profile to keep their jobs. I’d sooner dig ditches than work for him again.”

Described by Bernard Collier as a compulsive nail biter, Kissinger reminds others of Captain Queeg in *The Caine Mutiny*. “I have been accused of megalomania,” says Kissinger. “Actually I suffer from paranoia.” Kissinger is supposed to be kidding, but the members of his staff laugh just loud enough to get by.

Friend and foe alike agree that Henry thoroughly enjoys his power and fame.

MARCH, 1972

13

Joseph Kraft tells us Kissinger's intellec-
tual hero is the German philosopher
Hegel. This will mean nothing to those
who are unaware that both Karl Marx and
Adolf Hitler built their dreams on Hegel's
theories of dialectical materialism and
total subservience of the individual to the
state. As Kissinger told Look: "The im-
peratives of the individual are always in
conflict with the organization of soci-
ety." He makes it clear that "the organi-
zation of society" under the federal
government comes first — right after
Henry Kissinger.

But the machines of mass propaganda
spend little time on such aspects of
Kissinger's personality. We are told what
a devoted father he is to his two children,
but nothing is said about why he aban-
doned them. Some of the gooier puff
even implies that he is still deeply in love
with his former wife, Ann Fleischer, and
only chases movie starlets to forget the
loneliness of life without her. That is
hardly the picture painted by the acritic
Noel E. Parmentel:

When he [Henry Kissinger] was
married to Ann, who was a genuine
human being, he couldn't stand it.
After she literally slaved to send
him through graduate school he
almost turned her into a zombie
with all that screaming and shout-
ing. Just like the Gestapo. He was
ashamed of her New York accent
and always told her how she em-
barrassed him in front of "impor-
tant people." It got so bad she was
scared to even open her mouth.
That house in Belmont was like
"Gaslight."

Little wonder his wife divorced him.

But Dr. Kissinger shows no signs of
pining away. Despite the fact that he is

said to work from twelve to twenty hours
a day, he somehow manages a flamboyant
social life.* Kissinger spread the word by
describing himself to a group of journal-
ists as "a secret swinger." Now, reveals
the stodgy *New York Times*, "Glamorous
women reportedly stalk him at social
events." *Parade* quotes one of these as
gushing, Henry is "my own jolly little war
criminal obsessed with power. But I love
him." *Women's Wear Daily* has actually
called him "Cuddly Kissinger." As the
Don Juan of the Potomac confided to a
*New York Times* reporter, "Power is a
great aphrodisiac."

Among the much-known ladies who
have been connected with the Lothario of
the White House are Women's Lib leader
Gloria Steinem, a former C.I.A. shill who
is now sponsor of the Committee to
Defend the Black Panthers; Leftwing acti-
vist Jill St. John; Zsa Zsa Gabor, Marlo
Thomas, Hope Lange, and Samantha Eg-
gar. While Kissinger usually enjoys the
publicity, he wasn't too pleased when
Judy Brown, best-known for her role in
the pornographic X-rated Danish film,
*Thirsty*, called in reporters to discuss
their eighteen-month relationship.

At a recent Hollywood party, Henry
was introduced to *Playboy's* June Wilkin-
son, who is best known for her oft photo-
graphed serial numbers: 43-22-36. Gossip
columnist Nancy Anderson reports: "The
next morning the President's advisor
phoned June for a date, giving her the sur-
prise of her life, because she didn't think he
had her brand-new, unlisted phone
number. Henry explained: 'I called the
White House and got it in three min-
utes.'" Big Brother has your number too!

While Kissinger's proclivities for public
chasing may be symptomatic of his neur-
osis, they do not directly affect the
survival of the nation. His attitudes and
policies toward Communism do. Walter
Trohan, columnist emeritus of the *Chica-
go Tribune*, strongly protests the policies
now being pursued by Nixon and Kis-
singer. Trohan observes:

*When he is out playing, Kissinger carries an
electronic "call-boy" to summon him to instant
communication with the President.

14

AMERICAN OPINION

Only six years ago Henry A. Kissinger branded as "suicidal" the policy of communist appeasement on which he has embarked the President and the United States. The assistant to the President on national security affairs has done a complete about face. In 1965, while he was at Harvard University, Kissinger wrote a book, "The Troubled Partnership," which was published by the McGraw-Hill Book Co. In this book he clearly warned against efforts by our leaders to deal with their Communist Russian counterparts. He wrote frankly and to the point: "... Such a course is suicidal for the West. It will stimulate distrust within the alliance. The traditional Western balance-of-power diplomacy will reappear manipulated by the Kremlin. [One may substitute Peking, if one pleases.] Any Soviet [Peking] incentive to be responsible will vanish. The Soviet [Peking] leaders will be able to overcome their difficulties with the assistance of the West and without settling any of the outstanding issues."

The U.S.-prompted move to get Red China into the United Nations has stimulated distrust within the Western Alliance. Nationalist China was expelled by the votes of our allies. Allies were encouraged to vote against Nationalist China by Kissinger's second trip to Red China at the time admission was an issue in the U.N. Already France is pursuing a course of bilateral diplomacy with the Kremlin. So is Canada.

It should also be mentioned that Kissinger has cleared West German détente with the Soviets. He has done much to destroy our alliances in both Asia and Europe, and in doing so has strengthened the Communists immeasurably. At the same time these moves, combined with

the endless war in Vietnam, have produced in America a near paralysis of will to resist Communism. When the "Liberal" Democrats told the public that the Cold War was over and the rowdy Reds had been domesticated, a significant portion of the American people refused to believe them. Now that the false promises of "peace" are emanating from "Conservative" Republicans, the great masses of American people are sinking slowly into their easy chairs, mesmerized by pipe dreams of the lion at last lying down with the lamb.

The Nixon Administration has from the start worked to soften the image of the Communists as an implacable foe bent on world rule. After all, if Communism is intrinsically evil, and if the Reds are untrustworthy and break their treaties, why would we want an "era of negotiation"? In order to prepare the American people for this glorious new era, Mr. Nixon's campaign rhetoric to the effect that America must settle for nothing short of military superiority over the Soviets was immediately replaced with Kissinger's doctrine of "sufficiency."

Dr. Kissinger helped prepare a report for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which opposed Nixon's campaign appeal for "nuclear superiority." Shortly after that report was submitted to Nixon, the President at his first press conference came out for "sufficiency" instead of superiority. A column by union propagandist Edward P. Morgan revealed that "sufficiency" is not a new invention. According to Morgan:

> Nuclear physicist Ralph Lapp refers to it several times in his recent book, The Weapons Culture. It has also been attributed to Columbia University's Zbigniew Brzezinski, one-time head of the State Department's policy planning staff and foreign policy advisor to Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 Presidential campaign.

MARCH, 1972

15

Brzezinski is of course a member of
the Council on Foreign Relations. Morgan
continues:

Physicist Lapp, a steadfast critic
of the nuclear arms race, described
the President's adoption of "suffi-
ciency" last week as a "fantastic
Republican U-turn" and said he was\DELIGHTED with it.

Kissinger says the concept of "suffi-
ciency" is explained by the following prin-
ciple: "The foundation of a stable order is
the relative security - and therefore the
relative insecurity - of its members."
That's doubletalk, and it means our chief
advisor on national security desires that
the United States be relatively insecure.
That is a fantastic U-turn for the Republi-
can Party. And it was immediately after
adopting this approach that the Nixon
Administration entered the Strategic
Arms Limitations Talks.

Mr. Nixon's Colonel House does not
even view Communism as a threat within
our own Hemisphere. The respected
columnist Paul Scott reveals that it is
"Colonel" Kissinger who is behind Mr.
Nixon's repudiation of his campaign
promises to quarantine Castro:

Henry Kissinger, the contro-
versial White House national secu-
rity advisor, is apparently con-
vinced that President Nixon has no
intention of carrying out his cam-
paign promise to adopt a hard-line
policy toward Communist Cuba.
Although the President pledged to
tighten the U.S. economic-political
quarantine of Cuba if elected, Kiss-
singer is working quietly within the
Nixon Administration for just the
opposite.

The President's chief foreign
policy advisor has asked the Rand
Corporation, a private study organi-
zation, to make a report on the
feasibility of restoring 'political,

economic and cultural relations
with Castro's Cuba.

"If Kissinger wanted a policy to back up the President's campaign pledge, he wouldn't have asked for that type of study," stated one high-ranking Defense Department official. "His request would have been for a joint State-Defense review on how the quarantine could be strengthened."

For example, Kissinger has en-
couraged persons working on Gov-
ernor Nelson Rockefeller's Latin
American report to press the view
that the U.S. should offer Cuba
normal relations with trade. He also
had a major role in getting the
National Council of Churches re-
cently to call for the U.S. to drop
its quarantine of Cuba and reestab-
lish diplomatic relations.

Henry Kissinger even arranged for the
Nixon Administration to reverse its prom-
ises to the people concerning aid, and
trade with Communist nations. Instead of
closing down any pipelines to the Com-
munists, Nixon followed Kissinger's ad-
vice and increased trade with the Commu-
nist bloc by one thousand percent while
the President's Commerce Secretary pre-
dicted an even greater expansion in the
near future. The Pentagon was recently
informed that all the barriers to Red
trade are coming down, and that any
objections from within the ranks will be
dealt with harshly.

It was Kissinger who arranged Presi-
dent Nixon's trip to Communist Roman-
ia, and who is now encouraging the
President to turn over to the Hungarian
Communists the Holy Crown of St. Ste-
phen, symbolic of the legitimate rule of
Hungary and now in safekeeping with the
U.S. Government. Both of these moves
are calculated to demonstrate to the
captive nations that rebellion is hopeless,
for the United States is now on the side
of their captors.

MARCH, 1972

17

Professor Kissinger is also running up the white flag here at home. Each year he attends the Soviet Embassy's annual celebration of their victory in the Bolshevik Revolution. There, amid vodka toasts to the Glorious Soviet Union, our highest security advisor fraternizes with some of history's greatest mass murderer. What is *any* American doing at a celebration of the victory of the Bolsheviks? If this is not hypocrisy then, with American boys being killed with Soviet weapons in Southeast Asia,* it is treason!

Certainly "our" Henry the K. is on the coziest of terms with Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin, a high official in the Soviet K.G.B. The *New York Times* reveals of Kissinger:

> On the wall of his office in the White House is a curious photograph - a veterinarian about to inoculate a bulldog. Mr. Kissinger admired it at an exhibit of Soviet photographs. It was sent to him by the Soviet Ambassador, Anatol F. Dobrynin, with this message on the back: "Henry, don't be too serious. Take it easy. Relax. Anatol."

It certainly makes one feel all warm inside to know that Anatol and Henry are such good friends.

Meanwhile the Vietnam War is a disaster unparalleled in American history. Every aspect of that seemingly endless conflict hurts the American cause and helps the Communists. It has alienated virtually an entire generation; it has paralyzed our nation's will to resist Communism; it has promoted weakness and pacifism; it has been used to excuse the hippie movement and the drug cult; it has escalated inflation to dangerous proportions; and, it has been used to

destroy morale and discipline in the military. Yes, it has been Henry Kissinger's kind of war.

Kissinger was one of the originators of the "flexible response" doctrine of "limited warfare" which produced the Vietnam tarbaby. In *The Necessity For Choice*, he wrote: "Limited war is based on a kind of tacit bargain not to exceed certain restraints... it takes two to keep a limited war limited or a local defense local." The Vietnam War has been just such a tacit bargain for America to continue to pour her sons into the meat grinder while the Soviets arm Asians to do their killing for them. Kissinger has maintained: "Any limited war must have some sanctuary areas." It has been these sanctuary areas, where the real targets are, which have permitted the war to be dragged on for a decade when almost every military authority says it could have been ended with victory in a few months.

Within a week of Kissinger's appointment by President Nixon an advertisement appeared in the *Washington Post* promoting a new radical book entitled *No More Vietnams? Incredibly, this Vietnik polemic was authored by superpinks Theodore Draper, Edwin Reischauer, Stanley Hoffman, Hans Morgenthau, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. - and Henry A. Kissinger*. Dr. Kissinger was a dove on Vietnam before Dr. Spock, yet *U.S. News & World Report* calls him "the author of the Administration's basic formula for dealing with the Vietnam problem." One can only gasp!

An especially telling insight into Kissinger's duplicity in this business appeared in a column by Jules Witcover on June 24, 1968. Mr. Witcover described a private background dinner with Kissinger and eight of the nation's top columnists and news commentators during the early part of June. Jules Witcover revealed that Kissinger "suggested strongly that the Nixon Administration is not unalterably opposed to an eventual Communist take-

*On October 9, 1971, the *Washington Post* carried this statement by Soviet President Niko-lai Podgorny: "The Soviet Union supports until total victory the Vietnamese people's patriotic struggle against U.S. aggression...."

18

AMERICAN OPINION

over in Saigon so long as the Administra-
tion isn't blamed for it." And, Witcover
continued:

At that dinner in the Georgetown home of a prominent columnist, Kissinger said that if the war was ended, and six months later Ho chi Minh was sitting in Saigon, that would not be an honorable end. But, he said, that if two or three years later, Saigon went Communist, the Administration would accept that.

Accept it? It's being planned that way!
Writing in the *London Observer*, Nora
Beloff comments of Kissinger:

> No one was more responsible
> than the former Harvard professor
> for hammering out President
> Nixon's peace offer, disavowing
> military victory . . . . If he is right,
> the Americans can look forward to
> a more or less painful withdrawal
> even if, after several years, the
> Communists take over.

In his syndicated column of December
5, 1968, Joseph C. Harsch (C.F.R.) re-
vealed that Kissinger "was one of the first
among the top experts to conclude that a
military victory in Vietnam was, perhaps,
neither possible nor to be desired." To
think that military victory is impossible
might be only a reflection of ignorance;
to decide that it is not desirable amounts
to treason. And Americans know it!

Thinking to praise Kissinger, Nora
Beloff writes: "He is less troubled by the
turbulence on the left than by the threat
of an anti-intellectual backlash from the
right." (Read: His only fear is that when
Americans realize how they've been had
they could well descend on Kissinger and
those he represents with an anger worthy
of an enraged Zeus.) Professor Kissinger's
friend, Joseph Kraft, confirms this fear.
He maintains Henry Kissinger's job is to

camouflage our defeat in Vietnam, and
writes that the war was extended into
Cambodia "because otherwise President
Nixon would be unseated by the super-
patriots of the right." The *Boston Globe*
confirms this as follows: "As one might
suspect from his background, Henry Kis-
singer says he is most concerned about
the danger on the right."

So far, Dr. Kissinger has succeeded in
avoiding any backlash by prolonging the
war until even Vietnam hawks are thor-
oughly exhausted. And he has now pulled
off a series of cloak and dagger stunts in
Paris which amount to a proposal of
American surrender — complete with
reparations to be paid the enemy. If it
works, the Communists will in a few
years control Saigon, Phnom Penh, Vien-
tiane, and Bangkok. But if America wakes
up to what is happening, Professor Kis-
singer will, indeed, get a very close look
at that "danger on the right" about which
he is worried.

Meanwhile, the Kissinger-Nixon team
has managed to pull the linchpin on the
Republic of China, the Taiwan mainstay
of anti-Communism in Asia. Now that
other Asian nations see we are preparing
to surrender South Vietnam and betray
Taiwan to the Red Chinese, they are
reading the handwriting on the wall —
and they note that it is written in the fine
hand of Henry Alfred Kissinger.

It was only twelve days after President
Nixon took his oath of office that he
instructed Professor Kissinger to explore
the possibilities of opening relations with
the regime in Peking, now carefully re-
ferred to as the People's Republic of
China. Mr. Nixon took this action after
promising during the campaign that he
would do no such thing. At the same
time, he was writing in the C.F.R.'s offi-
cial house organ, *Foreign Affairs*, that he
would establish relations with the Red Chi-
nese. Different words for different birds.

Kissinger has claimed that "the Peo-
ple's Republic is led by a highly prin-
cipled man" and expressed high praise for

MARCH, 1972

19

the Asian Eichmann, Chou En-lai. To Henry Kissinger, we are told, the fact that we have had "problems" with those who control Mainland China has nothing to do with Communism. *Life* quotes him as follows:

> The turbulence in Asia is a matter of imbalance rather than ideology alone - it is the result of the size of China, 700 million people. It is not a matter of what government they have but the fact that they are all united behind one government.

Which is a falsehood so arrogant and
obvious as to inspire awe.

The "ultimate relationship" between Peking and Taiwan, Kissinger told a news conference, should be settled "by direct negotiations between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China." In other words, "Adios, Chiang!" The United States has already reduced its military commitment to Free China, and the move is being read in the Orient for what it is: a pullout. World leaders also read the graf-
fiti on the wall when Kissinger was visiting in Peking as the vote came up for seating Red China in the United Nations and expelling our Nationalist ally. Kissin-
ger dismissed it as "a painful coinci-
dence," but a diplomat in Hong Kong remarked: "... the fact is that foreign ministries make a special effort to avoid such coincidences. Coincidences happen only when they are planned. Why was it planned in this case?"

It appears that the move is designed
to create a Great Troika, embracing the
U.S.S.R., Red China, and America as a
step toward the Great Merger. Kissinger

knows Americans would be very reluc-
tant to enter a World Government domi-
nated by the combined and united
powers of Russia and Red China. Tho
two must be made to appear to have a
great difference with each other as they
have with us – and that is how it has
been made to appear to the American
public.

Like the other Establishment *Insiders*, Henry Kissinger always refers to the planned Great Merger of the nations of the world as a "new world order." *Newsweek* notes: "'International order,' the highest value in Kissinger's political pantheon and a recurrent phrase in all his writings, can only be achieved through the most delicate balance of major-power relations." As Henry says, "Institutions based on present concepts of national sovereignty are not enough." The World Superstate, Kissinger explains, "will not come quickly; many intermediate stages must be traversed before it can be reached. It is not too early, however, to prepare ourselves for this step beyond the nation-state."

And that is just what Dr. Henry Alfred
Kissinger is preparing for us.

Many Republicans want desperately to
believe that Richard Nixon is still basical-
ly sound, but that he is a victim of
Kissinger, who has somehow hypnotized
the President. That is utter nonsense. As a
columnist for the "Liberal" *Chicago Daily News* put it: "Kissinger understand-
ably is President Nixon's pride and joy."
And remember that Richard Nixon has
himself written to Kissinger: "Frankly, I
cannot imagine what the government
would be like without you."

Supply your own comeback. ■ ■

CRACKER BARREL

* Handel, who felt the Divine Presence when he wrote the *Messiah* in twenty-three days, said, when told the work was admired and loved by all: "That is not what I had hoped for. It was not written to please the listeners, but to make them better people."

* Hate has been described as a luxury no one can afford.

* When asked to explain the secret of his success, the great violinist Nicolo Paginini replied: "Toil, solitude and prayer."

20

AMERICAN OPINION

never been a big star. I've done about as good as I can with the equipment I have. I played with Mickey Mantle and now I'm playing with Willie Mays. People always recognize them. But for someone to recognize me, it really made me feel good. I think everybody gets a kick out of feeling special."

Mike Fitzgerald was born the same year

somebodies,' to realize that his dad is one of those 'dumb somebodies.' This is why I work. Every time I see a young guy walk by with a shirt and tie and dressed up real sharp, 'I'm lookin' at my kid. That's it.'

Sharon Atkins is a good twenty years older than Mike's kid. She's 24. She's been to college and acridly observes: 'The first myth that blew up in my face is that a college education will get you a worthwhile job.'

For the past two years, she's been a receptionist at an advertising agency. "I didn't look at myself as 'just a dumb broad' at the front desk, who took phone calls and messages. I thought I was something else. The office taught me differently." She was having "a fairly intelligent discussion" with some clients, until they discovered the nature of her job. "Two of them just stopped the conversation and turned around to find other people with name tags. I wasn't worth bothering with. I wasn't rejected because of what I had to say or the way I talked, but simply because of my function. I was being treated as just a piece of equipment, like the telephone. So I made up another name for my job--'communications control.'

"Just to fill in time at this boring job, I write letters to myself and to other people and never mail them. I call it the land of no- phone, where there is no machine telling me where I have to be every minute. This crummy little machine with buttons on it ... You're just a little machine yourself. A monkey can do what I do.

"I said management she was a kind and gentle person. They said, 'We're not interested in your personal feelings. Document it up.' They look over my appraisal and say, 'We'll give her about five months to shape up or ship out.' People aren't treated as good as an IBM machine around here. I promised I'd never get myself an ulcer, so I'm looking around for something else.'"

IT'S TOO LATE FOR Geraldine Merton to look around for something else. Middleaged, ailing, she works in a luggage factory. Though she is the union steward and quite militant in the matter of women's rights,

"I told management she was a kind and gentle person. They said, 'We're not interested in your personal feelings. Document it up.' They look over my appraisal and say, 'We'll give her about five months to shape up or ship out.' People aren't treated as good as an IBM machine around here. I promised I'd never get myself an ulcer, so I'm looking around for something else.'"

"I can drive any car like a baby, like a woman change her baby's diapers. I could handle a car with one hand. Lot of customers would say: 'How do you do this?' I'd say: 'Just the way you bake a cake, miss.' Oh, I'll admit it, the thrill is gone now. When I was younger, I could swing with that car. With one hand, I could back it all the way and whip it into the hole, with two inches to spare. They called me Lovin' Al, the Wizard. Now I'm older and tired and drive normal like everybody else.'"

Yolanda Leif graphically describes the trials of a waitress in a quality restaurant. They are compounded by her refusal to be demeaned. Yet pride in her skills helps her through the night.

"When I put the plate down, you don't hear a sound. When I pick up a glass I want it to be just right. When someone says, 'How come you're just a waitress?' I say, 'Don't you think you deserve being served by me?' I feel like a ballerina when I move between the tables. I do it with an air. If I drop a fork, there's a certain way I pick it up, my way. I do it delicately. I spilled a tray once, with steaks for seven on it, a gigantic T-bone. When the tray fell, I moved with it, never made a sound. I like to have my station looking nice. I believe in pride and beauty.'"

PEGGY TERRY HAS HER own sense of pride and beauty. Her jobs have varied with geography, climate and the ever-feel pinch of circumstance. "What I hated worst was being a waitress, the way you're treated.

Some and are suddenly old. There is the fixed smile of the "retired" as against the fixed scowl of the man at work.

The common end appears to be a question mark.

What is there to show?

Does my job have any real meaning?

With technology, whether it be a wild horse or tamed, the questions transcend youth and age.

# Kissinger's foreign policy is bad for country

By GEN. THOMAS LANE

GEN. LANE

The China trip confirmed the eclipse of Secretary of State Rogers by Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, a matter long subject to speculation by observers. Henry Kissinger has used his post with the National Security Council not merely to make policy for the operating departments of government but to control the day to day operations of those departments. Strangely, Secretary Rogers seems amenable to the degradation of his office. He doesn't seem to understand what has happened to him.

The National Security Council was created by Congress to provide the President with an office for the coordination of national policy. Because no one of the departments — State, Defense or Treasury — had a full perspective on the national security, an agency was needed to bring their views to bear comprehensively on the national interest.

THE LAW CONTEMPLATED that the National Security Council would develop national policies on vital issues and that the operating departments would be guided by these policies in the day to day administration of their assigned duties. President Eisenhower used the Council in that way,

leaving operations to the departments.

President Kennedy didn't like the council device and therefore used it sparingly. He did not want to make policy decisions which might then be used by the departments in ways he did not approve. He preferred to handle administration on a day to day basis, meeting problems as they arose and making policy through his operational decisions.

President Johnson followed the Kennedy example. He preferred to control day to day operations and to set policy as he went.

RICHARD NIXON HAS MADE much of his revival of the National Security Council. He seems to think he is following the Eisenhower precedent. He is in tact operating very differently because he does not understand the distinction between policy making and operations. Instead of making policy through the council and leaving operations to the departments, he is using the council to supervise operations.

By bringing the NSC staff into operations, the President has effectively destroyed its policy making function. The council now makes policy as it goes, much as Walt Rostow did for Lyndon Johnson. The difference is that the enlarged

staff of Henry Kissinger has usurped the operating functions of the departments. We see the consequence in the President's report on "U.S. Foreign Policy for the 1970s", a rationalization of policy which is shockingly shallow in its analysis of current world problems.

THE VALUE OF A SEPARATE policy staff lies in its capacity to identify and adhere to long range goals in the face of day to day pressure for deviant policy. When the operator makes policy, it is inevitably the short range interest which dominates his conclusions. The result is pleasing to politicians but disastrous for the country.

We see these influences at work In the Nixon administration. Henry Kissinger is clearly catering to the short range political interests of the President. He has a gift for couching appeasement in rhetoric congenial to Richard Nixon. The State Department, which is better staffed for diplomatic administration, stands frustrated in the wings.

The obscured reality is that Richard Nixon has no credible long range plans, no attainable goals. He has geared diplomacy to sustain illusions of peacemaking through the next election.

St. Louis Globe-Demos.

ap25/72

PEOPLE
In the News

DR. HENRY A. KISSINGER kept former ambassador CLARE BOOTHE LUCE waiting during a recent luncheon date. But he had a good excuse. He was meeting with PRESIDENT NIXON.

While the meeting was in progress in the oval office, Nixon noticed his bespectacled foreign policy advisor glancing more than once at his watch.

On inquiry, Nixon learned that Kissinger had an appointment with Mrs. Luce and he urged him not to keep the blonde darling of the Republican Party waiting.

They met at the fashionable Sans Souci Restaurant near the White House where Washington Vips gather at lunch time. Mrs. Luce, who has a long-standing interest in Asia wanted to hear from Kissinger about his trips to Peking.

Kissinger

QUOTES IN THE NEWS

"Every time the phone rings I fear it's bad news. Nine times out of 10 it's bad news. Then there are the letters. There is always someone who wants to see more of the family killed." PRINCESS LEE RADZIWILL, sister of JACQUELINE ONASSIS, in an interview with the London Daily Mail.

Lee Radziwell

Hope

Lynch

The Pathet Lao's Vientiane representative, OUN PETRASSI, delightedly giving his recollection of comedian BOB HOPE'S fruitless attempt to secure the release last Christmas of American prisoners held by North Vietnam:

"He wrote the date at the top of a check and asked me: 'How much do you want for them—$5 million, $10 million? I had to tell him the prisoners weren't for sale. I think it must have been the first time in his life that he'd found something he couldn't buy.'"

Irish Prime Minister JACK LYNCH. "I don't think he (SEN. EDWARD F. KENNEDY) understands the situation as fully as we do."

YESTERDAY'S HEADLINERS—In the early 1950's the nation's airwaves were filled with the sobs and sighs of JOHNNIE RAY.

The Oregon farmboy was catapulted to success by his

... at home, a day a set as it

get them
everywhere

SIDE
UMP

FULBRIGHT

KISSINGER

From Kissinger

Fulbright gets
secret briefing

BY ROBERT S. ALLEN

WASHINGTON

Members of the august Senate Foreign Relations
Committee will be very interested to know that their
haughty chairman, J. William Fulbright, D-Ark., is
regularly being secretly briefed by Dr. Henry Kissinger,
personal foreign affairs adviser of President Nixon.

Publicly, Fulbright has repeatedly sought to summon Kissinger before the committee for questioning on major policy decisions — always to no avail.

KISSINGER HAS balked on the ground of "executive privilege" — that as a member of the President's personal staff he is not subject to Congressional interrogation.

Fulbright has muttered and sputtered at this stand, but
is unable to do anything about it.

This column can now authoritatively disclose that for
some time Fulbright, onetime Rhodes Scholar and college
president, has been meeting privately with Kissinger and
being briefed by him on Administration foreign policy.

Example: Kissinger gave Fulbright a detailed report on
President Nixon's trip to Peking and his meetings with Mao
Tse-tung and Premier Chou En-lai.

As far as has been ascertained, Fulbright is the only
member of Congress to have given such a first-hand fill-in.
Whatever Fulbright learned, he has kept strictly to himself.

Other Foreign Affairs committeemen say they know
nothing about the secret Kissinger briefings. Some
expressed surprise; others merely shrugged.

One committeeman, who frequently differs with Ful-
bright and makes no secret he considers the testy Arkansas
"carping" and "supercilious," remarked, "That's just like
Bill. Putting on a big public act of being indignant about
Kissinger and others refusing to come before the committee
to tell us what's going on, and then privately getting the
lowdown from them all by himself. Maybe that explains
why he has had so little to say about the China trip and
other matters lately, like the White House's handling of the
clash between India and Pakistan.

"I WONDERED why Bill has been so quiescent. The secret Kissinger briefings could well explain it. He is in the know now and can't talk out. One thing is certain: Something has shut him up."

mak

Special purc
with n

The same elegant
fabric formerly
used on Simmons
nationally advertised
$99.95 mattress!

Birmingham News
3/19/72

TURES

Columbus Dispatch 3B

S'WINDOW

Books Centers
Swiss Shop

men are distinctly my kind
people, and I could not im-
their consenting to load the
cent bottoms of Liberian
sport with books by Gal-
n, and declining to ease
conscience by supplying
with my own.

alled New York and had air-
lessed six copies to Madame
nau, and then went to China.

RETURNED to find, in the
low, all the old entries, plus
perback of Galbraith's "Am-
idor's Journal." I thereupon
lected from an old trunk a
of my anthology of conse-
rewriting and handed it,
dlessly, to Madam Cadonau,
dutifully shoe-horned it into
feverish window.

the next day, I saw there
of "The New Industrial
" — in German, which is the
of thing that happens when
raith decides to pull rank. I
d New York and got hold of
single extant copy, in Ger-
d of a book I had a hand in
ing 18 years ago on Senator
arthy, which desiring not to
it (there were only 87 copies
ted), I priced at a level be-
the reach even of the ski-set
stad.

DRUGS: "Atlas" analyzes scene

Q. All my neighbors' kids seem to
be into drugs of one kind or another.
Anything new on the drug scene? —
H. W., Birmingham, Mich.

A. Yes, Dr. Edward Woodhouse,
senior chemist at Kansas City's Mid-
west Research Institute, has been
analyzing street drugs to determine
their exact contents. He says the
discrepancies are "incredible and
dangerous" and has published his
findings in "The Drug Atlas," a $35
looseleaf book which lists 80 street
drugs, color photos of same, descrip-
tion, source, price, symptoms, anti-
dotes, etc. The doctor says the two
most misrepresented drugs today are
mescaline and cocaine. He says,
"Even in New Mexico the mescaline
is no good. There's an abundance of
LSD now — the demand for it has
 slackened so the supply is much
greater ... Most of what is sold as
LSD is really acid . . . Lots of street
LSD contains abnormally high dos-
ages, up to 400 micrograms . . . co-
caine is now being cut with phency-
clibine, an animal tranquilizer that

A. We think you're right. She has
been joined now by Catherine De-
neuve . . . Ursula Andress . . . Joan-
na Shimkus . . . Julie Prowse . . .
Patty Duke . . . Jenny Bogart.

Q. Henry Kissinger is obviously
the administration's number one num-
ber two man — superseding Secre-
tary of State William P. Rogers and
Vice President Spiro T. Agnew — so,
why don't we see much of him on
television? — Y. T., Boston, Mass.

A. In his entire dazzling career as
Nixon's chief aide, Kissinger had nev-

er held an on-the-record talk with the
press until Jan. 26, when he told of
his secret talks with the North Viet-
namese. The administration has kept
Kissinger off television to avoid tak-
ing the chance that Kissinger's heavy
German accent would remind viewers
of Dr. Strangelove.

Robin Adams Sloan welcomes
questions. While Sloan cannot pro-
vide individual answers, questions of
general interest will be used. Write
to Sloan in care of The Columbus
Dispatch.

PROWSE: Juliet without Romeo

KISSINGER: No Dr. Strangelove

Flat Turpentine Can
Converts Into Feeder

By AL CARRELL

King Features Syndicate

DEAR AL:

My neighbors like the bird feeder

seems to be a considerable waste,
and so several years ago, we bought
a Scotch pine and planted it in a
large tub. We move it in at Christ-
mas time and decorate it. Then we
will, back outside after the season

ON BROADWA

Mutterin
Puts Bra
Out in Fi

NEW YORK — De
Brando:

Never quit mumbling.
your mumbles, you're go-
very, very rich man
from "The Godfath-
er" which Bob Ev-
ans of Paramount
claims is going to
rank with "Gone
With the Wind,"
"Sound of Music"
and "Love Story."
They say you made
the picture for $2 and
throat spray. One wom-
wild premiere at Loew's
the parties at 21 and the
Roof said, "I couldn't hear
said but I loved every sy

WHO YOU KIDDING
able to come to the prem-
shy, that's what it is, s
crowds!

There I was in Detr
into my dinner jacket in
room of the Northwest pl
into my tux pants, sna
black tie, just to honor y

"Oh, Mr. Wilson, you
to dress for dinner," the
ardess said, "especially I
ist class."

AND I CIRCLED
missed half the pictur
you weren't here. So I gu
70 or 80 killings.

"Al Pacino stole t
several people said. "H

S 4906

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

March 28, 1972

two pistols, six rifles, four long-barrelled
shotguns and a .30-caliber military carbine.

The gang's last encounter with the law
occurred Sept. 21, the day after Richardson
pleaded guilty in federal court on the nar-
cotics charges. Police officers stopped Rich-
ardson's car on a traffic violation and discov-
ered three felons, Mrs. Tucker, a bag of
heroin and plastic syringes in the car.

Authorities said Mrs. Tucker was carrying
two fully loaded .38-caliber revolvers be-
neath her armpits. Richardson tried to grab
one of the revolvers, but was prevented from
doing so by a policeman.

Oct. 16 Richardson finally was placed be-
hind bars after being sentenced to 20 years
in a federal prison. Cox still was confined
after his May 9 arrest for the Southgate bank
robbery.

Mrs. Rita Mae Dearborn was placed on
probation Dec. 1 for five years with the pro-
vision that she remain out of Kansas City.
Feb. 5 this year Dearborn was sentenced to
28 years and Mrs. Tucker received a 7-year
sentence. Miller, who handled the Kansas
City, Kansas, end of the narcotics operation,
was sentenced to a 17-year term Feb. 23. Cox
received 15 years the same day and Mrs.
Richardson was sentenced to a 3-year term.

Others in the gang received varying sen-
tences. Fromabarger, who jumped ball, still
faces sentencing.

GROWTH AND INFLUENCE OF
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, sev-
eral articles in the press recently have
discussed the growth and influence of
the National Security Council, and more
specifically, Dr. Henry Kissinger, who
controls the NSC, but not under the title
of Executive Director. I, along with oth-
ers, have raised the question of the wis-
dom of extending the immunity for ac-
countability to the Congress, under the
guise of Executive privilege to those in
the White House, such as Dr. Kissinger,
who appear to have the greatest influence
upon the formulation of our foreign pol-
icy. This is a matter of fundamental im-
portance to the conduct of our foreign
relations, and in order to make clear
the position of the Committee on Foreign
Relations as well as the White House,
I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD my letter of February 10,
1972, to Dr. Kissinger, and the reply
thereunto of February 28, 1972, signed by
Mr. John W. Dean III, counsel to the
President.

There being no objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, D.C., February 28, 1972.
Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge
receipt and thank you for your letter to Dr.
Henry A. Kissinger dated February 10, 1972,
which in his absence has been referred to me
for response.

Consistent with long established principle
and precedent, because of Dr. Kissinger's po-
sition as a member of the President's immedi-
ate staff he will be unable to accept your gra-
acious invitation to appear before the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations.

However, please be assured that we share
your belief that the Executive and Legislative
Branches should exchange views on foreign
policy, and we are confident that such ex-
change can be carried out to the fullest ex-

tent by the constituted officers of the Execu-
tive Branch.

With warm regard.

Sincerely,

JOHN W. DEAN III,
Counsel to the President.

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, D.C., February 10, 1972.

Hon. HENRY A. KISSINGER.

Assistant to the President for National Secu-
rity Affairs, The White House, Washing-
ton, D.C.

DEAR HENRY: In view of the wide public
exposure you have received as a result of your
recent press and television briefings, I won-
dered whether you might wish to reconsider
your earlier reluctance to appear before the
Committee on Foreign Relations. I doubt
that the Founding Fathers contemplated that
the Executive and Legislative branches
should exchange views on foreign policy by
reading press accounts.

Sincerely yours,

J. W. FULBRIGHT,

Chairman.

THE "VAT" TAX AND EXPORTS

Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, it is com-
mon knowledge that the Nixon adminis-
tration is considering the imposition of
a value-added tax as a new source of
revenue and a possible substitute for the
real property tax. At the time of the in-
troduction of my bill to provide a tax
credit for education (S. 3322), I noted
that the VAT tax is a regressive tax
which will hit low- and moderate-income
consumers the hardest.

In defense of VAT, some have claimed
that it will aid American exports on the
international market. But the impact of
VAT is unpredictable. It may not help
our exports, and it should not be imposed
with that purpose in mind.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that an article published recently
in the Washington Post be printed in the
RECORD. I believe that it represents a ra-
tional discussion of this one aspect of
the value-added tax.

There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:

IMPACT ON TRADE IS UNPREDICTABLE—VAT AS AN INCENTIVE TO EXPORTS—A SHAKY BELIEF

(By Philip H. Trezise)

In floating the idea of a value-added tax (VAT) as a partial substitute for local property taxes and as a source of school revenue, the administration has opened the issue for serious discussion, which is to the good. Whether a national tax on consumption is a desirable way to raise funds for education or, for that matter, for other purposes, is surely a proper subject for national debate. But we should not be diverted by the repeated assertion that such a tax is also needed to help our international trading position.

No matter what some of our businessmen
have come to believe about the "unfairness"
to us of the VAT, as it operates in Europe,
a national sales or consumption tax cannot
be justified as a way to improve the U.S.
trade accounts. Indeed, it is not even clear
in which direction such a tax would work
so far as our external trade is concerned.

Once more, we need to be sure what the
issue is, it is true that some European coun-
tries levy a VAT on a wide range of goods
and are allowed by the international trade
rules to collect the same tax on imports and
to rebate it on exports. We also have state

sales and federal excise taxes which are im-
posed on imports and are not collected on
exports. These taxes are not the same as
customs duties or export subsidies. The bene-
fits to the trade account from them, if any,
depend on who in fact pays the taxes.

The argument for believing that our trade
will benefit from a VAT is a rather simple
one. The idea is that a general sales or con-
sumption tax cannot always be passed on
in its entirety to the home market con-
sumer, because competitive conditions some-
times will not permit. When this happens,
the producer absorbs part of the tax and in
consequence accepts a lower rate of profit
on his domestic sales. In that circumstance,
he has an incentive to export, since the tax
is then rebated to him and he can more
nearly fulfill his profit expectations. Note
that when the tax is wholly passed on to
the consumer, the export incentive does not
exist.

Should we expect that American producers
will be required by domestic market condi-
tions to absorb some of a VAT in their do-
mestic sales and thus be induced to export
more? One clue at least is that at present we
find it necessary to apply controls over most
of these same goods so as to restrain upward
pressures on their prices. It is certainly not
crystal clear why we should suppose that
producers, who must be prevented by the
application of federal power from raising
prices, would find it impossible or even diffi-
cult to pass on to consumers, and in full,
a national sales tax, which they could per-
fectly legitimately do.

In Holland a few years ago a VAT was im-
posed at a time of strong inflationary pres-
sures. Prices rose by more than the VAT
rate and the Dutch had to impose a general
freeze to keep them in check.

The point is that the impact on trade of a
VAT is not predictable and can, as in the
Dutch case, be perverse. In our current eco-
nomic situation, the assumption must be
that at best a VAT would not help exports
and, if the price controllers were not alert
and effective, might hurt them by pushing
prices up by more than the amount of the
VAT.

Even if one assumes different competitive
conditions, and widespread absorption of a
part of a VAT by producers, skepticism about
the trade effects would be warranted. Re-
ports from the White House are that the
VAT being considered would raise revenues
of $16 billion. This would imply a tax rate of
about 3 per cent on a broad base, or, with
probable exemptions, perhaps 5 per cent.
(VAT rates in Europe, by comparison, range
upward from 11 per cent.) Rates of this kind,
reflected in consumer prices as they mostly
would be, would have some predictable and
lively responses at home. But worked through
to the international trading arena, they could
not amount to significant export incentives.

More fundamentally, we do not need to
go to a VAT or to other devices of the sort
for trade or balance of payments reasons.
The Group of Ten finance ministers agreed
at the Dec. 18 Smithsonian meeting that
"discussions should be undertaken promptly
to consider reform of the international mon-
etary system over the longer term" and that
"attention should be directed to . . . means
of establishing a suitable degree of flexibility
[in the system]." This prescription is the
valid one for our government, which must
have had a large role in drafting it.

A sufficiently flexible monetary mechanism
would assure that changes in national com-
petitive positions, whether induced by tax
changes or by other causes, would be re-
flected promptly in exchange rates, that is,
in the international prices of national cur-
rencies. Any trade gains of losses from
changes in tax systems would be quickly
eliminated by changes in exchange rates.
Surely, if we continue to believe in the vir-

Kissinger and Chou En-lai, Peking, Feb. 21, 1972

Sound-Off

Mrs. Bishop still
doesn't approve

In reply to your comments regarding my letter (Sound-Off March 12) concerning President Nixon's trip to China, I would like to state that I am not totally uninformed regarding the fact that former presidents had advisers. However, with the exception of Dr. Kissinger, these men who have served in this capacity have had either cabinet status or a great deal of experience in government before becoming presidential advisers.

For example, Harry Hopkins first was federal emergency relief administrator 1933-35, then secretary of commerce 1938-1940, and adviser to President Roosevelt.

Bernard M. Baruch, chairman of the War Industries Board 1918-19, then United States Atomic Energy Commission representative 1946.

Robert F. Kennedy, United States attorney general 1961-1964. And Nelson Rockefeller, Office of the Co-Ordinator of Inter-American Affairs 1944-45, then undersecretary of health, education, welfare 1953-54.

Considering the background of these men, I still maintain that Dr. Kissinger, though quite a charmer, does not have proper qualification nor background to advise the President.

Although Secretary of State William M. Rogers was along on the China trip and did meet with Foreign Minister Chi Peng-fei, the fact

was not mentioned in any newspaper account that I read, nor were his activities shown on television, as were Dr. Kissinger's.

So — Chairman Mao Tse-tung holds a patriarchal position — akin to royalty? First time I ever heard of a Communist relating, in any way, to royalty. Good for him!

Mrs. J. D. Bishop

8325 Baker Drive

The communique issued by President Nixon and Premier Chou En-lai and published in the Post Feb. 29 mentioned Secretary Rogers' talks with the Chinese foreign minister. Sound-Off saw Secretary Rogers on at least one TV report of the Peking trip.

Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger, born in Fuerth, Germany, in 1923, has quite a few qualifications at age 48: United States citizen 1943; U.S. Army 1943-46; bachelor of arts, summa cum laude, Harvard 1950; doctor of philosophy, Harvard 1954; professor of government, Harvard 1962-69; consultant to the National Security Council 1961-62; consultant to the Department of State 1965-1969; special assistant and adviser to the President since 1969. Also Paris 1971, Saigon 1971, New Delhi 1971, Peking July 1971, Peking October 1971, Peking February 1972. No other American can make such a statement. — Editor.

## Action line
DIAL 621-7242

WRITE Action line The Houston Post

ACTION LINE answers questions and solves problems of general or unusual interest. Replies appear ONLY in these columns. Do not send stamped envelopes or valuable papers.

In what year did Congress vote to make Sir Winston Churchill an honorary citizen of the United States?—H.B.

In 1963. Then 88 years old, Churchill received the official proclamation of the honor, signed by former President John F. Kennedy, at his home in London.

## Today in...

1852 — Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was published for the first time.

1963 — A volcano on the island of Bali began an eruption that claimed over 1,000 lives.

1972 — Former opera star Lauritz Melchior is 82.

Are there any centers for handicapped or retarded children that need volunteers on weekends? The ones I have called have volunteer

but controlled music and made good use of material other than their own.

A good example was their version of Tim Rose's "Morning Dew." They ended their set with a number made popular by the Allman Brothers, "Black Hearted Woman."

After that, it was SRO (standing room only). Not because it had to be that way. But because there was too much going on to sit down.

Buddy Miles followed Nazareth and he kept the majority of the audience clapping along through his entire set.

I've never been much of a Buddy Miles fan, but I was thoroughly taken by his performance.

Because of a deadline, I was unable to hear Deep Purple, the headline act. But the first two bands got the audience off far better than many entire concerts have done.

So enjoy the sounds of soft rock. But never forget the heavy stuff. It lives.

## World businessmen

Official journal, Peking Review, the world that they are well-known commodities fair in Kwangchow, advertisement to that effect, did not indicate any condi-

ATLANTA CONSTITUTION MARCH 23, 1972

Reg Murphy

# Case of the Disappearing Adviser

Henry A. Kissinger, President Nixon's National Security Adviser, has disappeared again, and although the White House insisted he was merely on vacation at an undisclosed site, the news was greeted with more than a trace of skepticism in Washington.

News Item.

Oh-oh. He's out choosing the karate team preparatory to the President's mission to Taiwan. Or experimenting with mountain climbing to prepare a mission to Katmandu. Or boning up on Hindu customs before the Spirit of '76 flies away to Bangladesh.

Associates shortly will reveal that he was secretary away in an international flight to explore the pos-

sibility of an impromptu visit to Hanoi. Or landing at a quiet little airfield to slip into Egypt. Or down in Pakistan advancing the President's cruise on the Mediterranean.

For where Kissinger goes, can Nixon be far behind? The answer is no, in case the question wrinkles your brow.

Kissinger may in fact have decided to take two weeks. But who would believe it? Not us. We know he slipped into Peking to make arrangements for the President's China trip. We suspect he has gone to Moscow to plan the forthcoming meeting with the Kremlin's rulers.

If the whereabouts of the National Security Adviser really is being kept quiet just so he can rest, then the joke's on all us conspiracy-watchers. We'll have to find a new fantasy to pursue at our leisure.

But doesn't it strike you as strange that his comings and goings to Paris (12 times to talk to the North Vietnamese or their go-betweens) weren't passed off simply as vacations, if this really is just a rest?

What's more, the whole country is becoming somewhat paranoid about Kissinger's activities. He always seems to be working in the dark to produce new diplomatic surprises. The surprises generally end up being the kind that remake the political map of the world. So we are exceedingly wary of the excuses given when he is not visible.

That point has not been lost on the State Department career officers. One of them said the other day, "The tension is really getting thick now. (Secretary of State William) Rogers is beginning to be more sensitive than he was earlier."

Schooled to fear secret diplomacy and secret agreements, Americans naturally greet Kissinger's disappearance with more than a trace of skepticism. It would take a vast and overflowing naivete to think that his whereabouts has no effect on the lives of the rest of us.

Thinking about it, we're not sure whether it would be better for Kissinger to be off in Acapulco vacationing or Katmandu negotiating. In a way, it would be nice to know that he is not scheming somewhere to produce another diplomatic surprise.

But his record thus far has been remarkably good. The predicted blowup after the China trip has not shown at the ballot box or in the atmosphere. If he is in Hanoi, perhaps the diplomatic consequences will be worthwhile.

Wherever he is, we wish him well. We have no choice. He is representing us all.

ANDERSON RELEASES MEMOS

U.S. Moves in Chile Reported

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Nixon administration reportedly was prepared to do all possible short of armed intervention to prevent the 1970 election of Chilean President Salvador Allende, according to a memo attributed to two ITT officials.

The memo released by columnist Jack Anderson said the State Department, on Sept. 15, 1970, authorized U.S. Ambassador Edward M. Korry "to move in the name of President Nixon."

The memo, said to have been written by two officials of International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., Hal Hendrix and Robert Berrellez, declared the State department gave Korry "maximum authority to do all possible—short of a Dominican Republic-type action—to keep Allende from taking power."

According to the memos, ITT sought the assistance of the White House, Congress and various federal agencies in an effort to stop Allende and thereby forestall nationalization of the firm's multilimil-lion-dollar properties in Chile.

One memo attributed to Washington ITT official J. D. Neal said the conglomerate was prepared to "assist finan-cially in sums up to seven fig-ures" as part of its anti-Al-lende campaign.

Another memo attributed to ITT vice president W. R. Mer-riam said the firm was pre-

Guidelines
Set for State
Pay D.

pared to approach the Senate leadership "to see if they will just 'forget' to take up" an Inter-American Development Bank appropriation totalling $2.9 billion.

"We could prepare statements from them (the Senate leaders) which would get a message to other Latin American countries that Chile's action is affecting them too, al-beit indirectly," the memo said.

Fulbright told reporters that allegations of ITT influence in U.S. foreign policy are "very bad business, if true."

Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho called for a thorough inquiry

into business influence on foreign policy.

Senate Republican leader Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania told newsmen he has "not the slightest interest" in the ITT memos.

"This whole ridiculous farce has gone far enough," he said, predicting the current case will be followed by "a series of Bobsy books entitled ITT in Vietnam, ITT in East Germany, ITT goes to Sea, ITT in the House of Representatives."

"Some publicity seeking character," he added, "will suggest that the President of Chile be subpoenaed," Scott said.

special
get 1.
cot

T-shirts and briefs of sorbency, fit, durable

<table><tr><td>Replenish your supplier from a 3000 Power-Knit® T-shirt. Limit: 2 redemptions</td></tr></table>

(B) POWER-KNIT T-SHIRT

(C) V-NECK T-SHIRT

(D) CLASSIC BRIEF, n

Explore new horizons.
With Crepe Primavera
from C&A.

C&A's Crepe Primavera tricot is the perfect fabric for whatever your designing mind cares to create.

Quilt it and frog it for the Chinese look. Drape and shape it for the sleek and seductive look. Crepe Primavera® is so soft, fluid and supple, you can create daywear, lingerie and loungewear that makes any woman project her individual mystique.

Made of Enka Crepeset® nylon, Crepe Primavera comes in every color imaginable.

So broaden your fashion horizons with the fabric of today – and tomorrow. Crepe Primavera from Collins & Aikman.

Collins & Aikman, Bangor Division,
210 Madison Avenue, New York,
New York 10016. Tel. (212) 689-3900.

COLLINS & AIKMAN

Collins & Aikman
makes the tricot knits that
make things happen.

3 WOMEN'S WEAR DAILY, THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1972

EYE

THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER: "We need a return to fiction," said Clifford Irving the day after pleading guilty to charges of conspiracy, grand larceny and mail fraud in the Howard Hughes "autobiography" case. "Maybe the American public will go back to reading fiction and this idea of 'truth' will be dispelled."

Tuesday night, Irving and his wife Edith made their first New York social appearance at a dinner party at the Harold Reed Gallery in honor of their friend, German artist Mary Bauermeister.

"We weren't sure they were coming since they've turned down quite a few invitations," said Reed. "So we didn't tell any of our guests. We were afraid they'd be disappointed." If anything, the 25 guests — including Conde Nast's S.I. Newhouse, Hearst Corp.'s Richard Deems, Pocket Library's Ned Pines and art book publisher Harry Abrams — were very surprised.

Before dinner, Irving, in a brown turtle-neck and sports jacket, sat stiffly and alone on a Louis XIV satin settee with Edith at his feet on a Regency stool. After the initial shock wore off, the guests started flocking around the couple. "In five or 10 years, this will all be as romantic as the Lindbergh thing," said one Halstoned socialite.

"I am very tired. I need a rest and some sun. It's been a daily shuttle from the hotel to the lawyers. If all this hadn't happened we'd be in St. Moritz now. We planned a trip to Java this spring but it is out of the question now," said Irving, twisting a gold menorah ring on his right hand to his finger. "It's only hard on the children. They are used to being out of doors in Ibiza with their animals and the peasants, helping them pick nuts off the trees. What is there to do with children in a New York hotel room?" Madeline Gilpatric, who use to date Howard Hughes in Hollywood, suggested Irving read New York magazine.

During dinner Edith Irving jumped up to get a pillow for Nina Abrams' broken foot, causing makeup man Pablo Manzoni to rupture, "I am in love with Helga's, I mean Edith's nose." Ms. Bauermeister told a couple at her table, "If the worst comes, I will take the

children. Edith is a dear friend...she used to feed me and Christo in our starving artist days." Sequined Mitzi Newhouse whispered to husband "Go talk to Irving." "What for"? replied Newhouse.

But Irving, balancing a pink ceramic Cailrol Stupell plate and mauve gingham Caldwell Alexander napkin, was busy keeping his four dinner partners in stitches with

Hughes jokes. "Did you hear the one about when they brought baby Howard to his mother?" And then the conversation steered back to "that" book again. "It would have been the best selling book of the decade. If they had printed it," said Irving, with no trace of modesty. "I saw some early reviews of the book and they were all raves. They should have published it."

"No, I never met the man," said Irving, answering Ms. Gilpatric's question. "You can't tell me the public isn't fascinated with power, money and the whole mystery around Hughes. Any public figure who can keep his mouth shut in mysterious and makes people want to know about him." Asked if Irving was following his pattern, he smiled a 180-degree smile. "Of course."

Someone else asked if he'd seen Nina van Pallandt. "No...but she has contacted me several times." Again the smile. "Thursday I go to Connecticut to work on the book 'about all this.' I haven't sold it, contrary to the reports. It's not because I haven't gotten a lot of offers. I have. It's my enormous ego that keeps me from accepting the paperback ones. I still want a hardback in my hands. My lawyers contacted McGraw-Hill about this book but they don't want anything to do with me now they've been burned. They are really a conservative."

— ROSEMARY KENT

From the left: Harry Belafonte, Gwen Williamson, Valerie Taylor, Carl Stokes, Jesse Jackson, Judy Rich, Alice Griggs.

ALL IN THE FAMILY: George McGovern came "to honor Jesse Jackson and Operation Push. It's a promising organization." Eugene McCarthy said he "came to have my picture taken." Harry Belafonte, who campaigned for McCarthy in 1968, said he is supporting "the black movement," now. Nearly 10,000 people came, at $25 each.

"A Family Affair" — the recent fundraising dinner for Operation Push at McCormick Place in Chicago — was so much a family affair for the Jacksons that Jacqueline Jackson rushed out with Yusep Dubois during the pickled beets course explaining, "I'm trying to get downstairs and change the baby's diaper."

Hugh Hefner, who bought 50 tables at the dinner, ducked out and raced to his own party (the new Playboy Club opening). "The club is not altogether done," Hugh said at the opening which benefited the American Cancer Society. Lots of people paid $50 a piece to eat roast beef and mingle with centerfold girls.

BABY ADOLFO: "I'm going to put it on him when he's old enough not to throw up," said Faith Sommerfield at Wednesday's showing of the Little Adolfo collection at Saks Fifth Avenue's Salon des Petits. She was talking about the blue pantsuit Adolfo sent her 14-week-old son, Peter. Adolfo got the idea for open crochet pastel knits after sending the pants set to the wife of Saks vice-president Barrie Sommerfield.

The tank dress (right) and the pink and white baby dress (left).

FeMale®

FeMale Showroom
1407 Broadway
Suite 3208
New York, N.Y. 10018
(212) 354-1480

FeMale® IS THE REGISTERED TRADEMARK
OF THE H-K CORPORATION, ATLANTA, GEORGIA.