Top of the News . . . Monday, Mar. 8, 1971

Monday. March 8, 1971

Republican National Committee,
310 First Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003

Senator Bob Dole—Chairman

Tom Evans—Co-Chairman

Anne Armstrong—Co-Chairman

Lyn Nofziger—Deputy Chairman for Communications

John D. Lofton, Jr.—Monday Editor

MONDAY Staff

Bill Fleishell—Art—Design

Pam Pitzer—Editorial Assistant

6

Democrats Now
Turn To Purge
Tactics On
President's
Advisors

It appears that President Nixon's critics are not satisfied with trying to undercut Executive policy. Now they are trying to purge the President's advisors! A concerted attack is being made on Dr. Henry Kissinger, who heads the National Security Council.

In their efforts to get at Dr. Kissinger, the President's critics have also slurred the reputation of Secretary of State William Rogers, a highly respected member of the Cabinet, and a trusted personal associate of President Nixon's for the past 24 years. The President has stated as a matter of record that Secretary of State Rogers is his chief advisor on foreign affairs, and that "people who think otherwise are misleading themselves and others." Yet the attacks continue.

One excuse used to perpetuate this vendetta is the alleged desire of some members of the Foreign Relations Committee to question Dr. Kissinger. Yet the record is clear. Dr. Kissinger has voluntarily and repeatedly met with almost all members of the Committee, individually and in groups.

When a member of the Committee raised the demand last week for legislation to force members of the President's White House staff to testify— a clear violation of Executive privilege—Dr. Kissinger telephoned the Senator in question and again offered to participate in informal discussions.

Whether his critics approve of Henry Kissinger's views on foreign policy is not at issue here. The question, simply stated, is whether or not the President of the United States has a right to choose his own advisors without harassment from his

opponents in the Senate.

Think of the howling we would hear if the shoe were on the other foot, and it was the President who was trying to purge Senate staffs of qualified, conscientious assistants, simply because he did not agree with their policy views!

Just as Senators have a right to select their own personal staffs without undergoing Executive harassment, the President has a right to choose his without being threatened with a Senatorial inquisition.

It is unfortunate that men who claim to hold enlightened views would resort to this kind of purge tactic — especially when an outstanding public servant like Secretary Rogers is humiliated in the process, and the intended scapegoat is a man of Dr. Kissinger's talent and dedication.

The Nixon policies they are attacking have succeeded in bringing thousands of American boys home from a war that, a short two years ago, was tying down more than half a million U.S. troops. This is no time to attempt to destroy the reputation and effectiveness of two of the finest members of the Presidential team that has achieved this turning point toward peace.

President Nixon confers with Sec. of State William Rogers. The President pointed out last week that Sec. Rogers in 1969 appeared before Congressional committees 14 times; in 1970, 15 times. In addition, during those two years, he has met some 167 times privately with groups of Congressmen or individual members either at the State Department or at his home.

Clark Mollenhoff

# Displaying the Symbols of Power

Boston Herald Traveler
8 March 1971

WASHINGTON — An eight-passenger Jetstar plane, a miniature of the President's Air Force One, is the clearest symbol of the status of Dr. Henry A. Kissinger within the Nixon administration.

While others in the White House must justify use of one of the special mission aircraft that the Air Force keeps at Andrews Air Force Base, President Nixon insists that Henry Kissinger do nearly all of his travel in a military, rather than commercial, aircraft.

Officially, the 47-year-old former Harvard professor of government is the "assistant to the President for national security affairs" at a salary of $42,500 a year. But, in fact, he has become number two on all matters dealing with the Defense and State Depts.

GENERAL JAMES D. Hughes, military aide to President Nixon, explains that he encourages Kissinger to use

the special mission 475-mile-an-hour Jetstar or one of its backup planes.

The Lockheed Jetstar costs slightly over $500,000 in its commercial form, but it has been provided with all types of special navigational equipment and communications equipment that would at least double the cost.

"This hijacking of commercial airlines has increased the need for providing assurance of security for Henry," General Hughes said. "He is the last person we would like to think of dropping in for lunch with Castro in Cuba."

The general understanding that Dr. Kissinger is a recep-tacle of all of the nation's most vital military and diplomatic secrets has given credence to the allegation that the Rev. Philip F. Berrigan and five others were engaged in a plot to kidnap Kissinger. The Berrigan group was indicted on Jan. 12 on charges of conspiring to kidnap Kissinger

and plotting to blow up the heating systems of federal buildings in Washington.

THEY ALLEGEDLY were going to hold Kissinger to force the Nixon administration to end the war in Vietnam and release all "political prisoners."

When Kissinger was in Florida recently for the launching of Apollo 14, he used the Lockheed Jetstar plane for the flight from Washington although Vice-President Agnew made the trip in another plane.

General Hughes said the Jetstar is outfitted with special radio and other communications equipment so that Kissinger can be in touch with his west wing White House office in a moment's notice, and can also keep in touch with President Nixon.

EVEN THOUGH it is regarded as a 24-hour-a-day job, Kissinger fully enjoys the life in the White House. In addition

to the Jetstar, he has acquired another status symbol that he did not have in the first year.

In that first year, Kissinger was housed in the basement rooms in the west wing as were his two predecessors in the job — McGeorge Bundy under President Kennedy and Walt W. Rostow under President Johnson.

Articles referring to Kissinger as "the man in the basement" were regarded as de-meaning to Kissinger and his guests who came to the small door at the west basement. Visitors frequently were forced to wait for some time on Kissinger who has been much busier than his predecessors.

Kissinger said he did not mind the basement rooms, but that it was rather an insult to some of the foreign dignitaries who came to his office to get answers to their questions.

THE ENTIRE west wing of the White House was redone to provide a huge reception room as well as a spacious office for Kissinger that would make his guests feel more

comfortable. It was necessary to move the press corps into the space that had housed the White House swimming pool, and to keep the reporters happy this was redone into a plush communications center with bigger and better office space for everyone.

With this move, Kissinger and others in the west wing acquired a large waiting room and the kind of office that would truly impress foreign dignitaries.

A large columned portico was added to the west wing and a small circular driveway and suitable shrubbery were added. A Marine guard was placed in front of the door.

ALL OF THIS GIVES the foreign visitor the proper impression of the real role of Henry Kissinger. No one needs to tell Secretary of State Rogers or Secretary of Defense Laird what kind of an adversary Kissinger is on tough foreign policy issues. His proximity to President Nixon usually gives him the last word, and on most occasions that has been enough to convince the President that

Henry knows what is best.

He has his admirers and detractors.

Among the former are former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who believes that our foreign policy is in a mess, but that Henry Kissinger's handling of things in the White House is the only reason that the United States is not in more difficulties in the world.

There are those in Congress, including Sen. Stuart Symington (Dem., Mo.) who question the wisdom of permitting one man to be the whole receptacle of foreign policy and defense policy information.

But, Kissinger has not bent to his critics on Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos, nor has he even had to answer them publicly. Kissinger acts only in the name of the president, and unlike the cabinet officer he contends that he does not have to answer questions for congressional committees. He leaves that rather onerous task to Mel Laird and Bill Rogers, and quietly moves into more power and more influence every day.

ORE, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1971

Kissinger Image Bothers Rogers, Laird

WASHINGTON

A Washington toastmaster, introducing William Rogers at a charity ball last week, said, "May I present the Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger." Rogers turned red and forced a smile as he bowed.

But both he and Melvin Laird, Secretary of Defense, are said to be increasingly annoyed by the publicity which maintains that Kissinger is running foreign policy.

They are trying to work out a strategy to put the Harvard professor back in perspective. But Kissinger does not reach for the publicity and therefore he is vulnerable to censure only on grounds that he does, in contrast to his predecessors, deal directly with foreign ambassadors.

But everyone agrees that Rogers will have to work harder and the State Department will have to function more smoothly before the imbalance is corrected.

Direct negotiations between the White House and the Japanese Embassy during the brief congressional recess did not yield any prospect of agreement on textile quotes.

White House aide Peter Flanigan told the Japanese they would get a better deal in a bilateral agreement than they could expect from congressional action. But the Japanese textile industry prefers to make Congress pass the law.

They say they have already gained two years of unlimited exports by refusing to sign an agreement and they are not sure Congress can pass a trade bill with sufficient restraint for the President's signature.

Since total Japan-United States trade is running over $9

News Focus

By
Charles Bartlett

billion annually, there will be no trade war but the relations will be increasingly bumpy.

Briefing Republican members of Congress in relays last week, Henry Kissinger drew heavily from a report drafted for Senator William Fulbright by two aides, James Lowenstein and Richard Moose.

The report, issued in mid-December without publicity, observes that Vietnamization could probably not continue if Cambodia fell under enemy control.

It also asserts that the Lon Nol government is popular among the young and the intellectuals and that Cambodians are showing a determination to defend their country.

The awesome costs of the 1970 campaign are stimulating senators to move quickly on a new effort to legislate curbs on political spending. Senator Robert Taft (R., Ohio) went to the Republican finance people in Ohio with an $825,000 debt from his campaign.

He said he would undertake to pay off $225,000, a remnant of his primary campaign, but asked the state committee to assume the remaining $600,000.

He was flatly turned down.

It would take Taft 19 years to pay back this sum with his salary of $42,500. The Democrats meanwhile are experimenting with direct mail solicitation. They find that appeals

which specifically cite Spiro Agnew as a target in the 1972 campaign draw twice as many responses as appeals which target only Richard Nixon.

The confirmation hearings on John Connally made the point that the public tends to exaggerate the wealth of Texans politicians.

Connally, it turns out, has not done as well as his mentor, Lyndon Johnson. His net worth was not disclosed by the Senate Finance Committee but friends report it is roughly $1 million, mostly in land that does not pay heavy returns.

Similarly, Connally's protege, Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, often described as a millionaire, is said to have a real net worth of less than $20,000.

The assets of Texas politicians may color the state's political life for a long time to come because the investment scandals breaking there are judged certain to cast a long shadow over the Democratic party.

When Charles Yost was asked to step aside as ambas-

sador to the United Nations, he was promised by President Nixon that he would be used in another important embassy.

The career foreign service officer was highly disappointed last week when he was invited to be ambassador to Nigeria.

He declined the appointment because he is 64 and would rather retire than go to the hottest part of Africa. President Nixon had been vaguely critical of him in the months before George Bush, of Houston, was named to replace him.

Publishers-Hall Syndicate.

NEW YORK NEWS 3 FEBRUARY 1971 (4 FEB)

By STAN CARTER

Washington, Feb. 2—For too long now, people have been putting down William Pierce Rogers as a weak and ineffectual Secretary of State, who has surrendered the State Department's once-proud stewardship over foreign policy to a swinging Dr. Strangelove type of character in the basement of the White House.

A Herblock cartoon in the Washington Post the other day perpetuating this image brought a chuckle from Rogers himself. It showed President Nixon at the front door of the White House sending an unhappy secretary of state off on a "diplomatic mission to the U.S. Senate." Behind Nixon was an office labeled "White House Foreign Policy Department," where Prof. Henry Kissinger, Defense Secretary Melvin Laird and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were busily making the policy that Rogers was being sent to defend.

The caption quoted Nixon as saying, "Look at it this way, Bill—you're handling our most serious trouble spot."

There is an element of truth in the cartoon, but it is also a grossly distorted picture.

The fact is that the center of gravity in the making of foreign policy is—and, with rare exceptions, always has been—at the White House. The State Department's role is to give advice to the President and carry out the policy he decides upon.

One of the exceptions was in the 1950s, when President Eisenhower delegated much authority to his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles. Even then, Eisenhower made the really big decisions.

All of the presidents since Eisenhower have exerted a tight hold on the policy-making apparatus. For practical purposes, President Kennedy established the first "little State Department" in the White House basement, with his national security adviser, McGeorge Bundy in charge. This system was continued by President Johnson, first with Bundy and then with Walt Rostow running the National Security Council's basement crisis center.

Nixon has drawn the White House's reins of foreign policy even tighter.

Under Kissinger, the President's special assistant for national security affairs, the White House's foreign policy staff has been enlarged to 110 persons, about double what it was under Johnson.

Kissinger is a brilliant, German-born Harvard professor with a big ego. Nixon obviously has a high regard for his expertise. He obviously plays a large role in formulating policy, particularly concerning Indochina and relations with the Soviet Union.

But a large role is also played by Rogers and the State Department's 12,294 other employes (there are 6,698 of them in Washington and 5,596 abroad) despite bureaucratic poor-mouthing, mainly at lower levels, and occasional abrasiveness between the White House staff and State Department officials.

## Rogers Has Grown Into the Job, Some Say

All the indications are that Rogers is exactly the kind of Secretary of State that Nixon wants. The two have been close personal friends since Nixon was a young congressman in the late 1940s. Although Rogers had comparatively little direct foreign policy experience before becoming secretary two years ago, he was a quick learner and in the opinion of close associates has grown on the job.

Rogers' low-keyed, nice-guy approach is probably the reason some people have thought he was not an effective secretary. But it is the way he believes Nixon wants foreign policy conducted.

Rogers once put it this way: "I am convinced that our general approach in taking a fairly low tone but being perfectly frank and outspoken is the way our foreign policy should be conducted in the future. That expresses our basic American viewpoint. We must show that we are easy to get along with, but that we are not weak or soft-headed."

## Principal Adviser, Not the Maker

He also has described his job: "I am the principal adviser to the President on foreign policy. Let there be no mistake about it. He, the President, is the man who makes foreign policy. He has a great deal of experience in the field. He listens to me and to others, but he makes the final decisions. I like to think that my advice in a number of important problems has been acted on."

Most reporters who cover the State Department regularly regard Rogers as a voice of reason in the administration's policy-making councils, but wonder how much the voice is listened to.

For instance, the general belief is that Rogers had doubts about the U.S.-South Vietnamese incursion into Cambodia last year, but that when the President decided to go ahead with it, Rogers fell loyally behind the policy decision.

## State's Bureaucrats Make Mideast Policy

But Rogers' associates say he has been a lot more persuasive in the inner councils than people have assumed. Because of the nature of his job, he does not have the same day-to-day personal contact with the President that Kissinger has, but Nixon and Rogers frequently talk informally and in private, as well as at the formal sessions of the National Security Council.

Along with Kissinger, Laird and others, Rogers has given advice on Indochina, but the President himself has made the basic policy decisions. On the Middle East, in contrast, the ideas for administration initiatives have percolated up from the State Department bureaucracy and been approved by the President.

As Rogers sees it, he is doing the job the way his boss wants it done.

N.Y. TIMES 2/4/71

French Stop Americans
In Protest at Hanoi Office

PARIS, Feb. 3 (AP)—Three American students began a letter-reading demonstration in front of the North Vietnamese mission today but were stopped by the French police after about 10 minutes.

A plainclothesman told them that if they did not stop, they would be taken to headquarters.

It was the third group of Americans concerned with American prisoners of war to approach Hanoi's mission in the last five days.

The students were from Brigham Young University at Provo, Utah.

The letters, which the students began soliciting last October, asked for return of prisoners, humane treatment, mail rights and Red Cross inspection.

tern

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

23 FEBRUARY 1971 P-14

h

denly became unfriendly, or
if the army of South Viet-
nam ceased to be the ally
of the United States.

The original stated purpose of American intervention in Vietnam was to allow the people to choose their own form of government.

## Long-term presence

It was long presumed, indeed specified, that Washington would accept any political settlement in Vietnam which was worked out by the people themselves. It used to say that this included a possible coalition government. It was repeatedly stated that the Communist elements in Vietnam could be included in such a coalition government.

Has Mr. Nixon now ruled out any such political solution? Is he saying now that his purpose is to secure and protect a permanent non-Communist regime in Saigon?

It begins to sound like that.

The talk here is no longer of a total American withdrawal. It is rather of a long-term American military presence in support of the existing regime in Saigon.

This is probably now possible. Public opposition to the war has greatly diminished as American casualties have declined and as the draft calls have been cut down. The fighting is being done largely now by willing professionals, not by unwilling conscripts. It is politically possible at home for Mr. Nixon to think now

in terms of a long-term American military presence, rather than in terms of total withdrawal. Besides, with unemployment still rising no one wants to add to it by releasing more men from military service.

## Bargaining counter

All of this has broadened Mr. Nixon's range of options. A year ago he had to talk in terms of total American withdrawal. Conditions on his home front imposed that upon him. They no longer do. He could keep a force of a hundred thousand Americans in Vietnam indefinitely, if he chose.

Present indications are that he has so chosen: that he is thinking now of keeping a substantial American military presence in Vietnam so long as they may be necessary or desirable in bolstering and sustaining the regime in Saigon and the armed forces of that regime.

This, of course, rules out any negotiated settlement at the tables of diplomacy in Paris.

It also leaves unsolved the problem of the Americans held in Hanoi's prison camps.

Those luckless persons become Hanoi's last bargaining counter. They will be released, Hanoi says, when the last American leaves Vietnam. But is there anything Mr. Nixon can do to get them released so long as American troops remain in Vietnam? The prisoners will, I suspect, pay the price of a new policy of a permanent American presence in Vietnam.

in action but
strategic and tacti-
c in their poli-
the first time
Bureau Chief
leaked to the

by Philip Potter, Washington
of the Baltimore Sun. It was
Times by Townsend Hoopes,

[w]

UPI-92

(KISSINGER)

WASHINGTON--SEN. STUART SYMINGTON, D-MO., SAID TODAY WILLIAM P. ROGERS HAD BECOME THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THE WASHINGTON COCKTAIL CIRCUIT AND MANY PEOPLE SAY HE IS JUST A FIGUREHEAD SECRETARY OF STATE.

SEN. JACOB K. JAVIT, R-N.Y., CAME TO ROGERS' DEFENSE SAYING IF WHAT SYMINGTON SAID WAS THE TRUTH ROGERS WOULD RESIGN.

SYMINGTON MADE THE assertion in a speech complaining, ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE IN GETTING INFORMATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. HE SAID HE DID NOT QUESTION THE RIGHT OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO LOBBY ON CAPITOL HILL FOR ITS PROGRAMS.

BUT HE NOTED THAT WHITE HOUSE AIDE HENRY KISSINGER, HAD SPOKEN IN GREAT DETAIL ON A TELEVISION PROGRAM ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY MATTERS, WHILE REFUSING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE IN CLOSED DOOR SESSION.

JAVITS REPLIED THAT KISSINGER WAS AN ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT, AND SUCH ADVISORS HAD TRADITIONALLY BEEN EXCUSED FROM APPEARING AS CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES, OR DIRECTED NOT TO APPEAR BY THEIR CHIEFS.

SYMINGTON COUNTERED THAT GEORGE P. SCHULTZ, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, AND ALSO A CLOSE PERSONAL ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT, HAD SHOWN NO RELUCTANCE TO APPEAR AS A WITNESS.

"IF THE NUMBER ONE MAN ON DOMESTIC ISSUES WILL TESTIFY IN OPEN SESSION, SURELY THE NUMBER ONE MAN IN FOREIGN POLICY (DR. KISSINGER) SHOULD BE WILLING TO TALK IN EXECUTIVE SESSION," SYMINGTON SAID.

JAVITS REPLIED THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD A RIGHT TO CALL ROGERS "AND GO AFTER HIM HAMMER AND TONGS" BECAUSE IT HAD AN OVERSIGHT FUNCTION WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

SYMINGTON SAID THAT AS A MEMBER OF THE GOP, JAVITS COULD GET INFORMATION FROM KISSINGER THAT HE, SYMINGTON, COULD NOT. AND AS FOR ROGERS, THE MISSOURI LAWMAKER SAID:

"IT'S RATHER SAD TO GO AROUND THIS TOWN IN THE AFTERNOON AND THE EVENING AND HEAR OUR VERY ABLE SECRETARY OF STATE LAUGHED AT. MANY PEOPLE SAY HE'S SECRETARY OF STATE IN TITLE ONLY."

MOREOVER, SYMINGTON ADDED, JAVITS DID NOT THINK THIS "AFFECTED MORALE AND EFFECTIVENESS" OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES THE NEW YORKER DID NOT HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION HE HAD.

"I'M NOT CRITICIZING ANY INDIVIDUALS. I'M CRITICIZING THE SYSTEM," SYMINGTON SAID.

JAVITS ANSWERED THAT "IT'S JUST NOT A FACT I CAN GET MORE INFORMATION THAN YOU CAN." AS TO THE COMMENTS ABOUT ROGERS, JAVITS CONTINUED: "I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE. IF IT WAS, HE'D RESIGN."

3/2--MB1250P

71

WASHINGTON --ADD KISSINGER (70)

SEN. JACOB JAVITS, R-N.Y., SAID HE HOPED SYMINGTON WAS WRONG ABOUT ROGERS. "I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE," HE SAID. "I HOPE IT ISN'T THE CASE. I THINK IF IT WERE THE CASE, HE WOULD RESIGN."

SYMINGTON SAID IN HIS VIEW, IT IS TO ROGERS' CREDIT THAT HE DOES NOT RESIGN, BUT REMAINS IN HIS POST. DESPITE A DIFFICULT ORGANIZATIONAL SITUATION.

JAVITS SAID IF THERE IS TO BE CRITICISM, IT SHOULD BE DIRECTED NOT AT KISSINGER, BUT AT NIXON "AND THE WAY HE'S SETTING UP THE STATE DEPARTMENT...."

"KISSINGER IS THE PRESIDENT'S MAN," JAVITS SAID. "THE PRESIDENT COULD FIRE HIM TOMORROW AND GET SOMEBODY ELSE."

SYMINGTON SAID HE WASN'T CRITICIZING THE MEN INVOLVED, BUT THE ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS. HE SAID THE KISSINGER DOMAIN MAKES ROGERS' POSITION AS SECRETARY OF STATE "DIFFICULT TO THE POINT OF BEING IMPOSSIBLE..."

A CAPITOL APPEARANCE BY ROGERS TO EXPLAIN INDOCHINA TO THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE "IS RATHER AN EMPTY EXERCISE," SYMINGTON SAID.

SR128PES 3/2

26

G

The Evening Bulletin

PHILADELPHIA

Wednesday, March 3, 1971

# Senators Turn Up the Heat in Kissinger's Kitchen

By RICHARD FRANK

Bulletin Washington Bureau

Washington — Now it's Henry Kissinger's turn.

In the minds of antiwar sen-
ators, Kissinger has emerged
as the dominant influence
within the Nixon Adminis-
tration on almost every aspect
of foreign policy and especial-
ly on Vietnam.

For this reason, they would
like to have a crack at him, a
chance to put to him some of
the questions and some of the
complaints they have about
U.S. policy in Indochina.

But Kissinger, like others
who served before him as na-
tional security assistant to the
President, has refused to tes-
tify before congressional com-
mittees, in public or in pri-
vate.

Executive Privilege

The former Harvard profes-
sor has invoked the hallowed
doctrine of executive privi-
lege, which holds that no cabi-
net member or White House
staffer may be questioned by
Congress about anything he
tells the President or anything
the President tells him.

But two leading Senate op-
ponents of the Nixon policy on
Vietnam made it clear in sep-
arate speeches yesterday that
they aren't satisfied and that
they want Kissinger to march
up to Capitol Hill and testify.

Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-Ark.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, would do it by legislation; Sen. Stuart Symington (D-Mo) would threaten budgetary retaliation.

Compared to Mideast

Fulbright says the use of ex-
ecutive privilege is like "a
break in diplomatic relations"
between the White House and
Congress.

In a speech at Florida State
University in Tallahassee,
Fulbright said the foreign pol-
icy-makers in the Executive
Branch weren't talking
directly with the congressmen
who have responsibilities in
this field.

Henry A. Kissinger

Sen. Stuart W. Symington

"Like the Arabs and Is-
raelis," he said, "they com-
municate through inter-
mediaries, with the secretary
of state cast in the role of Am-
bassador Jarring (the United
Nations mediator)."

Lack of Substance

Secretary of State William
P. Rogers has, indeed, made
fairly frequent appearances
before congression com-
mittees, though often choosing
to testify in private.

But these sessions, Ful-
bright complained, usually
lack substance, and in any
event he doesn't think Rogers
is one of "the principal au-
thors of our foreign policy."

The important ones, accord-
ing to Fulbright, are the Pres-
ident himself and Kissinger.

Fulbright's Bill

Presidents, of course, do not
appear before congressional
committees, and when they do
meet with congressmen it is
at the White House and usual-
ly a one-sided affair, says Ful-
bright.

At these sessions, congress-
men act with "awe and defe-
rence toward the presidential
office, (and) anyone who has
the temerity to ask a direct
question or express a candid

opinion is frowned upon like a
child misbehaving in church,"
according to the Arkansas
Democrat.

As for Kissinger, he holds
so-called background briefings
for the press and also briefs
selected members of Con-
gress. He occasionally ap-
pears on television interview
shows.

But he will not come before
a congressional committee, so
Fulbright has prepared a bill
that would require Executive
Branch employes to appear
before legislative committees,
even if they did nothing more
than invoke executive privi-
lege.

Symington's Idea

Symington, a member of
Fulbright's committee, would
do it differently.

In a speech to the Senate
yesterday, Symington sug-
gested that Congress might
take "a long hard look" at the
$2.3 million appropriation
sought for Kissinger's White
House operation.

"All of us know that the
most effective congressional
authority is the power of the
purse, and only through the
proper exercise of that
power," said Symington, "can
the Congress regain its con-

stitutional role in the formula-
tion of policy."

'Actual Architect'

In his speech, Symington
spoke of Kissinger's "extraor-
dinary influence" on all as-
pects of foreign policy and of
his "unique and unprece-
dented authoritative role."

Kissinger, he said, is clearly
"the actual architect of our
foreign policy," and his refus-
al to appear before the For-
eign Relations Committee
"nullifies the basic con-
stitutional concept of advice
and consent."

Symington pointed out that
George P. Shultz, director of
the Office of Management and
Budget and a personal adviser
to the President, has testified
before committees of Con-
gress.

"If the number one man on
domestic issues (Shultz) will
testify in open session," Sym-
ington told the Senate, "surely
the number one man in for-
eign policy should be willing
to talk in executive session."

Hobstetter Appointed
To 2 Posts at Penn

The University of Pennsyl-
vania announced yesterday
that Dr. John N. Hobstetter,
former dean of the Graduate
School of Fine Arts, has been
named the first associate pro-
vost for academic planning.

President Martin Meyerson
said Dr. Hobstetter also will
serve as the university's budg-
et administrator.

In accepting the appoint-
ment, Dr. Hobstetter indi-
cated Penn will reduce its
academic program to relieve
its financial difficulties. "Our
sister universities seem
agreed that in these difficult
days each should attempt to
do fewer things better. I
agree," he said.

China's GNP Up

Tokyo — (AP) — Commu-
nist China's gross national
product rose 10 percent since
1960 to about $75 billion in
1970, the Japanese Foreign
Ministry estimated.

Syming
Is Mis
Nixon

Washington
dent Nixon
that Sen. St
(D-Mo) was
tally inaccur
ate to say that H
ger has beco
state in ever

Symington,
speech, said:
"It's rath
ey go in the
evening around
hear the ver
of state (Wil
l laughed at.)"

Press sed
Ziegler later
ment saying:

"President
utmost confi
retary of st
judgment of
state. He is
chief adviser
and he will
people who th
misleading
others."

Delivery
To Father

Boston—(U)
Hospital has
ily centered
program in
takes part in
the actual
baby.

Mrs. Nita
supervisor,
felt tradition
where the
leave his ex-
hospital and
later were u

"This trac
is gradually
said, "and o
other step fo

Under Be
gram, the fa
his wife in t
watch the de
later with h
new child.

PRESS ROOM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

Independent weekly Wochenpresse (news magazine with 41,000 circulation) March 17 carried prominently article on President Nixon's adviser, Henry Kissinger. According to article, Mr. (sic) Kissinger is regarded by Western diplomats in Washington as "the most capable head of the American establishment," by U.S. neo-isolationists as "the evil spirit in the White House," by London and Bonn as "the 'best European' in Washington," and by Moscow as "the only American who can see through -- and thus 'understand' -- the policy of the Soviet Union."

Article termed Kissinger a "Metternich in the White House" and said that Kissinger was one of the few American historians who considered Prince Metternich of Austria not a dark tyrant but an able statesman.

Noting recent attacks on the Presidential adviser, paper said: "Kissinger is hated not only by the critics of the present foreign policy, whether with regard to Europe or Vietnam, aversion to him is felt especially by the so-called Middle America, that is, those politicians and publicists who have made of mediocrity the highest virtue."

March 17, 1971

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks

E1963

been felt by the State Board of Medical Examiners on which he served as secretary for the last 6 of his 12 years of membership, and his service to other professional organizations includes the Federation of State Medical Boards of which he served as president, the Western Association of Railroad Surgeons also having served as president, president and member of the Placer-Sierra Counties Medical Society, member of the California Medical Society, the American Academy of General Practice; his community affiliations include the Masonic Lodge, the Sciots, the Ben Ali Shrine, the Redmen, Eagles, Moose, and Lions clubs. He served as a director of the Placer County Fair for 30 years and was president of that board as well as serving as a member of the Roseville City Council. Dr. Jones was very instrumental in the establishment of the Roseville District Hospital where he served as chief of staff for 10 years.

As I mentioned above, it is especially appropriate that we recognize the professional contributions made by one who has "specialized" as a general practitioner. Certainly this is the case with my old friend Louie Jones, and I thought his remarks based on 40 years of the practice in medicine exceptionally pertinent, and I would like to share some of his comments with you:

I never use the appointment system. I see the patients as they come in and I believe I see more each day than the so-called highly organized offices. The old-fashioned general practitioners came to know the patients better. They trusted your judgment and even today they drop in to see me and to talk about many things which are not concerned with medicine or illness.

I always wanted to be a small country doctor and I was for many years. I don't like the idea of bringing the city to me. I used to be able to laugh with the people—and to cry with them—because I knew nearly every one of them.

Dr. Jones and his wife, Frances, who were married in 1931, are nearing their 40th wedding anniversary. They have a son, Louis E. Jones, Jr., an assistant superintendent of Grant High School District, and a daughter, Mrs. Martha Romero. They are very proud of their seven grandchildren.

In Dr. Jones' words:

I wouldn't change a single part of my life if I had it all to do over again.

I am glad that our good Dr. Louis Jones, while he is setting aside his railroad company responsibilities, will remain with a practice, however limited, in the community.

Dr. Jones has assisted at the birth of more than 2,300 children to local residents. Roseville residents might say that it takes a good doctor to keep a community going and growing.

ROGERS' RECORD BELIES SYMINGTON'S APPRAISAL

HON. JACK F. KEMP
OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 17, 1971

Mr. KEMP. Mr. Speaker, recently the Secretary of State was characterized as

being the "laughing stock of the cocktail circuit" and it was implied that he was a mere figurehead. Lucian Warren, the very able Washington bureau chief of the Buffalo Evening News in this article takes a look at Secretary Rogers at work, and the resulting characterization shows a dynamic, able, and influential man. I suggest my colleagues read Mr. Warren's article to see how the American public views Mr. Rogers and not rely, instead, on sensational, headline-seeking remarks for their picture:

ROGERS' RECORD BELIES SYMINGTON'S
APPRaisal

(By Lucian Warren)

(NOTE.—The following article is in part an editorial analysis based on material from various sources and in part an exclusive Buffalo Evening News interview, the 12th and final one with the Nixon Cabinet. Although previous interviews were tape recorded and the texts reproduced, ground rules set by the State Department forbade use of a tape recorder and specified only limited direct quotation.)

WASHINGTON, March 6.—Secretary of State William P. Rogers deserves a better rating than that accorded him this week by Sen. Stuart Symington (D., Mo.).

While history will be the final judge of his effectiveness, certain facts are emerging which would seem to negate Sen. Symington's assertion that Mr. Rogers is the "laughing stock of the cocktail circuit" and that presidential adviser Henry A. Kissinger is the actual secretary of state in everything, but title.

As Mr. Rogers candidly acknowledges, the President doesn't always take his advice. But he does so a good share of the time, and when he doesn't, time might well rule that Mr. Rogers was right.

There was, for example, the decision to send U.S. troops into Cambodia last spring. Mr. Rogers advised against it and was overruled.

While there appears to have been a military success in Cambodia, this must be balanced against the domestic uproar that resulted in the fatal shooting of students at Kent State University in Ohio.

Mr. Rogers was a dove on the Cambodia decision while Defense Secretary Melvin R. Laird supported his military advisers in favor of the incursion.

The opposite was true as regards a proposed reduction in U.S. troops in Europe. Mr. Laird supported a demand on Capitol Hill to reduce U.S. troop strength. Mr. Rogers was opposed. The President took his secretary of state's advice and the troop strength remained at about 300,000 men.

The decision was extremely popular with the nation's European allies in NATO, and it is one of the secretary's satisfactions that NATO morale is extremely high. As the secretary noted recently: "There is a good spirit of unity there."

While the oil crisis was at its height in the Middle East and the prospect for agreement among the oil-producing states and the consuming nations was dim, the secretary dispatched his undersecretary, John N. Irwin II, to the area. An agreement was reached.

Rogers was directly responsible for improving U.S. relations with the black African nations by closing the American consulate in Southern Rhodesia. His counsel has prevailed on the U.S. attitude on the ABM question with regard to SALT talks with the U.S.S.R.

Perhaps more than any other one man, Rogers can be considered the author of President Nixon's Vietnamization policy.

In April, 1969, the secretary of state, addressing a meeting of Associated Press editors and publishers in New York, suggested

that the U.S. should not put all its eggs in one basket, i.e., the Paris peace negotiations. He advocated a twin policy of regular U.S. troop withdrawals. The Vietnamization policy soon after was announced by President Nixon.

These are some of the actions which may well provide the foundation for a coming historical label on Rogers as a great secretary of state.

Rogers was reluctant to talk about the Nixon Administration's decision-making process in a recent exclusive interview with this correspondent. He also declined to talk about his relations with Dr. Kissinger.

However, it is perhaps significant that another State Department official pointedly noted this week that an understanding has been worked out with the White House as to Dr. Kissinger's contacts with foreign diplomats. Most of such contacts henceforth will be arranged through the State Department, the spokesman said.

But the secretary was willing to talk about some of the satisfactions of his job.

First on his list was a general feeling about the status of U.S. foreign policy.

"I think it is generally recognized," he said, "that foreign affairs have gone quite well in this Administration."

As proof, he cites the fact that foreign policy was not an issue in the 1970 political campaign.

The handling of the crisis involving Nigeria's civil strife is one of the secretary's quiet satisfactions. Although the crisis is long since over, Rogers well remembers the pressures he resisted to intervene politically or militarily or both.

The U.S. did provide economic and humanitarian aid, but stopped short of activity which might have plunged the U.S. into a disastrous deep involvement.

As to the Middle East, Secretary Rogers is happy about the way the area seems to be slowly progressing towards a peaceful settlement.

He notes there was constant turmoil there for nearly 25 years. When he assumed office, the situation was bleak with the continued Israeli bombings, many casualties among the Egyptians, a stepped-up loss of Israeli Pharmaceutical jets and continued trouble in Jordan with Fedayeen activity.

Prospects for peace were "very dismal," he recalls. He gave the problem his early attention and worked to come up with something "simple and direct" which would have an appeal to both sides to halt the fighting.

Rogers hatched the idea of a peace initiative which would get the parties to "stop fighting and start talking," but which would not get bogged down with the complicated issues involved.

As the peace initiative was perfected, Rogers happened to see on May 1, 1970, a broadcast by Egyptian President Nasser in which the latter offered a six-month cease fire.

The secretary seized this opportunity to merge his cease-fire formula with the Nasser offer.

"We made it a major initiative and it worked," he explains.

Rogers, however, is under no illusions about the elusiveness of a permanent peace. He feels there are still many things that must be ironed out before peace can be achieved.

"There are signs of progress being made," he says.

While "optimistic" would be too strong a word to use, the secretary is willing to say: "I now feel there is some hope for peace in the area."

The secretary feels he has made a start on improving relations with Communist China. His policy has been to reduce trade barriers and reduce travel restrictions with Red China while at the same time offering a U.S. dialogue with China at the ambassadorial level at Warsaw, Poland.

By such a "step-by-step" policy, relations between the two nations may well continue

E 1964

March 17, 1971

to improve, although he will not hazard a guess as to when U.S.-Chinese diplomatic relations might be resumed.

Nor will he offer an opinion as to whether the U.S. should or eventually will recognize Communist Cuba. He notes in passing that Fidel Castro seems to be having troubles, as evidenced among other things that he forced the Cubans to forego a Christmas holiday this year.

Elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, Secretary Rogers finds relations with Mexico particularly excellent. He took satisfaction in U.S.-Mexican settlement of an old border dispute that means the U.S.A. has no border dispute anywhere for the first time in 100 years.

The secretary is not unduly disturbed over reported friction between Canada and the U.S. over business and cultural matters. He considers all this a natural outgrowth of problems connected with the "largest trade between two countries ever experienced in the history of the world."

He says the business problems stem not only from the larger investments by U.S. interests in Canada, but from the reverse flow of capital.

He notes that the Canadians have a larger per capita investment in the U.S. than the other way around. He feels the Canadian government has a good understanding of the problems involved and will act responsibly in settling differences in trade policies.

Rogers was asked about his "major frustrations."

It could hardly be said, he replied, that he was "really frustrated about anything."

Relations with the Democratic Congress?

"I've had very good relations there," he said.

Presidential interference with foreign affairs?

The secretary said he refuses to become disturbed when the "President doesn't always do as I suggest."

While he declined to estimate his batting average on presidential acceptance of his advice, he said the President often consults with him several times a day on foreign policy matters.

Rogers acknowledged that one minor disappointment was to achieve only one third of a goal he had set for himself—a restoration of diplomatic relations with Cambodia, Egypt and Algeria.

Although the latter, two have not resumed diplomatic relations, Rogers feels these two nations are showing a much friendlier attitude to this country than when he became secretary.

U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations do not fall, in the secretary's view, either on his list of satisfactions or frustrations.

Relations between the two superpowers, he feels, cannot be described with "adjectives like good or poor." Rather, he says, they should be viewed in terms of "realistic" attitudes by both nations towards each other.

Thus, he concludes, while there's no great spirit of detente at the moment, neither is there a "cold war" or "overt hostility."

Rogers would not hazard a guess when the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with Russia would be concluded or how they would turn out.

How long would he remain as secretary of state?

"I am not a candidate for a second term," he declared half-in-jest, but there was enough earnestness to indicate he meant it.

In any event, the secretary still manages to get in an occasional game of his favorite sport, golf, despite his strenuous routine.

His game is improving, he says, and he's proud that he has broken under 80 for 18 holes twice within the last couple of months.

Perhaps his score will be as good in the history books.

THE DAV—A TRIBUTE TO QUIET COURAGE

HON. TORBERT H. MACDONALD

OF MASSACHUSETTS

Wednesday, March 17, 1971

Mr. MACDONALD of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise today in order to pay tribute to the Disabled American Veterans, an organization which this year celebrates its 50th anniversary. I feel that the theme "A Tribute to Quiet Courage" is especially appropriate, for it recognizes the unfailing determination not only of the organization itself, but of the men who belong to it and of all disabled veterans in this country.

The disabled veteran returns to society with a double handicap. There is his own disability and, in addition, there are the problems connected with returning and readjusting to society. For today's returning veteran, these problems have become especially severe. Only 15 percent of the returning veterans are enrolled in regular schools—this despite numerous increases in educational benefits enacted by Congress. Unemployment for these same veterans stands currently at a rate which is double that for the country's work force as a whole.

The disabled veteran who has given so much for his country on the foreign battlefield, returns home to become an unwilling participant in the domestic war against inflation. Congress must continue to look for more and better ways to assist these veterans, and we must utilize the tremendous resources of the DAV in these efforts.

As the DAV celebrates its golden anniversary, its members can be proud of a fine record over the years. The DAV has handled over 8 million cases, obtaining over $1.5 billion in entitlements for disabled veterans and their dependents. The DAV has initiated and cooperated in countless programs in the areas of vocational rehabilitation, higher education, health and medical care, and specifically adapted facilities for amputees. In addition, the DAV must be commended for its current efforts to gain more information about, and more humane treatment for, our prisoners of war in North Vietnam. These efforts reflect a concern which we in Congress have voiced on many occasions.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the national commander of the DAV, Cecil W. Stevenson; the Massachusetts commander, Robert C. Hagopian; and the Massachusetts junior vice commanders, Edward Orso and William Tabb, for their valuable leadership. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a letter which I received from Joseph R. Harold, the department adjutant of the Massachusetts DAV, and I would also like to recognize the efforts of the numerous local chapters of the DAV in my congressional district, including Malden Chapter No. 85, of which I am a longtime member.

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS,

Boston; Mass., February 24, 1971.

HON. TORBERT MACDONALD,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN MACDONALD: Time has been set aside in the House on March 3, 1971, to commemorate the golden anniversary of service by the Disabled American Veterans to America's wartime disabled.

This day is called "DAV Day In Congress—A Tribute to Quiet Courage."

The Disabled American Veterans, Department of Massachusetts, has surpassed its membership quota for the 1970-71 year. Increases in our life and annual membership combined gave us a total of more than 20,329 members, which is the largest membership in the history of the Department. This year we organized three new Chapters—Rockland Chapter No. 50, located in Rockland, Massachusetts, General George S. Patton Memorial Chapter No. 58, located in Hamilton, and Falmouth Memorial Chapter No. 81, located in Falmouth, Massachusetts. The DAV has 103 active Chapters throughout the Commonwealth.

We have four National Service Officers who are located in the John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass., who maintain our Service Program for veterans, widows and their dependents. They are Arthur Wilson, National Service Officer In Charge, Albert Hubka, Thomas J. Tomao and John Blake.

The five VA Hospitals and two Soldiers Homes in Massachusetts have individual VAVS appointees. The first Sunday in December is proclaimed DAV Hospital Day by the Governor, at which time we visit each of the five VA Hospitals and two Soldiers Homes.

The DAV has many successful activities to continue the patriotic services the veterans have rendered to their country. We also have a very active Legislative Program in the Commonwealth.

We are enclosing for your information and use a copy of the Chapter and Department Offices here in Massachusetts.

As our Congressmen, we urge you to participate in this program.

If I can furnish you with any additional information, please call upon me.

Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH R. HAROLD,
Department Adjutant.

DAV CHAPTER LIST: SEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT—MASSACHUSETTS

Arlington DAV Chapter No. 49—Commander Richard P. Danton.

Chelsea DAV Chapter No. 62—Commander John P. Hanlon.

Everett DAV Chapter No. 51—Commander George Desiderio.

Malden DAV Chapter No. 59—Commander A. B. Hoffman.

Malden Lt. Dexter W. Clifford DAV Chapter No. 85—Commander George O'Farrell.

Medford Mystic Valley Gold Star DAV Chapter No. 21—Commander Robert M. Booker.

Revere Beach DAV Chapter No. 112—Commander Guy Festa.

Saugus Irving Campbell DAV Chapter No. 115—Commander Herbert D. Redden.

GOV. THOMAS E. DEWEY

HON. HAMILTON FISH, JR.

OF NEW YORK

Wednesday, March 17, 1971

Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, today, I, like all those who knew him, am deeply sad-

The Economist

13-19 March 1971

## Kissinger's war

Many people in Washington agree with Senator Symington that Mr Henry Kissinger, the President's adviser on national security affairs, is Secretary of State in all but name; it was the Senator's ill-judged addition that this was making Mr William Rogers "a laughing-stock" which gained the incident its headlines. The situation is far from unusual. Was Cordell Hull Roosevelt's real Secretary of State? Or Mr Dean Rusk John Kennedy's? The fact is that strong Presidents have not wanted an independent force in the State Department, at least not since the United States became a world power. Inevitably a personal adviser has great influence from his very physical closeness to the President at the moment when decisions are taken. And Mr Kissinger—an acknowledged expert in the field of foreign affairs, a prodigious worker, articulate and witty—has not taken, perhaps, enough pains to conceal this.

But what really troubles the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other observers is the fact that, unlike the Secretary of State, Mr Kissinger is not accountable to Congress. The *New York Times* wrote last week of the critical decisions being taken without consulting Congress and concluded:

> A coup d'état could hardly deprive the people's elected representatives more completely of their constitutional powers than this gradual process. . . .

These are strong words. But personal advisers to the President are traditionally excused from appearing before congressional committees on the grounds of executive privilege. This is an old bone of contention. At the press conference at which he defended Mr Rogers vigorously, President Nixon recalled that as a member of Congress he had himself been critical of President Truman on this score. But the view from the White House is different: executive privilege seems essential to the orderly processes of government.

Today, the issue is inflamed by the bitterness over the war. Senator Fulbright, the chairman of the Foreign

Relations Committee, sees a "wall of secrecy" isolating the Senate from the executive and preventing the Senate from playing the part in foreign affairs laid down for it by the Constitution. In fact, Mr Kissinger has met twice with members of the committee in Senator Fulbright's house; Mr Rogers has testified before the committee many times, but usually off the record. But neither felt able to warn the Senators about the impending attack on the North Vietnamese in Laos. Nor do such private consultations give the impression to the public that the Foreign Relations Committee is involved in important decisions, as did its former grand inquests into the war. Mr Fulbright is sponsoring a bill to force presidential advisers to appear before congressional committees in person, even if only to plead executive privilege. It seems a feeble retort, compared with efforts now being launched by other Democrats in the Senate to limit the President's war powers.

AMICABLE DISCUSSION

3 'Plotters' Visit Kissinger

By MARY McGRORY
Star Staff Writer

The situation in the situation room of the White House last Saturday afternoon was without precedent or parallel.

Under the "political map of the world" that covers one wall, sat Henry Kissinger, the President's national security adviser, and a trio of peace militants who have been named by the Justice Department as co-conspirators in the Berrigan brothers' alleged plot to kidnap him.

For an hour and a quarter, they amicably discussed war and peace and individual responsibility.

The extraordinary meeting had been arranged by a peace faster who is a friend of both parties. Brian McDonnell, who fasted for 30 days in Lafayette Park to protest the Cambodian invasion, broached the idea of holding a "dialogue" between supposed victim and alleged plotters.

### 'Thinking Gets Sloppy'

At first "freaked out" at the thought, the three decided to go, because, as one of them said, "It's no good just talking to your own people. Your thinking gets sloppy."

Tom Davidson, 25-year-old peace organizer, son of an Episcopal bishop and former Eagle Scout; William Davidson, a 44-year-old Quaker, and professor of physics at Haverford College, and Sister Beverly Bell, 44, of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, were ushered through the White House gates, having agreed not to argue the Berrigan case, only the issues which underlie it.

Kissinger opened by apolo-gizing profusely for a quip about "sex-starved nuns," a quotation attributed to him when the indictments were first returned.

He said he had been mis-quoted and had made his peace with Cardinal Cooke of

HENRY A. KISSINGER

WILLIAM DAVIDON

New York over the remark, which had had the singular effect of uniting in outrage the bitterly divided pro- and anti-Berrigan factions within the Church.

He wanted to see them, he told his visitors, because he spends a great deal of his time "talking to people outside the government."

Tom Davidson was moved

by the hope of "touching Henry Kissinger the man." He also had what he calls "a de-mented reason" for crossing the lines.

"I thought that while he was talking to us for whatever length of time, he would not be doing what he usually does, using that awful power he has," said Davidson.

### 'Really A Nice Man'

"The scary part of it is he really is a nice man," said Kissinger's youngest caller. "He's got this weird thing for us who operate out of the mor-ality bag, he sees himself as the conscience of the admin-istration. Of course our feelings about what conscience is are quite different."

Davidson was wearing the button of the Berrigan Defense League, which asks "Kidnap Kissinger?" An aide jocosely told Kissinger he could get $5 apiece for them in the White House and Davidson gave him a handful. Kissinger seemed amused.

For Bill Davidson, the meet-ing had its eerie side.

"There we were, accused of wanting to bomb, sitting with a man whose policies had brought about a bombing that was actually going on as we talked. I was talking to a man who considers mass murder, in certain circumstances, jus-tified. I told him I thought the war had no legitimacy."

### 'Excellent Listner'

"He is an excellent listener," said Davidon of his host. "He never took advantage of the weaknesses in our presentation. But that personal humanity, that subjective concern have to be considered part of the picture in which he is part of a decision-making system which is grossly brutal."

The two men told Kissinger

See VISIT, Page A-4

THE NEW YORK TIMES,

# The Kissinger Role

By JAMES RESTON

WASHINGTON, March 2—Henry Kissinger is in the center of a bitter controversy here for three reasons: (1) despite White House denials, he is undoubtedly the principal adviser to President Nixon on foreign policy; (2) that policy, particularly in Indochina, is opposed by influential members of the House and particularly the Senate, who feel they have a constitutional duty to examine the logic of the President's decisions; but (3) they cannot question Mr. Kissinger about Laos, the Middle East or anything else.

They can, of course, summon Secretary of State Rogers to Capitol Hill and question him, but it is widely believed here, as Senator Symington asserted on the floor of the Senate today, that Mr. Kissinger has been given many of the advisory powers normally reserved for the Secretary of State, and that he exercises them in the "privileged sanctuary" of the White House, without Congressional review.

It should be made clear what is not at issue here. Even Chairman Fulbright of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Symington, and the other critics of the Indochina policy are not saying that Mr. Kissinger is responsible for that policy or that he is playing some devious Rasputin role.

The issue is simply that he defines the questions to be answered by the departments, formulates the options and the arguments for and against, consults privately with the President at the last stage before decision—and that he is not accountable, as the Secretary of State is, to the Congress, though his influence is undoubtedly greater than Mr. Rogers's.

Several events have envenomed this conflict between the right of the Senate to "advise and consent" on critical foreign policy questions, and the right of the President to take executive action, protected by "executive privilege."

Mr. Kissinger, recognizing the dilemma, agreed to meet privately with Chairman Fulbright and members of his committee at Senator Fulbright's house on Belmont Road. He did so twice, with the approval of the President, but the last time fell just before the U.S. invasion of Cambodia, and Mr. Kissinger said nothing about it. He felt he was not privileged to do so, but Chairman Fulbright felt that the committee was misled by his silence, and that this sort of informal meeting merely gave the impression of consultation but not the substance.

WASHINGTON

Several weeks ago, a member of Mr. Kissinger's National Security Council staff, John Lehman Jr., was reported in the press to have attacked Senator Fulbright in a private meeting as "mischievous" and not to be trusted with secret information placed before his committee. Mr. Kissinger has since criticized Lehman for "poor judgment," but when Fulbright invited Lehman to explain his charges, the White House again invoked "executive privilege" and instructed both Lehman and Kissinger not to appear.

Last week, Mr. Kissinger added to the controversy over his role by going on a C.B.S. television program with Marvin and Bernie Kalb to discuss the President's State of the World message, which was largely written by Kissinger and his staff. Always before, he had refused to talk publicly about the substance of foreign policy, but

New York Times/Mike Lien

this time he thought he could merely talk about how the report was written.

Was he trapped into answering questions by reporters after refusing to answer questions by Senators? "No," he says, "I merely misjudged the situation, and I'll certainly never do it again."

There is, of course, nothing in the Constitution that says the Secretary of State has to be the principal adviser to the President on foreign policy. Roosevelt often used Harry Hopkins rather than Secretary Hull in this role. Kennedy drafted the Harvard faculty. Johnson often called in Justice Fortas, Clark Clifford and Dean Acheson at

the last minute before making his decisions.

What is new now is that President Nixon has institutionalized the advisory function under Kissinger in the White House, given it a much larger staff (now 42 professionals and 68 clerical and other aides) and larger responsibilities, and put these larger powers beyond Congressional review.

This does not mean that the departments are cut out of the decision-making process. In fact, the more formal Nixon system is designed to involve them closer to the point of decision. Kissinger chairs first a senior staff committee composed of the Under Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the head of the C.I.A., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and one staff member.

The job of this committee is not to make recommendations, but to define the choices open to the President. In fact, there is even one member of Kissinger's staff whose job it is to read all relevant public comments on the subject and suggest from these any additional course of action that may have been proposed.

This objective case study of the problem is then placed before the National Security Council composed of the President, the Vice President, and the principal security Cabinet members. Normally, Kissinger, as secretary of the council, defines the options in these meetings and the President asks each Cabinet member for his recommendations, but seldom Kissinger at this point. It is only later, after the President has studied the recommendations, that he usually calls in Kissinger before the final decision—but this, of course, is the critical moment and a major source of Kissinger's power.

In many ways it is the most orderly system of decision making in Washington since the last World War, but this does not remove the central issue of Congressional review with Kissinger or with John D. Ehrlichman, who exercises the same kind of unreviewed power on domestic policy.

The President, who is normally an advocate of decentralizing power, has actually centralized more power under the White House umbrella of executive privilege than any other Chief Executive in this century. And the diplomats are almost as puzzled by it as the Senators, for they want to get close to the power center and to Kissinger too, and actually they manage to do so more often than the Congress of the United States.

Max Lerner

The Octopus

Boston Herald Traveler
9 March 1971

LOS ANGELES—In the modern Besti-
ary Book the revealing symbol of power
is likely to be, despite Machiavelli,
neither his lion nor his fox—but the octo-
pus. In earlier days the figure was used
as an epithet to hurl at the monster cor-
poration. It was here, in California, that
Frank Norris popularized it in his great
muckraking novel, "The Octopus," to
suggest the sinister power of the rail-
road combine that encircled and
strangled the livelihood of Western farm-
ers.

The weight of the attack is now being
shifted from the battle against corporate
power to the battle against the govern-
mental bureaucracies. I wrote earlier
about Sam Ervin, sitting as Grand In-
quisitor over the army surveillance
monster.

Now here is Stuart Symington, my
Yale classmate, rising in the Senate to
attack the "Kissinger syndrome" of
committees and "study groups" as an
octopus straddling and strangling Ameri-
can foreign policy, making Secretary
Rogers a powerless "laughingstock" and
Kissinger himself a power center second
only to Nixon.

THE ANTI-WAR senators are of
course exasperated at being unable to
change the Nixon policies in Indochina.
They want someone to cross-examine.
If they can't get at the President him-
self, and since Rogers is amiable but
really doesn't draw the military-political
strategies, and since the real draftsman
is Henry Kissinger — unmarred, undis-
turbed, serenely unreachable, still un-
kidnaped—one can understand how frus-
trated they feel.

They have the will and rage, they
have the holy cause, they have the ter-
rible swift sword (of public Senate hear-
ings), but they can't get at the octopus
monster hidden in the sacred bureau-
cratic wood.

The truth is that Kissinger, with all

his power, is a convenient whipping-boy
—foreign born with a lingering accent,
and a Harvard professor to boot—for the
frustration of the Senate committee. If
he were not there, they would have to
invent him, for someone must be there
to do the job of pulling together the op-
tions for the President, rounding-up ma-
terial and judgments from state and
every other agency, cushioning him
against pressures and importunings.

WILSON HAD Col. House, F.D.R. had
Harry Hopkins, Ike had a brace of Dulles
brothers (in State and the CIA), Ken-
edy had McGeorge Bundy, Johnson had
first Bundy, then Rostow, and Nixon
has Kissinger. If Kennedy had in 1960
chosen Fulbright for State rather than
Rusk—as he almost did—there would
still have been talk of Bundy as the
"real" secretary of state.

And it may be a disturbing thought
for both Fulbright and Symington that
if Nelson Rockefeller had been nominated
at Miami in 1968 instead of Nixon, and
been elected, the shadowy octopus' pres-
ence in the White House wing now oc-
cupied by Henry Kissinger would still
have been—Henry Kissinger.

Nixon may mean it when he says that
Secretary Rogers is still his "chief ad-

KISSINGER

viser" on foreign policy. But Kissinger
is closer to him, is his global strategy
shadow. Any President, if he is to keep
a strong hand on the direction of the
American imperium, must have some-
one who can roam through state, defense,
the intelligence service, the treasury,
someone who is at once administrator,
scholar, trouble-shooter, watch-dog and
intimate. If he is able and lucky, he will
become indispensable, and will preside
over a whole "syndrome" of power
agencies.

OH INNOCENT voter, when you next
elect a President of the United States,
ask not whom he will pick as secretary
of state: ask whom he will pick as his
foreign policy shadow. Then throw every-
thing you have at that man. For it is a
law of life in the history of princes and
their courts that the indispensable at
some point become the expendable.

There has been too much cant on
both sides of the Nixon-Senate fight over
the war, with Nixon protesting that he
only wants to protect the American with-
drawal, and Fulbright protesting that he
only wants to find out what the Presi-
dent's "purposes" are. Where officials
want to disguise their clout, cant carries
a heavy load. The fact is that when the
sources of foreign policy are scattered,
the President needs someone (not the
secretary) to bring them together. Let
him have whomever he chooses.

But let the President also be account-
able to the Senate and the people for
what he finally decides. Despite Ful-
bright's nostalgia for the British sys-
tem, we have the presidential system,
and we cannot have the President de-
fending his decisions in the well of the
House or before a Senate committee. But
Fulbright's idea of overcoming the "ex-
ecutive privilege" doctrine and compel-
ling any of the President' aides to ap-
pear before the Senate deserves thorough
public debate.

Dr. Lerner is professor of American
civilization at Brandeis University.

If you are now covered by Blue Cross-Blue Shield, you should, in May, notify B.C.-B.S. you will become 65 in August and wish to be converted to a Medex plan. If you are not enrolled in Blue Cross-Blue Shield, you will want to be enrolled in a Medex plan, your letter indicates; and you should plan to do that in May.

"Your questions are welcome. Address Medicare Mall-box, Herald Traveler, Boston 02106.)

Goren on Bridge

By CHARLES H. GOREN
ANSWERS TO BRIDGE QUIZ

Q. 1—As South vulnerable, you hold:

<table><tr><td>♠K10652</td><td>♥9</td><td>♦A3</td><td>♠AKJ42</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">The bidding has proceeded:</td></tr><tr><td>North</td><td>East</td><td>South</td><td>West</td></tr><tr><td>Pass</td><td>1 ♦</td><td>Dble.</td><td>Pass</td></tr><tr><td>2 ♥</td><td>Pass</td><td>2 ♦</td><td>Pass</td></tr><tr><td>4 ♦</td><td>Pass</td><td>?</td><td></td></tr></table>

What action do you take?

A.—Five diamonds or six spades. Despite the fact that partner previously passed, you should be very bullish about this hand because partner jumped twice. If he has the ace-king of hearts and the queen-jack of spades, or equivalent values, that's all you need. You have a choice of bidding five diamonds or shooting the works yourself.

Q. 2—Both vulnerable, as South you hold:

<table><tr><td>♠9762</td><td>♥KJ74</td><td>♦J85</td><td>♣64</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">The bidding has proceeded:</td></tr><tr><td>East</td><td>South</td><td>West</td><td>North</td></tr><tr><td>1 ♦</td><td>Pass</td><td>Pass</td><td>Dble.</td></tr><tr><td>Pass</td><td>1 ♥</td><td>Pass</td><td>3 ♥</td></tr><tr><td>Pass</td><td>?</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

What action do you take?

A.—Four hearts. Partner's bid is not forcing and you haven't very much of a hand to be sure. But you should proceed to game inasmuch as partner has contracted for nine tricks without relying on you for any strength at all. Actually, he has the heart hand and you in reality are

the dummy, which is worth six points to partner.

Q. 3—As South, vulnerable, you hold:

<table><tr><td>♠AQJ982</td><td>♥K63</td><td>♦AQ2</td><td>♣5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">The bidding has proceeded:</td></tr><tr><td>South</td><td>West</td><td>North</td><td>East</td></tr><tr><td>1 ♠</td><td>Pass</td><td>2 ♦</td><td>Pass</td></tr></table>

What action do you take?

A.—Three spades. After partner has shown a reasonably good hand you should insist upon game and a jump rebid even if the same suit is forcing after a response at the two level. If the bidding develops constructively you may show the diamond support later.

Q. 4—Both vulnerable, as South you hold:

<table><tr><td>♠AJ4</td><td>♥94</td><td>♦63</td><td>♠AKQ973</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">The bidding has proceeded:</td></tr><tr><td>East</td><td>South</td><td>West</td><td>North</td></tr><tr><td>1 ♠</td><td>2 ♦</td><td>Pass</td><td>3 ♣</td></tr><tr><td>Pass</td><td>?</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

What action do you take?

A.—Three spades. The temptation, if any, to try three no trump should be resisted. Without protection in either red suit you may meet with a surprise attack. After you show the spade control you may rely on partner to reach for three no trump if his hand is suitable.

Q. 5—Both vulnerable and as South you hold:

<table><tr><td>♠K4</td><td>♥A J82</td><td>♦KQ83</td><td>♣AJ5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">The bidding has proceeded:</td></tr><tr><td>South</td><td>West</td><td>North</td><td>East</td></tr><tr><td>1 NT</td><td>Pass</td><td>2 NT</td><td>3 ♣</td></tr><tr><td>?</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

What action do you take?

A.—Strike while the iron is hot. Double, and this is one that East will long remember. Do not aim for anything so trivial as a game when a possible 1,100 point plum awaits to be picked.

CROSS CLUE may best be solved by first getting TODAY'S CLUE. Then answer 1 across. With these clues as guides, solve the JUMBLED CLUES for 1, 2, 3 down and 4, 5 across which, when properly unscrambled, will give the correct solution to the puzzle.

TODAY'S CLUE—A five-letter word meaning LUBRICATED. 1st letter goes in 2nd block of 1 across; 2nd letter in 2nd bloek of 1 down; 3rd letter in 6th block of 4 across; 4th letter in 5th block of 2 down; 5th letter in 7th block of 3 down.

1 ACROSS—Disconsolate. JUMBLED CLUES (for 1, 2, 3 down and 4, 5 across):

To differ in opinion.

Ridiculed.

Staid.

In a stony manner.

Cord for firing cannon.

(Answer tomorrow)

(Friday's solution)

FIVE-LETTER WORD:

PARCH

P U P P E T S
R   A   C
O   L   A
S E C U L A R
A   D   L
I   I   E
C R O C H E T

(Copyright, 1971, by Herald Traveler)

CROSSWORD SOLUTION

hunches, feelings and vague premonitions.

By developing self-discipline, "keeping your cool," not jumping to conclusions nor speaking hastily and being tactful and considerate when talking to others, you should "improve your luck" and attract fewer "mishaps."

HOROSCOPE

By SYDNEY OMARR

Leo is more sensitive than most persons might imagine. The showmanship, the color and glamor often are covers to protect, shade and keep delicate areas from being exposed. Leo is persistent, not tough. Leo is creative, dynamic, wanting to give and receive affection. Some persons born Milchum, Mae West and Dustin Hoffman.

ARIES (March 21-April 19): You can have fun meeting, overcoming challenge. Strive for versatility. Express willingness to laugh at your own foibles. Forgive those who seem possessed of a notion you don't share.

TAURUS (April 20-May 26): Block attempts of family members, others, to restrict you, to demain ambitions and efforts. Be your own person. Stand tall. You possess something of value. Don't set yourself too high.

GEMINI (May 21-June 20): Trips, dealing with relatives and neighbors are likely to be featured. You are given messages. You relay thoughts, feelings. This is no time for games. Stakes are high, highlights of yourself—short.

CANCER (June 21-July 22): Purchased of luxury items is favored, improved safety measures at home. Take nothing for granted. Feelings of family member apt to be delicate, lessness diplomacy. Accent malice or reach.

LEO (July 23-Aug. 22): Accent on greater independence, original concepts and methods. Don't hide your light. Speak up; let people know what you think and desire. Results are favorable and could startle.

VIRGO (Aug. 23-Sept. 22): Behind-the-scenes activities, nuances are important. One who is usually outspoken may now be subtle. Don't be caught off balance. Realize you do have powerful at-home backing.

LIBRA (Sept. 23-Oct. 22): Stress on understanding friends and your own inclinations. This is testing period for special relationship. Aries individual could play prominent role. Maintain give-and-take attitude.

SCORPIO (Oct. 23-Nov. 21): You get opportunity to prove some theories. One in position to advance cause is receptive. Express your own views. Leave hackneyed phrases, notions to others.

SAGITTARIUS (Nov. 22-Dec. 21): Good lunar aspect continues to highlight journeys, publications, special advertising. Trust hunch. Share knowledge. Learn by teaching. Aquarius individual could provide some key answers.

CAPRICORN (Dec. 22-Jan. 19): Emphasis on money as it affects joint efforts, partnership, marriage. One who is extravagant should not be permitted to upset plans, budget. Maintain humor at your backticks.

AQUARIUS (Jan. 20-Feb. 18): Accent on marriage, permanent relationships. Sagittarius person deserves special consideration. Tell what you know without betraying a confidence. Some look to you for guidance. Provide a little help.

PISCES (Feb. 19-March 20): You may be tempted to skip essentials. Best to keep vital appointments, to complete basic chores. One who depends on you may end up with unpleasant surprise. Be gracious, fair but firm.

IF TODAY IS YOUR BIRTHDAY you are an enigma to many associates. You appear unworldly. But, during times of crisis, you can take command. Those who think you are weak, learn otherwise. You feel deeply. You are the opposite of superficial. You now are in situation where co-operation is a must. If recently married, period of adjustment may be difficult—but odds are in your favor, you will overcome adversity.

NANA-5. LASKY-KISSINGER (COLUMN)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SAY IT STRAIGHT!

KISSINGER-BAITING DEMOCRATS
DRUM UP NONEXISTENT CRISIS

BY VICTOR LASKY
NORTH AMERICAN NEWSPAPER ALLIANCE

WASHINGTON, MARCH 10-(NANA)-PROBABLY THE MOST NONSENSICAL CONTROVERSY THIS CITY HAS EVER WITNESSED IS THE ONE CURRENTLY BEING STIRRED UP OVER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER DR. HENRY KISSINGER HAS MORE CLOUT THAN SECRETARY OF STATE WILLIAM P. ROGERS.

IMPLICIT IN THE ARGUMENTS BEING VOICED BY KISSINGER-BAITING POLITICIANS IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE FORMER HARVARD PROFESSOR EXERCISES A SVENGALI-LIKE INFLUENCE OVER PRESIDENT NIXON.

THIS IS HOGWASH, PURE AND SIMPLE.

ONLY ONE MAN MAKES THIS NATION'S FOREIGN POLICY. THAT MAN IS PRESIDENT NIXON. AND HE DOES SO ONLY AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES.

--KISSINGER PROVIDES ALTERNATIVES--

OF COURSE, DR. KISSINGER PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE. AS THE WHITE HOUSE ASSISTANT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS, IT IS HIS JOB TO PROVIDE THE PRESIDENT WITH ALL THE ALTERNATIVES. THIS IS DONE BY OBTAINING FROM THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS CONCERNED WITH NATIONAL SECURITY (AMONG THEM STATE, CIA AND DEFENSE) THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COURSES OF ACTION IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. THE DEPARTMENTS DON'T ALWAYS AGREE AND THE PRESIDENT IS KEPT FULLY INFORMED OF THEIR DIFFERENCES.

AS MR. NIXON HIMSELF HAS POINTED OUT, SECRETARY OF STATE ROGERS PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN THE FORMULATION OF MAJOR POLICIES. THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS HE IS IN ON ALL THE VITAL DECISION-MAKING ACTIVITIES. MOREOVER, AS THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF SAID AT HIS PRESS CONFERENCE THE OTHER NIGHT BILL ROGERS IS "MY OLDEST AND CLOSEST FRIEND IN THE CABINET," A MAN HE HAS KNOWN FOR 24 YEARS.

LEADING THE ANTI-KISSINGER PACK IS A MAN WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER, SEN. STUART SYMINGTON, D-MO., WHO OPENED UP THE CONTROVERSY WITH A SENATE SPEECH MARKED BY AT LEAST ONE REFERENCE THAT WAS DECIDEDLY LACKING IN GOOD TASTE.

THE MISSOURI DEMOCRAT CLAIMED THAT "WHEREVER ONE GOES IN THE AFTERNOON OR EVENING AROUND THIS TOWN ONE HEARS OF OUR VERY ABLE SECRETARY OF STATE BEING LAUGHED AT. PEOPLE SAY HE IS SECRETARY OF STATE IN TITLE ONLY."

(MORE)

NANA-6. ADD ONE LASKY-KISSINGER

--ATTENDS PRIVATE MEETINGS--

THE FACT THAT SENATOR SYMINGTON CONCEDES HE SPENDS A GOOD DEAL OF
HIS TIME ON THE "COCKTAIL CIRCUIT" IS AN EXTRAORDINARY ADMISSION.
FOR HIM TO CONTEÑD THAT THE GOSSIP HE THUS PICKS UP IS TANTAMOUNT
TO THE TRUTH IS SHOCKING.

WHAT REALLY APPEARS TO BE BUGGING THE SENATOR, HOWEVER, IS THE
FACT THAT DR. KISSINGER WHOM HE DESCRIBED AS "CLEARLY THE MOST
POWERFUL MAN IN THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION NEXT TO THE PRESIDENT
HIMSELF" IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONING BY THE SENATE FOREIGN
RELATIONS COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THE EXERCISE OF "EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE."

WHAT SYMINGTON FORGOT TO POINT OUT WAS THE FACT THAT NOT ONE OF
DR. KISSINGER'S WHITE HOUSE PREDECESSORS HAS EVER APPEARED BEFORE ANY
SENATE COMMITTEE. AND THAT GOES FOR JFK'S MCGEORGE BUNDY AND LBJ'S
WALT ROSTOW.

SENATOR SYMINGTON ALSO FORGOT TO REPORT THAT DR. KISSINGER,
ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT HAVE TO DO SO, MET TWICE WITH CHAIRMAN J. WILLIAM
FULBRIGHT AND MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE AT FULBRIGHT'S
HOME HERE IN WASHINGTON. THESE WERE PRIVATE MEETINGS AND KISSINGER
ATTENDED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT.

--ROGERS AVAILABLE--

MOREOVER, AS PRESIDENT NIXON HAS OBSERVED, SECRETARY OF ROGERS IS
INVARIABLY AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONING. ROGERS IS NOT ONLY "THE FOREIGN
POLICY ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT," BUT THE CHIEF SPOKESMAN FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION ON FOREIGN POLICY.

DESPITE ALLEGATIONS THE SECRETARY HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN AVAILABLE,
MR. NIXON NOTED THAT THE RECORD SHOWED THAT ROGERS OVER THE PAST TWO
YEARS HAS APPEARED 29 TIMES BEFORE SENATE AND HOUSE COMMITTEES. IN
THE SAME PERIOD, STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS TESTIFIED 499 TIMES AT
THE CAPITOL.

OF COURSE, THE 1972 PRESIDENTIAL SEASON IS APPROACHING AND THE
DEMOCRATS HAVE TO MANUFACTURE ISSUES WITH WHICH TO CLOBBER THE
REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT. THUS, THE CROCODILE TEARS OVER "POOR BILL
ROGERS" BEING SUPPLANTED BY THE "POWER-HUNGRY DR. KISSINGER."

THE TROUBLE WITH THIS SCENARIO IS THAT IF EVERYTHING GOES WELL IN
SOUTHEAST ASIA, AS APPEARS LIKELY, THE TEMPEST IN THE TEAPOT OVER WHO
IS RUNNING FOREIGN POLICY WILL LONG HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN BY THE TIME
ELECTION DAY ROLLS AROUND NEXT YEAR.

END LASKY-KISSINGER-NANA-71.

B704P

["END OF REPORT-NOVEMBER 22, 1947", "OPERATION DAY BOMB AIRBORNE KIPTHER", "TO BEING CONSIDERED WITHIN THE TIME\nSOUTHERN ASIA, THE ARMY FLIES THE TERRITORY\nTHE TERRITORY WITHIN ASIA ACCORDING TO THE\nTERMINAL OF THE ", "TERMINAL OF THE \"TERMINAL OF THE \"TERMINAL OF THE \"TERMINAL

MARCH 27, 1971

13

The Nixon Watch

Kissinger and Rogers

After saying at a press conference on March 4 that Secretary of State William P. Rogers is "the foreign policy adviser for the President" and "the chief foreign policy spokesman for the President," Mr. Nixon continued: "Now, the role of Dr. Kissinger is a different one. He is the White House adviser to the President. He covers not only foreign policy but national security policy; the coordination of those policies." There was a sufficient and convincing answer to the question to which the President was addressing himself. The question, as he stated it a moment later, was "whether either Secretary Rogers or Dr. Kissinger is the top adviser," and the answer implicit in what Mr. Nixon had said was that Henry A. Kissinger is "the top adviser." But the President didn't leave it at that. He felt that he had to repeat himself and say that the answer to the question as he had phrased it "is very simply that the Secretary of State is always the chief foreign policy adviser and the chief foreign policy spokesman of the Administration."

It was a sensitive question for the President, one that had been rubbing him raw. sir.ce early February. His reaction then to a casual and generally overlooked statement by George D. Aiken, the Republican dean of the Senate, showed when it became known that Mr. Nixon was beginning to realize that his prized system of foreign and national security policy development had seriously impaired the position and effectiveness of Secretary Rogers. A brief news item quoted Aiken's remark that Rogers did not seem to be involved in major foreign policy decisions. Mr. Nixon immediately wrote a letter to the senator, assuring him that Rogers was involved in all major foreign policy decisions. Aiken said nothing about the letter until March 2, when a Nixon assistant startled him by asking him not only to release it but to publicize it at a press conference. Senator Aiken declined to call a press conference, but he agreed to answer any questions that he might be asked about the letter and to have it printed in the *Congressional Record*.

The request to Aiken was one of several White House responses, capped by the President's remarks on March 4, to the complaints of two other senators that Henry Kissinger had damagingly overshadowed Rogers and, what was worse, had done it in a fashion that denied Congress as a whole and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in particular their proper roles in the evolution and execution of foreign policy. The committee chairman, Senator Fulbright, and one of its members, Stuart Symington, raised the old and tattered issue of "executive privilege." They said that Kissinger, by invoking it and refusing to submit to committee questioning, had frustrated them and their

colleagues in their right and efforts to get at the real origins and intent of Nixon policy. Symington, graphically detailing the structure of departmental committees, groups and staff processes that Kissinger devised and directs, said that the President's assistant for national security affairs is "the most powerful man in the Nixon Administration next to the President himself" and asserted that his immunity from committee interrogation "nullifies the basic concept of advice and consent." Fulbright drafted a bill that would require Kissinger and other Presidential assistants to appear upon command before the Foreign Relations and other committees, if only to say that they had been specifically directed in writing by the President to refuse to testify. It was a feeble threat, likely to die in Fulbright's committee, and the President would probably have ridden out the furor in silence if Kissinger's ascendancy had not been related to what Symington called "a resultant obvious decline in the prestige and position of the Secretary of State and his department."

Symington also said in a Senate speech, "Wherever one goes in the afternoon or evening around this town, one hears our very able Secretary of State laughed at. People say he is Secretary of State in title only." That did it. A White House assistant forthwith got in touch with Senator Aiken, as noted. Mr. Nixon ordered his press secretary, Ronald Ziegler, to tell reporters that "President Nixon has the utmost confidence in the Secretary of State" and that "those who may have the impression that the Secretary of State is not the President's chief adviser on foreign affairs are misleading themselves and others." The staff of *Monday*, a weekly propaganda sheet put out by the Republican National Committee, polled two Washington society columnists and four "prominent Washington hostesses" and reported their "unanimous" testimony that "they had never heard the Secretary of State laughed at."

Mr. Nixon made the difficulty for himself and for his Secretary of State when he fulfilled his campaign pledge "to restore the National Security Council to its preeminent role in national security planning." Henry Kissinger's preeminence, his own skills apart, is a product of that promised and accomplished preeminence. Symington recognized this when he maintained, on the Senate floor and personally to Rogers, that he was aiming at neither Rogers nor Kissinger but at "the concentration of foreign policy decision-making power in the White House" and at the isolation of that power center from Congress. Senator Jacob Javits, agreeing with Symington that "excessive use of executive privilege" had impeded congressional oversight of foreign policy, went to the core of the matter when he asked, "Why should we not hold the President himself responsible rather than Dr. Kissinger for the effect upon Congress of the organization of his Presidency respecting international security affairs?" Mr. Nixon, reacting in behalf of his "oldest and closest friend in the Cabinet," the Secretary of State, acknowledged the re-

sponsibility and did what he could to offset the result that he, with Kissinger as his instrument, had brought about.

Kissinger took it all with a great show of calm. He and the President recently came to an understanding that he, Kissinger, was welcome to remain at the White house as long as he pleased and to leave when he chose. The President sealed the understanding on January 16 with the extraordinary letter in which he said to Kissinger, "Frankly, I cannot imagine what the government would be like without you... I am grateful for what you have done and I am grateful that you are staying." Kissinger perceived that he was only an incidental target of the Symingtons and Fulbrights. His concern, it was said at the White House, was not for himself but for the NSC and interdepartmental policy structure that serves the President through him. He believes, as the President does, that it is a necessary response to the pressures and requirements of the times and that, if retained, it can be a permanent asset to the Presidency.

Two years after Kissinger began putting the structure together for the President, it still defies precise description. The NSC staff at its top and center consists at this writing of 42 professional foreign service officers, coordinators, policy and program analysts. A web of interdepartmental groups and committees at the levels of assistant secretaries and under secretaries channels the President's requirements to the departments through Kissinger and, also through him draws the information and judgments of the concerned departments and agencies into the White House for final appraisal and decision. Kissinger is chairman of the most important panels, groups and committees, and a Kissinger man sits on each of the others. He dominates the entire process up to the point where, at NSC meetings and in the Oval Office, the product reaches the President. Then the President dominates, a fact that tends to be overlooked by those who fret over such questions as whether Rogers or Kissinger has the last and decisive word with the President.

The second year of the Kissinger reign brought some changes. In his NSC shop, there is less emphasis than there was at first upon long-term policy planning and thinking by his own people and more upon extracting plans and thinking of the desired quality from State, Defense, the Joint Chiefs, CIA. Kissinger is increasing his budget for outside consultants from $132,000 in this fiscal year to $458,000. The NSC staff's review, criticism and supplementation of the papers that flow to the White House is, if anything, more rigorous than ever. Many of the directives that go out to the departments and agencies seem at the receiving end to be more detailed, more explicit in the questions raised and the criteria set for response to the questions than they used to be. Intent to predetermine the answers is denied at the White House, but

that seems to some of the recipients, particularly at the State Department, to be the effect. Even the complainers grant, however, that Kissinger is wholly impartial when he presents varying views to the Council and to the President. It is said for him, and people who work with him say it is true, that he saves his own views for the President and never knowingly tries to swing the preparatory process one way or another.

Although friction between the NSC staff and State has lessened, contrary reports notwithstanding, Kissinger's dealings with foreign ambassadors continue to be a source of resentment at the department and of some embarrassment to him. A department spokesman's recent statement that Kissinger's ventures in direct diplomacy had led to an "understanding" irritated him. He felt that it was a subject best left in limbo. The story at the White House is that Kissinger traffics with ambassadors only in instances of extreme need, at the instructions of the President and with a few ambassadors who demand contact with him as evidence that the President cherishes their principals at home.

Working for him is hell, now as before, but he has tried in the last year or so to make it less hellish than it was at first. He knows that he lost some good men because he excluded them from him. Now 10 to 12 of his senior assistants see him at least once on most days, and the juniors hear through their own superiors when he likes their work. But the tensions within the staff are still enormous and unrelenting. This is partly because of the sheer work pressure, partly because Kissinger deliberately sets one staffer against another on the same assignments, usually without telling them that he has. He tells them now what they once had to guess: that one of their principal uses is to replenish his own store of knowledge and judgment, a store that he thought inexhaustible when he came to the White House but now finds to have been drained and diminished by the demands of the first two years. His readiness to admit as much, and to joke with his people about his driving and sometimes cruel ways, is said by the driven to be one of his appealing qualities, among the qualities that make it a rewarding hell.

The fact is that Henry the curmudgeon can be a nicer and more kindly fellow than he wants to be told by the people who work for him. "Working for Henry," an assistant remarked the other day, "you learn never to say to him, 'Thank you, Henry.' He doesn't like it; it embarrasses him. He does lots of things, little personal things, that you want to thank him for, but you can't do it if you know what's good for you." There isn't much time for thanking Henry, in any case. K. Wayne Smith, the chief of Kissinger's program analysts, hasn't taken a day completely off in nine months. He and others in his situation are bound to get jaded, and they do. It's one of several aspects of the Kissinger operation that justify a cer-

MARCH 27, 1971

15

tain doubt. One of the doubts is whether it is or can
be the permanent contribution to government that
Kissinger and the President think it should be. A struc-
ture and a process so thoroughly dominated by and

dependent upon Henry Kissinger is likely to be no
more permanent than his tenure at the White House.
Maybe the President knew this when he wrote that
letter to Kissinger in January.

John Osborne

Cigarette Ads in the Magazines
Selling Death

by Thomas Whiteside

In the period preceding the removal, by act of Con-
gress, of all cigarette advertising from radio and tele-
vision at the beginning of this year, spokesmen for
various tobacco companies were insistent, in inter-
views with reporters, that the industry planned no
undue increase in the amount of cigarette advertising
in the press when the ban on cigarette commercials
went into effect. Some weeks have now passed since
cigarette commercials were taken off the air. During
that time I have been interested in whether the press,
and in particular magazines, would abstain from tak-
ing advantage of this situation by soliciting or accept-
ing, for profit, any additional print advertising for a
product that has been shown in medical studies (which
have been reported in the press itself) to be the leading
cause of lung cancer among men and a significant con-
tributing factor to premature death from coronary
heart disease, emphysema and a number of other dis-
eases. I have also been interested in exploring the
extent to which the tobacco manufacturers have felt
themselves restrained, in planning their cigarette-
advertising campaigns in the print media for the period
after the ban on radio and TV cigarette commercials,
by the realization that any excessive increase in the
number of print ads they took out might provoke
the Federal Trade Commission to take some kind of
regulatory action, for example requiring health warn-
ings to be displayed in all print advertising.

By any such standards of restraint, the behavior of
the tobacco companies and the magazines alike since
the ban on cigarette commercials went into effect has
been alarming. A prime example exists in the adver-
tising pages of *Life*. In the fall of 1969, in response
to a letter from Sen. Frank E. Moss of Utah, attempting

to determine the attitude of various publishers to accept-
ing an increased volume of cigarette advertising
after a cutoff of cigarette commercials from the air,
Andrew Heiskell, the chairman of Time, Inc., publicly
assured the senator that his company would continue
to take cigarette ads but that it had no intention of
accepting any "overwhelming" amount of cigarette
advertising as a result of the TV cutoff. What has hap-
pened since this assurance can be gathered by the fact
that whereas the first three issues of *Life* in 1970
carried twelve-and-a-half pages of cigarette advertis-
ing, the first three issues of the same magazine in
1971, immediately after the ban on cigarette ads on
TV went into effect, carried twenty-two pages of
cigarette advertising—all of them in color. And a
comparison of the number of ads carried in the Febru-
ary 5 issue of *Life* this year with that in the first issue
in February of last year shows that the number of
cigarette ad pages has jumped from two to eight.

On February 8 of this year, *Life* carried a full-page
ad in *The New York Times* in praise of what it called
"Life's Editorial Power." The ad asked, rhetorically,
"Who else had the photo of the National Guard about
to fire at the Kent State kids? The reminiscences of
Nikita Khrushchev? The 242 pictures of one week's
American war dead in Vietnam?" It went on, "That
kind of editorial excellence gives *Life* more impact
than any other magazine. And gives your ad more
impact than it can get anywhere else."

How can any responsible publishing corporation use
a claim of editorial excellence to hold forth the un-
blushing assurance, applying in this case to cigarette
manufacturers, that ads for a product, the use of which
is officially recognized as a major cause of disease and
death each year, would have "more impact" than any-
where else? If *Life*, which carried those "242 pictures
of one week's American war dead in Vietnam," were
to carry pictures of the number of American cigarette

THOMAS WHITESIDE is a staff writer for the New Yorker.
His book, *The Withering Rain: America's Herbicidal
Folly, will be published in May by E. P. Dutton.

APRIL 3, 1971

13

primarily in color television sets, the commission investigated and found that thousands of fires were occurring each year, apparently caused by combustible and defective parts. Manufacturers were requested to redesign the sets and recall the defective models. In a confrontation between Elkind and two other commissioners and representatives of virtually every US and Japanese TV manufacturer, the industry at first refused to do anything, claiming the problem was insignificant. Elkind stated the commission would immediately hold public hearings on the hazard. Industry spokesmen requested one hour to meet privately. Shortly thereafter, the industry agreed to develop new standards for color television sets to eliminate the fire hazard. They kept their promise, but without the commission around to review the standards' effectiveness and compliance by manufacturers the consumer can't be sure how well his interests has been protected.

While mail from consumers to the defunct commission has continued to pile up, industry lobbyists have been searching for alternatives to its recommendations, particularly that of an independent safety agency. Twelve trade associations and corporations contributed some $90,000 for a study of household product injuries that the industry hopes will refute the commission's injury estimates: 30,000 deaths, 20 million injuries annually in accidents associated with household products. The industry contributors are the American Gas Association, American Insurance Association, American Ladder Institute, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Electronics Industries Association, Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Sears Roebuck, J. C. Penny and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Three Government agencies also contributed several thousand dollars to this study, due to be completed by May. The Food and Drug Administration of HEW, the Environmental Control Administration, and the National Bureau of Standards each allocated federal funds to an industry group to conduct a study designed to refute the findings of another federal agency. The funds were committed notwithstanding the fact that the government had already spent $2 million for the product safety commission's investigation.

With the demise of the commission, the industries it compelled to design safer products were freed from effective government control. At the injury rates projected by the commission, 2500 Americans die each month and over a million are injured in accidents involving consumer products. Consumers lost more than they know when the commission expired.

### Michael Lemov

MR. LEMOV is staff director of the subcommittee on foundations of the House Small Business Committee. He served as general counsel of the National Commission on Product Safety.

## The Nixon Watch

### More About Kissinger

My report last week on the roles of Secretary of State William P. Rogers and the President's adviser, Henry Kissinger, left unsaid a good deal that seems worth saying about Kissinger. Here, then, are some additional impressions and thoughts.

Kissinger's recently disclosed habit of meeting at the White House with opponents of the Indochina war is in character with him and with his conception of the job that the President expects him to do. Eugene McCarthy lunched with Kissinger in his elegant White House office on March 15. Senator George McGovern had breakfast with him there on March 12. A Catholic nun, a Quaker professor of physics and a young anti-war activist, all of them named by the Justice Department as co-conspirators in the alleged plot of the Berrigan brothers to kidnap Kissinger, met with him in the basement war-room at the White House on March 6. Kissinger has had four talks in the past 12 months with Averell Harriman and two with Harriman's former deputy at the abortive Paris peace negotiations, Cyrus Vance. Twenty-one other meetings with prominent individual critics of Nixon war policy have included four with John Kenneth Galbraith, two with John Gardner of Common Cause. There have been 19 meetings with groups of antiwar students, 28 with delegations of antiwar professors and teachers, 56 with other academic groups that didn't come to protest but included critics of Nixon policy.

Why Kissinger does it and what he and the President hope to get out of it are good questions. One is told and must believe that Nixon and his adviser are not fools enough to suppose that a chat with Henry Kissinger will alter the views of Gene McCarthy or George McGovern. Kissinger is not about to give his critics a chance to go from his office to the camera and say that he tried and failed to convert them. Politic enters, of course: anything that tends to quiet protest and to evince a readiness to hear out the critics is to the President's political advantage. McGovern got a distinct impression that Kissinger would have been disappointed if their meeting had remained the secret that Kissinger later said he wanted and intended it to be. Although Kissinger is outraged by the suggestion that his meetings with professors and the like may also be to his advantage, to the extent that they moderate hostility toward him in the academic community, he would be less than human if the thought didn't cross his mind.

But I prefer another answer, derived from the answers heard at the White House. It is that the many hours taken from Kissinger's crowded schedule for such meetings reflect his desire and the President's to diminish the damage that both of them know the

14

THE NEW REPUBLIC

Indochina war and Nixon war policy are doing to American society. Kissinger speaks of the need for "a reconciliation of society" in terms and in a manner that allow no doubt of his conviction that it must be accomplished and that the war will prove to be a greater national tragedy than it already is if the reconciliation that he tries to prepare and further with his meetings is not accomplished.

Kissinger's sense of the need and the tragedy does not inspire him to welcome or advocate an end of the war on the terms that the critics whom he invites to the White House advocate. Some of them recognize and grant, however, that Kissinger in his sessions with the critics is attempting in his fashion to serve a purpose larger than the immediate interests of the Administration. The attempt seems comical to some, ironical or futile to others. It interests me because it tells things about Henry Kissinger that otherwise might not be apparent. Tom Davidson, one of the Berrigan three, remarked to columnist Mary McGrory after their meeting with Kissinger that "he's got this weird thing for us who operate out of the morality bag; he sees himself as the conscience of the Administration." Doubtful though Senator McGovern was that his meeting was of any use, he said that the unspoken question that appeared to pervade his discussion with Kissinger was, "How do we resolve this thing with minimum disruption of our society?" Minimum disruption could connote minimum opposition to the war, but McGovern did not recall that Kissinger sought either to minimize or to decry opposition. It was conceivable though not at the time apparent to him, McGovern said after some reflection, that raising the question and encouraging future thought about it was Kissinger's principal purpose in inviting him to the White House.

In his conversations with invited dissidents, at his famous background briefings for the press, and in private talks with reporters and commentators, Kissinger takes the greatest care to conceal any differences that may exist between him and the President and, indeed, between him and such other participants in the foreign policy and national security process as the Secretaries of State and Defense. The only policies that he discusses and (invariably) defends are the President's declared policies. A result is that trying to identify and track Kissinger's particular contribution to Nixon policy is a tricky business. It is made the trickier by Kissinger's way of implying, sometimes by nothing more than a grimace or a tonal nuance, that the record contained in his voluminous and meticulous files may some day show views and positions quite different from those now attributed to him. The safe course for the contemporary chronicler is to assume that United States policy would be little different from what it is if Kissinger were in total charge of it. But, this qualification allowed for, the Kissinger touch and

some of the shifts over the past two years in Kissinger's positions can be discerned.

His major contribution to Vietnam and Indochina policy has been the provision and bid for a negotiated settlement. I am convinced that Kissinger calculated in 1969, and led the President to calculate, that Hanoi would choose a negotiated settlement in preference to a prolonged war. The alternative course of "Vietnamization," entailing a gradual and limited shift of combat responsibility to the South Vietnamese, was not expected then to become the only attainable alternative to a rate and kind of withdrawal and to a degree of political concession that Nixon and Kissinger regarded in 1969 and still regard as shameful surrender. Kissinger is said to believe now that Vietnamization has a better chance of success than he thought it had in 1969. But his controlling calculation in that year turned out to be a colossal miscalculation. From the failure to achieve negotiation have flowed the consequences of widened war in Indochina and revived opposition to the war that confront the Administration.

Kissinger's associates do not know to this day whether, in his private discussions with the President, he wholly supported the widening of the war into Cambodia last year. What is known is that he was visibly and unusually uncomfortable when he explained and justified that "incursion." The response to subsequent inquiries suggested that he was unhappy not so much with the action itself as with the belligerent rhetoric in Nixon's announcement of the action. Kissinger encouraged the impression that it was intended to have effects beyond Indochina, among other things putting the Soviet government on notice that Nixon is capable of doing the unexpected and therefore should not be baited with avoidable challenges. But he preferred at the time to let the action speak for itself.

An interesting question now is whether Kissinger is or will be for validating the Soviet presence in the Middle East by placing American with Soviet forces in an international peace-keeping force. The adopted view would appear to be that the United States is ready to do it, in the unlikely event that Israel is willing. The inquirer gathers, however, that it's State Department and Rogers policy, but not as yet Nixon policy and certainly not Kissinger policy. Although Kissinger's NSC staff has overseen a continuing study of possible American positions in the Middle East, the peace-keeping question has not yet come to the President for decision and Kissinger has not been called upon to declare himself. Henry Kissinger is protecting his options and guarding his flanks until he comes to the moment of decision, alone with the President. Note: my reference last week to Kissinger's "sometimes cruel ways" with his staff distressed him. Kissinger grants that he is exacting, harsh on occasion. But not "cruel." He is right; the word was poorly chosen.

Wall Street Journal, 5 March 1971

ROGERS WIELDS more power than critics say. He has great influence—sometimes.

Associates, supporting presidential claims, insist the Secretary of State can carry more clout with Nixon than anyone else, including Kissinger or Laird. The hitch is getting Rogers interested in specific foreign-policy problems; he shrinks from details, complexities. But when aroused, he argues persuasively with old-friend Nixon, relying on "common sense" while Kissinger offers esoteric studies.

Rogers was the man who got Nixon to do something about the Mideast oil price talks; Under Secretary Irwin hastened to Iran, stressed U.S. concern about a supply cutoff, helped win a peaceful accord. The secretary has insisted, successfully so far, that extra military-aid cash be handled by the State Department, not the Pentagon.

Kissinger's power is growing, however, mostly by default. Rogers ignores many issues, often fails to fight for State Department positions.

The intramember rates cover the actual transaction on the floor of the exchange. The so-called "floor brokerage" fee generally ranges from 8% to 10% of the value of the transaction.

The clarification was contained in a letter from Commissioner Hugh F. Owens to Robert W. Haack, president of the Big Board, in response to an exchange inquiry.

Delivery Failure Rose 3.5%
Last Week, Big Board Says

NEW YORK—The level of delivery failures on the books of 63 member firms increased 3.5%, to $877 million, last week from $847 million the prior week, the New York Stock Exchange said in its weekly “fails” report.

"Fails," a barometer of the operational condition of the securities industry, occur when a brokerage firm can't deliver within the required five business days securities it owes another broker.

March 17, 1971

E1963

In Dr. Jones' words:

HON. JACK F. KEMP
OF NEW YORK

Wednesday, March 17, 1971

(By Lucian Warren)

He notes there was constant turmoil there for nearly 25 years. When he assumed office, the situation was bleak with the continued Israeli bombings, many casualties among the Egyptians, a stepped-up loss of Israeli Phantom jets and continued trouble in Jordan with Fedayeen activity.

E 1964

March 17, 1971

Rogers was asked about his "major frustrations".

HON. TORBERT H. MACDONALD
OF MASSACHUSETTS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 17, 1971

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS,

Hon. TORBERT MACDONALD,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

As our Congressman, we urge you to participate in this program.

Sincerely yours,

GOV. THOMAS E. DEWEY
HON. HAMILTON FISH, JR.
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, March 17, 1971