NATIONAL
REVIEW

150 East 35th Street
New York, N.Y. 10016

Phone: ORegon 9-7330

August 12, 1968

Editor-in-Chief:
W. M. F. BUCKLEY JR.

Publisher:
WILLIAM A. RUSHER

Editors:
JAMES BURNHAM
ARLENE CROCE
FRANK S. MEYER
WILLIAM F. RICKENBACKER

Managing Editor:
PRISCILLA L. BUCKLEY

Assistant Publisher:
J. P. MCFADDEN

Advertising Director:
PATRICK D. MAINES

Dear Henry:

Your piece on Bismarck is by far the most illuminating essay on him I have ever read. I am going to forward it to my friend Alistair Horne, the historian, who will greatly benefit from it. If _Daedalus_ puts out off-prints of it, would you put me down for a half-dozen? Am on the way back from Miami Beach. I know how grievously disappointed you must have been. But I hope you were at least a little bit reassured by Nixon's acceptance speech. I felt it very good. I continue to be amazed by the mechanical miscalculations which confound such resourceful men. Very perplexing. If I had the time, I'd write a little essay on this last convention. As it was, I wasted my time with that idiot Vidal. It was only after three soul-racking confrontations that he agreed to behave just a little bit. Thank you for your visit. You made a hit with everybody, as always.

Professor Henry A. Kissinger
Room 1034
50 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10020

06 16 1968

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

ROBERT R. BOWIE, Director

HOLLIS B. CHENERY
SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON
ALEX INKELES
HENRY A. KISSINGER
SEYMOUR M. LIPSET
EDWARD S. MASON
GUSTAV F. PAPANEK
THOMAS C. SCHELLING
RAYMOND VERNON

6 DIVINITY AVENUE
CAMBRIDGE
MASSACHUSETTS 02138

August 14, 1968

Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr.
National Review
150 East 35th Street
New York, New York 10016

Dear Bill:

Thank you for your very generous note of August 1. I am having another six copies of the Bismarck piece sent to you.

Miami Beach was a rather searing experience. I know I shall never be able to convince you of this, but I continue to believe that Rockefeller would have been a better man for conservative values than the eventual nominee. (The "real" liberals in the Party are Lindsay, Hatfield et al, and they are not too unhappy). Nixon's speech was reassuring insofar as speeches can reassure. I would be more than happy, however, if your judgment proved to be correct.

I enjoyed my visit with you very much indeed. Let us stay in touch.

NATIONAL REVIEW·150 East 35th Street, New York, New York 10016

Tel. 679-7330

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR.
Editor

August 5, 1974

Dear Henry:

Thank you, my friend, for an interesting lunch. You are in good shape, and I like to think there is some correspondence between your metabolism and the country's. But be careful. As I wrote the other day in a column, in answer to one of his animadversions on conservatives, Joe Kraft may wake up one morning to find that the Russians are coming.

A couple of matters: 1) Thanks for reiterating your acceptance of my invitation to appear on Firing Line. Do you wish to take the initiative on this, or shall I tell the producer, Mr. Steibel, to nudge you every now and again?
2) I would dearly like to meet Nancy, since I am in great, and I fear strategic, need of appreciation. So, if it suits you, how about dinner in New York during those drear days you will have to be spending up here when the General Assembly convenes? Or, of course, lunch if you prefer.
3) I am sending you an advance copy of my new book -- featuring, you will notice -- a picture of Your Excellency on the back cover. It may be that, on reading the book, you will feel the need to disavow me. If so, I shall provide an interval suitable for the occasion when you dine with me. A nice historical thought: our place in New York was owned by Dag Hammarskjold during his incumbency at the U.N. which, we can all be grateful, he did not succeed in maximizing.

With warm regards.

The Honorable Henry Kissinger
Department of State
Washington, D.C.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE
WASHINGTON

August 27, 1974

Dear Bill:

Thank you for your recent letter and the
copy of your *United Nations Journal*. I will
read it with interest if not nostalgia.

Regarding Firing Line, I suggest you have
someone make contact with my Press Secretary, Bob
Anderson, with a view toward possible scheduling.
I must warn you, however, that my murderous sched-
ule does not offer good prospects for the near
future.

Nancy and I would like nothing more than to
escape for lunch or dinner with you in New York.
As you know, to do so would be to antagonize one
continent or another by not being able to entertain
a group of foreign ministers. But since antagoniz-
ing you would be at least as damaging, I will have
to give your offer very careful thought. Let me
defer an answer until I have a chance to study what
I am being asked to do in New York and what, of that,
I should do. I certainly hope we can see you though
and will let you know as the time approaches.

I look forward to seeing you soon, wherever
it may be.

Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr.,
National Review,
150 East 35th Street,
New York, New York.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of THE SECRETARY

April 3, 1975

GUEST LIST FOR LUNCHEON - 1:00 p.m.
8th flr.

William F. Buckley

Senator James L. Buckley

Senator James A. McClure

Pricilla Buckley
Managing Editor of NR

Jeffrey Hart
Senior Editor of NR

William Rusher
Publisher of NR

James Jackson Kilpatrick
Syndicated Columnist

Lawrence Eagleburger

Chateau de "ougemont
Rougemont, Vaud
Thursday

Dear Henry:

Thank you, my friend, for your hospitality. The hour was both ngrossing and sad; but then the end of any civilization is engrossing, though it is on the whole preferable to read about the end of other people's civilizations, than to experience the end of one's own. I did a column on our visit (a discreet column, as usual, which I attzch a copy of.) I have a clearer understanding of a number of matters, forsooth!...I also enclose the cartoon in the Village Voice in which you expressed interest. If you think it would amuse him, you might pass it on to El Presidente.

Re the lunch you suggest: I set it up, having cleared the general time period with you, for March 13th. But as I left the hotel, you told me you would be returning to Europe on March 5. So the whole business will have to be put in abeyance pending word from your office on whether you will be back on March 13. The sooner the better, either the confirmation or the postponement. I asked Senator Jim to proposed one guest, and he rings in with Senator James McClure, of whom he thinks very highly. I shall bring three stellar people from NR.

Sois sage, mon vieux. I shall keep you and the republic in my prayers.

As ever,

ON THE RIGHT by William F. Buckley, Jr.

Release Saturday or Sunday, February 22-23, 1975, or thereafter

MR. KISSINGER LOOKS ABOUT HIM

GENEVA -- Henry Kissinger, pausing in Geneva, has every reason to feel beleaguered. It is too easy to say that he is beleaguered because he lives in an international order of which he has served over seven years as the principal western architect. That explanation is inadequate. He sees a very nearly universal deterioration in the state of affairs, which is the result not so much of irresistible pressure from our enemies, as maladroit responses by our friends. People like Majority Leader Mansfield, and the editors of the *New York Times* still fall, officially, in that category.

Take Turkey. Congress voted to cut off arms sales to Turkey. The Greeks, desiring that this should happen, stalled on purpose over Cyprus, sufficiently to prevent that progress in the absence of which the arms boycott was mandated. The Turkish response was: you people (us Americans) need your radar and other secret installations far more than we Turks need them -- hell, we don't even know how to operate them. So if you want to play that kind of game, go ahead. And Turkey veers off toward a kind of Iraqi hostility. Meanwhile Greece is not able to control Makarios and he has revved up sentiment in Cyprus for an irredentist war which Caramanlis, a long-time friend of the United States, dare not be less than helpful with. The result: two increasingly impotent powers, the two most important in our Eastern alliance, headed toward immobility.

At the other end of the continent, the Communists are moving in Portugal under the direct supervision of Moscow without the least objection by anybody. Whereas the United States is thought venal if we attempt to "interfere" in any way in the direction of helping social democrats in a beleaguered country, the Soviet Union is respected for moving to help the totalitarians in any beleaguered country. The interesting question is whether the Communists will simply take over Portugal, or whether they will stay more or less in the background and permit the army to give the orders, something like the Peruvian situation a stage or two advanced.

This poses exquisitely subtle problems for the United States. If Portugal became forthrightly Communist, say like Bulgaria, we could if not intercede directly, at least suspend Portugal's participation in NATO. If the Communists play it smart, Portugal would continue to be a member of NATO in good standing, and would sit there and share all the military secrets and plans exchanged among NATO units. This would considerably relieve the responsibilities of KGB in Portugal and in other NATO countries.

-MORE-

THE WASHINGTON STAR SYNDICATE, INC., 444 Madison Ave., New York, N. Y. 10022

ON THE RIGHT - William F. Buckley, Jr.
Release Saturday or Sunday, February 22-23, 1975, or thereafter

-2-

Meanwhile, we have suspended military aid to Chile, because we disapprove of Chile's internal policies. But since every reporter working for the *New York Times* and the *Washington Post* is roaming the back streets of Chile with flashlights looking for one suspicious $100 bill, we cannot even help the moderates in Chile working to liberalize the current regime. The result is that Chile will have to horde its precious reserves, wasted under Allende and his prodigal rush toward socialism, to buy -- Russian, or Chinese arms. It is axiomatic that one tends to lean toward the foreign policy of the country whose arms one purchases.

In Indochina the simple facts bear retelling. Congress promised 1.4 billion in aid. But Senator Mansfield got around to appropriating only 700 million, the idea being to deliver 300 of the remaining 700 now and the rest later. By now, America has lurched into an isolationist scrupulosity which would make it extremely difficult for any President, or any Secretary of State, to commit himself to the delivery of one ping-pong table per month for 14 months. Whereas last June Graham Martin, our able Ambassador to Saigon, saw the smoke clearing at last; and, in Cambodia, the Red Chinese were about ready to negotiate the year before, suddenly we had to stop the bombing, and now the situation in South Vietnam is bad, the Cambodian situation worse: and the Red Chinese feel nothing but contempt for a superpower which cannot keep its own word in respect of a commitment so relatively trivial.

We should bear in mind that the Red Chinese interest in the United States is as a superpower capable of offsetting the menace of another superpower, the Soviet Union. Mao hasn't very long to live, but it could easily be that he will live to see the collapse of an effective western alliance, and the eunuchizing of America.

-E N D-

WASHINGTON STAR SYNDICATE INC. 444 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022

2) --Buckley

the order of manifest destiny working for the North Vietnamese. That they really "owned"
South Vietnam, in the same sense that the early Americans owned California. To get
California we had to claw our way past a few Indians, and snooker the Mexicans into one of
the great land grabs of the 19th century. But what was hardest about acquiring California
was things like scaling mountains and crossing deserts and laying railroad lines.

What was hard about taking South Vietnam was -- people. About 16 million people who
were 80 per cent opposed to living under the rule of the north. 80 per cent is slightly
better than the number of Americans who sided with George Washington in the Revolutionary
War. The will to resist was there, and for all the talk of South Vietnamese pusillanimity
and disorganization and graft, you will find that a far higher percentage of them died or
were wounded in the war than Frenchmen defending themselves against Hitler. The military
mistakes of General Thieu cannot have been worse than those of the succession of generals
appointed by President Lincoln until he happened upon a Ulysses Grant. The notion that
Abraham Lincoln was more successful than Thieu in bringing the political opposition into
his tent is chauvinism of the worst sort: it is ignorance. If George Washington, leaning
as he did on critical help from the French, had been dealt with as we finally dealt with
the South Vietnamese, we would have lost that war, General Washington would have been hanged
and George Ball would now be giving us his instructions in an English accent.

If it was so obvious to Ball, one of the two or three most conspicuous Democratic
mouthpieces in matters of foreign policy that the Treaty of Paris was a phony, he should
there and then have denounced it. It was certainly a mistake of President Nixon not to have
insisted that Congress there and then either accept or reject responsibility for enforcing
the terms of the Treaty which Henry Kissinger would never have initialed had he anticipated
the rout in Congress from the implicit responisibility of the principal sponsor of that
accord -- the United States. We talk about how the South Vietnamese have run. At least
they did so under the pressure of Russian tanks. Congress ran under the pressure of moral
fatigue. I'd sooner, fighting for my life, do so in the company of 15 South Vietnamese
soldiers, than of the 15 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

(CONTINUED)

the village

VOICE

Published weekly (Monday) by The Village Voice, Inc. 80 University Place, N.Y. N.Y. 10003

Clay S. Felker
Milton Glaser

Editor-in-Chief
Design Director

Ross Wetzstzeon
Judith Daniels
Gil Eisner
Karen Durbin

Executive Editor
Managing Editor
Art Director
Senior Editors

Eliot Fremont-Smith
Richard Goldstein
Jack Newfield
Mary Perot Nichols
Jon Carroll
Blair Sabol

West Coast Editor
West Coast Correspondent
Assistant Editors

Audrey Berman
Diane Straus

Art Editor
Music Editor
Film Editor
Listings Editor
Copy Chief
Copy Staff

Alexandra Anderson
Robert Christgau
Andrew Sarris
Burt Supree
Helena Hacker
Roderick Faber

Associate Art Director
Assistant Art Director
Picture Editor
Picture Research
Production Manager
Production Staff

Susan Klebanoff
Bob Eisner

Alfred de la Houssaye
Fred W. McDarrah
Sylvia Brody

Jack Berkowitz
Paul Bresnick
John Jay

Steve Levi
Jeanne Oliver
Ronald Plotkin

Staff Writers

Howard Blum
Alexander Cockburn
Paul Cowan
Joe Flaherty
Vivian Gornick

Howard Smith
Phil Tracy
Lucian K. Truscott IV
Brian Van der Horst
Clark Whelton

Stephen M. Blacker
Alexandra Hendrick
Jack Kliger
Rose Ryan
David Shanks
Jane Maxwell

Associate Publisher, Marketing
Display Advertising Director
Classified Advertising Director
Classified Consultant
Circulation Director
General Manager

Member Audit Bureau of Circulations

Subscription price $15 a year in the United States and its possessions — foreign $20
Second-class postage paid at New York, New York, and at additional mailing offices

Clay S. Felker, Chairman and Publisher/Milton Glaser, Vice-Chairman
Bartle Bull, President

Stephen M. Blacker, Vice President/Ruth Bower, Vice President
William J. Ryan, Vice-President, Finance

Editorial 741-0030/Display-advertising 741-0020/Classified advertising 741-0010

out of each other's lives because of
growth, distance, etc., but most often
because of a love relationship that
swallowed up all our time. We've all
been guilty of it. A good strong love
relationship is important but who
says love and friendship are mutu-
ally exclusive—with friendship on
the losing side?

My friends (both male and female)
have strongly influenced my life.
They've cared about me through
thick and thin, and they've loved me
even at my worst. Held together by
strong similarities of profession,
we've also managed to connect on
deeper levels—each personality dif-
ferent, each with different needs.

I'd like to thank Ms. Lee for finally
putting into print something I've
been verbally proselytizing for
years. I hope all my friends read the
article and will get a chance to read
this letter. They'll understand what I
mean.

—Jo-Anne Barone
East 75th Street

Surf's Up

Dear Editor:

Many, many thanks to Robert Christgau for his beautiful, incredible piece on the Beach Boys/Chicago concert at Madison Square Garden in the June 23 Voice. He really outdid himself this time, which I think is saying quite a lot.

—Seth Knoepler
West 21st Street

P. S. As far as I'm concerned, Midge Decter is full of shit (in the review of "Liberal Parents, Radical Children," same issue). How an otherwise intelligent, sensible guy like Eliot Fremont-Smith can take her at all seriously is beyond me.

A New Old-Timer

the kind of activism we have come to
expect of the political representa-
tives of our district.

I first met Ethan in the head-
quarters of the United Farmworkers
in the summer of 1970. Then presi-
dent of the Reform Democrat organ-
ization which was later to become
the New Democratic Coalition he
had coordinated citywide picket
lines which were the decisive ele-
ment in winning the Grape Boycott,
an important early victory for the
union.

In 1971, when I was with the Viet-
nam Veterans Against the War, he
helped us raise money necessary to
cize demonstrations I would like
to the Vietnam

I mention only two instances that
involved me personally but I think
they're more the measure of the man
than the characterization "Air Re-
sources Commissioner, Ethan Eldon
... newcomer."

I think he is a newcomer only in
the sense that he has never before
chosen to put himself forward for
consideration as a candidate for po-
litical office. He is an old-timer in
terms of principle and practice in the
tradition of the late William F. Ryan
and the present incumbent Bella
Abzug and, should he become our
next congressional representative, I
would consider our district to have
been thrice blessed.

—Jim Davis
Claremont Avenue

October 8, 1975

Dear Bill:

Thank you for sending along the reports
from the conservative congressmen. They make
fascinating, if somewhat disquieting reading. In
any case, the issue may soon be academic --
now that the Congress has taken the first step,
we may be able to break up the logjam and
slowly bring some reason back into our efforts
on Europe's southern flank.

I think our talk went quite well. With a
little luck, it may have actually accomplished
something. But even if it did not, it is always
such a pleasure to spar a bit with you that I
never willingly pass up an opportunity.

I hope to see you again soon.

Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr.,
150 East 35th Street,
New York, New York.

10/12 OCT 8 PM 1:20PM

Tel. 679-7330

September 15, 1975

PERSONAL

Dear Henry:

I promised to send you the reports from the conservative Congressmen.

Accordingly, I enclose: 1) the column I wrote about it a week ago, which you may have seen in the STAR, and 2) copies of letters from Congressmen Ashbrook, Bauman, Rousselot, and Crane. Crane's letter did not arrive in time for me to analyze its contents and include them in my piece. I think you will find it reassuring. Please tear up these copies after you have looked at them. As for what they say, they speak for themselves.

I think you did yourself good in the hour we spent together last week.

Though I continue less optimistic than you even at a tactical level, I am happy to give your point of view, as expressed by you, the maximum circulation among people who will perhaps listen more closely in an uninterrupted hour in which I am there as your questioner-adversary, than they would under normal auspices. I say all this, which it is most important to say inasmuch as it deals with the public interest, but having said it, I hope you will not think me indifferent to the great personal kindnesses you have consistently shown me.

The Honorable Henry Kissinger
Dept. of State
Washington, D.C.

JOHN M. ASHBROOK
17TH DISTRICT
OHIO
LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

COMMITTEES:
JUDICIARY
EDUCATION AND LABOR
JOINT COMMITTEE ON
CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

August 26, 1975

Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr., Editor
National Review
150 East 35th Street
New York, New York 10016

Dear Bill:

I appreciated receiving your letter and am glad to give you some of my views. While I don't profess to speak for all of my fellow conservatives, I do think you will find the general ideas expressed here acceptable to many of us. We went through the same "gauntlet" ranging from the White House to Secretary of Defense Schlesinger.

First, the matter of improper use of the arms by Turkey. Both sides are culpable but the Turkish position seems to be more devoid of logic. It is hard to apply this standard totally to Turkey since we could take the same position on American military equipment used by Israel on "defensive strikes" against Jordan and Lebanon. Overall, the Turkish government has been intransigent on the matter of refugees and heroin.

In trying to view the positions of Greece and Turkey on an objective basis, it would be very close to a flip of the coin with a slight tilt against Turkey. The fact that they are using what increasingly is becoming traditional blackmailing by our allies would be one of the important points that conservatives resist. They are NATO partners and if they want to get rid of the intelligence bases, let them protect themselves. The Philippines and all other allies seem bent on negotiating "better deals for themselves" while they are oblivious to the need of mutual defense.

The second and most important point. I think most of us look upon this vote as a means of directly attacking a disastrous foreign policy. I know this is my own personal view. As I told Secretary Schlesinger, your pleas fall on deaf ears when you have the temerity to talk intelligence.

Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr.

- 2 -

August 26, 1975

This Administration and previous administrations have literally destroyed our intelligence apparatuses. They engage in detente with an enemy, talk about giving away the Panama Canal, send critical materials to our avowed enemy and then have the gall to tell us this vote is anti-theoretical to our basic-defense and intelligence needs.

Bill, to some extent I am sure we succeeded. We have opened up a dialogue regarding the policies that conservatives consider foolish. We feel sorry for Secretary Schlesinger. He is caught in the middle. The overall foreign policy of this country is a disaster and now is a good time to start pointing it out.

There are many other nuances of the discourse but this certainly would give you some of the basics.

sj

ROBERT E. BAUMAN
FIRST DISTRICT, MARYLAND

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT
MARINE AND FISHERIES

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

August 26, 1975

Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr.
Editor, NATIONAL REVIEW
150 East 35 Street
New York, NY 10016

Dear Bill:

Bob Bauman asked me to respond to your August letter concerning the matter of arms to Turkey. I talked with the Congressman at length about the issue, and I hope that the following serves to elucidate his position.

Bob is on principle predisposed against foreign aid authorizations for non-strategic items (e.g., federal monies for the so-called World Food Conference) and for requests not explicitly defined or sufficiently explained as being in our strategic national interest. Prior to the vote on Turkish aid, Secretary Kissinger and various State Department personnel authorized to speak in his name made a case for "strategic urgency" which, according to the Congressman, was underwhelming. In any event, the administration's spokesmen appeared to rest their case at that time on the rationale that we must trust the foreign policy of President Ford. In light of the recorded United States capitulation at Helsinki, the sudden change of official attitudes regarding Cuba, etc., it was felt that confidence in the administration's policy consistency was not enough on which one could justify one's actions in support of what was felt to be a tenuous position.

Questions like those posed by some higher military authorities that the Turkish-U.S. occupied bases were not strategically important for the American monitoring of Soviet weaponry; that Turkey's alleged unilateral violation of its Charter responsibilities compelled a U.S. aid boycott; and that we would jeopardize the legal stability of NATO by granting Turkey aid or selling it arms were not sufficiently handled by the administration's side. These were real questions some normally loyal Republican congressmen had which were not given grown-up answers by the administration. We await the reconsideration of the original Turkish motion when the House convenes next week, and look forward to any new materials or arguments either side can provide in support of one position or the other prior to the Congressman's second vote on this issue.

JOHN H. ROUSSELOT
26TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA

COMMITTEES:
BANKING, CURRENCY AND
HOUSING
POST OFFICE AND
CIVIL SERVICE
JOINT ECONOMIC
COMMITTEE

August 22, 1975

WASHINGTON OFFICE:
1706 LONGWORTH BUILDING
202-225-4206

DISTRICT OFFICE:
735 W. DUARTE ROAD
SUITE 403
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
213-447-8125

Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr.
Editor
National Review
150 East 35th Street
New York, New York 10016

Dear Bill:

Thank you for your note of August 18 concerning my vote in opposition to S. 846, the so-called compromise bill that would have allowed a resumption of military arms sales to Turkey.

With regard to your request, the following is essentially the information I have been giving to constituents explaining my reasons for voting "no" on the passage of this legislation:

1. The main issue continues to be that Turkey violated U.S. laws--Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and the Foreign Military Sales Act--and the agreements under which the arms were obtained. Sec. 505(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, states that--

> No Defense articles shall be furnished...to any country...unless the President determines ...that such defense articles will be utilized by such country for the maintenance of its own defensive strength, or the defensive strength of the free world;

Section 505(d) of that same Act further states that--

> Any country which hereafter uses defense articles or defense services furnished such country...in substantial violation of the provisions of this chapter/shall be immediately ineligible for further assistance.

Section 4 of the Foreign Military Sales Act states that--

> Defense articles and defense services shall be sold...solely for internal security, for legitimate self-defense...

Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr. - 2 -

August 22, 1975

Section 3(c) of the FMS Act also goes on to provide that--

any foreign country which hereafter uses defense
articles or defense services furnished under this
Act, in substantial violation of any provision of
this Act...shall be immediatley ineligible for
further cash sales, credits, or guarantees.

2. Turkey violated these statutes and agreements, and this fact was recognized by State Department witnesses who testified before the House International Relations Committee. Further, the Comptroller General of the United States, Elmer B. Staats, discussed the applicability of the Foreign Assistance Act and the Foreign Military Sales Act to Turkey's use of U.S. supplied military assistance items on Cyprus in a 21-page opinion of October 7, 1974. In that opinion, he stated:

> Any diversion of substantial quantities of military assistance items furnished by the United States from authorized purposes would thus constitute a "substantial" violation of section 505(d) (Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended--quoted above) under the intent expressed in the House report. Moreover, even though any substantial diversion thus seems sufficient in and of itself to trigger section 505(d), the purposes and use to which the diverted military assistance is applied would certainly also be relevant to the gravity of the violation. If such purposes and use in contravention of the explicitly stated policies and purposes of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the violation would undoubtedly be "substantial." It is our impression that Turkey has diverted substantial quantities of military assistance items furnished by the United States, although we have no official information as to the types and quantities of defense articles which are involved. In addition, as noted hereinabove, the particular purposes for which the items were diverted and the uses to which they were applied may well be in contravention of the policies and purposes of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

Comptroller General Staats went on to point out that if the determinations and decisions required to apply provisions in the Foreign Assistance Act and the Foreign Military Sales Act to the Turkey situation, "...are not made promptly and timely,...the punitive aspects of the respective provisions are rendered virtually meaningless, contrary to the intent of Congress."

Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr. - 3 -

August 22, 1975

3. S.846, as reported by the House International Relations Committee, did not require any remedial action on the part of Turkey to correct the situation on Cyprus, or action to rectify the violation of U.S. laws and agreements that governed the transfer of U.S. arms to Turkey.

It is my judgment that without some assurance that Turkey is willing to enter into negotiations to settle the Cyprus conflict, and without some assurance that Turkey is willing to abide by the laws and agreements under which the arms were obtained, it would be unwise for Congress to back down on this important point. I still remain hopeful that some agreement can be reached that will be in the best interests of the United States--a concern we share-- and will maintain the integrity of our laws and agreements.

As you may be aware, shortly before the adjournment of Congress for the August recess, the Senate passed an amendment to S. 2230 (legislation authorizing funds for the Board for International Broadcasting) that is similar to the House defeated version of S. 846. It is expected that a vote will be taken in the House on the Senate amended bill, S. 2230, sometime after Congress reconvenes on September 3rd.

It is hoped that this information is helpful, Bill, and once the column is completed, I would be interested in seeing a copy. It was good hearing from you.

JHR:npm
Enclosures

P.S. I have also included the enclosures I have been sending to constituents on this issue.

PHILIP M. CRANE
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
12TH DISTRICT, ILLINOIS

WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

SUBCOMMITTEES:
HEALTH
SOCIAL SECURITY

September 4, 1975

Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr.
Editor
NATIONAL REVIEW
150 East 35th Street
New York, New York 10016

Dear Bill:

Forgive my tardy response to your letter of August 18, but I was out of the office during the recess until yesterday.

Anent my unexpected vote on the Turkey question, I will give you a public position and then a very confidential position. I could not see on the side of morality that either side (Greece or Turkey) had the better of the argument. On the national security issue, the scales tilted toward Turkey, but I did resent the Turkish threat since it seemed to me that our bases in Turkey served their interests as much as our own.

There was, however, a consideration that I trust you will keep confidential dealing with a practical, partisan national security issue. This was the effort on the part of left wing Democrats to turn the question of arms to Turkey into a Republican/Democratic confrontation with the Democrats supporting the Greeks and the Republicans supporting the Turks. Since the Greeks have been, for the most part, in the Republican column, it seemed to me that we were running the risk of alienating a segment of voters that was in a number of districts important. The Armenians, of course, sided with the Greeks on this issue.

I had told Bob Michel before the vote that if my vote would be decisive, I would give it to him on the side of the Turks. I did not vote on this issue until the time on the clock had expired and the Turks were down by ten votes. I then cast my vote with the Greeks simply to attempt to dispel the notion that Democrats supported the Greeks and Republicans supported the Turks. If the vote comes up again, however, I will vote with the Turks regardless.

There were some Conservatives whom I heard speaking about this issue on the floor who followed the line that "if Kissinger is for it, I am

OFFICES:
SUITE 1406
LONGWORTH BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
202/225-3711

SUITE 101
1450 SOUTH NEW WILKE ROAD
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS 60005
312/394-0790

AMERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL
1776-1976

Release Thursday, September 11, 1975, or thereafter

TURKEY RECONSIDERED

I did not notice it at the time, but the vote to deny United States weapon-makers the right to sell arms to Turkey, cast on July 25, was narrowly carried (228-206) with the support of some of the most resolute conservatives and anti-Communists in the House of Representatives. They found themselves voting alongside such as Congressmen Conyers, Drinan, Edwards, Harrington, Holtzman, Koch, Rosenthal, and Udall, in one of the strangest coalitions in recent Congressional history. Why?

Viewed with even modest strategic perspective, the vote against selling arms to Turkey was at best perplexing, at worst maniacal. Turkey has been the staunchest ally in the anti-Communist NATO alliance, and is geopolitically as vital to that alliance as the Mississippi River to the greening of the vertebrae of the United States.

What had happened? I wrote to three conservative Congressmen, good friends and exemplary cold warriors, to express my bafflement.

One of them replied like a district attorney who had wearily closed down a speakeasy, muttering "the law's the law." Indeed Section 505 (B) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, says it quite clearly: that if a country that buys arms from the United States goes on to use those arms for other than defensive purposes, then the further sale of arms is prohibited.

The Comptroller General of the United States, Mr. Elmer Staats, took the position, in a written opinion, that infringement was a matter of historical record. Which is of course true. When the Turks invaded Cyprus, seizing a generous part of it and creating a fresh refugee problem (180,000 Greeks), they unquestionably used arms purchased from the United States. It is not to justify the Turkish invasion however to note a) that it was precipitated by a Greek initiative that brought down the military junta; or b) that the question who rightly owns what parts of Cyprus is a question the Roman Emperors were not able to solve; or c) that when a country moves militarily, grabbing its muskets, it tends to be less than inquisitive about the provenance of those weapons, or the terms under which they were purchased.

Turkey's move against Cyprus is as defensible, at the hands of a resourceful lawyer, as any of several moves by Israel against Lebanon and Jordan, but Congress has never passed a law denying Israel, for that reason, the right to buy more arms; nor, so far as I know, has Congress ever roused Elmer Staats to give it a reading of the legality of continuing arms sales to Israel.

-MORE-

ON THE RIGHT - William F. Buckley, Jr.
Release Thursday, September 11, 1975, or thereafter

-2-

Another Congressman gave as his reason for voting against Turkey not only the legal one, but a whole basketful of others. He did not like having been pressured by the Administration. "The Administration's spokesmen appeared to rest their case. . .on the rationale that we must trust the foreign policy of President Ford." This, the Congressman, who distrusts detente, was not prepared to do.

Moreover, he didn't think the Administration was entirely convincing about Turkey's strategic importance: indeed, he didn't think the spokesmen of the Administration had given Congressmen "grown-up" answers to searching questions.

A third naysayer pulled all the stops. In addition to the foregoing objections, he thinks of Turkey as something of a pain in the neck, "intransigent on the matter of refugees and heroin." He did not like what he interpreted as the "increased. . .blackmailing" by our allies -- Turkey had threatened to close down American bases, and of course proceeded to do so.

But then the most striking point. The Congressman felt that a Nay vote was the means of attacking a "disastrous foreign policy." He laughs at the stated concern of Secretary of Defense Schlesinger over the threatened loss in intelligence capabilities. "This Administration and previous Administrations have literally destroyed our intelligence apparatuses. They engage in detente with an enemy, talk about giving away the Panama Canal, send critical materials to our avowed enemy, then have the gall to tell us this vote is antithetical to our basic defense and intelligence needs."

On reflection, I think this -- give or take the Greek lobby, for whatever it is worth -- is the crux of the matter. It makes me deeply despondent, because however pleasant it is to satisfy one's pride at the expense of insufferable allies (most friendly nations, like most friendly nations, are to some extent insufferable), it is generally not the statesman's business to yield to the temptation. Conservative Congressmen aghast at President Ford's acquiescence in a 60 billion dollar deficit are not entitled to use their disgust as an excuse for voting an 80 billion dollar deficit. Still, though my sympathies are with the Administration, I do not see how it can fail to perceive that such disaffections as these will grow and grow, watered by detente, and that one day utter confusion will prevail. It is augured even now as we see Bella Abzug and John Ashbrook, hand in hand, traipsing down the aisle to vote in unison.

-E N D-

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED 6280

PAGE 01 STATE 272313

46
ORIGIN SS-07

INFO OCT-01 ISO-00 /008 R

DRAFTED BY S:LPBREMER:GH
APPROVED BY S:LPBREMER
S/S:APSHANKLE

R 190001Z NOV 75
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO MR. WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.
THE NATIONAL REVIEW
ADDR 150 E. 35TH ST.
NEW YORK NEW YORK

UNCLAS STATE 272313

E.O. 11652: N/A

TAGS:

SUBJECT:LETTER TO WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR.

QUOTE: DEAR BILL: I WISH I COULD BE WITH YOU TO HELP CELEBRATE THE NATIONAL REVIEW'S 20TH ANNIVERSARY.

TO SO MANY OF US THE REVIEW HAS LONG BEEN AN OLD AND TRUSTWORTHY FRIEND -- URBANE, INTELLIGENT, AND ALWAYS STIMULATING. I TRUST THAT IN ITS THIRD DECADE IT WILL CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ONGOING NATIONAL DEBATE AS IMPORTANTLY, AND AS ELEGANTLY AS IT ALWAYS HAS. AND I HOPE THAT OCCASSIONALLY I WILL EARN ITS APPROBATION. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PLEASURE OF ITS COMPANY FOR SOME TIME TO COME.

CONGRATULATIONS.

UNQUOTE.

UNCLASSIFIED

FORM DS-1652

SECSTATE WSH

0

BILL
100P E2T

APPRECIATED BY ME AND THE AUDIENCE WARM REGARDS
DEAR HENRY, SO MANY THANKS FOR YOUR WARM GREETING SO GREATLY
WASHINGTON DC 50250
STATE DEPT

PM2 HONORABLE HERNY KISSENGER

SISE67330 TDMI NEW YORK NY 19 11-19 1023A E2T
IC2 IPMM157 CPB

TLX073 WAB073(1024)(S-01S04E3S3)PD 11/19/12 1023
WU WSH

SECSTATE WSH

0

19 NOV 12 10 35S

NATIONAL REVIEW, 150 EAST 35th ST., NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016

Wm. F. Buckley Jr., Editor

BILL MOYERS WILL VISIT
HENRY KISSINGER TONIGHT.

And that's just the beginning.
The man who won three Emmys by casting a perceptive eye on America is back on the Public Broadcasting Service, but this time the world is his beat.

His new series is "Bill Moyers' Journal: International Report." The first program to-night is a one hour conversation with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Next week: Helmut Schmidt, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.

On following weeks, Bill Moyers will explore international affairs with interesting people from around the world—people you've seldom seen on American television. Their subjects: the problems common to us all—energy, money, inflation, population, food, and

global politics. There will be reports on river blindness in Africa, land reform in Latin America, and the changing roles of women in other countries.

"Bill Moyers' Journal: International Report" is the first continuing series on foreign affairs since the early days of television. We hope you will join us.

"Bill Moyers' Journal: International Report" is produced by WNET/13 New York and made possible by grants from

Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Ford Foundation

German Marshall Fund of the United States

Inter-American Foundation

IBM Corporation

BILL MOYERS' JOURNAL: INTERNATIONAL REPORT
TONIGHT AND EVERY THURSDAY NIGHT AT 8 P.M. WNET/13

(Repeat broadcast on Sunday, January 19th at 2 P.M.)

Release Saturday or Sunday, December 6-7, 1975, or thereafter

SOLZHENITSYN vs KISSINGER

I confess to being gravely disappointed by the recent article by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whom I consider the outstanding human figure of the century.

What possessed him?

He begins by casually tossing to the enemy the verdict in the matter of the Warren Commission's investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy. That tragedy, Solzhenitsyn writes in the *New York Times*, "was all the worse because of the inability or the lack of desire by the American judicial authorities to uncover the assassins and to clear up the crime."

That statement is quite simply untrue. The effort to identify the assassin was as complete as it could be, and there is no reason to suppose that it was less than successful. Solzhenitsyn went on to say that the failure to investigate had a devastating effect on the world. "Something more than respect was shaken -- it was our faith." That faith was perhaps shaken, but it was the doing of the muckrackers and profiteers, who are not to be entirely distinguished from the revisionists who have been busy for a decade now trying to prove that the United States, not the Soviet Union, was responsible for the cold war. It is not only strange but catastrophic that Solzhenitsyn should find himself, however unwittingly, aiding them in their efforts.

What does this have to do with Kissinger? Solzhenitsyn suddenly links that episode, in which Kissinger had no part, to the firing of James Schlesinger, which Solzhenitsyn -- and his friends -- regret. But he arrives, without logical transition, to Henry Kissinger, and in his comments about Kissinger reveals himself to be deeply uninformed. He bases his arguments against detente on the totally fictitious allegation that Henry Kissinger is of the breed of Americans -- Linus Pauling being the archetype -- who wake up every morning with the taste of an atomic cinder in their mouths. "Defending his policy of unending concessions, Mr. Kissinger repeats the one and same argument almost like an incantation: 'Let our critics point out the alternative to nuclear war.' . . . indeed, [the] nuclear age is an obsession for Mr. Kissinger."

But that simply is not true. The book that first brought Mr. Kissinger to public attention was called *Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy*, and it is an entirely non-hysterical book about the nuclear age. Mr. Kissinger has never had anything but contempt for those who believe that the choice is between nuclear war and disarmament. He was a stalwart defender of the doctrine of graduated response, and risked his academic reputation and lost a great many friends by backing tough military action in Indochina, including the incursion into Cambodia, the bombing of Hanoi, and the blockade of Haiphong.

-MORE-

[c]

ON THE RIGHT - William F. Buckley, Jr.
Release Saturday or Sunday, December 6-7, 1975, or thereafter

-2-

The Paris Accord was always chancy, but when Solzhenitsyn asks "Is it
possible that the prominent diplomat could not see what a house of cards
he was building?", the answer is: That is exactly correct. Kissinger did
<u>not</u> anticipate the emasculation of Nixon by the Watergate developments of
the ensuing summer. Nor did Solzhenitsyn's hero, James Schlesinger, fore-
see the debacle in June of 1973 when he took office. I am not, in fact,
aware that Solzhenitsyn anticipated it.

What Mr. Solzhenitsyn seems not to have paid any notice to is his own
enduring critique of the spiritual corruption of the western world. Who
has said it more plainly than he -- with perhaps the exception of Whittaker
Chambers, who in any case said it earlier, and James Burnham -- that there
are deeply rooted suicidal compulsions working in the west. What Kissinger
says isn't: "We must have detente because the alternative is a nuclear war."
What he says is, "The American people" (by which he means the American
Establishment) will not stand up and resist. Under the circumstances, the
only alternative is to maneuver."

I agree with Solzhenitsyn, not Kissinger, that the American people, if
roused, will do better than they have done. And perhaps Mr. Kissinger's
problem is that he was not himself born to rouse people, disposing of
different skills from Solzhenitsyn's, and never having worked for an
American president whose skills were those of Cato. To believe Kissinger
is wrong about detente (as I believe he is) cannot justify depicting him
as Solzhenitsyn does -- as a superficial, cowardly demagogue, who feasts
on the kindergarten dichotomy of: detente or nuclear war.

I break a confidence to reveal to Mr. Solzhenitsyn that it was Mr.
Kissinger who gave to the President, urging him to read it all, <u>Gulag</u>
<u>Archipelago</u>. Mr. Solzhenitsyn is a man of such moral splendor it is pain-
ful to see him work a personal injustice, and reveal a great ignorance of
the character of an important American substantially charged with the pre-
servation of such freedom. I would hope to help erase the bad impression
of Mr. Solzhenitsyn's unfortunate lapse by offering to those readers who
wish to read it a copy (free, write me to 150 East 35th Street, New York,
N.Y. 10016) of Solzhenitsyn's enduringly magnificent speech delivered in
New York to the meeting of the AFL-CIO. That, and his books, are the real
Solzhenitsyn talking; never mind the human aberration.

-B N D-

January 16, 1976

Dear Bill:

I have always known you were a man of many
and awesome talents, but I never thought you would
venture into spy thrillers. From what I hear, Saving
The Queen is an outstanding one, too.

It may not get you to the Court of St. James,
but it will surely land you on the best-seller list again.
I know I will enjoy it, and I thank you for sending me
a copy.

Nancy joins me in sending our love to Pat and
in the hope that we will see you both very soon.

Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr.,
73 East 73rd Street,
New York, New York.

ON THE RIGHT -- Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.

REAGAN AND RESTON (II)

Mr. James Reston, in one of his routine exercises in indiscretion, has announced to the American public that Henry Kissinger having been dispatched from time to time to brief Governor Ronald Reagan during the Nixon days, "testified later that seldom in his long experience as a teacher had he come across a more gullible pupil. . ." Concerning that statement, a few observations:

1) Did Kissinger say that to Reston? Certainly Kissinger has never "testified" on the question of Reagan's gullibility, else us plain-folks would have heard about it. What Reston surely means is that Kissinger said as much to Reston personally. Presumably he said it in confidence, but Reston permits himself to transcend these considerations, as when not long ago he wrote that publicly the President and the Secretary of State applaud Daniel Patrick Moynihan, while privately they deplore him. Exit Moynihan.

I wonder whether other friends of the Secretary of State should feel free to reveal positions Mr. Kissinger has "testified" to? Mr. Reston, whose cosmopolitanism contrasts so sharply with Reagan's gullibility, is a man who having got his appendix taken out successfully in China, came back with praise for that totalitarian state which would have embarrassed Edgar Snow. Mr. Reston's current hold on public reality is best measured by his continuing references to "wee Jimmy." The gentleman in question is Governor Carter, who will probably be the next President of the United States.

2) Though it is true that Mr. Kissinger, like so many intellectuals, is a man of considerable personal impatience with those who either fail quickly to grasp his point, or else proceed to disagree with it -- Harold Wilson is a little bit that way: he's always assumed that people who disagree with him are just not quite

2) Buckley

bright -- would surely not "testify" to the "gullibility" of Reagan. After all, if Kissinger is calling Reagan gullible, what do you suppose Le Duc Tho is calling Kissinger?

3) The "gullibility" of Reagan is based on Reagan's assertion that the United States has full sovereign powers over the Panama Canal. As a matter of fact, Reagan is technically wrong. We don't own the Canal Zone in exactly the same sense we own Alaska. But Reagan has a far more accurate sense of the active relationship between the United States and the Panama Canal than the legion of his critics who speak as though the Canal Zone were Panamanian territory in any meaningful sense. The relevant sentence in the treaty authorized the United States "to exercise all rights, power, and authority within the Zone. . . which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory. . . to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power, or authority." I think even gullible people, reading those words, would be entitled to say that we have effective sovereignty over the Panama Canal. Mr. Reston says that "Reagan couldn't pass a test in freshman American history," preaching what he does about American rights in Panama. If that is so, as much could be said of former Secretary of State and later Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who in 1923 wrote, "It is an absolute futility for the Panamanian government to expect any American Administration, no matter what it is, any President or Secretary of State, ever to surrender any part of these rights which the United States has acquired under the treaty of 1903."

4) Since Mr. Reston is having so much difficulty understanding the rise to political eminence of "wee Jimmy" and of the former Governor of California, whom Reston calls with such wit, "the old trouper," I'll tell him what's going on.

3) Buckley

These men are making headway because huge numbers of American citizens review a
scene in which for a generation or two the Restons of this world, strutting their
sophistication, had the critical hand in shaping. The statesmen who turned on
the Restons, gave us a couple of world wars, slave empires that stretched from
East Europe to Indochina, a passion for decolonization that has all but extinguished
human freedom in yet another large continent, and, at home, a thorough demoralization
of the spirit. They want something old and true (Reagan), or something -- anything--
new (Carter).

THE COMPANY, by John Ehrlichman. Simon and Schuster, New York ......pp, $......
((not available from bound galleys)). Reviewed by William F. Buckley Jr.

Mr. Buckley's forthcoming book is *Airborne. A Sentimental Journey*.

There are three well-executed passages in this book, which advertises
itself as a novel on the inflexible understanding that the reader will not take
it as veing anything of the sort. It is the ultimate dirty trick of the Nixon era;
and, by ironic masterstroke, Nixon is its victim.

The striking passages are one in which President Nixon (he is of course given
another name in the book, as are Kennedy, Johnson, Hoover, Haldeman, Kissinger, and
Helms, the narrator) isdeftly described aboard Air Force One sitting in a specially
constructed hydraulically-mounted chair which he causes to rise and lower and swivel
and tilt as he lectures to Helms, giving a Queeg-like theatrical force to his character
as bully, paranoid, mianthrope, cretin. A second scene describes a tantrum by
Henry Kissinger. It is splendid, part steel, part helium, as if P. G. Wodehouse
had improvised on a description by Speer of an explosion by Hitler. The third is
the final scene, when Helms confronts Nixon at Camp David with documentary evidence
of Nixon's perfidy, and details his terms for silence while Nixon numply perseveres
with a running travelogue on the features of Camp David.

About the balance of the book, the inventive plot notwithstanding, one can
only say that it is so bad as prose itmighthave been ghosted by John Dean, whose
memorandum about maximizing the incumbency stays with us as a relic of the prose
style of Nixon's most authentic bureaucrats. "Few Roman emperors confidently
gathered to themselves more perquisites than did Chairman Esker Scott Anderson"
makes one wonder if the author's publishers bothered to gather to themselves the
perquisite of an editor. "Jack," the narrator pauses to wonder about the legendary
Harvard professor Henry Kissinger, "how does he survive in that faculty jungle at
Harvard?" Well, as a starter I should think by never speaking such a sentence as
that one.

The cliches maximum come upon you with the inevitability of nightfall.
"I want someone over there who will be spending most of his time looking out for me,
and by Christ I think you're the man to do it." Christ did not mislead the president
who placed his faith in Bill. "Seriously, dearest, are you all right?" is the
most galvanizing expression of human concern in the entire book. On the other hand, the
surrounding flatness of the prose is transformed into a shipwrecked sailor's
beach after one experiences the author's occasional high dives into belletrism.
"Most Washington cocktail hours," the author notes, "eventually achieve a noise

2
level that forecloses meaningful communication. The crescendo increases with the
passage of minutes along a predictable curve which is the algebraic function of
the room size and temperature, the number of people, their occupations and gender.
It isn't only Washington parties that can drive people to drink.

Now as to the plot. As already suggested, I decline on principle to
act as accomplice in the author's bullyragging game of "disguising" the characters he
is portraying by such cute articles as having Kennedy killed in an airplane accident
rather than in a car by an assassin; having Johnsonquit the presidency because of
leukemia rather than Tet; staging the Bay of Pigs in the Dominican Republic instead
of Cuba; rooting Richard Nixon in Illinois rather than California. As a matter
of fact, so frightened is the author that you willywilly might fail to match characters,
he first describes Charles ("Chuck") Colson in terms his dead grandmother could not
mistake, then pauses to say that the President, who didn't usually go in for nicknames,
nevertheless referred to his hatchet man as "Tuck." Howard Hunt (who never met
Nixon), is brought in to the Oval Office by "Tuck," and Nixon is reminded that
both Hunt and Colson went to Yale (they both went to Brown).

So. Lifting the veil--as protective of blackheads as a tennis net--here
is what happens. Kennedy orders the invasion at the Bay of Pigs. An investigation
is subsequently ordered. The Investigator discovers that Kennedy, just before the
operation, brought in Assistant CIA Director Helms and ordered him to have assassinated
the priest who is the spiritual amulet of the expedition. Helms does as he is
told, never pausing to reason why, and the demoralized invaders crumble. One copy
of the report is made and Vice President Johnson reads it just before Kennedy is
killed and, along with him in Air Force One, the investigator. So Johnson makes
Helms head of the CIA, knowing that with the hold LBJ now has over him, Helms will
make available all the resources of the "Company" to LBJ for political ends.

When leukemia hits, LBJ steps out, and horrible Nixon succeeds him. In
due course Nixon asks to see the "back reports" of the CIA, clearly intending to
blacken the Kennedy name. Helms stalls. At the same time Nixon, increasingly
resentful of criticism and of Vietnam protesters, begins tapping telephones. CIA
sources trip over these taps, and discover that they are proliferating. With the
aid of a computer, Helms discerns who are the next likeliest tappees, and when Howard
Hunt and Company move in on a famous columnist, they are silently photographed in
the act by the CIA's hidden cameras. With the evidence, Helms goes to Camp David
to face down the megalomaniac despot--and makes a deal. It includes, for himself--
an ambassadorship! No, not to Iran--the author is a novelist. He is writing fiction.
I shall not reveal, lest I give away the plot, the country to which Helms is sent as
ambassador.

3

First a minor, then a major observation. The author's intention is to portray Nixon as the ugliest man since Caligula. I do not know whether that is because the author feels this way about a man he once served so lovingly, or because he feels that the Watergate fever is such that if you are writing a book for the purpose of commercial success, you may as well play the odds and indeed raise them. Anyway, alongside Ehrlichman's Nixon, Woodward and Bernstein's is George Romney.

But here the author greatly confuses the student of his passion play. Helms fears the release of the report on the Bay of Pigs because the disclosed assassination "would be used to destroy the memory of a great, dead President." But the same author leaves no doubt that the late great President ordered Helms to effect the priest's assassination--Nixon, even in this book, orders nobody to assassinate anybody. And as for destroying the presidency and the integrity of the FBI and the CIBA, by the author's own accounting, the full resources of these agencies were routinely used by LBJ and routinely by Hoover for illegal, indeed for indefensible purposes. LBJ, telling Helms what fresh illegal act he must commit, says, "If you think this is politics, just wait until that son of a bitch [Nixon] gets in here. You'll be eating his political shit for breakfast, lunch, and dinner." That has the advantage of sounding like LBJ, but is highly distracting to the ethical crochet. A moment's thought on this aspect of the novel, which is all it is worth, requires the conclusion that the author simply never bothered to sort out the moral confusions and contradictions. Perhaps they bored him. With good reason.

And neither he nor, so far as one can tell, the critical community, has given much thought to the popular new mode for saying anything slanderous one desires to say about anybody at all. Not quite new--there were recognizable characters in great works of art, from Aristophanes to Bosch to Pope. But one supposes that these were committed in ages where countervailing sanctions that are now either outlawed or etiolated. Exile, imprisonment, the duel, criminal libel, anathema. Truman Capote is lavishing his powers these days saying anything he wishes to say about anybody he wishes to write about. I took the liberty of asking the distinguished Time magazine the other day whether his journal could survive a week's competition with Newsweek if it were to permit the word *dastardly* to be used to describe what Capote is doing. Perhaps for the same reason you cannot use that word these days (it hurts the user, not the tortfeasor), the offense against which it is appropriately used is all the graver. What defense would Mrs. Woodward have had--assuming she had not committed suicide--against Capote? What defense have the dozen who have not yet committed suicide, against his leering malevolence? To suggest suing is to demonstrate ignorance of the revolution in the libel law, and of the psychological axiom that a victim will often prefer silence, over against prosecution for rape.

interference in the privacy of other people. Here is a novel that accuses Kennedy of effecting anassasination (clearly, an invasion of privacy); LBJ of the usual and not a few unusual ofenses; Henry Kissinger of striking acts of moral weakness not to say depravity; and Richard Nixonof a mind and character grotesque beyond recognition. My argument isn't, at this point, that Nixon is provavly someone other than the character in this book. It is that everyone--critic or admirer of Nixon, Hoover, Helms, LBJ, Kennedy--has an interesting in resisting such coprohilia as Capote and Ehrlichman are given to. Last weekthe court upheld a five-year ((check)) sentence against Ehrlichman for authorizing the burglary of the files of Daniel Ellsberg's sychiatrist. It is a matter of formal concern whether the sentence is exaggerated under the circumstances. It is a matter of passiote concern that there is no punishment, social let alone legal, as far asone can tell, for such a malevolent, piratical, cynical invasion against historical integrity as Ehrlichman has achieved in this book all by himself. Well,not quite. He had the help of a team grown recently rich by deploring, in another mode, the causes that led to Nixon's Final Days, the story of how Nixon was rightly led to the slaughterhouse for trying to find out the real dirt about his political opponents; when all he had to do was invent it.

Sunday, May 30, 1976

Dear Mr. Buckley:

It is rumored that Kissinger is a double agent - that he was a communist in Germany before coming to the United States - could this be true!!! Also it is said that the communists are the tools of the freemasons - is this true in the Catholic Church today and also in the United States Government!!!! - the object being One World Government and One World Religion!!!!

An Anonymous Catholic

ON, THEK RIGHT -- Wm. F. Buckley Jr.

THE CONTINUING PRESENCE OF ALEKSANDR SOLZHENITSYN

Concerning the talk about Solzhenitsyn -- the Republicans included in their platform a specific tribute to him; the Democrats surreptitiously contrived to lose a proposal that they do the same thing -- a few points ought to be made.

1. Henry Kissinger, when he was first invited by President-elect Richard Nixon to become his national security adviser, gave Mr. Nixon to read Robert Conquest's book, *THE GREAT TERROR*, It is an account of the carnage which Stalin found necessary to the establishment of proletarian rule in Russia, which carnage had at least the advantage of delighting him. My information does not extend to whether Mr. Nixon read this book, although if he did, he cannot have assimilated its meaning, to judge from the eulogy he paid to Mao Tse-tung on his belated departure from this vale of tears, which reached high tide in China under his rule. As well pay tribute to Josef Stalin. The two gentlemen were killers on approximately the same scale, though perhaps the edge goes to Mao who, after all, had a larger pool of bodies to kill from than Stalin had.

Henry Kissinger, shortly after Gerald Ford became President, sat down to read a chapter or two from GULAG ARCHIPELAGO, having up until then read only Solzhenitsyn's CANCER WARD. He found the book so engrossing, he ended by reading it all. He then read through IVAN DENISOVICH, and FIRST CIRCLE. He then took GULAG to President Ford with the recommendation that he read it. One does not know whether Mr. Ford did so. If Richard Reeves is correct in saying that Mr. Ford has not read a book in ten years, the odds are against it. Still, the impulse of Mr. Kissinger is what we are focusing on.

Henry Kissinger, after experiencing Solzhenitsyn, made known to a relevant figure

2)--BUCKLEY

the concern of the United States government for the physical safety of Solzhenitsyn, who at that period was still in Moscow. It is not inconceivable that the decision of the Kremlin to exile Solzhenitsyn, rather than send him back for a refresher course on Gulag, or on one of those terminal visits to the Lublanka prison, was the result of Kissinger's incremental intervention. Not inconceivable, in other words, that Kissinger saved the life of Solzhenitsyn.

2. When the question arose whether Solzhenitsyn should be invited to the White House, the advice that he should not be came from Kissinger, who now says that his judgment was defective, though in fact it wasn't (it is the policy of detente which is defective). It should be stressed that a Secretary of State primarily concerned to achieve a certain relationship with a foreign power quite naturally shrinks from certain kinds of provocations. When Khrushchev came here for the first time and spoke at the National Press Club, somebody during the question period asked about the use of Soviet tanks to run over Hungarian students. Khrushchev with one emphatic display of choler made it clear that he had not come to America to answer question of that kind: and never again, on that trip, did an American newspaperman dare return to the subject. You cannot treat Khrushchev the way you treat President Nixon. You cannot fete the most eloquent critic of the Soviet Union while carrying on detente with the Soviet Union. It is, simply, a matter of incompatible policies. Who says A, to quote the cliché, must say B.

In other words, one cannot deduce from Mr. Kissinger's rebuff to Solzhenitsyn, any lack of reverence for Solzhenitsyn.

3. What is dismaying is the culture impregnated by that act of Mr. Kissinger. Now Winston Lord, the young and gifted assistant to Mr. Kissinger, is detected, at a seminar for State Department interns, using the word "fascist" loosely at the expense of Solzhenitsyn. What Mr. Lord said cannot be put more precisely than this -- because

3) --BUCKLEY

he says he did *not* call Solzhenitsyn a fascist, and as a longtime friend of Mr. Lord, I am prepared to accept his word any time. But he did not deny using the word. And this brings us to a final point that ought to be made here. The bureaucratic reflex of Winston Lord at so young an age is the result of a disease at least as contagious as, say, the swine flu, and extremely dangerous, breeding at its most virulent manifestation, the kind of people we finally had to dispatch at Nuremberg for hyper-fidelity to the regnant ideology. And, alas, no anti-toxin is in sight. One can only appeal from Winston drunk to Winston sober -- by telling him, gently, that though foreign policy is to a substantial extent a value-free science, it ought not to crowd out moral reality. To link Solzhenitsyn to a modern political movement-philosophy that glorifies violence and the subordination of the individual to the state is intellectually wrong-headed. And to say such a thing about the noblest man alive is Philistine.

ON THE RIGHT -- Wm. F. Buckley Jr.

MR. FORD'S POLISH JOKE

You can hardly blame Carter for opportunizing on President Ford's startling liberation of Poland during their debate on foreign policy but the roles of the Democratic and Republican candidates have become almost impossibly confused by the gaffe. After all, it is the Republicans who have traditionally done the most (however insufficient) to keep alive the hope of the liberation of Eastern Europe. The Democrats tend to be associated with a foreign policy of permanent acquiescence in the colonization by the Communists of any part of the world with the single exception of Israel. A political party that, through Senator Frank Church and his Committee, threatened Congressional mutiny when the Executive tried to help Portugal and Italy stave off the Communists is not going to lie down for anything in Eastern Europe that tends to threaten their policy of appeasement at any cost. But as a purely political matter, Ford is now on the defensive.

What Mr. Ford said is, frankly, inexplicable -- notwithstanding the explanations he and his aides have attempted. It is as if Ford had said, during a general discussion of the great rivers of the world and the problems of flood control: "Fortunately, the Mississippi River doesn't flow through the United States." Everybody looks up and someone finally says -- "You do mean the *Amazon* doesn't flow through the United States, don't you Mr. President?"

And he says, "No, I mean the *Mississippi*."

There is simply no accounting for this. The notion that what Mr. Ford intended to say was not that Poland was autonomous and independent but that the United States does not recognize the satellization of Poland by the Soviet Union as a permanent arrangement, is simply not validated by what Mr. Ford in fact said in answer to Mr. Frankel's chivalrous question designed to straighten Mr. Ford out. President Ford said, "Each of those countries [Yugoslavia, Rumania, Poland] is independent, autonomous; it has its

2)-BUCKLEY

own territorial integrity, and the United States does not concede that those countries
*are* under the domination of the Soviet Union."

Now an explanation for this statement (the last contender for the Presidency to
make such a statement about Eastern Europe was Henry Wallace, some of whose speeches
were written for him by Communist agents, the others being incoherent) is beyond the
grasp of normal men of tidy deductive habits. The pernicious aspect of the slip is
the damage it did to the whole post-Kansas City image of Ford as an impressively competent
Chief Executive. There is a television series running that features someone called the
Bionic Man. He is reconstructed from an airplane wreck, or something of the sort, and
after umpteen operations by ambitious doctors, runs now faster than a gazelle, lifts
weights heavier than a crane could lift, sees further than a telescope -- a miracle of
scientific reconstruction. It is as if, somewhere along the way, the Bionic Man, sitting
by the fireside, discussing poetry with his staff, suddenly reached down, picked up the
cocker spaniel, and ate it. Curses! the scientists say. We forgot to program him not to
eat dogs!

Mr. Carter is trying to give out the notion that the White House staff that has
so successfully programmed President Ford forgot to tell him that, in 1945, we lost
Poland. Unhappily, Mr. Ford made it easy for them. Those who desire the truth must
settle for a kind of trans-literal confidence. Mr. Ford is not a specialist in verbal
precision or rhetorical inflection, and is certainly not at home with the subjunctive mood.
One is required to conclude that he meant to convey something else -- he is, after all,
a bright man. But he faces difficulties now, yet again, of a very broad character which
afflictions he was successfully pulling away from before he committed the ultimate
Polish joke.

October 27, 1976

Dear Winston:

It has been several weeks since Mr. Reginald Mayhew (?) called me rather
breathlessly to report your displeasure ("shoddy journalism, shoddy friendship"),
registered all the way from Pretoria, over my column on Solzhenitsyn. He told me
you would be writing me as soon as you returned, but I have not yet received any
letter from you. I assume that you correctly deduced my source as Evans & Novak,
the operative phrase in whose column being, "Lord says he did not call the writer
a Fascist but does not deny using the word." I wrote my column several weeks later,
and no correction had at that point been entered, so that I went with it as it was.
Your expression of disappointment in *me* reminds me of the FBI agent who called Bill
Rusher when I was nominated as a delegate to the U.N. in 1973. Bill groaned at
having to go through it all yet again, complaining that I had been extensively
checked out in 1969. The agent said, "I know, I know. But we are required to ask
whether Mr. Buckley might have done anything since 1969 that might embarrass the
Nixon Administration." Rusher's answer was the obvious one. "No, but the Nixon
Administration has done a great deal since 1969 to embarrass Mr. Buckley." Do
please tell me if E & N were wrong, and therefore I also, and I shall enter a
full correction. I would be glad to do this not only because of my admiration for

["October 22, 1936", "Dear Winston:", "It has been several weeks since Mr. Reginald Mayhew (!) called me rather\nproudly to report your transgression (\"shameful journalist, shameful friend of\nthe day\"). He told me\nthat I had not yet received any\nregistration of my column on the subject.\nI assume that you correctly deduced my source as Evans & NEWS.\nI would be writing me as soon as you returned, but I have not yet received any\nletter from you. I did not call the writer\nthe objective phrase in whose column he says he did not call the writer\nthat I had been entered, so that I want with it as it was.\nI wrote my column several weeks later,\nand no correction had at that point been entered, so that I went with it as it was.\nI did not deny using the word.\" I wrote my column several weeks later,\nand no correction had at

Solzhenitsyn, but because of my fondness for you. And by the way, if Mr. Mayhew
was correct in suggesting that you were offended by the phrase of mine attributing
your reaction to "bureaucratic reflex," you should not feel lonely, nor uniquely
victimized. It was a "bureaucratic reflex" that caused Henry to recommend
against Ford's seeing Solzhenitsyn. How do I know? Because he told me so. Those
words exactly.

With cordial regards to you both,

As ever,

Wm. F. Buckley Jr.

Mr. Winston Lord
Director of Policy & Planning
The State Department
Washington, D.C.

bc: The Honorable Henry Kissinger

pc: The Honorable Henry Klaasager

Washington, D.C.
The State Department
Director of Policy & Planning
Mr. Winston Lord

Wm. F. Buckley Jr.

As ever,

words exactly.

against Ford's seeing Soloshenitsyn. How do I know? Because he told me so. Those victimized. It was a "pureocratic reflex" that caused Henry to recommend your reaction to "pureocratic reflex," you should not feel lonely, nor uniquely was correct in suggesting that you were offended by the phrase of mine attributing Soloshenitsyn, but because of my fondness for you. And by the way, it Mr. Mayhew

-3-

H. KISSINGER, GOING OUT

"In Panama, the American colony feels totally deserted. It's the single greatest source of dissatisfaction, and the most easily cured."

That problem, the Secretary of State comments, will have to be explored by the next Administration. One feels a lesion of tension in the State Department. It is, to be sure, experienced everywhere in government. But most acutely here. The Justice Department has power of life and death right up to the end. HEW, which is mostly a spending agency, can spend money right up until the lights go out at the inaugural balls. In the State Department, policy is almost necessarily directed for strategic effect, and there is very little strategy that can be conceived and executed in time to bear fruit in the next six weeks.

Henry Kissinger isn't any the less interested in what is going on, and his anxiety shows as he weighs the work undone. In the Mideast, the voices of the raucous are stilled, but tomorrow they could begin to shout again, and this time Israel's rebuttal might be delivered in atom bombs. Lebanon is quiet, but the Syrians are in charge, and if suddenly they should behave maturely, that would be a pleasant surprise, surprise being the operative word. In Africa, suddenly there was demarche on the Rhodesian question, but everyone more or less knows that the Rhodesians are braiding their own noose, and that of course is why Great Britain is not anxious to play a conspicuous role in the ritual leading to their auto da fe: none of the prosecutors at Athens was so uncouth as to attend Socrates when he took the hemlock. In China, they are for the first time in ten years sending troops to quiet mysterious disturbances, and it is not impossible that the old centrifugalization will resume, complete with separatist warlords. (Happy day!)

[LC]

2)--BUCKLEY

Increasingly we all know that in Europe the independence of the western nations
is owing less to western resolution than to Russian prudence. Meanwhile, the
armories of the Soviet empire groan with the hard stuff, and the factories work
day and night to produce new missiles, new and better submarines, refined MRV-ing
systems. Was that a Russian laser beam that destroyed one of our satellites? Just
practising.

But Henry Kissinger's preoccupation isn't with the Communist powers, but with
his own country. The United States could last one thousand years if the American
people willed it, and ordered their lives to the continuing necessity to maintain
themselves strong, and intelligent. We are like the strapping 20-year-old youth,
told by the doctor he must never take in more than 2,500 calories per day, for the
rest of his life, and must exercise vigorously every day. It is just too much for
someone in command of his own movements. If you live under the autocrat, who wakes
you in the morning, leads you to the gymnasium, then to the refectory, to eat the
balanced meal -- then you can go on and on. But ours is a free society, and
politicians are specialists in justifying self-indulgence -- never mind your diet
today; and go ahead and take off a season or two from exercising -- rest up your
muscles.

Henry Kissinger, reviled by much of the right, distrusted by must of the left,
is too intelligent even to hesitate to acknowledge that, under his influence, the
American people have relaxed on the whole subject of Communism. To be sure, they
had been yearning to do so-- America was not created to wage the Hundred Years War.
The intellectuals had been hammering away on the theme of America's exaggerated fear
of Communism, with the corollary: America's exaggerated pride in itself. So when
the Vietnam fiasco came, undermining our confidence in ourselves; and when Kissinger
and Nixon went to China, and toasted there to the health of leaders whose every day
on earth meant additional suppression, torture, and annihilation; and then to

3) --BUCKLEY

Moscow, to do the same thing, and to rely, in disarmament talks, in a measure
on Soviet good faith -- in droves, Americans stashed away their firearms, left
their doors unlocked at night, and let the dust accumulate on the old articles
of faith. Kissinger knows all this, but his response is not easy to handle. "Where
was the American establishment when needed?" When needed to support the ABM?
To conclude the Vietnam war decisively? To legitimize the use of grain embargoes
to the disadvantage of the Russians? To abort the Cuban venture in Africa?

Henry Kissinger was never a public leader. He is the supreme technician.
Those who suspect that he is less than personally committed to the welfare of the
United States are quite simply wrong. He loves this country and its institutions.
This is the land of the free, but not demonstrably the home of the brave; and the
historical challenge is to know whether we can be free if we are less than brave.