Part: 1234         Session: 1234         Page 152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187 of 512

No, I wouldn't say more than the page was. Than the editorial page? No. The editorial page accurately reflected my own view on it. And let me say right here that I was always aware that I could not have gone as far as we did, in our criticism of American involvement in Vietnam, which began, by the way, really quite early - it actually began as early, I believe, as 1964 -

Right. That was reflected in your preceding chapter.

Yes, there was a reference to it. That's right. Well, it began that early. I was always aware of the fact that I couldn't have done that, and followed through in '65, and it got more and more intense as time went on, without at least the acquiescent approval of the publisher. Now, it's certainly true that the publisher did not initiate this policy. And I suspect that he would have been quite content if we hadn't pushed as hard (by we, I'm speaking of the editorial page) as we did, and increasingly so. But I have to say in all fairness that if he had really opposed this policy or had been worked up about it, then I would have had a very great deal of difficulty, on the basis of exactly the problem that I'm trying to illustrate: the relationship between publisher and editor.

This is the kind of issue on which, if he had really objected, I would have had to recognize that he had the control, and I would have certainly resigned or something like that. But this issue didn't arise on Vietnam - except, excuse me, I just want to say on at least one occasion, I recall, we had an editorial that dealt, I believe, with a Christmas bombing, one