Part: 1234         Session: 1234         Page 152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187 of 512

Anyway, we didn't drop it, and as the editorial appeared in the later editions, I was perfectly satisfied with it, although this had represented a rather unusual interference on the part of the publisher.

But on the Vietnam position generally, the position was pushed very strongly by myself, together with, I'd say, two or three members of the editorial board, and it's just interesting, maybe as a sidelight, that the entire executive body of the New York Times - meaning the heads of the news departments and the people who were generally in charge of the paper, except for the editorial part - were quite outraged by the position that we were taking editorially. They were, I would say, almost unanimous, at least the ones that made their views known, as far as I could see, were almost unanimously opposed to our position of increasing opposition to the war.

There were certainly people like David Halberstam on the news side who were sympathetic.

Oh, that's absolutely true. That's absolutely right. But, for instance -

You're talking about the executives.

Yes. I recall that one of the principal executives made a trip out there and wrote a letter to the publishers, raising extremely strongly the question whether or not our position was -