Part: 1234         Session: 12345         Page 385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421 of 512

August 24th, 1966. And, of course, I don't know who wrote that, but it struck me as quite, you know, critical of Rusk, and I'm wondering what kind of reaction you got from Rusk about that and if it generated any discussion.

That editorial did bring quite a reaction from Dean Rusk, who wrote a letter, as I recall it, to Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the retired publisher, but who was still very much alive and very much a presence at the Times. Rusk wrote, right after that editorial appeared, a letter of protest to Arthur Hays Sulzberger. They were apparently quite good friends, or certainly on a very friendly basis. Arthur Hays -- this doesn't have anything to do with Punch -- asked me to do a memo to at least give him some kind of response to Rusk's rather impassioned protest against this. A very full memo was prepared, that I -- if I didn't write it all -- I would have probably been up in the country at that time -- this was August -- so the basic memo was probably prepared by someone else in the editorial office, but it was sent up to me for approval and emendation and corrections. In any case, it went back to Arthur, a very full statement over my initials, to explain our position: why we felt that Rusk's complaints to Arthur were not at all justified. And Arthur Hays Sulzberger sent that memo on to Rusk, saying that he agreed with the points in the memo, although he was very respectful of Rusk's view. Very friendly exchange of letters. But Arthur Hays Sulzberger sent Rusk back the memo, long memo, outlining our position on Vietnam and why we felt that Rusk's complaint was quite unjustified, that we, without going into all the details -- and that ended the controversy. But it was interesting that Rusk on the very day after that editorial appeared, felt it desirable to write A.H.S. [Arthur Hays Sulzberger], and it sort of indicates the degree of influence of the editorial department at that time -- this was in 1964 -- had. It really irked Rusk, and he wrote this letter.