Part: 1234         Session: 12345         Page 385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421 of 512

What was Rusk's main complaint about the editorial? Do you recall? I know in the editorial, itself, it's obvious what some of his complaints would be. He was described as being quite rigid and misconceiving the nature of the conflict in South Vietnam.

I can't recall. And I don't have -- in my own personal files -- as far as I know, I don't have that letter from Rusk, which was sent personally to the former publisher. I'm not sure that Arthur Sulzberger, Arthur Hays, didn't still have the title. I'm not sure. The chairman of the board was his title --

Yes.

-- at the Times, and Punch, of course, was the publisher. It was basically that we were critical of the administration for not sufficiently or in a timely way or adequately pursuing the possibilities of making a peace arrangement, negotiation with Vietnam. That was essentially Rusk's complaint, that we were unfair and incorrect in alleging and stating very explicitly that Rusk was not strongly enough supporting, and with enough imagination, pursuing the peace path, negotiation path. Our complaint is all in that editorial, which, of course, is a matter of record. But anyway, this was Rusk's basic point. And then our memo -- which I certainly take the responsibility for because although I certainly didn't write the basic memo, I went over it extremely carefully and made various changes and corrections and sent it to Arthur Sulzberger with my initials -- of course, I think very adequately answered Rusk. And Arthur Sulzberger sent that on to Rusk, saying [laughs], as I recall it, that he agreed -- he thought there was much merit in both sides but