Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page
doc
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory. For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.

Scholar Source Context

Document identity
localId
1553342
label
January 22, 1976 - Ford, House International Relations Committee
core
doc
dtoType
document
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1553342
contentType
document
title
January 22, 1976 - Ford, House International Relations Committee
collections
Memoranda of Conversations (Nixon and Ford Administrations)
Ford Administration Memoranda of Conversations
subjects
Greece
Yugoslavia
Cyprus
Israel
Syria
Turkey
Iran
Egypt
Soviet Union
Munazzamat al-Tahrir al-Filastiniyah.
Arms control
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1553342
coverageEndDate
day
22
logicalDate
1976-01-22
month
1
year
1976
coverageStartDate
day
22
logicalDate
1976-01-22
month
1
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
8f2b57c3938fe133
ocrText
File scanned from the National Security Adviser's Memoranda of Conversation Collection at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library 1a MEMORANDUM THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON SEGRET/NODIS/XGDS MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION PARTICIPANTS: President Ford House International Relations Committee: Representative Thomas "Doc" Morgan Representative Bill Broomfield Representative Charlie Wilson (Texas) Representative Paul Findley Representative Bob Lagomarsino Representative Larry Winn Representative L. H. Fountain Lewis Gulick (Committee Staff) Steve Ward (Committee Staff) Lt. General Brent Scowcroft, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Mr. Eugene Krizek (State Department) Mr. Max Friedersdorf, Assistant to the President DATE AND TIME: Thursday, January 22, 1976 12:00 - 12:30 p.m. PLACE: Cabinet Room President: It is very nice to see you and get a report on your trip to a very vital area. Doc -- Morgan: Thank you, Mr. President. I will have Fountain brief you on the part of the trip that I missed. We were met by the heads of state from every country except NSC MEMO, GUIDELINES NARA, DATE 6/7/04 Yugoslavia, and Tito was sick. We tried to portray our visit as a E.O. 12958, SEC. 3.5 friendly one; it was not for arm twisting. We pointed out the problems DECLASSIFIED 11/24/98, STATE DEPT. and how we thought they could help. GERADO CLASSIFIED BY BRENT SCOWCROFT EXEMPT FROM GENERAL DECLASSIFICATION SEGRET/NODIS/XGDS SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11652 BY EXEMPTION CATEGORY 5 (b) (1,3) AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED ON Imp. to det. SECRET/NODIS/XGDS 2. Broomfield: Sadat seemed pleased with the state of progress in the Middle East. The most interesting thing was he reported to us that he needed defensive weapons. He is out in the cold with the Soviet Union. He wants to concentrate on economic development, but he does need some weapons. Fountain: Sadat clearly wants to focus on economic development. I even detected a changed attitude toward Rabin. I saw it on Rabin's part also. The chief problem seems to be Syria. We told him there was not much chance now to get weapons. He said he understood that 1976 was an election year and he didn't expect much from us. He was concerned about the PLO. He said Arafat was the most moderate of them and if there was no movement, the radicals would take over. President: Sadat has usually been very impressive. He gave us much help at the OAU Conference on Angola. Findley: The major impression I had from everywhere was a yearning to see American leadership. And if we didn't provide it, there would be none. All of them but Rabin thought we had to start a dialogue with the PLO. I feel more strongly now that we must move for a comprehensive settlement and we must deal the PLO. President: The situation in Lebanon is very serious. They have had 23 cease-fires and are working on another. Findley: I think that adds urgency to the move for a comprehensive and broad settlement. Despite what other members of the Committee may say, I hope you will consider seriously the sale of defensive arms to Egypt. Everyone else is getting them and Egypt is being left out. President: Is there unanimity about opening an unofficial dialogue with the PLO? Morgan: No, there is not. Some of us feel that with the PLO activity in Lebanon, now is not the time. Wilson: I'm in favor of it. SECRET/NODIS/XGDS GERALD SECRET/NODIS/XGDS 3. Lagomarsino: I do not. Winn: I do. Findley: I do. Winn: Sadat said Syria is auctioneering. He is concerned about Syria, but he wants us to keep working with them. President: We do have the Syrians in the assistance package both for '76 and '77. Winn: Sadat was very complimentary to the United States. President: He is a very courageous man. Findley: All the heads of government of the countries we visited urged us to help him all we can. Fountain: Rabin indicated they were willing to give up territory under appropriate circumstances. He thought he could work with Hussein if Syria didn't push him to the wall. I got the feeling that Hussein had his feelings hurt at the early stages, that he had not been called in to help. Findley: Rabin places far too much hope on being able to work with Hussein to settle the West Bank. The Shah, though, thinks that if Hussein tried he would be overthrown. Winn: I don't think Rabin changed his tune, really. But Peres is now leading Rabin in the polls by about 8%. Morgan: Israel wants to negotiate the West Bank with Jordan, not the PLO. They feel that an independent Palestinian state would be a Marxist sword pointed at them, and they are prepared to give Syria some ground in a settlement. Winn: General Gur said they are willing to give ground in the Golan, but he is talking in terms of feet and yards. Morgan: The Shah said he needs arms and if he can't get them from us he'll get them elsewhere. We should keep friendship with both Greece and Turkey. SECRET/NODIS/XGDS DE SECRET/NODIS/XGDS 4. Findley: He expressed concern that we might be becoming isolationists. He said we are the leaders. If we didn't exercise leadership, the Soviets will. Winn: On the nuclear issue, he mentioned India's increasing lean towards the Soviet Union. Morgan: I rejoined the group in Turkey. We visited with all sides. We tried to impress on them the need for movement on Cyprus in view of the bills pending in the Congress. I was surprised by their indications of sincerity about the Cyprus negotiations. I was concerned about Makarios playing the spoiler role. They said they were non-expansionists and they wanted to negotiate with Greece. There is an age-old animosity, but I think they will make steps if they can sit down and discuss the issues. We are in a time bind. We are trying to work out some compromise language because we are in mark-up now. In Greece, I was impressed with the Prime Minister. He is a tough customer and I didn't see much give. I thought the Turks really wanted to settle. President: How about Ecevit? Is he cooperative? Morgan: He says he is, but he is ready to play it politically. Lagomarsino: He can have it either way. He is not making an issue now, but if they move and the coalition collapses, Ecevit will take over. Wilson: I stayed in Turkey after the group. I told them we had an irre- sponsible Congress and if they could play ball with us and be patient, we would be more responsive after November. The intellectuals seemed to buy it. President: Clerides withdrew his resignation, but Makarios is the potential spoiler. I am glad you laid it on the line. I know what you face when the bill comes up. We got to have some indication of progress. Findley: That is the line we tried to stress. We tried to be diplomats but we said we needed their help to get the necessary votes. You have to make another report on February 5. SEGREF/NODIS/XGDS SECRET/NODIS/XGDS 5. Morgan: We pointed out to the Turks there was no way we could make a long term agreement on the bases. I think they got the message it would have to be on an annual basis. Lagomarsino: For some reason they didn't want to talk about the troop withdrawals from Cyprus, but there have been some. Findley: The differences between Greece and Turkey on Cyprus are fairly narrow. The problem is the difficulty of either one appearing to give in. I think the United States needs to be the catalyst. I think if we used someone like Lemnitzer to propose a settlement which they both could buy Wilson: Demirel said they would invade Greece if the embargo was re- imposed and if they perceived the military balance shifting. Broomfield: We perceived that Yugoslav-American relations were good. There were no problems. We asked why they voted the way they did on the Zionism resolution and they said it was a bad vote by them. Winn: They would like the trade spread out. They do three times the trade with the Soviet Union as with us and they want to balance it. Findley: All the capitals we visited expressed uneasiness about detente and SALT and I urge you to put it off until 1977. President: We are negotiating now. I am concerned that if there is no agreement, we will have to start some new programs and that will cost money. No one will be able to sit in this chair without an agreement and not ask for more money for defense. What concerns me is what the Congress will do. If Congress turns me down, will we be in a better position to negotiate in 1977? Findley: I am worried about Backfire and the cruise missiles. In fact, the cruise missiles are a greater problem to us than the Soviet Union and Backfire is an aircraft of tremendous range. President: It is very complicated. I would reiterate that we are not necessarily better off in 1977. [Congressman Findley handed the President a report of his views, which is attached.] SECRET/NODIS/XGDS Findly 1b I returned from my trip to Europe and the Middle East with a number of impressions regarding past policy failures and possible policy initiatives. U.S. Leadership Required - At every stop the same urgent theme emerged: There is a strong need for continued leadership by the United States to affect the shape and nature of international security system. There is continued trust in our capacity for leadership and a growing fear of the consequences of a failure to exercise such leadership. There is only one other power center capable of influencing events, the Soviet Union. Uneasiness Over the Intentions and Power of the Soviet Union - Linked to the desire for U.S. leadership was, we found, a concomitant sense of concern over the continued and substantial growth of the Soviet Union's capacity to project military power and its willingness to do so. The Soviets have learned incompletely--to the extent they have learned at all - - the rule of behavior a state must follow under any reasonable policy of detente. GERALD Resolution of Turkish-Cyprus Problem - Our policy failures in the southern flank of NATO only increase the possibilities for irresponsible Soviet behavior. The smoldering and still tormented situation on Cyprus affects adversely the interests of both countries involved, as well as the integrity and resilience of the NATO alliance. The leadership of both Greece and Turkey labors under incredibly tenuous political circumstances. Domestic support can be found only under the umbrella of policies which are extremely intransigent in character. Neither side can afford to be perceived as surrendering to the demands of the other. The irony of the situation is that the substantive differences separating the two sides are really quite small. All of this leads me to suggest a change in our approach to this problem. We should attempt to structure the negotiations so as to permit the Greeks and Turks to make compromises on behalf of European security. I would suggest, therefore, the option of deputizing a former prestigious SACEUR such as General Lyman Lemnitzer to serve as an intermediary in follow-on negotiations on this problem. Need for a Comprehensive Middle East Peace Initiative - We have been successful today in effectively forestalling any new outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East. We have done this, though, at a very high price in terms of the military and economic resources we have provided. My concern is that such aid may provide the opportunity for greater delay, that it may dull the impulse for diplomatic initiative on the part of the state of Israel. This would be very bad for Israel's long-range security. We learned that the track record for Israeli-initiated peace ventures is not very substantial. This suggests that greater pressure will have to be applied. My impressions in this regard were strengthened dramatically in my talks with Prime Minister Rabin. I have suggested previously a comprehensive formula (see attachment) that would end the stalemate in the Middle East and thereby allow Israel to regain some diplomatic advantage. In light of the trend of events in the United Nations and elsewhere, this is a consideration of growing importance. No diplomatic initiative in the Middle East can succeed, however, unless we begin more actively to incorporate responsible Palestinians into the peace-making process. Congressional Record United States of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 94th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 121 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1975 No. 49 HON. PAUL FINDLEY OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONGRESS CAN END MIDEAST LOGJAM American foreign policy has been riv- estinians living on the West Bank of the eted upon the Middle East while the deli- Jordan River, in Gaza, and those wishing cate structure of. world peace has begun to return to these locations, to determine to crack and tumble down. their own future, within the framework It is high time for the of the principle of Israel's sovereignty Congress to lay down some fundamental within defined borders and in accordance principles which should govern any peace with U.N. Resolutions 194 and 242; settlement which might yet be arranged. Fourth. Establishment and control by Congress should put all the parties in the United Nations Security Council of a the Middle East on notice that the Amer- zone of proportionate width on each side dcan people support the peace initiatives of the borders between the State of Israel which this administration has under- and its contiguous neighbors, the secu- taken. Although that expression of sup- rity and inviolability of which to be port may be late in coming, it will none- maintained by United Nations forces theless be important in whatever forum subject only to the authority of the the peace talks are resumed. United Nations Security Council and re- Congress should recognize the funda- movable only by its affirmative vote; said mental importance of sustained progress zone to be free of nationally controlled on the issues which divide the two sides. military forces; For it is progress, more than any other Fifth. Guarantee to all parties of free- factor, which weaves the fabric of peace. dom of navigation through the Suez Congress should now set forth a set of Canal and all international waterways of principles to serve as a guideline for the area; and peace, and thus provide impetus to re- Sixth. Guarantee to persons of all re- newed negotiations and progress toward ligious faiths of equal access to the city of Jerusalem. peace. The seventh principle, and the one The seven principles which I believe which brings credibility to the preceding are fundamental to peace in the Middle six, is that the United States should East are embodied in a resolution I am pledge that it will enter into an arrange- introducing today. Those principles are: ment or agreement with such other First. Withdrawal of Israeli armed powers as wish to join to guarantee a forces from territories occupied in the final settlement based upon the prin- 1967 conflict: ciples just stated. Second. Termination of all claims of This resolution is a careful mix of states of belligerency and respect for and existing policy previously agreed to by acknowledgment of the sovereignty, ter- all parties in the Middle East and some ritorial integrity, and political independ- reasonable advances. ence of every state in the area and their The most important part of my re- right to live in peace within secure and solution is section 2, the glue which binds recognized boundaries free from threats the agreement together. This key sec- of acts of force; tion states that: Third. Recognition of the right of Pal- The United States should pledge that it will enter into an agreement to guarantee been a fundamental part of U.S. policy, the final settlement based on the principles and the Arab States know it. In addition, stated above in concert with such other Secretary Kissinger has recently ex- powers as wish to join. panded the U.S. commitment in the This section states a fundamental Middle East to include the prevention of commitment on the part of the people some undefined "strangulation" of the of the United States. It is qualified. The Western World. commitment will occur only if the set- It would be far wiser for the United tlement contains the principles set forth States to enter into a formal agreement earlier in the resolution. to guarantee a peaceful settlement in That is an important qualification. The the Middle East based on fair and bal- implementation of the commitment is anced principles, rather than the erratic subject, of course, to regular constitu- shifting and unpredictable factors now tional processes. This section would not in prospect. in itself authorize the President to send I put this resolution before the House U.S. military forces to attempt to en- because it is clear that today, more than force a settlement. Such action would re- ever before, the United States must quire the separate specific approval of speak clearly and with one voice on the the Congress. Middle East question. For all practical purposes, a U.S. con- In addition, this is an opportune time gressional commitment to defend the in- for the Congress to recognize its con- tegrity of the State of Israel already stitutional responsibility to participate exists and has been restated and rein- in the formulation of fundamental U.S. forced on many occasions. foreign policy. Unfortunately this commitment is Moreover, it is an opportunity for Con- vague. It is imprecise. It does not state gress to be positive in the formulation of the principles which lead to the com- foreign policy, not always negative as in mitment. Because of its imprecision, it the debate over Cyprus. If we fail to ac- has on occasion placed the United States cept that responsibility. fail to state in an awkward position. clearly our support for a just and reason- Although some Americans might fear able peace in the Middle East, the con- that such an agreement could involve sequences of our inaction could be disas- the United States in a war in the Middle trous. The possibility of renewed war, East, that possibility already exists. In another oil boycott, worldwide inflation fact, I believe the passage of this resolu- and depression, all hinge upon fair res- tion would reduce very substantially the olution of the issues which separate Arabs risk of war. The United States has never and Israelis. been willing to permit Israel's neighbors No single initiative which this Congress to invade and destroy that nation. The might undertake could be more worthy threat of U.S. intervention has always of its immediate attention. No other issue holds SO much promise for the peace and well-being of mankind. H. CON. RES. 192 Whereas peace in the Middle East is essen- tial to world peace and to the peace and well- and in accordance with U.N. Resolutions 194 being of the people of the United States; Now and 242. therefore be it; 4. Establishment and control by the United Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep- Nations Security Council of a zone of propor- resentatives of the United States in Congress tionate width on each side of the borders be- assembled, That it is the sense of the Con- tween the State of Israel and its contiguous gress that the President should seek agree- neighbors, the security and inviolability of ment by all parties to a peace settlement in. which to be maintained by United Nations the Middle East based upon the following forces subject only to the authority of the principles: United Nations Security Council and remov- 1. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from able only by its affirmative vote, said zone territories occupied in the 1967 conflict; forces; to be free of nationally controlled military 2. Termination of all claims of states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledg- 5. Guarantee to all parties of freedom of ment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity navigation through the Suez Canal and all and political independence of every State in international waterways of the area; the area and their right to live in peace 6. Guarantee to persons of all religious within secure and recognized boundaries free faiths of equal access to the city of Jeru- from threats or acts-of force; salem. 3. Recognition of the right of Palestinians SEC. 2. It is the further sense of the Con- living on the West Bank of the Jordan River, gress that the United States should pledge in Gaza, and those wishing to return to these that it will enter into an agreement to guar- locations, to determine their own future, antee the final settlement based on the prin- within the framework of the principle of ciples stated above in concert with such other GERALD Israel's sovereignty within defined borders powers as wish to Join. [rief Points on Salt II Election years are not appropriate times in which to negotiate sensitive and complex limitations on our strategic forces. We should not conclude an agreement withthe Soviet Union on this subject unless we can have a very high degree of confidence in it. This is important both for reasons of international security (the perceptions other countries have of the military balance between the U.S. and S.U.) and domestic support. Recent revelations about Soviet compliance and action under existing agreements argue even more forcefully in favor of greater skepticism and safeguards. Two issues concern me greatly: our position on the Soviet Backfire bomber and proposed restrictions on cruise missiles. My amendment to the House Resolution on the Vladivostok Under- standing called for careful attention to be given to the Backfire problem, verification, and the imbalance in missile throw-weight. I believe the American people are also most concerned about these questions. Backfire - We must not compromise our stance on the Backfire bomber. This is a highly advanced strategic aircraft capable of performing intercontinental missions. Various realistic flight profiles enable it to hit all meaningful targets in the United States. It should be treated as a "heavy" bomber and therefore counted within the 2400 angregate for strategic delivery vehicles. Counting only those hombers which are deployed at Arctic staging bases does not make sense, since bombers can be re-deployed quickly in time of crisis. page 2 (SALT) Cruise Missiles - Restrictions on American cruise missiles would also not promote a high confidence arms control agreement. These are not "ballistic" missiles and should not be included within the comprehensive totals for strategic delivery vehicles. ?ange constraints on the cruise missile simply cannot be meaningfully verified. Range depends upon fuel load, which in turn depends upon the weight of the warhead. The warhead can be easily and quickly altered. We can only know the range within, roughly, an order of magnitude, i.e., perhaps one can fly 700 miles, perhaps 7,000. Aside from this, cruise missiles enable us to redress to some extent the large and growing superiority in throw-weight that has been accorded the Soviet Union. !1i sile size and payload capacity determine the number of re-entry vehicles that can be fitted on an individual missile. The Soviet Union could translate their payload advantage into roughly 10 times the number of warheads possessed by the United States. While this imbalance is some- what technical, it is nonetheless coming to be understood by the American people. page 3 Cruise missiles have other desirable properties as well. They are extremely accurate; this means they are a very cost- effective system. Beyond this, however, it means they can be used against legitimate militery targets without adverse spill-over effects on civilian areas. Finally, placing (unverifiable) constraints on the cruise missile 's range, say by limiting both sides to a range no greater than 600 kilometers, is not to the advantage of the United States. Most lucrative targets in the U.S. are located within coastal areas, which can be reached by Soviet short-rance cruise missiles. Important Soviet targets, on the other hand, can only be hit by missiles of much greater rance. 2 P/HIRC trip Grup. [Sec list in attached i talker] gam? P. Usay rice to m yeh & gut a requir on years this # a very untal and, Dac - In devil have Functurin brief your on The party - trip I mussid we were but by C hinds of Mouth puny write equeept Yungo & tite um sich The use tired to postring am went no a freeilly one, unt for am terristing. use possibil and C peros + her Unl tht they smild help B Salut sunced Minsed w/ C state opang - ME, The most instituting report was his and for after He is and in C cold w/c sci Hermonts to unitude on lon disposit, but he class red there upons- F Scent write a fores on lon al charged attatude travoud Ratin- I form it an Rahins partalso. The this am Illns & be Sycin. WA told brin not much channel ermor to get unfer H understand 76 has an electrin your divent expect in b from us. Hemas and about Pho. He savil surpet was C curst broduate & if thru um we movement C vahicals world tabs our P Sanut has welly him every unpressive He gone has unich helpat OAV conf. on angola Findly The mijor ingrease I had from everyone who a yearsing for US linkishry X ip me chilit provide it, this moral hi now. FORD DECLASSIFIED & E.O. 12958, SEC. 3.5 NSC MEMO, 11/24/98, STATE DEPT. GUIDELINES Stateliview3/11/104 NARA. DATE 6/7/00 GERALD LIBRARY BY. in all nut Rahmi chat the UM had to start those a cholryne w/c PUO. I purlishings error that im rent more for a ensyre n settlement + must his MN w/c PLO, P, The it in belowm is very shines. They have had 23 lFs & an wating on another Ferally I thinks that adds engany to toc more for a engers & hand selternnt Despite what when on c criti very soy, & hope you will consimer swh of drf arms & E. FA Everyone our else is getting chre 6 E hing P Is there inveriments about John W/PLO W Wo three wrt. down ful that w/c PLO activity in whom Lagomdisine upon is write tried ( 3 ilson powered Cheps) chilit, Basing winn Winn Findly did) Salut sand Syria is centriburing He is incurred about Syria but he wonts noth or/ther P we do hme. - Syran sen c assistment Wim package but for 76*77- Suddat was very every humaniting I C 55 P He is every energency Finally GR myrd say to herg him are use can F Rahin underting thing entre withing to give up territory mule apper He the hn cauld work w/ if Syrin divent mah him to C ware. Igrte forting that It essim hur his frieng hurt NT early stryes ant hn and wt him alled in To hry. Friendly Rosm plans for tro much starts hope or thing ask to crnbw/ It missin a sent I w. Bonk. Shuh, the, thinks Winn inn if Honssin tried he smild hr anythming. through & dunt think Barnier Unmyed his brow Grune monthy. But Phis is ream hading Robin inc Polls by about 8 as, In I worts to negot Jadan, wrt Pho. They feel would in a marrist swnd at them, + they & girls Syin sand permal in a settlement harry Gun scrid thing writting X give generation Golone, hurt he talking in they R fast 6 gards. Don't 2n Shah smil he much arms + Sig hn can't get Then ferer us will get them use Tumber. Homel key personsing or/ brith and F He I expressed emelia that be unight by become & We me - bukes. will. If me that exercial it, CSV Wim in Amy on the mores sim, he ununtrined in sucha's mercasiony lian Inworde ser, Imported c group. wes cret w/ all seils. we tirid D unpress on Then cived for encorent an form in - bells Amoring in C Cry, f more impresent by encharts of desidents about happy Experts Wyot Provelence dont Inspanos playing sporter Mr. They FORD LIBRARY & sand thry whe non- exy minimot & writed to myst w/ areas. Time in "ye old anvironts, bort 2 Chick they will mortal stayes if thery a can set charm tchics C esperts us one in a trive have we trying to work ant ford emproved language Canse w in monthly how, In GREE, & w/ C PM. Her a tomyo enstrumer 6 & Shirt 24 much going & tht C Tunch Maky wonted to since. P H mv about E cent. & he In It & & my he i, hat he m if IT they it printing (host) H + can hum NA writer any. He not hisping on rised mmr, and if they hours x J continue enllogers, Eart will Wilson & stayid in Truty often - george. I we had an long & of Thing land play bell w/er & and month he more clop. The intillutions G many it. P Chrish w/ her his resiy, but Unakonin inc prtontial symin. & end you lard NA J hir. & hours what your for l whom wid crimbing. W 1 I 5t to have sand suchent of long, georg F. T hut is C him me trida shey. witning he hut M famil and buckd their help to grt tribury wrts. you have a more another event or F Rch S. m we paint anth C There this has -vry county mn cauld made a buy am ayaltmentors C (10) haves, schik they got - Greazorye it hagomarsine world have to he on and hosis (hept) For some didn't month C they of charal from bypers, but this hmn has Findly The dif but Getton S-ysus are formity missoms. The jerst is S differently firther apprecing to give in. L Usunds to be C entabyst &thind if and not tourness he to propose a without emism which they huy (hong) smil they would invoice Guld if C was example t thingforeshind B C Gril. balance shipty. We pressured us - Yupo solutions whe yerrl - wo proto, And nt 6 had wrte by then Wrasher why inst wrts + thing herey They wind the track Johns ant, Turny do 3x C it trank w/ SU as w/us & thing and to halmon Findly allc inpitals that detents & Salt 4 I mge you your 31 of till 77 P we wight mes, & conchurd that 5f wo agreement and will have to start from + that will have lat morning. We one can set in this chan us/ on a + wrt agk for new What concerns me is whate Cm, mill do. & pong trues use dawn, will me heir a hvttn partn to begot the 17 ? Finally 8 world about Backpire K en. & fer I'M are genting prof & us than I S & Eachfrie is one or It of treasanders large. in St is very ensplurated. sumel / subjects no, that we not botter If 22,