Images (76)
Showing first 60 of 76 pages.
Document
| id |
id
498693758
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 76TELCON
Rogers/Kissinger
2:55 pm
2/4/70
R: I want to talk to you about what we say to the press about the letter.
K: He doesn't want to say anything.
R: I have doubts about that. The thrust will leak out and it could leak out
in a harmful way. I don't think it matters when we say it but I think we
should say it.
K: He wants to low-key it.
R: We have the better arguement. There are three points involved.
One, the Russians think we should stop sending arms to Israel and we
said we should stop sending arms on both sides -- the U.S., Israel,
The Soviet Union, and the Arabs.
they actually
K: I don't think/ said anything about sending arms.
R: The implication is that we are sending the Israelis arms and if we don't
stop they will have to send arms to the Arabs. Third, (the notetaker didn't
distinguish the second point from the first), why don't we have
withdrawn? We say we have taken positive steps. Why don't the Russians
get the Arabs? I think we should say we responded, don't you.
K: Certainly. I will raise it with the Prsident again. How would you
raise it?
McCloskey
R:
Have
XXXXXXXXXsay that this is the response, indicating the tone.
The whole tone of the Kosygin letter is out.
K: From where do you think?
R: London and Paris.
K: The President was very firm this afternoon. I think what you said makes
sense. The Second and Third points are relevant. The first point bothers me
I think we should only say what we said.
R: It's a question of arms, we should say arms limitations talks. Re
supplying to the Israwlis, we should say that we proposed that both sides
stop contributing.
K: Let me check and I will get back to you this afternoon.