Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "498693808",
    "label": "November 10-16, 1970",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/498693808"
}

{
    "id": "498693808",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/498693808",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "November 10-16, 1970",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/498693808",
    "collections": [
        "National Security Files (Nixon Administration)",
        "Henry A. Kissinger Telephone Conversation Transcripts (Telcons)"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-nsf/579113/Batch0002/37-natsec-kissinger_telcons-579113-07-10/37-natsec-kissinger_telcons-579113-07-10-001.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-nsf/579113/Batch0002/37-natsec-kissinger_telcons-579113-07-10/37-natsec-kissinger_telcons-579113-07-10-001.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-nsf/579113/Batch0002/37-natsec-kissinger_telcons-579113-07-10/37-natsec-kissinger_telcons-579113-07-10-001.jpg",
    "imageCount": 78,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/498693808",
    "naId": 498693808,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 29,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-nsf/579113/Batch0002/37-natsec-kissinger_telcons-579113-07-10/37-natsec-kissinger_telcons-579113-07-10-029.jpg",
    "mediaId": "7fac3cbc8ab6d90f",
    "ocrText": "Telecon\nSecretary Laird\n11/13/70 ca. 6:00 p.m.\nL: Tell me something\nStennis wants\nI've got a letter\nhere\nbeen having a problem on it. In the appropriations act that\npassed last year there was language that we cannot useground\ntroops in Laos, in Thailand. When he puts the bill out, he feels it will\nsave him considerable difficulties and he feels he has it from the Pres-\nident and does not feel it will cause any problems if he adds\nthe one word \"Cambodia. 11 This causes no problem except\nK: How about various operations like Storm House?\nL: Storm House and Prairie Fire\nwe interpret that as not\napplying. I have testified that it is not a use of ground troops. They\nThe amendment only applied to massive movements of ground forces.\nWe've gone right ahead as far as Laos is concerned.\nK: The President never committed himself to not going back in. He\ndoesn't intend to, but he doesn't want the other side to think we won't.\nL: I would like not to take a position on this, but if Stennis has to,\nlet him do it on his own.\nK: I hate to kix give them that much assurance always.\nL: My problem is Stennis feels he can't win on that thing in the\nSenate and it may come out applying to other operations. I don't want to\nbroaden it. The language would be exactly as it is: Laos and Thailand\nbut it adds Cambodia.\nK: And it prohibits us on\nL: \"Combat ground troops. 11 Because of the word \"combat\" we\ninterpret it not to apply to intelligence personnel\nK: Let me check it wit the President. I have a call in to him now.\nL: I don't want to say yes or no to Stennis. He feels we will get more\nrestrictive language though if we don't let him handle it.\nK: Let me check with the President.\nL: We went ahead with a fairly strong statement.\nK: Good. Has it been picked up?"
}