REAGAN AIDES DUCK CHANCE TO TELL TRUTH

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00806R000200980073-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 22, 2010
• Sequence Number: 73
• Publication Date: July 23, 1982
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000200980073-2 STAT
ARTICLE APPELFM WASHINGTON TIMES
ON PAGE 23 JULY 1982
JOHN LOFPON'S JOURNAL
Reagan aides duck
chance to tell truth
Contrasted with the heartburn the
administration is causing its strongest
supporters, the heartbreak of psori-
asis pales into insignificance.
The scene: the White House press
room this past Tuesday. The occa-
sion; a background briefing by a
gentleman from the National Secu-
rity Council and a gentleman from
the State Department. The subject:
two as yet unratified treaties with
At the Tuesday briefing, one official says the adminis-
tration's position is "firmly" and "unequivocally" that
"whenever there is an apparent violation" it will make
clear in "emphatic terms" its attitude about it. But
what in the world does this gibberish mean?.
"Whenever" there is an "apparent violation"? Are
they kidding? The Soviets already have committed .
scores of SALT I and'SALT II violations as former CIA
analyst David Sullvan documents in detail in his
excellent study "The Bitter Fruits of SALT: A Record
of Soviet Duplicity" (Texas Policy Institute, 6250
Westpark, Suite 110, Houston, Texas 77057). Why aren't
these violations being made public? What is the Reagan
administration afraid of?
Although I sit in these adminstration briefings and
listen to what is being said, it is still very difficult to
actually believe I'm hearing what I bear. In a briefing
on May 8, one of the briefers who spoke to us on
Tuesday told a group of uk that the president believes
arms reductions can be achieved.if, among other
things, the Soviets demonstrate "good faith" and
approach the subject in the "same spirit" as the United
States does. When I asked the briefer if the Soviets
have ever shown "good faith" in any of the previous
ardi(talks with us, he replies: This "depends on the
point of view."
"Good faith"? The "same spirit'? Why I doubt
seriously that there are even Russian words for these
concepts, much less actions to match them. In fact, the
president, who our briefer says enters arms talks with
"no illusions" about the Soviets, indeed has no illusions.
In a public press conference he has denouced them as
liars and cheats who will do anything to achieve their
aims. r ..
All of which raises the question: if Ronald Reagan
really believes this, and I think be'does, then why are
his aides engaging in Orwellian doublespeak about
Soviet"good faith" and a "spirit" that's like ours? This.
.is not'a rhetorical question. This is a quesiton that cries
out for an answer
As forthe Soviets, they have given us their "point of
view" regarding "good faith" and their "spine" It was
V.I. Lenin who declared: "Promises are like pie crusts,,-:
made to be broken." And his student, Stalin, who
learned his lessons all too well. observed: "Words have
no relation to actions - otherwise what kind of
diplomacy is it? Words are one thing, actions aaothe=
Good words are a mask for concealment of bad deeds.
Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry -water
or wooden iron:'
These are the kinds of things we're now negotiating
with in Geneva. Some "good faith." Some "spirit."
the Soviets regarding nuclear testing.
The administration's position on these pacts is a
sound one. It is that these treaties will not be ratified
because there are "problems to be overcome and these
deal essentially. with verification." Hoping that these
two officials are on a roll and are - at long last -
prepared to publicly commit truth, I ask them about
the 1980 Republican platform, the part pledging an end
to the Carter administration's cover-up of Soviet
violations of the SAID' I and SALT II treaties. When
would you anticipate the-,Reagan administration is.
going to end this Carter administration coverup,. I ask?
.7ilas, the cover-up of the Carter cover-up continues.
One official replies: "Well, I'm not prepared today to
comment or give you a record sheet on what the Soviets
may or may not have done with regard-to SALT I and ?
SALT U.
"In general, the Soviets have complied with their '
interpretation of SALT I and, to a large extent, SALT IL-.
I don't think we want to get into that today."
Now, the weasel-words used in this response are
incredible. This is precisely the kind of spineless
double-talk which,-had the Carter administration engaged
in it (and it did), candidate Ronald Reagan would have
ripped the'hide off them (and he did).
Of course. from their point of view, the Soviets have
complied with SALT I and II. But then from the Soviet
point of view, everything they've done - from the
seizure of power in 1917 through the Katyn Forest
massacre, the placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba,
-the invasion of Afghanistan and the use of "yellow
rain" to murder men, women and children - has been
OK!
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000200980073-2