JOURNAL OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL FRIDAY - 2 OCTOBER 1970

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120049-9
Release Decision: 
RIPPUB
Original Classification: 
S
Document Page Count: 
2
Document Creation Date: 
December 21, 2016
Document Release Date: 
August 1, 2006
Sequence Number: 
49
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
October 2, 1970
Content Type: 
NOTES
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120049-9.pdf116.09 KB
Body: 
Approved For Release 2006/08/01: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120049-9 Approved For Release 2006/08/01: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120049-9 At-L AAi rOvf~000l37`tT'f`': C-00337R000400120049-9 THE WASHINGT ON POST Joseph Alsop DATE ZDC-4-70 PAGE Cooper-Church Fizzle FOR MONTHS, the titanic drama of the Cooper-Church amendment absorbed the Senate, convulsed Washing- ton, and covered the front pages with acres of breath- less, though not deathless prose. Its final passage, by a narrow majority, was ful- somely saluted as a decisive triumph for the fashionable forces of neoisolationism. It was all very beautiful, all very moving. After this positively Wag- nerian clamor, one does not like to be deflationary. But common honesty compels the report that the Senate's passage of the Cooper- Church amendment has now turned out to be the super- non-event of 1970. The amendment is dead in con- ference-so dead that the House-Senate Conference Committee ceased to meet some time ago. This was predictable, and was indeed predicted by one or two small and unheard voices, while the titanic drama was still in progress in the Senate. The real feelings of "the great rancid American people" (as the late Sam Blyth used to call us) are rather more accu- rately represented in the House than in the Senate. THE HOUSE is also much more remote from the elo- quence of editorial pages, whose kind words affect most senators as a dramatic critic's unlooked-for praise affeEts a broken down actor with dyed hair and bunions. ,The House leaders were by no means intransigent. The chairman of the House For- eign Affairs Committee, Rep. Thomas Morgan of Pennsylvania, is a gentle, kindly man. He genuinely longed for a compromise that the House might con- ceivably approve. But in the Conference Committee, Representative Morgan had to deal with the chairman of the Senate Foreign Rela- tions Committee, J. W. Ful- bright. Senator Fulbright rather resembles Cato-except that instead of endlessly repeat- ing, "Carthage must be de- stroyed," the Senator's pet theme (if you understand his speech-writers correctly) is that the United States had better be destroyed. With Catonian sternness, the sen- ator refused the smallest change in Cooper-Church's language to conciliate the House. Senator Fulbright is said to be pleased by the dead- lock, because he thinks it will kill the military sales bill, to which the Cooper- Church amendment was at- tached. But here, he is al- most certain to be wrong. WHEN THERE is dead- lock over an amendment, an existing statute can always be renewed-without the amendment of course-by what is called a continuing resolution. A continuing resolution will eventually be introduced in the House, and will pass with hardly a dissenting vote. That leaves the Senate, which gave a majority to Cooper- Church. Logically, the Sen- ate, ought to reject a mili- tary sales bill lacking even a token fragment of Cooper- Church. But logic does not always apply. Cooper-Church con- tains money for beleaguered Israel, besides several of this country's more direct allies. And Israel, nowa- days, is a very tender nerve for the liberal Democrats. No wonder the nerve is tender! As events are in- creasingly proving, in' a most terrible manner, Israel depends upon this country for her protection against the Soviet Union. To protect Israel against the Soviet Union, this country in turn depends upon its own mili- tary strength. Whoever dis- mantles America's military strength, in fact, dismantles Israel's ultimate line of de- fense. Who, then, are the dismantlers? You would not logically expect the lib- eral Democrats to play this role. With the possible ex- ception of Sen. Edward Ken- nedy no liberal Democrat gets less than 50 per cent of his campaign financing from the Jewish community. In certain cases, the percent- age reaches a very much higher figure. BUT IN REALITY, they are also the most active dis- mantlers of U.S. power; and the decline of our power has now reached the stage where Israel's very survival is di- rectly threatened by the Soviets.. If Israel does not in fact survive-as is tragi- cally imaginable today-the Americans chiefly responsi-, ble will be liberal Demo- cratic senators and their supporters on the intellec- tual left. A dim consciousness of these extremely grim but in- disputable facts is beginning to percolate through liberal Democratic ranks in the Senate. Voting for a reso- lution, continuing the mili- tary sales bill will at least be voting for money for Is- rael, even if it displeases Senator Fulbright. C) 1970. Los Angeles Times Approved For Release 2006/08/01: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120049-9