•V. * * ■* “
Study shows effort to discredit U. S.
Soviets step up forgeries
by DONALD LAMBRO
United Press International
WASHINGTON — A little-noticed CIA report on the
Soviet Union’s propaganda war reveals how the Russians
have increased covert activities against the United
States and its allies.
The study, quietly released by the House Intelligence
Committee earlier this year, deals in part with how
Soviet forgeries have been increasingly used as part of a
coordinated campaign to discredit the United States.
The report — all but ignored by the news media —
provides one of the most revealing public assessments of
Soviet covert activities published in recent years. It
comes as Anjerican media attention continues to be
more concerned with the CIA than with Soviets’ KGB.
The report says Soviet forgeries fell sharply during
1972-1976. But by late 1976, after President Carter’s
election, “several new series of forgeries of U.S. govern
ment documents and communiques began appearing.
“They have continued to appear since then at the rate
of four to five per year,” the CIA said, adding, “We
believe these new forgeries were produced by the KGB
or one or more of the East European intelligence ser
vices under Soviet control.”
Their aim: “... to damage U.S. foreign and defense
policies, often in very specific ways.”
In a series of forgeries aimed at NATO, for example, a
bogus State Department airgram was circulated among
Western European officials. It suggested using informa
tion to blackmail European officials and to develop plans
for “hindering or eliminating foreign trade competi
tion.”
Three of seven forgeries in this series sought “to
compromise U.S. foreign and defense policy in Western
Europe by playing on the continuing difficulties in U. S. -
Greek and Greek-Turkish relations. ”
One of them, a fabricated speech attributed to Carter,
made “demeaning references to the Greek government
in the context of its NATO role. ”
In another, a phony set of Defense Department intel
ligence “collection requirements ... instructs its reci
pients to spy on a large number of Greek political parties
and organizations.”
Earlier this year, the CIA said, the KGB “exploited its
access to official U.S. Government stationery in fabricat
ing bogus letters.”
One of them, written on a U.S. Air Force letterhead,
suggested the United States and NATO allies cooper
ated with China to suppress disturbances in Zaire
(which had been incited by Soviet-aided rebel forces in
neighboring Angola).
Another, on U.S. Embassy stationery in Rome, “pur
ported to confirm rumors being circulated by Soviet
agents in Italy to the effect that the United States stores
chemical and biological warfare weapons at a NATO
base near Naples.”
In yet another, the KGB forged the signature of the
NATO secretary general to a letter on NATO stationery
that informed the U.S. ambassador to NATO that a list of
journalists opposed to deployment of the neutron bomb
in Europe had been compiled, implying the U.S. plan
ned to punish them.
Another series of forgeries aimed at Egyptian Presi
dent Anwar Sadat suggested the United States did not
trust him and wanted to oust him. One of them, a
falsified interview purportedly given by Vice President
Walter Mondale, made derogatory remarks about
Sadat.
Others carried the forged signature of the former U.S.
ambassador to Egypt on correspondence (one of which
appeared in the Oct. 1, 1979, edition of a Syrian news
paper) saying that if Sadat refused to advance U.S. poli
cy interests in the Middle East, “then we must repudi
ate him and get rid of him without hesitation. ”
The CIA believes the increased forgeries reflect “a
Soviet perception that a new phase of harder bargaining
and sharper ideological conflict in U.S.-Soviet relations
requires new tactics.
“We presume that, taken together, the concern for
Soviet propaganda effectiveness, disenchantment with
the fruits of detente and a perception of new opportuni
ties swung the Soviet leadership consensus in favor of a
tougher propaganda line and of reinstituting the use of
forgeries,” the CIA said.
The CIA believes that while some forgeries fail, many
are given wide distribution and substantial credence in
official foreign circles and in the foreign press, some
times unwittingly.
Air bags do have a future: use
them as power source for autos
by DICK WEST
United Press International
WASHINGTON — Apostles of air power were dealt a
severe blow last week when General Motors decided
against replacing seat belts with air bags in its 1982 cars.
Well, then, GM, how about replacing the gas tanks
with air bags?
The idea of an air-powered auto might seem a bit
utopian the first time it whizzes by. But I recently saw a
car built to run on air, and it works.
At about the time General Motors was announcing its
air bag decision, Terry Miller, a Crestline, Kan., inven
tor, was in the Capital demonstrating his Air Car One.
Some demonstration!
Dressed for the occasion in mustard-colored cover
alls, Miller arrived by truck and unloaded the three
wheeled experimental vehicle amid the tour buses and
vendors’ vans at the foot of Capitol Hill.
Almost immediately, a squad car pulled up.
Miller couldn’t legally drive that contraption here
unless he had it registered and inspected like any other
motor car, the cops told him.
Nevertheless, he stuck around awhile, hoping a tele
vision crew would show up to film his creation in action.
He figured the cops wouldn’t be too hard-nosed about a
technical law infraction if it served the greater glory of
television.
I don’t know whether the cameras ever arrived. I
doubt it. Miller didn’t seem too well organized with
regard to media exposure.
The car, which Miller built himself, has, in addition to
the three wheels noted above, two seats and a steering
lever similar to a tiller found on a small sailboat. It steers
from the right side in British manner. The chassis looks
something like a surrey without the fringe on top.
Fortunately, Miller brought along his own air — two
compression tubes located on either side of the vehicle.
Therefore, there was no need for jokes about running
the car on hot air generated by Congress.
Besides that, if Miller had been dependent on local
air, he would have needed a car that runs on humidity.
Miller didn’t drive the air car any while I was around,
but I did get to see how it functions. At one point, he
moved it about 30 feet to a new parking place, walking
alongside with his hand on the tiller.
“Is there any law in this town against walking a car?”
he asked sardonically.
I don’t think Miller had a very high opinion of
Washington.
Despite the welter of figures he flung at me. I’m not
sure about the air car’s mileage rating — that is, how
many miles per puff it gets. But I do know it has hit
speeds of nearly 30 miles an hour and that it runs cheap.
A dime will buy enough electricity to compress enough
air to take the car about six miles.
Still relatively primitive, yes, but herein perhaps lies
the real future for air bags. Or maybe General Motors
can invent a car that is powered by seat belts.
’Toons
Viewpoint
The Battalion
Texas A&M University
Wednesday
June 11,1980
Page 2 is your page, too
by DILLARD STONE
Battalion Editor
“Page 2 is ugly ... you need to spruce it up a little.
Write some local stuff. ”
That’s Bob Rogers, communications department
head, speaking. And he’s right.
He’s right not just because he’s my “boss,” but also
because he speaks for just about anybody who has ever
read a Battalion editorial page.
the campus before they can begin writing their
opinions.
I can work on that, and I am.
The second thing that must happen is the ihostimpo
tant, and the one most directly concerning y
reader.
Page 2 is boring. It’s dry. It’s ugly. And, most damn
ing of all, it contains little that is relevant to the average
Texas A&M student.
This is supposed to be your newspaper. Itcanil
serve as your v/ewspaper.
Texas A&M is loaded with intelligent students,fan
ty and staff, people who are capable of analyzing an k
and presenting their views to others.
Most of the copy I put on page 2 is wire copy and
syndicated material. It’s readable — more precisely,
wadeable. You can wade through it if you’ve got the
time. But mainly it’s dry and it serves only one function:
to fill up page 2 each day.
I don’t like laying it out any more than you like read
ing it. So ...
There are present and future political scientists,
nomists, capitalists, communists, bankers and busks
men on this campus. These people’s views are imp
tant.
Td like to see that change, but a couple of things need
to happen before we can begin to fill an opinion page
with local opinions.
First, my staff needs to learn everything. Most of my
staff has had no experience in day-to-day work at The
Battalion. They’re bright and eager, but, oh so fresh.
They need to learn the ins and outs of The Battalion and
More importantly, since they’re locally generate!
they’re more interesting than the syndicated copy I
each day.
We welcome and encourage letters to the editoraa
guest columns on anything and everything. We want!
know your opinion, and we want to be able to present
to others.
After all, the Viewpoint at the top of this page ini
meant to be the sole prerogative of UPI, David BroJi
or The Battalion staff.
It’s yours, too.
System, not the men at fan
for poor presidential choki
by DAVID S. BRODER
LOS ANGELES — The 1980 presidential primary
season has ended — at last — with a prize political
paradox. On the face of it, the system worked perfectly.
The two men, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, wbo
were the favorites of their party’s rank-and-file, accord-,
ing to the polls last January when the process began,
have emerged as the victors.
And yet there is more widespread dissatisfaction
being expressed with the choices for the general-
election than this reporter has heard in 25 years on the
political beat.
From the union halls to corporate board rooms and
college campuses, there is a sense that something has
gone terribly wrong in presidential politics this year.
It is not my purpose here to argue whether the anti
pathy to the Carter-Reagan choice is justified or not.
What does concern me is the corollary proposition, also
widely voiced, that the American Republic must be
suffering from a blight of mediocrity for such men to
emerge as the final choices for President.
That proposition, I believe, is patently false. It leads
to cynicism and pessimism about the American political
condition which is wholly unjustified. And it serves as a
convenient rationalization for not undertaking the rela
tively simple changes that could yield — in future years
— a much more broadly appealing choice.
I think we are confronted with a classic bad news-good
news situation. The bad news is that as long as we use
the kind of presidential selection system we have used
this year, this is the kind of candidates we will get.
Carter and Reagan are not anomalies; they are the logic
al, predictable products of this kind of nominating
system.
nK
senators, representatives, mayors, state and local part;
officials, the heads of unions, civil rights groups
other organizations allied with the party — if such)
group had met four years ago, unconstrained by th
results of the primaries, their consensus choice, after
CQupl<e-,af ballots, would have bepfi Walter Moodale,
The best evidence for that.belief is the fact that thosf liarineCor]
Some i
Galvestoi
only a hui
researche
Dr. Ca
nology is
evacuatio
if implen
fast-grow
Many
which th<
zoria and
Some
12hoi
ahun
floodi
ically the
October 1
Ruch i
Texas A&
theNatio
to city ci'
Ruch s
ing any (
example
munity c<
state 45 :
along tha
There!
on many
accepted
A Tex
from the
cuees co
warning ■
on escap
Increa
evacuatii
dents, m
ignorant
Hurric
some pai
every tw
In the
cane, 3,(
an estim
Ruch
drownin
always a
body of
flood lov
iumm
c
Many Te>
lents who w
fichool year
summei
nited Stati
The Air 1
this
The good news is that there is nothing sacred about
this kind of presidential selection system. It has not
been ordained by God, nor inscribed in the Constitu
tion, nor legislated by the Congress, nor mandated by
the courts. It is a political artifact, of recent design,
which can be changed with relative ease by two of the
most accessible, persuadable bodies of decision-makers
in the land: the Democratic and Republican National
Committees.
same “insiders” pressed Mondale’s named on the actual
1976 nominee, Jimmy Carter, so strongly that Carte:
took him as his running-mate to cement his own
tions with the institutional leadership of the Democratit
Party.
Similarly, I think, if 1,000 or so leading Republicaa
men and women had met, uninstructed, this year,
consensus choice would have been Baker — for (lie
same reasons that those people are now pressing Ronald
Reagan to choose Baker as his running-mate.
The selection system, in short, largely determines the
kind of candidates you get. With our present system you
get Carters and Reagans — men who are capable free
lance campaigners of somewhat idiosyncratic
ground and views, self-proclaimed outsiders, most
remarkable for their dogged ambition and relentless
energy, prepared to spend years of their lives seeking
the presidential prize, but not viewed by their political
peers — or much of the public — as unusually gifted in
governmental leadership.
With a different kind of selection system —- the kind,
we had until the past decade — you got people with the u
characteristics of the Bakers and the Mondales: people
of less consuming ambition but more experience, people
of moderate views, who had been tested in lesser leader
ship responsibilities, were familiar with the national
governmental and political processes, and equipped
with the alliances and friendships that would enable
them to marshal the machinery of government for the
tasks at hand.
If Americans have reached the point of wanting to
change the kind of presidential candidates'the parties
nominate, then we have to understand the revolution
that has taken place in the past decade in the presiden
tial selection system and the changes that would be
needed to make it more likely to get Mondales and
Bakers rather than Carters and Reagans in the future
irograms a
adets at su
[Their trainii
iveeks.
Seventet
tadets are
’trainin
ifficer cand
uniors and
hips for cn
ific originati
)lulu, San
:anamo Bay
Ne\
vac<
2iv(
In the next couple of columns, I want to look at how
we got into this fix and how we can extricate ourselves.
But first, let me put my cards on the table. In oversim
plified terms, the whole argument turns on this ques
tion: Would you feel more comfortable if the 1980 elec
tion pitted a Democratic President Walter Mondale,
finishing his first term, against a Sen. Howard H. Baker,
Jr., of Tennessee, as his Republican challenger?
I mention them for this reason. I believe that if any
1,000 leaders of the Democratic party — governors,
by Scott McCuIlar
The Battalion
U S P S 045 360
MEMBER
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Congress
Editor Dillard Stone
City Editor Becky Swanson
Sports Editor Richard Oliver
News Editor Lynn Blanco
Stalf Writers Uschi Michel-Howell,
Debbie Nelson, Cathy Saathoff,
Scot K. Meyer, Jon Heidtke
Kurt Allen
Photo Editor Lee Roy Leschper Jr.
Photographer Marsha Hoehn
EDITORIAL POLICY
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper operated as a
community service to Texas A&M University and Bryan-College Sta
tion. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editor or the
author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M
University administrators or faculty members, or of the Board ol
Begents.
Questions or comments concerning any editorial matter should be
directed to the editor.
The Battalion is published Tuesday through Thursday during Texas
A&M’s summer school schedule. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per
semester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Advertising
rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.
United Press International is entitled exclusively to the use for
reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it. Rights of
reproduction of all other matter herein reserved.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.
Unit
WASHI
ment has a
and less p;
requires oi
is give:
instead of
The vac
viruses gr
lures, instc
present va
Dr. Jen
Center for
la estimate
alone will 1
vaccinatio:
runs $325
I
I The
| posit
|MS
I MS
|ms
Ims
%
IMS
| We
fi Plea:
$ Pro ‘
g