Secretary RUSK. The Commission might also be interested in either digests or the fuller materials on world reactions to the President's assassination.
I have here, for example, a daily summary of the 26th of November 1963, on foreign radio and press reaction which gives some interesting treatment about this behind the Iron Curtain.
I would be happy to furnish the Commission with any material of that sort which you might wish.

Mr. Rankin.

We would appreciate having that.

The Chairman.

Very well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Representative Ford.

Would that include the Voice of Moscow or whatever they call it over there?
Secretary RUSK. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford.

From the outset of the events that took place?
Secretary RUSK. Yes, sir; you might just wish to look at the first two or three paragraphs here to get a sample of the kind of summary that that involves.

Mr. Dulles.

Was that prepared in the Department or by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service?
Secretary RUSK. This particular one is from the Foreign Broadcast Information Service. We also have another one. We also have another one from within the Department which is also, available in terms.

Representative Ford.

I think it would be useful to have both for a period of about a week or so. I realize this is a summary covering several days. I think I saw that at the time.

Mr. Rankin.

There was another statement in the paper apparently purporting to be official that one of the Commissioners asked me to ask about and that was the Washington Post, Sunday, November 24, 1963, which was quoted by the Commissioner as, "Today in Washington State Department officials said they have no evidence indicating involvement of any foreign power in the assassination."
Do you know anything about that or can you give us any information?
Secretary RUSK. That was the view which we took at the time in consultation with the investigative agencies. We did not then have evidence of that sort nor do we now, and the implications of suggesting evidence in the absence of evidence would have been enormous.

Representative Ford.

I don't understand that.
Secretary RUSK. Well, for us to leave the impression that we had evidence that we could not describe or discuss, when in fact we didn't have the evidence on a matter of such overriding importance could have created a very dangerous situation in terms of----

Representative Ford.

Wouldn't it have been just as effective to say no comment?
Secretary RUSK. Well, unfortunately, under the practices of the press, no comment would have been taken to confirm that there was evidence. I mean, that would have been the interpretation that many would have put upon no comment.
But, Mr. Ford, I think the key thing is that at the time that statement was made we did not have such evidence. I mean, this was a factual statement at that time.

Representative Ford.

But, at that time, this was 2 days after the assassination, you really didn't have much time to evaluate all of the evidence.
Secretary RUSK. Well, that is correct. But if the evidence or the known facts had changed certainly that type of statement would have changed.
In other words, such statements are based upon the situation as known at the time the statements are made.

Representative Ford.

This statement then appeared in the Sunday morning, November 24 issue or edition of the Washington Post. That was a statement issued certainly on the 23d of November because it had to be in order to get in the Sunday edition of the Post. So, that is 24 hours after the assassination.
Secretary RUSK. That is correct, sir, and this statement was made on the basis of such information as was available to us in the first 24 hours.

Mr. Rankin.

I was also asked to inquire whether that was an official statement

« Previous | Next »

Found a Typo?

Click here

Last Update: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 21:56:34 CET