Conversation 344-024

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

And in order to build another one, we must have an on-board drill.

And also another reason we've got to have those layers is that if we don't have an on-board drill, the United States will be the focus of the period.

So I think I'll stay out of this again.

All right.

They all were there about, uh, right after we, uh...

I actually, I think about 40, but you see some people are about to go next week, uh, they'll go 30, 30, they aren't, they're still, I'm trying to, I'd rather go 40, I, I don't know, 30, maybe 35.

Um, um, um, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.

Thank you.

I don't think you should volunteer it, but if you're asking about it, I think you should take that particular question.

I think Al's dealing with this too.

If you're asking questions.

Well, no, no, the matter of the offensive, being for offensive systems, the matter we just talked about, what your view was possibly to make that exception and volunteer it.

If the guy comes with a question saying it's a legislative matter, perhaps could fall on the domestic side, if that comes, perhaps you should make the points that you made.

Thank you.

in order to get enough river on it.

Well, that's one point to make.

Al's inclination, of course, is that we should say we need it just because the country needs it.

In other words, Al's view is that we should not link it to the salt thing necessarily, but also in looking ahead, he feels that obviously we need this strong defense in order to make progress in the second phase, but the key point, according to

that we meet them just because the company needs to go ahead and take them.

I just wanted to say that.

The way, after talking also to Saxby's story, we're on the same subject, aren't we, all this?

And Saxby said, the person next

stand against this whole agreement, unless U.S. forces are upgraded.

Saxby had moved over to the Armed Services Committee.

He said, I don't think the President would plan to say that we don't get these things, the treaties, off.

He added that this is going to be a guarantee that the President should say so.

Well, the point is who's Saxby?

I don't think Saxby's never played with this.

But this sort of flagged in my mind the fact that this debate's getting a little off course.

It's moving to a point where it's turning into

to the SALT agreement is off if we don't get into the offensive.

The debate should really be, we need a vote, we want a vote, with heading in the other direction, heading in the positive direction.

Now, yesterday, I suppose, the letter of testimony is running forward.

And the line I took here, which was basically the line we talked about,

But within that statement I made here yesterday, I said, well, the Secretary of America, of course, the Secretary of Defense has stated a strong personal view, which I sort of, how do we get out of this?

How did he take that?

We took it quite strongly.

And I've talked to him this morning, and he recognizes what I said and how I had to say it in full context.

But that, as I mentioned on the phone, that's the difficult question that has to be dealt with.

However, the other side of that is we don't want this debate to get into something that's not.

See, we don't want the debate to get into something that's not.

Because people may then decide, well,

Well, both of us all agree with it, but we really don't want the offense.

Perhaps a statement, a comment on what you said on the phone.

I'm not going to get into the semantics, not voluntarily.

Well, that's what I think.

If I got a question.

If you got a question.

I could probably get a question.

Would you mind clearing up?

Well, you can definitely say it.

So I was just listening to how the president will respond to it.

But I said, there's a lot of interest in trying that way.

I don't know whether you're going for it or not.

The Japanese are going to be on this side of the problem.

The president is going to be on this side of the problem.

We've been able to get by with it the last three days.

Excuse me, the last, actually, ten days.

Where I said there's really, you know, it's a matter of semantics and so forth, basically saying the same thing.

I've been telling you the position.

And we wouldn't be able to negotiate the other thing if we were in a position where we didn't have something to negotiate.

And perhaps in that, I don't know if this is a good slide or not, but just to make a house point, which I feel like we've already done before.

I think two points.

First of all, we need the offensive argument is number one, because we do have a country that needs it.

Number two, as we move into the second phase of the self-taught community strongly, that's approaching the revival of security.

And as the president, you are confident that the Congress will continue to provide adequate

I'll have it ordered on that basis then.

See, the other thing this has to do too is get another thing out of this.

Which falls over all the crap.

I'll do that in order.

Good.