On June 16, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, H. R. ("Bob") Haldeman, Ronald L. Ziegler, Stephen B. Bull, Henry A. Kissinger, White House operator, Egon Bahr, Ellsworth F. Bunker, unknown person(s), and Alexander P. Butterfield met in the Oval Office of the White House from 10:39 am to 12:07 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 522-002 of the White House Tapes.
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Well, that's another possibility.
And we've got a tangentially close to the executive privilege.
He understands it to be concerned.
His judgment is better than Colson's.
Exactly.
That's what worries me about Colson is both judgment and there's a problem with dealing with some of the principles.
Well, you can't deal with Colson.
My whole view is, is the old story of, uh, of, uh, the Blessed Virgin, you know, I talked to, uh, John, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a,
Is that bad?
And all of a sudden, I would make a new decision.
And there's another decision about the Alaskan pipe.
Unless we could have it.
And if there's something else in the end, we've got to get it.
But we do bump away every time.
And all of a sudden, there's something that's open.
And John, you know, I can see, I can read what you've been saying in my reading with John and Schultz, which I think are probably not honest.
They shouldn't be there every day because they don't need to come in.
They should come in whenever they turn in.
Oh, we should turn them off.
The door's open.
I've tried to do it without, you know, just kind of let it happen.
So I asked the question the other night.
I said, I'd take them to those meetings.
You've done that.
And I said, yeah, but it just didn't work out on a fixed basis.
And trying to do it at a fixed time like that is a problem because you force it at a time when there are other things that are more important.
You can get it any time you want.
He knows that.
That's what I said.
He picked us that phone.
Whenever you need something, you should always feel free to...
But to do what they asked me to do, they worked on the basis, just like Henry's were pointing me, which is to come in and turn and talk about Ecuador or Ghana.
You know, really, run through everything, because you've got to make up an agenda.
It's the old story.
On the other hand, they can come in whenever there is any problem.
My culture was quite awful.
But I was going to say, to John's case,
He's got a very good staff.
And he would say that he met some of the personnel, you know, and spent more time on investigations.
And I said, what happened to Chambers?
He went after the D.A.R.
And I said, have you ever looked over and listened to the press conference discussion?
He said, Grant, he said, yeah.
About one out of every conference is really on domestication.
Which shows that when they say, who's the hell most responsible for not present on any of these investigations?
So what I'm getting at is, why not get it?
It's got to work.
Why not give him something that's a really important assignment for him to do on a thing like this and say, all right, I'll report on it for a few days.
I think it would be a good idea.
He can move in.
He understands the legal business.
He does understand executive privilege.
It ties in, in fact, he's generally on executive privilege.
He has a good view of whatever it is they have.
You've got a group of fine, simple operatives.
Moore apparently can't run anything.
Well, I thought he would, but I didn't know he can.
Moore doesn't run things.
Price can't run anything.
Sapphire can't run anything.
Those are all just inputs that you use.
Well, what I meant is that you've got a very good point to ask, but let's pick a man.
Pick a man.
Who the hell can you pick out of that group?
Scali's not a guy.
He's not used to it.
He's involved in it.
Scali's not a guy with judgment.
The guy that's running it has got to also be a guy that's full of guys.
That's what I'm trying to say.
And also this is closely involved with Henry, which means it's got to be somebody who can deal with Henry.
I was going to suggest John, and then I decided we ought to try and run it some other way than .
And just a lot of things, these kind of things are important.
He's got a probe.
His things go on.
They really do.
He's got one of them that really matters.
Well, Cole writes her across the board, and he's got damn good guys on each island that stay with him.
But if we don't get the Florida Barge Canal settlement, this is going to make a great deal of money.
That's what I just described on the Florida Barge Canal.
That's right.
This one is going to override all of those.
This one is worth everybody being put in the major.
That's right.
And maybe just as well.
Well, yeah, it doesn't make any difference whether we want it or not.
We've got it.
We've been trying not to escalate.
At least it's not the war now.
It's the war 10 years ago.
That's why it's got to be kept being said.
I don't know if we have a leader's defense or justice.
Do we have anything?
They should have a bear cap in this.
They're really, they run this.
And that's just, you can count the bureaucracy this.
And he bears it sometimes, some way or the other.
You've never been in, on this kind of a thing that's as touchy as this.
I'm a guy in the department.
I don't think we've got any department that you turn this kind of thing over.
It's a fight for getting a bill through or something like that.
They should be able to run it.
Yeah.
I really think this is the kind of thing that you have a White House staff for.
It is.
Why am I in the job?
Sorry, say hello.
I see the problem, basically, with those like, most of them are jobless, those like George, they do, again, they're all very, they're otherwise, they do feel the need to come in and talk about their problem.
And they do, and they do feel it must irritate the shit out of them.
I know George is mentioned, and they didn't ask anything about the economy.
They write all these bad, long questions, you know, I've got, I've dealt with my co-chairs, I've done half of my time preparing for the Constitution.
They don't ask about it.
Is he going to do his point on Rochester?
Talk about the rest of it?
Yeah.
Because he feels, at least he said it last night, it felt very strongly that you need to.
do more on domestic than you did in Birmingham because they're there for domestic function.
And he said, well, I did that in Birmingham for other reasons.
You're a hawk country.
So I said, that was a damn good move.
Oh, what the hell?
Why not make a little move on our side?
And I think you've got to do that in Rochester, too.
And on this, John feels, he is overly sensitive, John, in his job.
And he says, the press, the press.
And I said, John, are you ready to talk with him?
Well, these guys come in to see and they raise these questions.
You see, they want to get the job.
Okay, to get the job is to come in.
He's a highly intelligent man.
He said, well, why is the president's review concerned only about reoccupying the foreign policy that cares about the Massachusetts?
Are they interested in that?
Of course, it isn't how much of my time is spent on domestic use of human money.
Jesus Christ, I was in there all the time.
Who spends two hours of goddamn drug dealing?
Who spends two hours with one contractor for the fish?
Yeah, they don't mind talking to you.
I don't want to talk to the foreign policy people.
You spend three times as much time on domestic policy as you do on foreign policy.
But, and I am totally, totally interested in what the press is interested in, what the press and the public are interested in.
and their concerns, and the questions they ask, and the problems they raise.
And we want to probably compete with these people.
We send them out to do the press and all the rest.
John said, well, I've got to talk more about it.
I've got to talk.
How?
I can't do press conference, which is our major device.
So John said, but you do.
I said, yes, John, but I've done it three other times, and they didn't pick any of them.
There's a new Gallup poll on issues that says, what do you think are the most important matters concerning the country or something?
Of course, the top economy is the second.
Drugs is the third.
It's moved up.
But it's down.
Drugs is 12% or 18% or something.
Vietnam is 33%.
And Vietnam is 26% or 24%.
Vietnam has dropped or something.
And then everything drops.
I don't know.
Vietnam has gone up, actually.
It's up 20% to 33% or something.
Well, I've been out for over 60 months.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
But the interesting thing is pollution.
has moved from seven to four.
I still have John wrong.
He's trying to prove quite well.
I drew a circle around that.
I said, you can see how intensely the public's concerned.
I just believe it's a pressing issue and it will die as a pressing issue.
People are not going to be that concerned about it.
His view is that clean air, clean water will be a great issue in 1972.
Maybe.
Maybe we'll talk about it in some places.
But Bob, Bob, Bob is not the man who's going to get people to move it.
Well, it does move maybe, but the constituency speaks up.
If you give them a number of choices, pollution always comes up with one of the importions.
If they have a gas one, the major thing is it's never going to stay on.
When did Gallup poll?
Did he just poll this last week?
This is just a peering out of the last one.
He's doing what Harris says, releasing one question.
He didn't poll since our June 1st conference.
Did we poll right after the June 1st press conference?
He was right before or right after?
No, it was before.
I know the one he released previously was before, but this was not in 15.
No, he didn't get around that fast.
That's right.
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah, very good.
Worked well.
I don't know.
Do you think we ought to poll this issue?
It's too early to pull it.
Let it around a little bit.
And also, this is more than any other vote we've ever taken.
We do take it when we have a question.
People say, you proceed, the procedure will say.
I mean, do you, and it depends on what meeting you're in, why do you think that the, do you think that the administration justified and denied trying to stop the New York Times from printing secret documents with regard to how we got the war in Vietnam?
And the answer would be 90% no.
See, they put it that way.
Do you think that an administration can justify a newspaper that has the right to speak, to bring top secret documents that have been stolen by federal files?
The answer would be 90% no.
Am I right?
Sure.
I just don't know whether we've got anybody around thinking that recently.
I'm sure they think that precisely, but it's got to get down to that kind of presentation.
But coming back to the rescue thing,
I'll say these things, and I'm just sure.
But John, Bob, ain't no mistake about one thing that we got to talk about some of you today.
I mean, when I go out to talk, what the hell do people, what makes them sit up in their chairs?
What do they care about?
I said, do they sit up in their chairs when I'm talking about revenue sharing, about reorganizing, you know?
Now, you know that.
No, it's really almost like a list, you know, like even when I went to Westland.
Look, let me come back to this.
I went down there to dedicate that goddamn dam, you know, that waterway, and I made a nice little speech, you know, about that.
I can come up with all the domestic council, but maybe that is a concern for the domestic council.
On the other hand, what I put in, something about this is a pretty nice country, that was the link.
Wasn't it?
That was the story.
Well, I wonder if maybe that's what the country needs to hear.
And that's what, no question about that.
Am I right or not?
Absolutely.
I just wonder if they needed to hear about all the stuff, about how much we've done, that we spent $860 million on the controls.
It doesn't make a difference whether they needed to hear it or not.
They wouldn't have heard it.
Because if you had said it, nobody would have recorded it.
It's the same old stuff.
And I sure as hell don't point it to the audience that was there.
Now, if you're reading the Senate, it's almost the same thing as a campaign speech in an off-year campaign.
You've got to get up there and you've got to say, we need this guy in the Senate and that guy in the House and that guy for mayor.
You've got to get up to Rochester and say, we need revenue sharing and all this stuff.
But then you've got to talk about something that matters to them, which is what you would do in a campaign school.
Well, I don't have the years to talk about that kind of stuff, about formats.
And then probably at the conclusion of the trial, five years.
John realized it has to be done.
I cannot ignore that question.
Now, this is the way Buchanan's preparing him, because he and I talked about it yesterday.
He said, geez, if he goes in and starts on government privilege, you know, nobody's going to know.
I said, well, let him talk about all the other stuff first, and then at the end, I say, now let me turn to a matter that I'm sure a lot of people are on here.
You're in charge about it.
You've got your editors on it.
Yeah, explain it.
Since that may be moved, because they're talking about trying to get on some of those in the statement today, that was the first statement for me.
Is that what it is?
It's in the works, yes.
The presidential statement.
I thought they were going to have the Roger's statement.
That was a change to the presidential statement.
It's different.
This is different.
This is the one about Mansfield?
Right.
It's really ties the whole thing in.
After you left Henry, would you give me a chance to find out?
I don't want to do that again.
Is it really?
I mean, that's the purpose.
He says if we see him, we might get $100,000.
Well, that's ridiculous.
Well, my point is that I don't care who it is.
I don't care whether he gets $100,000.
I'm not sure we want to get $100,000 because of his involvement.
But I'm saying that his level of 100 isn't enough to... Well, his level of 100...
Well, I...
I haven't made up my mind whether or not I'm going to brief or if Warren's going to brief.
I just wanted to get a touch base to see, get a feel of things.
I think we should just go through the day very flexible on this thing.
I'm not going to cover any new ground or Jerry, of course, won't cover any new ground today.
That's right.
Well, first of all, it seems to me with regard to the case, because it's a case that's part of the bill, and I'm not going to comment on that.
It would not be part of any comment that relates to this case, this particular case.
Second, with regard to Mansfield, what does it say about Mansfield?
No, no, and Scali saw Mansfield last night, and Mansfield said to Scali,
I'm not totally sure I'm going to do this, but I have almost made a decision to do it.
What Mansfield has said is that he intended to call hearings, or was thinking about calling hearings on how we got involved in South Vietnam.
But he also said that if the full committee does this, then he won't do it.
And he said he was going to call the hearings whether or not the New York Times further published the papers or not.
Well, it's really... What we're after is not a reaction to Minsky.
What we're after is an initiative on our part to try and cut apart the two basic issues of redeeming Iran.
It seems Bob was raising the point that he didn't raise it, but I think he was suggesting that we have not gotten across the fact that this was the previous administration's agreement.
Well, I think that's there.
At this time, I think our concern is... What did Rodgers say?
Yes, sir.
He was on TV last night.
We're okay on the radio.
We're okay on the radio.
What are our concerns?
Do you think that did get across?
Oh, absolutely.
The question is... Anthony, have you gotten across and you separated the two points that we have no objection to anybody speculating, talking, expressing opinion about how we got into the war?
The other question is, the basic question is, we obviously have a responsibility with regard to social and financial progression on any issue.
And that's what is involved here, that we are not trying to, as far as we're concerned, after all, that's not our problem, not our problem.
Those questions should be directed, gentlemen, to the previous administration.
We were not here.
The President was not here directing Mr. Mack, to those who served the Kennedy-Johnson administration, those who made the decisions in that administration.
Mr. Mack, America's clipper, he's in this too, isn't he?
Yes, the rest of the questions to Mr. Claybrook.
Mr. McNamara, do those deserve the previous administration?
Those are the points.
Yeah, I do.
I don't think we're, but I think it's going to, I think they're going to try to bunch us back into that.
We're postured all right now.
The discussion this morning and the statement being prepared is to allow us to maintain the principle of handling of classified material while
being out ahead of the offensive by the other side that suggests that we are using superficial classifications in order to suppress information from the American people.
Involved in this, of course, are the hearings, the emotion about the war, and the liberal press war, those three factors.
So in order to be out in front of it before this issue forms,
We have talked about this particular statement.
I just want to agree.
But I just hold right there and say no more.
Yeah, I think so too.
I think you don't doubt it's going to make it worse.
You doubt that it's going to make it worse.
I think we just go out and say that's that.
Period.
Right.
I've tried to play a posture.
Well, that's the man's field, but we haven't had any questions on that.
I don't comment upon it until we receive it.
I mean, we have a little of the church stuff today.
What about this general principle about that?
Look, there's no question about we're not, this administration has no, after all, we have no interest, whatever.
We are not, we have never, the president has studiously avoided attacking those who were his predecessors.
He has, and he does at this point, and he will continue to
look to the problems of the future and not to the past.
But, get that right.
On the other hand, this deals with the past.
That's a family quarrel with the past.
As far as we're concerned, we do not, certainly the American people are trying to know all the facts with regard to that, and holds all the relevant facts with regard to that.
except for disclosure of maturity, that would be detrimental to the national interest.
Now, by detrimental to the national interest, that's what classification is all about.
Have you ever found out whether or not all the Pearl Harbors were put on account?
I have.
Now, I'm not sure what the Sun-Times is.
You can show them this.
Just say, John, do you realize, for example, that Pearl Harbor was 40 years ago,
30 years ago.
30 years ago.
30 years ago.
30 years ago.
30 years ago.
Now, the issue is how we got in has been talked about and so forth, but the material is not being classified because it was not in the national interest to be classified.
As far as this is concerned, this administration is not trying to hide anything.
In fact, we're not trying to hide anything because we have nothing to hide.
That's the problem of the previous administration.
And it certainly aren't going to accuse us of trying to protect them.
Just put it that way.
We're not attacking them, but we're certainly not trying to protect them.
But what we are trying to protect is something much more important than either administration, any partisan consideration, what we're trying to do.
but it's the obligation of whoever is president of the United States is to protect the integrity of the government and the ability to conduct government.
And this does require some classified information.
There are very important discussions going on now, preliminary discussions, with regard to SALT, with regard to NDFOM, with regard to Berlin,
With regard to other matters, under no circumstances can we disclose, and for that matter, even the appeal will be not negotiated.
None of these matters can be properly disclosed for a variety of reasons.
I don't know why that point can't be made.
Has somebody made it?
Yes, sir.
The secretary made it yesterday, and I've been hitting basically the same theme.
What, you know, we can keep hitting it.
Maybe you've just got to make it simple, two sentences, and it's there.
There's no problem with ours.
That's why I sort of hesitate to put a statement out myself, but this is what it is.
But I don't think they'll come up with anything.
So you say we're going to scale them, isn't it?
Well, one of them, of course.
I mean, the whole, this is, the herb came out of right here.
And the margin and the input from the United States.
And it's a hell of a hard thing.
But I really think it gets down to something.
I think it's the time that's happening.
We'll read some of these people.
It says 15 minutes.
I will not give you 15 minutes.
You should just do a handshake.
I'm sorry.
Son of a bitch is not working.
He's a goddamn...
He's a terrible person.
Absolutely terrible and crooked.
Pushy.
I guess you're pretty well on track of this, Mr. Lelit.
This...
Scali talked to Senator Hudgens last night.
He's got a... Well, Newsweek is ready to publish something.
It's Ellsberg.
They apparently had gotten her tip, according to Scali, from McNamara.
Did you tell the president?
No.
From McNamara, who's, of course, a superior president.
And they've sent Norman, their Pentagon man, up to Boston to talk to Ellsberg.
He's apparently at MIT now.
But it seems to be focusing on Ellsberg.
He has no right to claim privilege, does he, Ellsberg?
Someone came up with the theory that he may want to be a martyr.
You know, he's a rat, you see.
He just made it.
He decided to go to jail.
That's not probably a good thing.
We're going to put him in jail.
Don't worry.
It's the same thing.
Unfortunately, the penalty is too damn low.
$10,000 for 10 years.
Oh, the 10 years is what counts.
Raise it.
Let's raise the penalty.
We seem to have a pretty good judge on this, which is a dirt-hot lucky accident.
Roger should have seen it.
Thanks to Roger, we're going to make it.
They're jealous of each other at the same age.
We're together under duty.
I like Gerfine.
He's a Jew, liberal, but I think tough.
I think tough.
But he may be stuck enough for, you know, to the liberal left.
I mean, he's New Yorker.
And you just can't tell, you know, what happens to those guys.
If Dewey were alive, we'd have an egg.
Because Dewey would call Gerfine and say, I'm not going to be the right thing.
Could John L. Collins.
Huh?
Could John L. Collins.
It's a dewey man out of Browning.
Working dewey dogs.
And a great rodent of a rodent.
They love each other.
This is just between us.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And it's a good look.
We put him on.
This is his first case.
I walked into court and threw him in there three weeks.
Well, he's going to be under an arm's pressure from the Times.
What about Ellsberg?
How can they, what can they bring him up?
FBI's moving on that.
Are they?
Okay.
Well, I want to really move it fast.
Bring the case, right?
And that usually is apparently going to go with the Ellsberg, sir, at least 95%.
Does everybody realize the importance of pointing out this?
Stimulating.
and disclosing and printing unauthorized, I mean, top secret information is detrimental to the national interest.
Yes, sir.
That point is made.
Yes, sir.
It's made over.
Well, an entirely different point from how the hell did we get into Vietnam?
Yes, sir.
And what we are addressing ourselves to is how we continue to separate those two elements.
In other words, if we were dealing with top-secret documents, as someone said, relating to our negotiations with Denmark, or for that matter, even, well, particularly the Soviet Union or someone else, that issue would be clearly defined.
But because of the emotion and all of the press attitudes and the congressional attitudes towards... Well, for example, there are some top-secret documents.
There are some top-secret communications documents.
It's a little spotty thing.
Classified, classified.
And that's the book, my briefing for, finally, for Chancellor Brant.
It involves NBF law.
It involves, it involves also, don't open the book.
I want you to look at it.
It involves NBF law.
It involves Berlin.
It involves Stalin.
All of these things are in there.
If it's top secret, if that were disclosed,
that were printed as the paper, we hid.
Our SALT negotiations would be destroying, I mean, seriously jeopardize, seriously jeopardize, jeopardize our NDFR negotiations, which are extremely sensitive involving a number of countries, and involving, they must have complete candor in throwing out a number of views, some of which may not be the ones that are accepted.
You see, the fact that you're imposing your information to disclose discussions like Brant and I had yesterday would be inhibited beyond belief.
They would be useless.
It would be useless.
We could do everything by letters, which we publicly put out, by manifesto, accredited staff would be useless to us.
Because, well, you don't want to get a thing.
You can never explore options.
You can only make a decision your own way.
You can only make a decision.
Well, that's the argument on the matter of principle that we heard.
He said very well.
He told us he was arguing with Capo on the subject and made the point that let's consider this as a question about something over Denmark.
That's right.
But he said, Ned, would you be all upset because we're keeping a secret?
No.
He said Capo kept turning it around.
But it is Vietnam we're talking about.
See, they can't separate the prison and the history.
The fight is.
The fight is.
And history.
Now, let me ask you.
Now, Capo, this will hit him.
If you want to hit him hard.
All right.
Now, I want you to hit him.
It's about time.
He's an honest man.
But psychopathic about Roosevelt getting into the war.
He was so strong for it, you know.
Does that hurt?
Do you believe that we ought to disclose the documents with regard to how Oswald does in real life?
Well, that's a different kind of war we should have done.
Or because you were...
Yes, absolutely.
They're saying it depends on what the issue is as to whether or not the documents...
As far as being history, yes, some of it can be disclosed.
Oh, well, forget it.
I accept that you can check around a little to see what the...
I think you've got to walk out, face the press, and I'd just get it done, make it brief.
Can you do that?
Yes, sir, I will.
But I have a problem.
Not this morning?
No, sir.
I suppose that they're all so obsessed with the war that they cannot seem to get their chance.
Why the hell, look, can't they see the consequences of us if we, if we're running a business and the low and light will all come out?
Are they particularly letting the Kennedy stuff come out?
Well, they were moving in that direction before.
Well, you've got to let them know that.
Oh, sure.
Let them know that.
For example, look, when this injunction came to force, just when the most embarrassing part of poor old John F. Kennedy was going to come out.
I mean, this is the Kennedy, you're going to use the Kennedy-Johnson paper, aren't you?
Yes, sir.
That's too damn bad, Tim.
We should have held an injunction one more day.
Well, you can get that out, though.
Just leave that to somebody else.
Have them put it out.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
Who's with me?
Well, then you can...
I kind of think you've just got to start phrasing the truth.
I've understood.
We need, as a man said, a remarkable thing about them.
But let me say, there's nothing else we ever do in this office, believe me.
Nothing else we ever do.
For as long as I am here, however long it is, there's nothing that's going to get us more player than to carry on with ruthless, cold, single-mindedness.
That directive I've given to all of you regarding the New York Times.
Never, never, never will they be on a pool plane.
Never will they be in the White House again, except for the press conference.
Never will they be in this office again, on a pool.
Never, never, never.
Yes, sir?
Don't ever raise the question on me again.
I don't want it.
Don't let Scali raise it.
Don't let Areva raise it.
Don't let Henry raise it.
Now, is he damn sure he's not going up there to that conference?
Well, he says he better not.
Because you can't play this game unless you play it all out.
You understand?
You can't have Tim Squeaks down the line, leaving stuff drawn.
Otherwise, you just lose the whole thing.
They decided to play this game.
It's too bad.
It's too bad.
They're going to put themselves up in a higher morality above the laws of the land.
They have to live with that.
So we're going to play our own game.
It's too bad.
Simple cold last night at home.
I wasn't there.
That's how it was on the line.
All right.
for getting that going and, you know, urging you to respect them to get a complaint with them.
Yeah.
I think if you call it bipartisanship, if you're bipartisanship, you should be putting that.
I think, yeah, this is important.
We've got to do something to give the thing a category.
And then it's a question of what we do, what we do as far as the statement is concerned.
And I think we've still got to wait until we see what they've got before we make a decision.
One thing they have to do, I can see Crowe did a fine job of reading the one thing that he and Erwin and the rest should know.
You've got to get a round number that is more important.
I mean, don't say we're going to put $64,000 million into this, $13 million into this, and so forth.
What you've got to call it is a
It's a billion-dollar program for five years.
Get us a number like that.
Make it up.
Make it up.
Goose it up.
But give me a round number so it's a billion-dollar drug program.
Get it.
Goose is $3.95.
What's that?
Overall expenditure.
This is a billion-dollar program.
Expenditure program.
This has got a great deal of play already.
Drugs?
Yeah.
It's a perfect example of the day you said you'd do a creative leap.
A creative leap?
I mean, it's the first time I've ever done that.
I mean, that hasn't been... Well, you're right.
You're right.
It's not decided yet.
Well, wait.
The emphasis is on drugs, and the emphasis is on the program.
The ADC's done the leap.
The ADC's done the leap.
The ADC's done the leap.
I called Nelson and Anderson and Johnson to tell them to get their people.
Anderson's going to get his people stirred up.
Johnson is.
I called Rockefeller and he said,
He thought that this wasn't as big a problem as I seem to think.
I mean, the public reaction, he said, of course he's in a complete agreement with us.
Oh, he's completely, he said, I told him that, I said there's no danger whatsoever.
He said he isn't sure he can make a public statement supporting us.
But he will absolutely not say anything against us by implication or in any other way.
And he's looking, going to look for an opportunity to say that as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
He thinks it's impossible.
I'll talk to Bunkin.
He'll turn off the missile.
I just wanted to, he thinks he should.
He should now.
I think even more now.
This day.
Did you talk about your ex?
Yes.
I didn't tell him about the rest of it.
What does he think about your ex?
He's an ex.
Could he sort of urge him?
Yeah.
You know, to state that, look, we're cutting off this thing.
We could just have a private visit.
Right.
Or just so he could present his views on the economy, say, and so forth, without any publicity.
I think that's the whole thing.
Right.
He'll do that.
That's good.
Yeah, he's waiting in the cabinet room, but he's got time.
Yeah.
We won't take too long.
Isn't he a great guy, though?
I have a couple thoughts.
At the dinner last night for Brandt,
I'll show you how they work.
I'd like for you to get a copy of his toaster.
It was a very goddamned shameful exercise.
Because it was all right in some ways, but ain't nobody there got it except me.
He had a Jewish business about that we hope you
bringing him to the war in Vietnam.
He had in a statement about his suffering in Pakistan.
And he had in nothing in regard to the grace notes about the second time he was seen, nothing about that.
like how he survived in terms of the, you know, the, uh, in other words, it was a totally way-forgotten press that they put out.
That's one thing that we... Yeah, I'm sure put it out.
Well, I told them that we weren't putting anything out, so...
I don't care whether it goes out.
But I wonder whether I shouldn't call Barr before we run this meeting with a lot of the American press, whether I shouldn't call Barr now.
But the difficulty with all the other things is that Ron really owes it to us.
He owes it to us to say something, frankly, complimentary about the President.
Now, I get up in all these toasts and I provide crazy stories.
We get very little return.
You understand that?
We get very little return.
Now, this fellow owes us a great deal.
He owes us a great deal.
He got to know it when he stood up on this Mansfield Amendment week.
We have stood up, we should have embarrassed them more than we did on the farm.
The Berlin thing isn't going to go without this.
But he's playing this kind of a game.
He told me that he was down yesterday afternoon with Senator Humphrey at the Wilson Center.
Well, now, Will Humphrey, of course, was using that Wilson Center for the first time.
Senator was there, both passing their hair on it.
He invited me, but I didn't go.
I didn't have the time.
I don't know about the drive, but my point is that what we have here is a situation where we're doing a great deal for them.
And it's about time that they said a word for us.
I don't know whether it's worth your calling, Bob.
No, I wonder.
I wonder, Henry.
I mean, that's what I said, Bob.
I must say, we sat with Rogers on the other side, and I told Rogers before the dinner, and I said, look, I have not been talking all day.
We're not talking.
But I went through the Vietnam, and Bill James, the one we were talking so much about, he sounded like a toad.
He didn't say one darn thing.
He has an extreme left wing.
May I get Brown now before they start running?
Okay.
Can you get me Mr. Parr, the HR, the assistant to Chancellor Brown?
Oh, Brown.
That's my office.
They know how to get him.
This is Mr. Kissinger.
This is not believing in Atticus.
No, Mr. President, I worked my head off with Atticus.
And we are saving, if we don't, if he doesn't get the Berlin negotiations, which we are getting for him.
Yeah.
Of course, for our own reasons.
Yeah.
He better know, he better step up to the American press and say, President, he's playing a very constructive role here.
I most agree.
the way that you stood up on this, the way that you stood up on that.
You have to say this, repeat this.
One vote cuts off with regard to Vietnam or something like that.
Of course, we're really in a situation where the lack of attacks on all fronts around the world
Hello?
Yes?
Hello?
How are you?
He, I have to be quite honest with you because sometimes psychological things make a difference.
He had the impression that yesterday the chancellor in his house was really playing very much for his domestic
situation without saying one graceful thing about, you know, his reception and what support he would be getting from us.
And he felt that the remarks about Vietnam were certainly very ambiguous.
You know, we didn't ask him to say anything about it one way or the other.
And I just wondered, if or as a friend, whether it isn't
It wouldn't be good if he made him end with a press.
Today, with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he could make some positive statements about the relationship that has developed.
Yes, Bill.
I don't know if it's true.
I can only say what the act of this President was.
Ouch.
Yeah.
Well, this, I, you know, I can only say what the impression was.
And what I would recommend, you know, as a friend, and this is not in any sense official, if the Chancellor could find an opportunity while he's in this country in talking to the press, to make clear that we have been helpful in the negotiations.
And if your Chancellor wants it.
and that we have been working together well, it would remove this light, the ambiguity that he detected yesterday.
I will see him in a few minutes, and you can be sure I'll make this point.
And I will see you and Rush later today.
I think his basic problem, Mr. President, is that he is very bright.
We have a press lecture scheduled at the end of the night.
We'll see you there right now.
Well.
Back to your area.
Yeah, you, uh, that's right.
You sit there, uh, there.
That's right, that's right.
Good.
Do you think they're concerned about documents at all?
Black documents at all?
No, they're not concerned.
No?
They're not concerned.
There it is.
Come on.
Yeah, there it is.
There it is.
Thank you.
Thank you.
First of all, he said it was unintentional.
And he is appalled that this could be an understood complaint.
Would you tell them that some people there had raised their hands?
I said some people there.
I said I haven't had a chance to talk to them yet.
But some people there remarked on the fact that with the Senate in the trouble that he was in, it wasn't a very graceful job.
What we had done was the best thing that we could have done, and he would be also in the Soviet mind about it.
And he said that if he's having a press lunch at 1, and he's meeting with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at 4, and rushes that he'll be there at 4, so I'll know when he's there.
Right.
Right.
Well now, let's come down to our problems.
We discussed with you the July thing.
You can see the problem.
I do, yes.
I do not see anything that would be gained certain years in.
And my guess is, I don't know there would be, would be gained much there.
At this point, we have a meeting, but, uh, and, uh, I thought it blew that, but if, uh, not if it is in the public sense, but if it is in the public sense, it is all due and, uh,
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
We escalate, we rush over there right now with all the talk about, you know, this, what do you think of these New York Times things?
I mean, this Chris Holt, this outrageous, this, how can you possibly, how can anybody advise a president if he really wants to do it?
How can you run a government?
I suppose people say, well, we are proud to know how we got through the war, yeah.
All right.
You know, isn't it true that some of the Pearl Harbor documents have not yet been declassified?
I'd just like to know.
The usual rule is that 25 years for secret documents and top secret ones have to be examined individually.
Do you have any idea who did this?
Well, yes.
Do you think it's Ellsworth?
It's probably Ellsworth.
It's an all-Iran corporation.
Yes, well, it's got to be somebody who wins.
Only 25 is on there.
It's got reputation, but he's got a bad reputation.
It's got to be somebody who wins, both Democrats and Republicans, and who doesn't mind getting calls.
I didn't realize that they beat 45 volumes of ducks.
How could he give out 45 volumes?
I mean, how could they do it?
What did he do?
Did he take them out?
You know, there's supposed to be rules with regard to taking classified stuff home.
How did he get it out of the Pentagon?
Well, he took it out at the end.
He was part of the task force that was putting it together.
He just took a copy of it.
He must have had a copy of it or something.
Because I noticed it said typographical error or something.
But he took a copy home.
But you said there were four?
Five.
Five.
It's an awful lot of stuff to get home.
Well, the RAND Corporation is on our list.
If they were so security leaky, they wouldn't do it.
I mean, isn't that awfully negligent?
You know, today in the New York Times, the whole security system is breaking down.
Today in the New York Times, on the front page, they have a story of the MSC study on 1972 options for Vietnam.
I saw that, yes.
That's top secret.
Then they have that story that Watson complained about yesterday.
That's now on the front page of the New York Times.
Because we did hold up the Del Paso contract.
I'm going to kill him.
I'm going to hold it up.
We're going to kill him.
So that's the... We're coming back to the options then.
Well, the problem in defense is
I think that almost every civilian in the defense believes that the armament improvement packages have to be subtracted.
They have a vested interest in the packages, and they've been resisting this idea.
I've talked to people about this in the defense.
I think, for example, you pull out all American helicopters by taxi.
Yes, I did.
Well, all right, well, coming back to this problem, with that story, we're going to be, we're going to, I know it's been a long time since we did, we had to do it today, and we're going to, you know,
in some way or other, see it through.
But at the present time, the high hold, the Vietnam thing, which you, my brother-in-chief, is scared of the better interests of Americans.
And I see her meet me in the Red Room.
And her comes out there.
We'll call her when I start over.
She used to go to the Red Room.
She said, I don't want to blow up and down.
Now, we're going to leave.
I'm going to have to run about.
I'll be over there.
I'm telling you, she could be in the bedroom with the judge.
Perhaps she could play again.
So, fine actor.
Fine actor.
All right.
Now, getting all this out of the way, our goal is clear.
Our goal now, as we come to near the end of this long road, is to...
Succeed.
We can succeed.
You agree?
Yes.
Now, we can, but on the other hand, we must not give our enemies, and I'm not referring to our enemies in Vietnam, but our enemies in this country, we cannot give them the weapons to kill us with.
Now, I think, for example, any meeting with you, by meeting at this point,
That's why I was trying to get him to donate that early.
Yes.
So he had that washed out.
But any means at this point will give me an effortless hypo and to a blatant attempt on our part to strengthen his political position.
I agree.
I agree.
That will hurt him here.
It also could hurt him now.
I think he must be really, he must be told to go ahead and get it done.
And it's such a good reason for that.
He will have our, he has my support as he has, and God knows nobody's giving him support as we have.
And you're going to come out and look the thing over.
Now, can you sell that to him?
I think so, yes.
I will.
I think, yes.
You can tell him that you look over it on the public opinion.
You look over the Senate.
And it's right now the best thing is to let it ride through.
Exactly.
You know, I think in the interest of the elections there, if
If this took place, Min, for example, might use this as an excuse just to pull out, you know.
And as I said to you, you can't run alone.
You can't run for office alone.
You've got to have some other competitors.
And Min is just that sort of fellow.
I'm afraid he'll pull out anyway at the end.
Is Keane running with Min now?
No, he's running separately, independently.
And I have...
So Key definitely will get enough evidence to be able to run.
Oh, I think he'll get the permission.
I think he and Jim, I think he and Min have got a deal.
That Min will work with the assembly, and Key will work with the consulates.
And Min will get... Because they don't take away from each other.
Because they don't take away from each other.
I have a... Drop.
I have an interesting document I'd like to show you, Henry.
Here.
This has done a poll.
We run this, what we call, Pacification Attitude Analysis System, PASS.
It's a poll that we take on various questions in the countryside, as a management tool, to see how pacification is going.
Well, they asked a question which I didn't know about it, and Bill called me up, and I said, well, for God's sakes,
Suppress that one, because it gets out.
It's a hell of a mess.
The question was, who would you like to win the presidential election in 1971?
Well, to our surprise, in the rural areas, 71% for two, 14.5% for men, and 9% for teens.
Now, in the cities where we expected to run, Q would not be as strong.
He ran 33% in Denon against 31% for Minsk, 41%
against 27.
22% in Saigon against 7, which surprised us, really.
64% in Canto against 17.
So on a national basis, 65%.
There's more people living in the country than in the city still.
Key 9.3, admin 17.3.
He was surprised by this.
Just keep it.
Yeah.
But right now, he is ahead.
He's very well advised, not impressive.
Exactly.
But the Senate told you.
I don't know what else to keep him ahead of that.
Getting back to this problem that we had yesterday in the Trump thing, as you can see, that is, that is, it's just an enormous population of voters, and it's a young, no young, it's a terrible thing, and it's a terrible thing, and it's a terrible thing to do solely because of Trump, solely because of Trump.
He went back to his Microsoft code and found out that people could buy shots for $2 a day in the whole airport.
There's lots of information about that.
And, of course, there's these stories about the brother of the prime minister.
They don't know that the prime minister is not true.
It's somebody else.
They know this is true and so forth.
It smacks of everything.
Of course, we all know that.
The church had the same problem.
Their relatives are on it.
It's mistake.
the rest, but I just can't emphasize too strongly that maybe our own people just go and shoot up those drug places.
I don't know why, but we've got to get, it has to be done, or we've got a massive, massive issue on our hands.
He knows that.
I know you talked to him.
At your briefing, you tweeted, and I don't want to belabor this, but you're keenly aware of it.
Oh, yes.
Just put it at the top of the agenda.
Yeah.
And don't give the press a chance to share it.
Yeah.
And it's a tremendous problem.
You see, as I said Monday, they were not useless.
I mean, we brought it there and provided the market.
Now they're scared.
were going to spread to their own troops.
And concerned that when we're out, if it has spread to their troops, we'll out and they're going to be in a real mess.
So, I'm glad to see that this morning, this report came in and he put in this, Colonel, he told me he was going to submit a new Director General of Customs for South Vietnam, Mr. Jacob.
So we'll get out and keep at it, keep the pressure on.
Well, with regard to other problems, what do you see in the present time?
Do you want to?
Well, the President, I said to you last night, of course, to give you a surprise, and as he said, which I've already reported, there are three things only that he has had wanted to take up.
One was economic assistance, long-term economic assistance.
He has our assurance on that.
Kissinger, when he is there, will reassure him.
The second thing, why don't you put it on the basis that Kissinger, that's one of the points that Kissinger has heard, discussed substantively with him at that point.
And that he can speak with total authority.
Good.
The second thing, Mr. President, was the acceleration of the on-lab improvement and modernization program.
They've asked...
to improve weapons.
As a result, what they learned is the Lansdowne operation, what the enemy had.
They had longer range artillery, they had bigger tanks, and these are things they want, and I think they want some more helicopters probably.
Abrams and I talked to him, we could go, and went over some of these things with him.
Abrams told him, he said, well, it wouldn't make a difference if you had bigger tanks because of the command problem and your armor.
The result would have been the same.
Well, that's true, but as I said,
They've got to fix up the command problem, but that one, if they do, they do.
Small attacks.
But there can be no excuse about that.
I don't care what's out there.
Leave it there.
This business of picking up a lot of stuff and hauling it home that doesn't do anything except for keeping it.
I didn't know if they got there or something, but it robbed wrestling fields.
Leave it in Vietnam.
Let them sell it, put it in the black market, anything they want.
Leave it in Vietnam and put it in heaven.
Then the third thing is, of course, is the shortness of continued air support.
You see, on this basis, the two of you, and I think we think he's right too, that Lansdowne and our better air conditioners taken care of this year.
When it comes to the dry season again in the fall, November, they'll begin to try to build up supplies for a push in the March-May period, begin the August-September period, to have our elections.
And we can't let anything go wrong next year before our elections here.
And therefore, they'll need our support.
Because they can't, their planes, what we give them are really not much good for interdiction.
There's more jets to carry.
One thing they complain about is that they can't carry a bomber.
They have to go back and rearm so often that they lose time.
But our interdiction has been improved tremendously this year.
Last year,
The throughput was about 37% of the input.
So far this year, because of Lapson and interdiction, it's been about 13.7%.
It's been a vast improvement.
And it's made a tremendous difference, and this is going to be a factor next year.
And this is why both Abrams and I think she was right on this,
He does need his support.
And when the Secretary of Air told us about the reduction in the budget for 200 million, this is coming here, 500 million is the next one.
How that's going to affect us, I don't know.
But I do think it's an important thing.
I think those are the three, those, he said, those are the only three points.
But I want to hear some more.
There's certainly been a problem this year.
No.
I mean, in October, I mean, in November and December and so forth and so on, you just drop everything there is.
The real problem we get with budgetary problems, I suppose, is what we have left by August and September of next year.
And also a situation.
Well, he said there seemed to be a question of priorities, I mean, shifting from something else to this.
What should we do?
My view is, first of all, we should force defense to program full air support through next year, because if we don't, they'll just yank it out of it, even if we don't use it.
And secondly, as long as we can keep the interdiction bombing going,
They got in bad shape by launching a big offensive.
But we started, I think, after September next year, or maybe even earlier, their supply effort for the August-September period is during the spring.
So we've got to keep it going through the spring.
In Laos, in southern Laos, the northern part is less... Yeah, that is the most... That's right.
I don't think so.
We can't let anything go wrong before our elections next year.
Henry is right as far as the air support is concerned, but it really counts.
And so far as they're offensive in September or obvious in September, you've got to knock them out in the spring.
Yes, that's right.
But we'll do that.
We can commit to that.
And I guess you have to do it now.
The United Nations has done a terrific job this year, and I think that's it.
improved equipment, these new C-130 engines.
That's the main thing, Mr. President.
The economic situation, I think, at present, is better than I thought it could be with these reforms we've put in.
Now, prices have only increased since the end of December about 2.8%.
And in the last 12 months, only 8.8%.
which is a pretty good record.
We used to think 30% a year was good.
So, it's been, it's done pretty well.
The Minister of Economy is here now in New York, who was the first-rate, the best man they've got in the Cabinet.
And two of them, excuse me, good banking.
Those are the main things.
The, uh, Tue, as you know, has, uh, has suggested, and said, that several groups would be welcome.
And, uh, I think that you cannot be offensive on that.
If you have a group, we can be helpful.
If you have a group, we can be offensive on that.
We've got to do it in order because you know some of these people are asking that a special committee be set up.
We'll put one together.
As a matter of fact, Andy Stevenson has come to see me this afternoon.
He's wanting to put in a resolution.
What he really wants is something that means
He wants to, he wants to monitor me.
Yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah.
But I see that the Americans do not play a role in it.
Well, you just say we're not playing a role.
Exactly.
Well, I'll give him the guidance I put out to the mission.
Why, of course.
The guidance you put out to the mission, that's what I'm talking about.
Look at the past history, and he's on a bad wicket here.
You're welcome to come.
We have nothing to hide.
Yeah.
But I'm inviting this individual to come.
put him on that committee.
What am I on?
In other words, who is on it now?
Who would it be?
I don't know.
David McGregor's getting together with him.
I just don't understand.
This should not be an in-house meeting.
This should be a... No, no, it's not.
It's bipartisan.
We go out and look at the elections.
Let's get it out.
I'd like to have an announcement of that soon.
We had two very, three good experts on it last time.
We had Dick Scalvin.
We had...
Professor Hesgood from Rutgers, and Penn from Georgetown.
They both did a very good part.
But Scammer helped me out in many conventions.
Scammer, yeah, good one.
But Scammer, of course, is a top enterprise with Charles, too.
Yeah, that's him on the thing.
It's lovely.
Thank you.
or fairer than most elections in most American cities and all that space.
Yeah.
Well, there are no fair elections in Southeast Asia, and there are no fair elections in Latin America, even though that, you know, maybe Mexico.
Well, the scoundrel who wrote you one morning came to us.
The scoundrel who came to us.
Our Democratic critics can't question Schemin because he's their Michael of all things.
Well, let's take the offensive on it.
Let's get that out right away.
It's good to knock off the seats, and maybe we should see seats, and find out what makes you welcome.
And I give you a sign to say nothing about it.
Yes.
Right.
The thing is that the...
Apparently, from what I hear, most everybody was willing to get lost in this case.
He said, you know, I went there with great skepticism.
He said, I came back from Concord.
Oh, yes, he had a great time.
Yeah.
The point is, he was exposed to the French.
Yeah.
They came out there and saw what was going on.
He decided to come back.
He said, they were all wrong.
Our real problem at this time is that, yeah,
Nobody really would have predicted that things would be going as well as they are now.
But, uh, you could have thought a lot about Lansong.
But how in the world, how in the world would the categories emerge in 20?
Unless we've got Lansong right now, I'm sure.
The 19 last week, 23 this week, right?
That is the last week.
What's 25?
Oh, absolutely.
Lansong, you know, in spite of the press, was a good operation.
Some of those Vietnamese units did superb jobs, the 1st Division, the Marines, the Airborne.
They did tremendous jobs.
Actually, the Vietnamese units that bothered me are not the ones that I saw.
I think they thought, well, it's the ones that have the foreign capability.
Well, they are one division.
Well, that's the fifth division.
Now, after this, Abrams and I have been a year trying to get that commander changed.
And two was agreed, agreed, agreed.
Finally, six weeks of the force, you know, Abrams was away.
A week.
Try that again.
My dad used to send in a number for a wife.
He said they had to really get this out.
I went to Jim and I said, this isn't, we've been talking about this for nine, 10 months, we've got to do it.
He said, yes, I've talked for hours.
Trying to get the right man.
Well, it took Stonewall to finally get the job done.
Now he's put in what Abrams said was the best regimental commander from the 21st Division in the Dulles, which was Smith's.
Old vision, before he became the captain of the military district.
But Min is a good man.
He's all right.
So what is your... For you to come back to this country, it must be crushing when you see what Mr. does.
But out there, how do you feel?
Not there.
I feel fine out there.
I mean, I think things are going well.
Except for this damn drug business.
But I think that as far as I see it, the economic situation is stable.
And I think things are moving.
The campaign, I think, is going to be rough.
But I think he's good.
He and Ben do run, because I think you will win, and I think it's a good chance to play for the competition.
There's criticism, of course, of this endorsement position, but the reason for it is fairly fair.
We had 11 candidates last time.
Yeah, no, we've got to get a little crack.
Mr. President, you've been doing this for too long.
Well, we will save you, Mr. President, anyway.
Oh, but he'll understand.
Yes, I'll tell you what you're going to do.
Yeah, I think, Henry, I think it would be good if we were trying to move it.
You'd better, you know, listen to this.
And that's it, Mr. President.
We've got to get the state people...
lined up, you know what I mean?
I'm speaking about how it gets your trip on Salvo there.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
Yeah, but I could go and find a trip without threats.
Yes, I know.
I see the problem.
Yes.
The one problem is with him going back on the under 20s.
Well, maybe he'll do it now.
It's a little... How about faring him now?
That's what I meant, before he goes.
Instead, before he goes back.
and then you just stay in and then you sit down with Rogers and say, oh, here's the situation, and let's get it.
We don't want Rogers out there.
We don't want Laird out there and so forth, but I've got a commitment.
I made a commitment to come out and speak to you that you can build a full commitment and that's what you recommend and that I think is a good idea.
See, that's what I think.
See?
We all appreciate the support you give them, sir.
Yeah.
Wait, wait, wait.
Just wait a minute.
You do it.
Wait.