Conversation 573-001

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Thank you.

Yeah.

I think the Senate is now in the process of deciding whether to send a draft bill or not.

The Senate this morning reflected some of your thoughts on the Senate bill.

I wonder if you could tell us, if the draft bill is defeated, where that will place you in the negotiations so it's on mutual and true control in Europe, the SALT office, and the other negotiations that are going on.

Well, I don't like to speculate as to what would happen if the draft bill is defeated, because I think this would be one of the most

irresponsible acts on the part of the United States Senate that I could possibly think of.

When we consider where the United States is in the world today in terms of world leadership and in terms of our peace initiatives, what we have to recognize is that if the draft fails to pass to Congress and if the United States then must build its defenses without the draft,

that our peace initiatives around the world would be jeopardized.

Our peace initiative in the Mideast, our peace initiatives in Europe with regard to the balance force reductions which you've mentioned, our peace initiatives with the Soviet Union which are in other areas, and also our talks which will take place later in Asia.

And now, I say this for the reason that all of the talks that we have planned are based on mutuality.

And putting yourself into the position of those on the other side of the table, if they can get what they want, in other words, a reduction of America's ability to maintain its own defenses without negotiating, they're not going to get anything.

So I would summarize by saying that a vote against the draft, in my opinion, would be a vote that seriously jeopardizes the peace and equity of the United States around the world.

And without question, it is a vote that will make the United States the second strongest nation in the world, with all the implications that it has, insofar as the ability of the United States to keep the peace

and then negotiating for peace in this great security.

Mr. President, on the subject of the United Nations debate over China, some critics of your new policy on the U.N., and I refer you specifically to Dr. Walter Judge, who may have said it yesterday, are saying that the expulsion of the nationalist government would not be legal under this charter without a vote of the Security Council making such a recommendation to the General Assembly.

Now, I recognize that you

Mr. Bailey, we've spent many months looking into the legality of the situation, and in fairness to Dr. Judd, I should say that there are different legal opinions that you can get with regard to what action is needed.

for purposes of expulsion and whether Security Council action is required as well as the other.

We, however, have reached it, including that the position we presently take, which has been stated by the Secretary of State and by Ambassador Bush, is the legally sustainable one.

To put also our policy in clear perspective, we favor the admission

We will vote for the admission of the People's Republic to the United Nations, and that will mean, of course, a security consultancy.

We will vote against the expulsion of the Republic of China, and we will work as effectively as we can to accomplish that goal.

We have no further comment on this point.

May I follow this?

When you say it favors the obtaining of a security account received by the People's Republic, that implies that the Republic of China would be removing the security account.

Our analysis indicates that this is really a moot question.

In the event that

the seat of the Security Council that would go to the Republic of China.

I'm sorry, to the People's Republic.

And that, of course, would mean the removal of the Republic of China from the Security Council seat.

The statement that was made yesterday simply reflected the realities of the situation in the United Nations.

Mr. President, now that you have a new economic policy, I'm wondering if you would be prepared to make a prediction when asked to what kind of a year this will be?

Well, I stick to my previous prediction that 1971 may be a good year in the sense of the economy, and that 1972 will be a very good year.

As a result of a new policy, I believe that the last quarter

will be better than I had originally thought it might be.

Rather than being good, it will be considerably better than good.

And I think 1972 will be a very strong year.

I face these predictions, however, on the assumption that we will get the cooperation of Congress on the tax money.

It is essential for continued economic expansion of the Congress support, the tax initiatives that we have placed before the Congress.

And I hope that when the Ways and Means Committee finally votes on a bill, that it will pass the House and then go to the Senate and we'll get here for signature within the shortest possible time.

I don't see it needed for a week or a day.

Mr. President, in that same area, would you accept a 7% investment tax credit rather than a 10% and 5%?

And also, would you accept an increase of $200 or $250 if you know what the standard is?

The problem of what the president accepts, of course, is somewhat controlled by what he should get.

Now, in this instance, I'm the grad secretary calling this testimony very carefully for the ways it needs to be made.

And, you know, he faces realities in answering the questions.

We believe that the 10%, 5% approach is much the better one because it will give a charge to the economy near the weeds, which is now, on the other hand, 7% would be better than nothing.

When we look also at the situation with regard to raising the standard deduction and the minimum exemption, there are a number of polls in this area that have been suggested in both houses.

I think we believe that our passage is a balanced one.

It is the right one, and we're going to fight for it.

On the other hand, if the Congress, after due deliberation, moves in another direction, which is essentially aimed at our goal, then I will have to consider the measure when it comes here, and I would tend to consider it affirmatively unless it completely blew the top off my bucket.

The main problem on the second thing is the degree that we go in terms of

providing additional relief for individuals.

If that degree is too high, without a corresponding kind of spending, the budget implications are enormous, and that would mean an additional fire for the border as far as inflation is concerned.

Mr. President, will you read the decision on the side of Lord Delvey to get rid of taxes in Alaska?

Mr. Patrick, we are considering all of the factors involved, including the environmental factors, and I will be making decisions, I would say, within the near future.

But that is a matter which has been discussed in this office on several occasions.

I am waiting for all the evidence to come in, and then I will answer your question.

We will announce it, of course, in a little bit.

Mr. President, I see a changed political picture in South Vietnam, and race for the presidency there.

Any effect on your future plans as far as the level of United States troops and United States activity in that region?

As far as our plans for

the American involvement in Vietnam is concerned, we have to keep in mind our major goal, which is to bring the American involvement to an end in a way that will leave South Vietnam in a position to defend itself from a communist takeover.

As far as President Pugh's political situation is concerned, I think it's well to put that subject in perspective.

We would have preferred to have had a contested election.

We, however, cannot get people to run when they do not want to run.

It could be pointed out, however, that in fairness to the democratic process and how it is working in South Vietnam, the congressional elections, the elections to the National Assembly, could not be overlooked.

80% of the people of South Vietnam voted as compared to 70-60% who voted in our congressional elections in 1970.

A third of those who were elected opposed President Chu, and some of those who were elected to the National Assembly were those who started that they could not be elected before the election because the election would be rigged.

Now President Chu has made the election in October for the presidency of the vote of confidence.

There are criticisms for the effect that this vote of confidence will not be an accurate one, but he has invited foreign observers and justices.

and to observe it.

My view is that the United States should continue to keep its eye on the main objective, and that is to end the American war, just as soon as that is consistent with our overall goal, which is South Vietnam able to defend itself against communist takeover, and which, of course, includes, from our standpoint,

primary interest in maintaining the release of our POWs.

I note one thing, Isabella, on your question to Geraldine, that is presently apparently before the Senate or Assembly committee, and that is the recommendation for a resolution to the effect that the United States should cut off aid to South Vietnam.

Unless President Hu does have a contested election.

Now, let's just look at what that means in terms of worldwide policy.

We, for a president, provide military and or economic aid to 91 countries in the world.

I check these various countries as far as their heads of government are concerned.

And in only 30 of those countries do they have leaders who are there as a result of a contested election by any standards that we would consider fair.

In fact, we would have to cut off aid to two-thirds of the nations in the world, in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia, to whom we are currently giving aid if we apply those standards that some suggest we apply to South Vietnam.

I again say that we would prefer, as far as South Vietnam is concerned, that this democratic process would roll faster.

We believe that considerable headway has been made.

We believe that the situation from that standpoint is infinitely better in South Vietnam, where they at least have some elections, than in North Vietnam, where they have none.

And we're going to continue to work for that goal.

Mr. President, I have a question.

Senator Jackson said that the United States needs

because it has leveraged which could remain the situation even now.

Your answer does not suggest that we don't plan to do anything about it.

What would you say to Senator Jackson's statement about it?

Well, Mr. Listergaard,

When we speak of leverage, of course we have leverage, because we do provide military and economic assistance to South Vietnam.

Second, Ambassador Bunker, working diligently, I can assure you, has attempted to, in every way possible, to get people into the ranks so that they would

And, of course, he has, of course, worked toward the end of, once it appeared that others would not run, of getting the election to be one that would at least provide a chance to have a vote of confidence in the president.

What the Senator is suggesting is that the United States should use its leverage now to overthrow Jews.

I would remind all concerned that the way we got into Vietnam was through overthrowing Vietnam and the complicity in the murder of Vietnam.

And the way to get out of Vietnam, in my opinion, is not to overthrow Q with the inevitable consequence or the greatly increased danger, in my opinion, of that being followed by coup after coup and the very road to a communist takeover.

Mr. President, on the South Vietnamese election, once it is completed, will you be able to listen to the American objective of achieving

Do you think that with this election, that objective will have been met?

No.

As a matter of fact, that objective will not be met perhaps for several generations.

But at least we will be on the road.

I think sometimes we forget, as I tried to point out a moment ago in my answer to the question in regard to military and economic assistance to countries around the world, how difficult the process of democracy is.

It took the British 500 years to get to the place where they had what we could really describe as a democratic system under the Parliamentary setup.

And it didn't grow, spring up full grown in the United States.

I was reading a very interesting

an account of the battle in 1800 between Jefferson and Adams.

And I was curious to know how many people were eligible for those in that great battle in 1800 that changed the whole future of the United States, that brought in the Jeffersonians and beat the Iranians.

At that time, in the United States, at four or a quarter million people, there were only 150,000 people eligible for those.

And so, as we look at our own history, we find that it took us time to come where we are.

We cannot expect that American-style democracy, meeting our standards, will apply in other parts of the world.

We cannot expect that it will come in a country like South Vietnam, which has no traditions whatever, without great difficulties.

We have made progress.

On the Attica prison deaths, in November of 1969, you made a statement saying that most

American prisons and directional facilities presented a convincing picture of failure.

Has what happened at Attica, has that made you reconsider plans that you offered to Attorney General Mitchell to call a conscience to speed up the proposal?

And what do you think the Attica incident will do to the penal reform movement?

Well, like all tragic events, it has its affirmative aspects.

And in this case, it's, I think, very helpful to note that Governor Rockefeller has already moved in that direction, prison reform.

Prison reform with regard to the problems of prisoners and their proper treatment, and prison reform, which will deal with the problem of guards in prison and their protection.

As far as I am concerned, I still believe that the problem of prisons in the United States, which, incidentally, is primarily not a federal problem so much as it is a state and local problem.

The problem of prisons in the United States is one that very much needs attention.

I have been particularly impressed in that respect, incidentally, by articles that have been written by Al Austin, a Gulf returner,

And as a result of having read his articles, I talked to the attorney general, and we are working on this project.

Perhaps this will give an additional interest.

With regard to Governor Rockefeller's actions, I know some of you ladies and gentlemen in the press were surprised that I was, with all the problems I have, stepping to support him on a problem that was not mine.

That just happens to be the way I react.

You may recall that when Prime Minister Trudeau had a somewhat similar situation with us, I called him and said that I backed what he had to do under very difficult circumstances.

I can imagine that this is the most painful, excruciating experience that Governor Rockefeller, a very good man and a very progressive man,

has had in his September public service.

I knew that he would never have gone as far as he called that morning when I was in the cabin, unless he had felt that it was the only thing that he could possibly do to try to save some of the guards that were held hostage.

And when a man in a hard place makes a hard decision and steps up to it, I back him up.

And I don't try to second-guess him the next day when some of the other returns come in.

I still back him.

I believe that people with public positions, whether they are governors or, for that matter, prime ministers or maybe even presidents, cannot give in to demands for rent.

Mr. President, we're told that you have not made any decisions on the basis of conversations you've had so far.

Have you been able to accumulate any impressions or any

I do not want to give advance notice at this point as to what thinking we may be

I'm thinking right after this conference with the representatives of governments, state legislatures, cities and counties.

We'll meet tomorrow at the congressional meeting.

And there are other meetings that are scheduled before September 30th when I've asked for all the evidence we've brought in.

I can, however, give you an indication generally of how we're going to come out.

First, let me say that the statement that was made by Secretary Spang

represented, as Mr. Ziegler pointed out this morning, or at least in the time this morning, represented what is a strongly built view primarily in the business community.

It does not represent that we have foreclosed the matter as far as our own thinking is concerned.

On the other side of the spectrum, on the labor side of the spectrum, there is a desire for voluntary restraints only, a tripartite board, so to speak,

Good and good, good and good.

In between, you have various suggestions.

These are my Kennedy conclusions with regard to the direction.

First, there will be a strong, effective follow-on program.

The American people overwhelmingly support the waiting price freeze.

The American people overwhelmingly want it followed.

They don't want to have a freeze followed by a fraud, which we get stuck in the mud.

And we're not going to have that.

Phase two will be strong.

It will be effective.

Now, it will deal with the problem of wages and prices and will retrain wages and prices in major conditions.

Second, it will require the cooperation of labor and man.

But third, and this is vital to us, it will have teeth.

You cannot have job owning that is effective without heat.

Now, this is the direction that I have given to those working in the program, and we are pulling together together.

I will make the announcement in mid-October, 30 days before, at least 30 days or more,

Have you decided in your own mind when you're going to China?

Well, first, I am going to time.

Second, as far as the date of the trip of consent and the agenda, the arrangements of consent, all of those will be announced at an appropriate time.

And beyond that, I do not think it would be culpable at this point

who discuss the data that may be under consideration, the agenda that may be under consideration, and the rest.

All I can say is that the plans for the trip are going forward on schedule.

And we don't want to be the first to know.

So it's very sad that you decided in your own mind when you're done.

Well, that's a mutual decision, and we have, we are working it out in a satisfactory way.

Mr. President, may I follow up on this?

We haven't just, we don't just, in a case like this where two governments are involved, one doesn't take a date and another doesn't take a date, it isn't that kind of operation.

And it's going very well.

Mr. President, on this kind of trip, Premier John Lai has done quite the talking since you announced your visit to the United States.

Particularly in his interview with Mr. Rexton in New York Times, he was quite hard-line and quite firm on a lot of agenda issues or obvious issues that we all assume are going to come up.

I'd like to ask you,

a comment on the fact that he took a hard stand on a number of things, like through China, like entrance into the U.N., like the U.S., especially in Southeast Asia.

Your reaction to that hard line, and secondly, did he tell Mr. Reston anything that was a surprise or news to you?

No, there was not even a Reston piece that he had not already told Dr. Chister in much greater detail.

For that reason, we were not surprised at all at the rest of the piece.

I think one of the reasons that these talks may be productive is that Prima Kilimanjaro, both publicly and privately, doesn't take the usual naive, sentimental idea, and he did a lot, that, well, if we just get to know each other, all of our differences are going to evaporate.

He recognizes and I recognize that there are very great differences between

the People's Republic of the United States of America.

He recognizes, and I recognize, that at this point, it might serve our mutual interest to discuss those differences.

I reiterate, however, as he has reiterated to us both privately and even in his interview with Mr. Rustin and Leslie Hill, in fact, while there are differences,

that we must recognize that we have agreed to discuss the differences.

That is all that has been agreed.

There are no other conditions.

Now, that in mind, it is the proper way to begin a conference between two countries that have not had any diplomatic relations.

Mr. President, you have just said that the Ways and Means Committee will approve the act of the 4100.

I think they're moving along fairly well.

It may be pretty close to a dead heat, but I would hope to say that they were moving that way.

Let me say one point on that point.

We are working very closely with the Ways and Means Committee and Secretary Collins in terms

He will begin consultations also with the Senate Finance Committee with Senator Long and Senator Kennett and their counterparts.

Because we do not want to have an extended discussion in the Senate about tax proposals we have to drag.

Mr. President, our international economic programs seem to have shaken up our friends more than our enemies in Europe, particularly in Japan.

What is your feeling about that?

Is this going to be a worry for us?

Aren't we hurting some very good and important friends in the pocket?

Well, it's inevitable that those policies would take up our freedoms rather than our potential enemies, I should say, rather than our opponents, because it is our friends with whom we primarily have trade and monetary dealers, and of course our international policies dealt with trade and monetary policy.

On the other hand, what we have to realize is that the

The structure of International Monetary Affairs that had been built 25 years ago and then patched up from time to time over the years is simply to come in obsolete.

it was essential that the United States move, as it did, to protect its interests, and also to get a solution to that problem.

Now, one question that I know is often asked by our friends, by the Japanese, for example, and by the U.S. and the U.S. in general, is how long is temporary, as a temporary surcharge?

My answer to that is that if all we were seeking was a temporary solution

temporary would be very brief.

But we are not seeking a temporary solution.

A temporary solution is one that I would say would be going back to the old system and packing it up again.

What we are seeking is a permanent solution, and that is why the length of the temporary surcharge will be somewhat longer, because we need to address ourselves not only to the matter of monetary policy,

and exchange rates.

We have to address ourselves to burden-bearing.

We have to address ourselves also to

trade restraints, including non-tariff barriers.

This is a time for our friends around the world, and we are all competitors, to build a new system with which we can live so that we don't have another crisis in a year.

With regard to the Japanese, I think I could best summarize our dilemma in this way.

After the Japanese were cured, I found that

both from the information they gave and the information we had ourselves, that Japan is our biggest customer in the world, and we're their biggest customer in the world.

Also, I found that Japan, at the present time, produces more than all of the rest of East Asia combined, including the people of the Republic of China.

Now that shows you the problem.

It means that

The United States and Japan inevitably are going to be competitors because we are both strong economies.

On the other hand, it means that friendship and alliance between the United States and Japan is indispensable.

So what we are trying to do, and this was why these discussions were helpful, what we are trying to do is to work out a new system that will recognize the realities so that

we can reduce these tensions that have developed, the number of crises that have come up over and over again in the international monetary field in the future.

The other point that I would make with regard to the United States, I know that some have raised the question as to whether, in my message to the Congress, I was really announcing to the world that we were, by looking to our own interests, we're going to now be isolations.

On the contrary, a weak America will inevitably be isolated.

An America that is unable to maintain its military strength, and incidentally, in the whole free world, the United States pays two-thirds of the military bill today.

A weak America that is unable to have its economic policies abroad, our economic authority, pardon me for this, inevitably will withdraw into itself.

We have to have a strong America, a strong economic place,

get the United States to continue to play a vigorous active role in the world.

That's why I addressed myself to that problem, and that's why we moved as drastically as we had to do at home and abroad to deal with the basic problems that hurt America today in our society.

Mr. President, Senator Muskie has some comments about the political climate for a black vice president in Kansas.

What is your thinking on that subject?

Well, if you gentlemen know, I have stated and I will state again that I will not use part of the actual press conferences discussed in 1971 to discuss any two politics.

And I will follow that rule today and in the future with regard to similar questions that come up.

With regard to the general proposition

of the prejudice in the United States as it affects politics, I will be glad to reiterate my own position that I stated quite often in 1960, and some of you had to follow me to remember, and again in 1968.

I believe that it is, frankly, a libel on the American people to suggest

that the American people, who do have prejudices, just like all people, and we must agree with that, that the American people would vote against a man because of his religion or his race or his color.

Now, having stated that general proposition,

There are occasions when that happens, I'm sure.

But the American people are very, very kind to people.

And they tend to bend over backwards when they're confronted with this problem.

Before the 60 elections, it was said that America could not be elected.

A Catholic is president, based on the Al Smith case in 1968.

1960 dispelled that, as I well know.

It's a country name.

I think the example of Ed Brook in Massachusetts is an eloquent demonstration of the fact that the American people, when confronted with a superior man, will not vote against him because of his race.

Only 2% of the people of Massachusetts are the same race as Ed Brook.

Yet he won overwhelmingly for a president general, and he won overwhelmingly for the United States Senate, and he's going to win a landslide victory again this year.

Now, what would happen on the national scene is a matter of judgment.

And I am not going to get into that from a political standpoint.

But I do say, however, that I think it's very important for those of us in positions of leadership not to tell a large number of young people in America, whoever they are, that because of the accident of their birth, they don't have a chance to go to the top

Can you tell me a little bit about Canada and the panhandle you've seen compared to Canada in the last couple of years?

That's a close one.

I, uh, we've got our people, uh, our people in the United States.

Our people in the United States.

It's been our 30% off for a long time.

It depends.

I think with the Canadians, we've got to see, well, I'm sorry to tell you, because it's going on and on and on.

It's just a category.

And, of course, Mexico is right up there, too.

Thank you.

... ... ... ... ...

All right, let's give them a one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

It all stays here forever.

It happens to be true.

It's wrong to tell a kid why he doesn't remember his brother.

You can't do that.

You can't tell a kid.

You can't tell him.

Well, you're right to say that.

You remember that, didn't you?

Oh, pretty.

I'm looking for something like that.

That's like...

If you can't have a city over there, you couldn't contain yourself.

Is that right?

I think he's going to burst out laughing.

Thank you for the strength of your answer to the draft question.

Oh, boy.

We put those bastards in the sword now.

They jeopardize our peace initiatives.

And they're going to make a vote against the draft.

It's a vote to make America number two.

Put that right to them.

No, this time it wasn't number two.

We lost it.

We've got to stay up.

a lot of people are with him, like Baker and Glenn Jordan and Taft and Shiles and Dan Brown.

They pledged their good work and work is publicly sent out.

We'll have the motion table and we'll go for a Congress report, so this should help us a great deal.

Thank you very much.

Yes, sir.

You son of a bitch, Cotter.

That was the 66th.

Last poll shows it's 61%.

Oh, and also, that's what's the guy over there, Cotter.

That's right.

That was in there.

It's ridiculous.

Yeah.

He's also got a lot of military establishments in there.

I see your faces.

It is very good material for you on South Vietnam.

It's the answers on South Vietnam.

If you want to talk about cutting off aid to countries, if they ask you about the Greeks, do you want to cut off aid to countries that don't have parliament?

Leaders elected to contest the election can come from a few thirds of the nations of the world, particularly the African countries that we're sitting on now.

Mr. President, I have a question.

I have a question.

The Europeans and the Bananas are supposed to be world capitals.

I didn't know that.

I won't use that.

Go ahead.

Out of all the NLU's present, they've all been extremely effective.

I'd have to rate this one as the most effective.

Vietnam, the draftsmen, the media, they covered the range in the fourth quarter.

You know, laid that right out, stood on that.

Also, we got a good answer on the economy.

The economy that we would, if you could believe, jaw-dropping without teeth.

Right.

On work.

Very strong answers.

There's about five leagues of the story.

There's the drafts, there's the economy.

The things that will be shown.

adding the local thing.

But that sounds good.

It's a great answer.

And there's one with a breeze followed by a fog and stuff like that.

That's part of the economy.

See we have some others.

A lot of good questions.

Don't be deluded by the fact that I'm going over there with any guy.

Well, I mean, Henry Dresden.

Oh, of course.

He was here.

Oh, yeah.

That was great.

It didn't take a second of that.

The way we dealt with him, I guess.

No, no, no offense.

He didn't have anything.

He didn't have any questions.

That wasn't a good one.

He had to tell us really good things.

Today, they were good, all right?

Well, they stepped up to it today, better than they had before.

I mean, they came through with some fairly reasonable questions.

I'm sorry, I think we ran you wrong about that.

Well, they've got some need to deal with, and they don't think...

Also, they didn't just get in touch with us, but the one on China, which is the one we were going to go, he could really dance around.

Of course, the thing is, that was the only stupid question, really.

Whether it was all right or not, what made you a chance to let her know that we were gone, that it was all done, that everything was working out according to plan?

Well, that mutual decision was a good point to make.

It is a mutual decision.

You know, I don't settle that.

We work it out.

I thought that was perfect.

I just like the way you put the rest of it down.

That's an honor.

I think the rest, particularly on the 87th, much better to go down.

Well, yeah, I'm pretty good at memorizing.

Well, the rest of them, I know there's a bit of that.

And he had to go back to getting great detail and that.

And that's why we weren't surprised with the rest of them.

This means this is a chance of regional meetings.

All right.

Thank you.

One of those people, I think, is a naive human.

Tim, why don't we go down here?

That's right.

How did you, how did you like the line, the way we got into the anonymous, the murder of Jim, that the way to get out is not to kill, kill, kill.

You made that 100% clear.

And you said that this customary direction, we were going to turn it over to the communists from the foreign policy point of view, if we could have

Now the question to Jack in the end is, would it be less effective?

If we could get this around again, that would be a non-thing.

And also, I think depending on his election, talking about democracy.

Well, if you throw it in, if you throw it in, how about you didn't know that only $150,000 voted in 1800?

$150,000 voted in 1800.

I saw these guys kind of step back.

That was a good point.

And the other point was the 91 patients that were born.

We had to cut it off.

It's 59.

One and a half percent of the time.

Most women had no right to vote.

Yeah.

Well, women had property.

There was a property.

There were slaves.

Oh, yeah, there were slaves.

The other lady, too, was the one I was trying to recall, of course, was the U.N. shot, of course.

U.N. shot.

Oh, yeah.

That was good.

Yes, that's all we can do.

We'll do what we can.

There was an old lady.

Oh, yeah.

That was just standing.

Trapped.

You just, what?

I thought putting the two of them on the draft, you know, I'm going to tell these bastards, anybody that votes to get rid of the draft, votes for the United States to be number two in the world.

Anybody that votes against the end of the draft will characterize our peace agreement.

And then I'd also make that point.

Look, if you get rid of the draft, what does the person on the other side of the table, if he's going to get it, what he wants without you, why is he going to give you love?

You know what I'm saying?

They had to start defending themselves instead of constantly carrying the attack in.

One thing about this, this is a very easy story for these people to write because those areas were goddamn clear.

And they're packed full of news.

I didn't think they were hostile.

I think they're a little off balance.

What do you think?

Well, they certainly were not... What did we go, 35 minutes?

35, 37, 36 minutes.

That's enough.

Well, they had so much news from the beginning, I was shaking my head to Cormier.

He was not ready to cut it off at 20.

Yeah, but I figured there were a couple other points you wanted to make.

I'm glad you got the musket.

How do you like the musket?

Did you hear what they cut?

That was the last question.

It sure was.

But he made a stupid mistake.

But look, let's face it.

Suppose the next question would be, do you think you could have a Jew on your ticket?

Well, for Christ's sakes, what do you tell the Jews you get?

What do you tell the black people?

Now, we all know that it's going to happen.

I also was quite honest.

I said, we aren't prejudiced in this country.

But the American people bent over backwards not to be.

And that's the damn truth.

And why did they elect Roe?

It was why they elected Roe.

And that was a good point.

It was just great.

That was a particularly good point.

And you got your libel on the American people behind it.

After just a political answer.

You got some damn Catholic things.

This was the best press conference I've heard in a long time.

Good Chinese story.

Good Vietnam story.

Vietnam story.

Good French story.

Good economy.

Two good economy stories.

A good political story.

I'm not going to tell you the answer on that.

Well, the problem is, you know, you can't say we're not going to come home.

Always.

Everything you do this time on television is a mistake.

Yeah, the difficulty is so.

How can you use that television to turn that place?

You can't.

You see.

The other hand, this could not have been done as effectively on television.

It would have been because of the shorter answer and so forth.

The longer answer is better for me at times.

You think so?

Yes, sir.

I think we're ready for a TV one here in the next...

and then do a TV press conference.

I think Ron's right.

We should do it.

The next press conference, I don't know if it's going to happen.

We'll see what happens.

Well, I enjoyed my conversation.

That was perfect.

Were you surprised or something?

Oh, no.

There's nothing going on.

The idea is that everything was that you had it all.

That's the beauty of it.

First of all, they're very meticulous in making clear that they're keeping their power and they're not spreading it to the president.

So by saying that he did nothing wrong in that recent interview, that he didn't, of course, secondly, when you said he's not a naive man,

Of course we have differences that help him domestically in his situation, but his is a lot of men.

And I said all that we agreed to do is to discuss the necrosis, which is another good line for Satan to follow, you know, in the end.

Our primary agreement was to discuss the necrosis.

I'm going to get to the end of the question, and that is, I don't know if I was immediately aware that this is the guidance that must be followed.

There's no damn good, just basic policy lines.

What points would you emphasize there?

Vietnam, no coups.

Our objective is to keep the communists from taking it over.

That was a shot across the bow, not yet.

I said it.

You knew who his girlfriend was.

My readings.

Listen to our cadence, all the way to Moscow.

They were tracked up all the way to Moscow.

She's a very pretty girl, I thought she was.

Migrating, in the hurricane.

Here I used to have it.

But she is the one that wrote the definitive work, you know, on the murder of Jim.

You remember?

She's the one.

So when I went to listen to her, he knew damn well that his girlfriend, Marguerite, had said that they'd killed him.

And it's true, Henry.

The murder of Jim started to sound like a miserable role.

That was the problem.

You got a good answer.

The thoughtful answer won't ever get picked up anymore, but it's kind of interesting.

You might want to use it on TV, and I think they won't ask you the question, unfortunately, if they said, you know, well...

After this election is completed, will the U.S. objective in Vietnam be met?

And the way he said it was just great.

I couldn't see him.

I don't care.

And he said, no.

Not for several generations.

No, you know, a thoughtful no.

On Vietnam, the idea that democracy doesn't spring up for 500 years, but at least we'll be on the road.

That you will, so that you will defend it, that you will.

I anticipated the question, you know, about I had to drag it in, about cutting off 4 and 8.

Because another reason I want that question is I want that to be, incidentally, the guidance on what you'd send us to state.

If anybody asks us about 8 degrees, that is my answer.

You get it?

I'm proud of you.

I thought it was outstanding.

It's a good answer.

We can get aid in 91 countries.

We'd have to cut off aid in 61 countries.

59.

And I hope it's far more than those bastards who give us more.

59 countries that lose their aid.

And it's time for people to space out.

I bet you that the state of the state doesn't know what to do.

I couldn't enumerate 31 countries.

I want the number.

I want to see the 31 countries in which they have it.

That's what I want.

is the last election, put this out, the last election held, when the man was elected, and how many his opponents got, and how many he got.

I couldn't tell you.

Now this will just help, because I didn't have it.

I just want to see, when was he last elected?

When was the last election?

How many his opponents got, and how many did he get?

Now we'll find out.

We'll put that into the story.

Because I couldn't name any, frankly, countries that could have it.

Malaysia, Singapore...

Oh, yes, in the Philippines, India, and India.

Now, that's all Asia.

There ain't nothing else in Asia we can have.

Well, Korea.

Korea.

All right, fine.

It's a close case.

Now, you go to Africa, though.

What the hell do you find in Africa?

There isn't a single...

They had 15 on that list that Dan Newsom had where they said they had democratic process.

Now, about them, I don't have any, Senator.

Well, Mr. President, I don't know anything.

But under what?

Conceivably Kenyan.

If you stretch it a hell of a lot... No, no, they just made fun of that fellow.

But they assassinated...

They assassinated...

I'm a boy, sir.

They assassinated him and the other guy.

I've been to one African country where they've had a contested election.

One thing that's good about this is that they...

They don't like it when I protest.

Do you want to consider, we've had it on the saddle for the last night, the decision to consider our Christmas hours in the morning?

You don't need to.

You probably should next week sometime, but you don't need to tomorrow unless you want to.

We would basically be on the to support the