Conversation 604-006

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

I talked to Schultz and told him that we couldn't launch a defense thing today and that I was going to.

I said I didn't want him to feel that I was double-crossing him because I had worked with him on the other thing.

Well, I said on reconsideration.

I wanted to raise with you the issue of whether this was a good time to overrule the Defense Department recommendation and whether we shouldn't take one more look at it.

Well, I told them to be on board, and so it is.

First, I want to get a copy of the Express Institute for a second.

And then I want to make it very brief.

And then second, I don't need to hear any more arguments for Schultz and Wagner, because I've heard all their arguments.

I thought it would be well to then ask the only question I want to ask them, and I want to get you in, is to simply say, look here, how much of this can we frankly do as a bookkeeping?

And basically, in other words, authorization

Well, actually, they can do it the other way around more easily.

They can spend Haiti with the 77.5 authorization because they have about $2 billion they can pay.

Well, what I agree with you, I don't mind spending it, too.

What I'm thinking about is being in the arguments against, of course, having a bigger budget.

This is a inflationary impact by our policy to budget more, not money.

So, therefore, you can have a bigger number of people.

The budget becomes unbalanced money.

by all positions, but by sending in what is, in terms of the number, the higher the number sounds, the better it is.

Yeah, well, that's what I think, too.

Well, Schultz is prepared for the fact that I will raise the issue.

You don't even have to raise it, you know, so that, but I will raise it, and it's, you could then say, let's look at it for a week, and come back,

But it's up to you if you want to raise it.

I just want to make it a little easier for you so that you don't have to argue with folks.

Why?

You've had enough arguing with folks.

I don't want to argue with you.

No, but I thought we could say it was fair to that.

But either way, it's fine.

Now, the other thing is that I had forgotten to tell you there were two items I'd like you to do on the parade.

I shall speak to you.

What?

I shall speak to you.

I want you to have, why don't you give this assignment to some trusted person like me.

I want every one of the United Nations to vote with us.

analyze, not understand.

But when you've got countries like Britain and France and so forth, you can't do without anything about that.

I'm referring now to jackass centers that were really, where they shouldn't be able to kick the United States around.

Well, I saw, for example, Botswana land.

But goddamn, those little sons of bitches there.

Newsom, Botswana land has a population of 300,000.

It exists only because they

in its mushy-headedness, is trying to use them against South Africa.

Now, then we should have been able to get it.

All right.

Now, that's my point.

What I want to do now, though, we want to have reward and pleasure.

And I want to go right down the line.

For example, we've got an issue.

Now, I've got a scheme worked out.

I don't want to tell you about it at all, because it's better than the one we've all chosen.

I've written out a scheme on how we did the search acts.

The Japanese will probably be the first beneficiaries.

We're going to do it straight, not the Canadians.

Oh, no, that's good.

And because we want to split them up in all of Latin America.

I thought we were going to do that.

Well, they can advance some of the others, just to give them some advantage over them.

Yeah.

Tell them I'll be the lady in about three, four minutes.

I'll go.

The other thing has to do with reasons of conflict prior to his trip abroad.

And I told him that you and I, or you,

We want him to be in a position to be very important common.

when he's there.

Now, he'll know how to report coming to the monetary side, but if there's anything else politically correct, where he can, you know, they came up with sort of a thing like you made for me.

Now, as you may have heard, I think they, that Sullivan's going with you.

Sullivan.

Bill Sullivan.

Because of the Vietnam side of it, there is, excuse me, going to Vietnam.

Now, Sullivan has no authority in Japan, you see.

No, and he is one of the most ruthless sons of bitches.

Well, then we may raise a question about him, sir.

Well, let's do it right now.

Well, we don't care.

I mean, he was going because of the Vietnam side of things.

Well, he sure as hell wasn't going to go before Connolly went.

What?

He sure as hell wasn't going to go before Connolly went.

Well, let me put it this way, Paul.

I think the reason they do it is that they felt that with Connolly going, they had to have a high-ranking person.

They're right.

You can't send Connolly out there with an airboat.

Now, I have told him that we want to give him some confidence that under no circumstances does he have any confidential talks with the Japanese, with my air presence.

Or some of them, Chris.

Oh, I told him, no State Department person or nobody on his own staff, except his own...

But the trouble with Sullivan...

But I will not allow it.

And also, I wonder about Indonesia.

He wouldn't be well.

How about Galbraith?

Is he trustworthy?

I'm not going to...

I want to talk a little with Indonesia about the military side.

I would not have Galbraith, and I wouldn't have Sullivan.

All right, good.

All right, now the other country he goes to, I guess it doesn't matter, Vietnam, Bunker's virtually all right.

Oh, yeah, he has to go to Bunker.

Now, who else does he go to in the country?

That's all.

Well, the ambassador there, it doesn't matter.

I don't think he consists of not having ambassadors in the country.

In fact, that guy's sort of an abrasive at all.

No, he's a weakling, Bunker.

Oh, I know.

He's always in the system of being present.

Yeah.

But I'm sure we don't have so many secrets.

I haven't got to change Meyer.

I haven't got anybody to change him.

But Meyer is, that's true, Meyer leaked it all back to Sting.

And this monetary thing has got to be closely held because we can't even, we can't let him, like Burns, know what we're doing here.

Because Burns is in a different room, not that ours isn't already, but you see, it's a highly secret business.

A highly secret business.

And also, I don't want, I don't want that locomotive to leap back into the goddamn State Department Theater.

See what I mean?

Right.

So, what about that talk with the company?

Do you think we could do that?

Well, I had it scheduled for this afternoon, and I...

But you're going to have a briefing, sir.

Yeah, so I was going to make...

Let me say, after you finish your brief at 4.30 maybe, maybe we'll be sure to call him and then we can do that.

All right, sure.

What is your situation?

I can do it.

All right, but tomorrow would be better.

I'm calling tomorrow.

We have a quadriad.

And he takes off.

He told me he could do it at 3 tomorrow.

Is that when you have the quadriad?

All right, then why don't we do it?

I can adjust my schedule, Mr. President.

Well, then I can do it as well.

I'd rather think that you and I should be together breathing on this thing so that he doesn't get any...

He, of course, has no confidence in the State Department, whatever.

The trouble is Sullivan makes this deceptively tough impression.

Oh, I don't know.

Well, we've got to tell him.

I think we've got to tell him exactly what Sullivan tells people.

He has to tell them he's smart, and he gives the impression there's some matter, and that he must not be taken in by them.

Because under no circumstances, under order, under no circumstances, that as a matter of practice, he is not deceived.

It's a hard order.

He's got to see Malone, and he's got to see Sano, and the Japanese and his people.

Malone, without Sano, and without the ambassador.

Now, I think also that he should have, that both Sahara and Sano should get messages from me.

Absolutely.

We'll have them drafted.

All right.

That sound all right with you?

Fine.

Excellent.

Well, I think we're...

I think we're...

i think that we have the one thing we're on just about is we've done all we can and i think that those they push anymore i don't need to uh i mean of course i'll see if i'm switching but my feeling is as i told the ziggler i said you know what we've done here we've only used a little rhetoric and we didn't talk about the vote you know it's very carefully done we said we just okay we just set up the conduct of some of those who who

to show that they're taking close, frankly, and take seriously that support from the U.S. And the country needs to hear me say that, because the country needs to also

That's what I feel about the U.S. God damn it, I ought to say it.

Well, I don't think it did any, well, it certainly didn't do any damage.

No, no, I mean any damage with the Chinese.

Oh, with the Chinese it was not.

And it does a lot of good with the Chinese.

It does a lot of good.

Henry, they have mistreated me up there twice.

Well, I think that behavior towards you last year was a disgrace.

And to think that these sons of bitches can... Never then.

And they were late.

Never then.

Well, they were late.

The Secretary General didn't treat you at the duel, which was absolutely outrageous, with the argument that he had a lunch for some cartel chief of delegation.

I'm never going again.

I think you'd be wrong to go next year.

Why expose yourself in an election year?

Why expose myself at all?

There's no chips in for us.

You've been up there twice.

They gave you cool reception both times.

You gave excellent speeches.

In fact, they were two of your best speeches on foreign policy.

No, but they overplayed their hands, and they just enjoyed kicking us around publicly.

It was flexible.

You were all nice and set up.

You worked out the time.

Right.

I was proud of you.

Tell the reason.

I'm not going to tell you.

I'm going to argue with you.

John, I was just talking to Henry about the need for you and I to talk briefly on the political side.

We need a half hour.

And I was wondering, before the Quadrat, maybe in the

What time do you leave tomorrow?

7 o'clock tomorrow evening.

Well, we can do it afterwards.

That would be better than not doing it.

Quadrat would be at 3, 430.

How about 430 tomorrow?

430 tomorrow?

No, 430.

Well, you come over here to the Quadrat, and as soon as it finishes, it'll last an hour and a half.

Or we'll try to make the class that long.

We'll spend a half hour with you and half an hour with him.

I thought that would be a lot to make it last.

Because I'll be here as early as I can spend the hour and all that time.

That's good to have something come on later.

Okay.

Sit down.

I see where...

I see where Goldberg got his arms twisted.

I don't know if you did it.

He's about a foot taller than I am.

And every time he grabs me and pulls me closer, it gets kind of dry, doesn't it?

Doesn't know whether he lifts me up or whether he can twist me.

I think he can twist.

We can make this work.

I don't want to be cited right now.

Now, what I'd like to do is to not go into what the total budget is and all that, but what I'm only interested in is the figure that the Defense Department is asking for and the figure that the

You just need to take a couple minutes to say a word.

You know, so that God's aware of what the choice is.

I'd like to get the other day, where we have had

There are four things going on.

Mark Miller has been talking publicly about a budget of $80 billion plus and encouraging the chiefs, more or less, in that route, of the Ashford Saddle opposition to spend any more gold.

I believe he's talking in terms of outlays, but he just talked about an $80 billion budget.

And so that gives us some real work to do over there.

The second thing that's going on is the traditional joint review involving the secretary's staff and the OFB staff just going through the items.

That's David Packard's process on the defense side.

And third, and it's going on, it's something that David and Henry and I got started after the last meeting, and we had to see each other again.

I can't remember my time, but we were back in August sometime.

And there, we have three staff people taking up significant issues, such as the air defense issue, which is the one that's furthest along, and trying to get a joint decision paper to be on a major policy issue that the decisions on which will sort of underlie what will be under the president.

Because it seemed that the public posture of the defense budget was moving so fast at such a high level relative to what we had thought.

You remember your guidance of last summer was $75 million, although that was, you had specified, was subject to review and so on.

We, in the NSC staff, and the OMB staff, every night,

put a study in place trying to estimate what we thought was a defense outlay number compatible with the foreign policy objectives as you said, as Henry interpreted them to us.

There are processes going on with the number.

The two in-between processes are sort of, they are spinning away on particular issues.

They don't have an outcome.

Although our own OMB NSC defense staff group is fairly well along.

The exercise that Henry and I conducted that was reported to you last week when we discussed this,

sees a content in the neighborhood of 77, 777 and a half billion dollars as a, as compatible with the foreign policy objection.

That's just talking about contents that we

have at the same time an ability through the management of outlays during the year starting now and what we did in the 71 budget to move the actual number that can be put in the budget you set up

We can move the outlays down by a billion and a half to two billion, or we can move them up just by sheer outlay management.

That is not going to affect the content of what is bought or the core structure or anything of that kind.

We can't have an impact on the cosmetics, let's say, of the budget.

We desire to have the budget dip down into the full revenue level

I think the

I think we have, what we have here, how much is that anything else?

How layered have you moved out?

for a bunch of certain reasons.

Now, we're disagreeing on two things here.

Not only, I mean that in a natural sense, we all must be, not only what can we get forgiven in the full point of reference and all that, which is how it's going to affect the economy, but we are also pretty much at our best

And it also will give us a strong market position at the Silicon Valley as we go forward in our response.

Now, on that story, in County Adamsburg, the story of .

So one of the public minds, and having asked that question, he said, as I understand,

is going to be involved in coming back on air defense and some of the obsolete stuff that we're doing.

I think that is the way in which, as we talked about it, we would get down below the defense level.

I think that is the primary way in which we would do it.

I don't think we would help ourselves, Mr. Preston, if we, in order to get to a certain level, maintain forces for which we have no rationale.

I must say, on the trip, having had a chance to do some thinking, and I worked with George on these figures, and they are good figures.

They are all defensible figures.

But as I reflected about the strategic development of the Soviet Union at this moment, of which the facts are going to become more and more known,

as the year goes on.

And some of its aspects, more or even more than the publicized ones, for example, we always used to think that we ran no risks in ADM limitations because it would take them three years to build radars.

And whenever we saw big radar development, we could catch up.

ourselves confronted with a very rapid radar, ABM radar development center.

So whether it's the purpose here in which you have to talk to, whether we shouldn't keep in mind some dictionary, as in also when you see the Chinese, their toughness and sense of purpose.

For all these reasons,

And this is George A. who says, not in accord with what we discussed before, I was wondering whether the President wants to give us another week to look at this again, not in order to restore things which ought to be up and in such a serious sense, but what if you wanted to go into the 80 billion vicinity, whether we could rationally, whether we could do something that would really

be helpful and would particularly help us in these negotiating situations, which we could run into next year.

Let me say this, that just simply having a team does an awful lot of work.

We need to spread it.

We always have a one-to-three services.

So if the Army, who are more stars, and the Air Force, of course, they have...

No, never.

We've got to use the budget process for the purpose of shaping that service model.

It's an irrational, strategic concept.

And air defense is one area, and it's a waste of money.

You know it.

Everybody knows it.

Nobody in the Soviet Union is not going to attack the United States.

Not at this time, but they're putting all their eggs in the missile basket.

There's a few bombers coming across the pole.

And so why do we have a lot of, you know, correct?

Absolutely.

And so then that action is much better.

The second thing is regarding

I don't think it's going to influence the Soviet one damn bit to have another army

We're going to get some real added strength to our strategic deal about either the defense or the offensive side, something that we can negotiate with.

That, to me, would make a hell of a lot of sense at this point.

but i i've never seen anything proposed that way nobody's ever proposed building more polaris nobody's ever proposed building more uh

Now what, so how does all this, I don't see how this, I don't see how all this is going to be relevant, Henry, to our heart and decision, and also to the problem.

Now, let me just add one point.

It's miserable in the public's community.

Of course, three years ago, there was no threat at all in the Soviet Union and the United States.

That's not why I'm speaking out loud in other ways.

And they've had television commentators on showing hundreds and hundreds of new holes all over the Soviet Union.

And they're just scared to live in the Jesus side of the people who see these things and say, well, we don't want to change the window.

It's old.

It's something new.

One day we'll wake up and the Soviet will be looking at our homes.

That was on four days ago.

CBS, I mean, we're all wonderful people.

The garbage is on the eastern side.

It's not 100, but it's close to 100.

But whatever it is, whatever it is, that is that you see my fight is we have to confront two different problems.

First, we confront the reality, what we really need.

And that is one thing.

But if what we really need is not enough to give the American people the assurance that they have an adequate defense, and therefore we become vulnerable on the political side, forget it.

It's not enough.

And if what we really need is not enough to give us the proper bargaining position, then it's the same thing.

In these very important talks, and the Chinese, well, the Chinese, yes, that's right, even though they are far away from us from a strategic standpoint, they're quite aware of the fact

That's where the infantry divisions have the same potential.

Oh, I told you I should have had something over there.

It means that we're not getting out of Asia, that's certain.

Those are the things, John, that I'd like.

Assuming that we go this way, the higher the budget.

We run two races.

One is the first of the 60.

Either of you unbalance the budget more.

But we're only talking, basically, about $2-3 million.

That's the number.

Or, we, and if I do this anyway, we have to tax more.

As far as, as far as, as far as the inflation, in fact, $2-3 million, as far as the, and incidentally, you say that all of this may be totally moved, because if you get it down to that state of Congress,

they're very likely to cut it back anyway, despite all the particulars.

We'd go over the arms stocks and so forth.

You see now we have this interesting picture.

Our very good right wing friends are yakking their heads off about our defense function.

Not being central.

We fought the battle for ADM. We fought the battle against the Mansfield Amendment Center, the ones that were involved.

They were nowhere to be seen.

They don't have a chance, but nevertheless, they fight with him.

We have to realize that the general trend in so far as support for defense is down.

That could change, could, I don't know.

Looking at it on the political side, you do have people, at least with a good sense of meaning, Jackson, who could have...

I mean, I was the hardliner, he was the stoplight.

It wasn't true.

or just might be able to scare the Jesus out of people.

Have no mistake, they might.

So, what I'm thinking of is that maybe the present members are hiding a budget number that could be used in domestic opposition.

If there is a whole lot of domestic opposition expressed, that will have a very detrimental effect on the attitudes of the Russians and the Chinese.

because the later Americans, the politicians and so forth, and the Senate said in the United States, if the bear asked for an attack, the bear would.

Right.

Well, that was the case in the late 50s.

Actually, we had a crushing superiority.

Yeah.

And we talked ourselves into a missile gun.

In this, just to ran a picture of the number, we have built up the force structure above

in a sense, what the defense process is carrying.

Since, I think, beefing up the divisions, I'm not mistaken, the Army divisions and the Marine divisions to full strength, it was also the case that the obligational authority, that would be the equivalent of this 77 and a half or so budget,

would be in the Indian category.

Yeah, the off-campus part.

It's not that could be talked about.

If you were to build up, say, the Navy ships to a greater extent, build more ships, that's the kind of thing that tends to build the obligational authority of

Well, I think we should push the alms development.

The alms is the larger boat with larger metal that can operate through the island and therefore makes a larger area of the room.

Basically, we should put both the ocean behind it.

I thought what George and I could do is by the same process by which we came up to this video,

if he agrees, whether we could look at some of these things like strategic programs and see what could be done to emphasize those areas, like arms, that might need some strengthening.

Well, my name is, of course, Mr. Englishman.

It's a major program.

I'm more option for us.

and what the hell they were reacting to.

I guess they were both interested in whatever you were interested in.

Well, it was a very split-up issue.

I never gave it a hell of a howl.

I think one of the reasons why we agreed to get out of it was in terms of what, Adam, if you had got to say with regard to the Navy, the Air Force, the FBI,

I didn't hear one damn word in that presentation, except it was totally selfish, totally...

looking at it very effective in terms of what they needed and so forth, but nothing with regard to strategic planning.

So Moe was clever enough to talk a little about that, but it took part of what he was going to do.

He had some sort of fussy thing.

His was actually the trickiest.

That's what I meant.

He made it appear that he was talking about strategy.

The other thing is he doesn't tell us strategy at all.

I mean, it was a sad, sad performance.

And the four chiefs who even left, I mean, the service secretary was, of course, a man.

So if we could have a few more days, say, until early next week for George and... Well, we didn't have the day, but I'd like to know before we... How, how...

Yes, sir, you're... You've got a reaction, so...

I have several reactions to that.

First, as you see now, people, we're making this decision before we get to that point.

It's unfortunate.

Well, it won't be, you know, quite no return, but we will try to change the next week.

Go ahead.

Well, first, I would, I see from the lack of

of information, as you well know, and about the tables.

All I could do is give you general observations.

First is the distinction below 80, below 80, just on the theory that it's 79.95.

It's just less than 80.

But the obligation, I thought, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I would, as a matter of fact, I would go probably further than anybody here would go with respect to obligational authority, provided it's in the proper areas of increasing the real strategic capability or defense, either offense or defense.

As I recall, there were statements that were about 60% of the cost of military manpower.

That's right.

That's what's so shocking.

I would cut manpower wherever I could, and not destroy any of the services, but I'd cut them as much as I could and put that money into the acquisition of ABMs, Polaris, missiles, or whatever to enhance your strategic capability.

You're looking for it, and you're not going to get it, you're not going to get it back from the Congress before you're meeting with the Russians and the Chinese

But you need to go into this new year with a strong military posture.

And a lean, a lean but an effective military posture seems to be in you.

And I'm not even sure you shouldn't go in, and this will sound paradoxical, but go in recommending we close bases.

Would you have a very substantial vote?

Sounds like me, you see, and I'm elected here.

I'm not at all serious.

depending on what you really are prepared to go for.

But this would be both convincing at home and abroad that you are really going to enhance your capability.

And you have to say that to the world.

You have to say it to the Soviets.

You have to say it to the Chinese.

And more than that, you have to say it to all the lesser developed countries, because you're moving into an era of economic warfare, and it has to be boasting.

by an effective military strength.

Not just manpower, but an effective military strength where they're not afraid to do it economically.

Now, so far as the spending is concerned, I'd again direct it toward procurement, whether it's ABN, whether it's missiles, whether it's new ships or ship modernizations or longer missiles or research development.

I'd do it in the procurement field.

which both revitalizes the jobs and the, and to some extent at least, the defense, the plants of this country in an election year.

And yet it gives you what you want.

I wouldn't do it just to do that, but I'd do it because it gives you what you want.

And I'd cut back on manpower and all the services if I could.

And I think you have to just be, you're gonna have to make the decision in concert with Henry.

And George and Kemp, you're just going to have to make the tough decisions about what you're going to fund and what you're not.

The services are not going to do it.

They're not going to make the choices.

And the Defense Department is not going to make those choices.

So those are just general observations that I have.

But I think we have to go beyond the 75% or 76%.

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I think we're probably going to have to wind up with new taxes anyway.

And when you talk about $2 or $3 billion, that's peanuts in terms of what you're going to be confronted with for this budget, in terms of social programs, all these other things that we give money to.

And you're going into a ballgame that you know better than I.

But you're opening up whole new vistas of opportunity here, and you have to lead through strength.

You can't lead from a position where you think everybody's going to be a good guy.

Who well knows?

You just cannot do it.

You have to maintain military strength, but you have to do it to credit for fighting.

And that's not going to be just maintaining a lot of riflemen.

All right, let's look at this point.

I think that represents my kind of view, too.

I think that the...

just not leave hanging out there in a way, something that would really raise concern among the people.

But on the other hand, I don't want to go leave the Laird Group, which I fear is, which I think, I suppose, as Secretary of Defense has to say, that, well, just keep the budget high so that we can keep the services happening at home.

We'll reserve the cuts we've made.

And we'll use what we've got at the pace to see whether we can

find some rational programs that would support your policies next year.

I don't think, if the choice were to go back to the $8 million that Laird submitted to you, that wouldn't be worth it.

I think, actually, what we came up with is that you were better off for less money.

But if George and I can work it over,

And we all need to tell the underserved of this if you're considering this.

No, no, no, no.

They'll all be in their hats out as to how they spend the money.

No, I want to...

But you understand, I have a feeling this.

I also want you to... Well, we've kept it.

The intelligence community isn't worth a tinker's damn.

with regard to this thing, but can you take into consideration what the V.C.

American people have been reading for the last 20 years?

Because that comes into this thing, and I don't know maybe how much of this is true and how much it is.

I don't know.

Let me say, when I make the decision,

I'd like to see a couple of pages on what really our analysis of the intelligence is as to what they are doing.

Because we damn well, even if we have to go into election year and raise taxes substantially, are not going to be an optimization of all of the kind that's sold yet, and that's not going to happen.

What they're doing is extremely worrisome, not yet in terms of numbers, but in terms of the mentality it reveals.

that even while they're talking salt, even while you're going to a summit, I mean, imagine reversing it.

If you pushed new radar developments, built lots of new holes, all the liberals here would be all over you while you're going into salt talks.

So they're all over me anyway.

So in terms of the mentality it reveals, it shows that they have the same disease.

They must be able to translate this either into military or political advantage.

Now, what we might take a look at is what counters we have available to show them that this is being noticed.

And, uh...

I believe that it's true that even if the military outlays go up, say, by a billion,

given our ability to manage these outlets.

With the posture that we talked about and I felt you went along with on the revenue sharing, and with the reasonably tough but not unreasonable posture on the budget, we can bring the total in

within a range that doesn't put you in the posture of needing to go for new taxes for that reason.

That's right.

I think we can still do that.

It's not easy, but we can do that.

So I think that while it may be that you'll want to do some things by way of initiatives that will make it necessary to go for new taxes, I don't think that's forced by

a billion or so on the military, or on the possibility of the domestic budget, given your decision about what to do on some of these presidential decisions.

Okay.

Andrew, let me talk to you before you go to your press conference.

I'll talk to you later.

Yes.

And Ron got a lot of questions about it this morning.

It was almost unavoidable.

My guess is that we won't finish the program until 3.45 or so, so just be available around 3.45 until about 4.30.

And I think we've got to remember...

frankly, you've got to build commonly up, and you've got to use him more and more, because at least the guy will say what he wants.

And he doesn't think that if you compare him to Rodgers, even that, he was, you know, he was complaining about the unconsequential thing, you know.

Well, Connolly doesn't feel that the way to build himself up is to tear down his president.

Connolly stands up.

He knows that the best public relations is to support the administration in which you are.

And if it's tough going, he steps up there.

and defends the tough going.

So I think Connolly may be, you know, for White House staff and so forth, harder to deal with than some others, but he is, from your point of view, the most effective man you have.

It's definitely in this thing here.

If they ask about the U.N. vote, I can't say nothing to answer the president.

That's right.

I will say nothing.

Nothing on that.

If they, in terms of the other thing, the...

I would try to have it in a way that nothing comes out of the key.

Great cordiality, I would make it very business-like and cool and crisp and so forth.

I don't mean none of the original, but I just don't want it to appear that they have the entire work that's kicked out of the air.

Like, well, if they had rockets, they would be welcome.

I have to say one thing that I find interesting, Mr. President, is I get a lot of phone calls and I was walking to lunch.

People came up in the street saying we wish the President well on his trip and so forth.

I think the trip is still what has captured the imagination even after this slurry is over.

This will pass.

I understand this will pass.

But you know, you never, you never bucket time with time.

You ride with it and then swim off-stream again.

For example, Goldwater, I was in the San Francisco City, and he said, I hope everything went well.

I hope everything is on track.

What I meant is, I think that it's,

Don't give our families a chance to say that.

But I'll be cool.

I know what you're saying.

Oh, yeah.

So that we don't, that we have good meetings with the church.

The plans are going forward on schedule.

Another announcement will be made, et cetera, et cetera.

I don't know you anything.

Oh, I don't know.

You can, you might, you might.

You're on the record.

No, I guess, I was going to say, at least we could offer it, but we couldn't.

because we say, well, that we, it wasn't the vote, it was through the conduct, it was apparently.

I think if they raise it, I will say, gentlemen, if you read the President's statement carefully, we accept the vote, as the Secretary of State said yesterday.

But what is bothersome is that it has turned into personal demonstrations.

and against the United States, apart from this particular issue.

And that, therefore, makes the President's job of trying to get support from the United Nations and all the national organizations more difficult.

As you know, we have had great difficulty in getting that support, increased difficulty in this country, which is true.

I think if the question comes up, I will volunteer it.

Very likely they may have been raised.

Well, they may have been raised according to what you knew of the vote.

Well, I'd say I have nothing to add to what the Secretary of State said, that represents the administration's position.

And I would back up to the, as I said, I think it's, I think we have got to put, frankly, we've got to put a, because, of course, it was assertion, we've got to put a lot of, frankly, smaller nations

Well, I would get these pansies who've been sucking it on Botswana land, for example.

Botswana land is nothing.

It's a piece of desert.

It shouldn't be a state.

It's a... Yeah.

They're a state.

But if they had voted with us...

They're a state, I know.

They're a state.

It wouldn't be one more vote with us.

Now, Stan voted with us.

Stan voted for Italy instead.

Oh, I thought you said Stan.

Italy did it instead.

I'll talk to you in a minute.

When the man of the year meets you, you ought to have your pieces first.

Go.