Conversation 633-004

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

God, save me.

You can tell me.

But the question is that we have been fooling, you know, any of them, or at some time, they've been assessing that it's not appropriate that virtually, essentially, saying that, I don't know what the hell Bob has done, what they're suggesting to do, because they were impacted as much as possible, and, you know, anybody.

Apparently, where did this all go?

I think you have a friend that was a little attacker.

Oh, I think that's the personnel.

Oh, that's the attacker.

I think that's the personnel.

Oh, I think that's the personnel.

Oh

I feel like I'm going to do it tomorrow.

Okay.

Yeah, there are a lot of questions about this.

They're saying that we're seeing one of the laws in the House of Representatives.

The House of Representatives.

This is the report.

I've seen it by the 15th of each of the ceremony on the mark for that act.

No.

I mean, you already did, but... No.

No, no.

You're just overwhelming me.

No, no, no, no.

I won't go there.

Thanks.

That's fine.

Then we have a question being postponed.

Sanchez is squaring in at the end of the studio.

But we now have Sanchez squaring in by one inch squared.

That refers to, uh...

We can make this a boss.

What do you think about source 13, California?

Are you going to have a copy out there?

Uh, I mean, uh, will we not be?

I mean, uh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Oh, does he know the story as well?

Do you know anything about it?

I don't know anything about it.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

If we...

Right.

I don't want to be heavily old.

I just have that done another way.

In a healing way.

That has to do with the name.

I'm angry.

I think she was over here.

We had a picture with her and everything like that.

That's good.

I talked to CBS yesterday about some of the concerns about the embassy that you would expect them to be.

And they don't want to talk to the top brass in New York about it, do we say?

I feel that they're going to be somewhat embarrassed if they go with the Julie Specter and don't have an opportunity for a one-on-one or a conversation with you, as we had originally announced.

When I talked to Small, I said I can't work with you on that basis at all.

But I wanted to raise it this morning.

If we do plan on doing something like that,

I would rather move in that direction than have the building sector not run.

So I thought I would raise that question.

They are at this time disposed not to compete with the building sector because of their questions.

I don't know what happened.

Heather has it.

I guess yesterday they can't do that.

I'm not concerned about CBS's fault.

I don't raise it to express my opinion.

I know you don't, but I bet CBS didn't do it.

They didn't run it.

Uh...

Yes, that's all.

Have you heard?

Yes.

Their position is that we originally announced, and we did publicly, that the president would do as soon as he wanted.

I don't think the NBC would have a point in the world if he hadn't came back to the end and they said,

Well, what do you mean?

Well, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean,

I understand, but I don't like to take the time, and it might be a better time.

Thank you.

I don't want to do it.

You don't want to watch it?

No, what they, their point is...

I wasn't done with that.

I'm done with that.

You know, because whatever he did before Gary Graham, he kind of had a part in that.

I want to end it.

I'm going to end it.

All right, I'll see what they say.

Well, they feel that we have, they're a little bit paranoid.

They feel that because we announced the thing a long time ago, they, they,

Wanted to feel that we would proceed as we had announced sometime the first year.

I understand totally.

You don't want to lock yourself to time.

I'll try the first quarter and see how they react.

I can't see them reacting in any way possibly.

I know some guarantee on the one-on-one.

The one thing I'd like to raise here is that I talked with him yesterday, and he's the anger man on the one-on-one, and I see no problem at all.

I think he can handle him probably better than he is Will, or if not better than anyone, it would be Dan, rather.

They've committed two rabbits to the one-on-one.

I raised this with him yesterday again in talking about Cronkite on the one-on-one, but they were holding firmly on that.

I get raised that before we commit.

Yes, sir.

No, uh...

I hit him on that twice.

I said, now, let me understand.

Are you attempting to say that you need to guarantee to do the Jewish special?

He said, well, it may sound that way, but the concern in New York is not that.

The concern in New York is that

we're going to be running the Jewish thing, which they want very much, at a time when ABC has had a number of things, when NBC will have a very expensive thing, which they have become aware of, I think, just past the noon, the scope of it, because NBC's beginning to promote it.

And they feel, as news executives, that they're going to be embarrassed because they are running, you know, they pride themselves on how they handle the wedding and so forth, and the Jewish stuff, and Christmas, and the things.

considering themselves the number one network, are not having an opportunity to interview the president.

And it was based on that thinking that they should be reconsidering them.

You can already have both ways.

But they wanted to take him to the back.

That's their all.

They took my name.

They did.

They took your name.

What about this?

That's where I came after.

How did that happen?

I don't know.

That's what I don't know.

You've got to talk about the three-tank war back.

I mean, I've seen this happen before.

What happened?

We have no problem with NBC, but we do face a situation where we did announce at the time of the ABC thing that we would do a series of one-on-ones, and we would do it in alphabetical order.

I'm sure they're having a good time.

That's good.

Whatever kind of problem they have, you know.

We can't do it.

This month we can't do it.

No, I'm sorry.

The only time you can do it is the first night of the game, January 9th to 15th.

Just follow me here and say it again.

Well, maybe the thing to do this week, on the 3-1-1, so I can do it.

There we go.

There's one other possibility here.

We don't want to do the one on one.

Well, no, I don't think they agreed to it before we did the one-on-one.

Small raised the point, and he did it and he raised the context of after the one-on-one of doing the vignette series, which all would be done at one time.

None of it would be edited, but it would be run over a period of three days.

Not a vignette.

That was the wrong word.

We would take areas of the world and discuss them.

No, we're not.

I don't have a degree, but they would want me.

They would want to...

They would want to guarantee him a one-on-one.

They would want to commit him to a one-on-one.

You can't give him a name that can't be before the first of the year.

That's the last of the law.

Yeah.

Ted, leave.

Leave on the 10.

I don't know what they're talking about.

You agree?

Yeah.

What am I doing that way?

I don't know what they're talking about.

Yesterday, one small call, and I said, I won't deal with you on that basis.

That's the way they said it.

So what I'll do today is I'll say, I raise it to you, Mr. Henry.

When I'm doing the work, I'm going to raise it to you, Mr. Henry.

If we're not trying to deal with it, that's the way it is.

OK. All right, fine.

I call this is fine.

We're on.

Big time.

Oh, this is fine.

This is fine.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

This is fine.

Two major things.

First, in the talks with the Brazilians, with the President, he had to set the time up for the work, I would say.

Yes.

And then, I remember, there's one thing.

I was at the Brazilian embassy yesterday.

At the decision, the foreign minister took me aside and said, they're willing to go all the way with us on Cuba and the OAS, but they want to make sure we are not left quiet, but that we're going to fight

to keep them out.

In other words, if we don't have safety cover, the majority vote.

Well, they weren't sure about it.

I said, he said, if they and we don't fight together, there'll be a majority against them.

But if we fight together, it's not like it's just Cuba.

It's just Cuba coming.

I mean, they're now out.

So I said to him two things.

He would maintain our public faith and fight together with us, everything to fight.

And secondly, that if we should ever change our public faith, none of us, what they want to make sure is that they don't read in the paper one morning that we've had somebody in Cuba

So I said, in the event that we could ever have a signal towed, they could be towed a month ahead of time.

I won't even read it with a sign that says, I'm going to change the policy.

Okay.

I'm going to change the policy.

Whatever, I don't want to make it.

All right, could you?

It's a problem.

It's a problem, no.

Well, what was that one?

Word.

If you could make that as hard as possible to him, it would help.

I know that you would express your own views on cancer.

to May the 3rd.

Again, I mean on the over here, didn't you?

All right, good.

Now, we've had, uh, I had a call with Steve at 10 o'clock this morning from the, you know, we've sent him a real 10 o'clock letter.

Well, no, they've sent you a letter now.

And what they have proposed, they're back again with their old proposal.

which is a very subsidiary letter, which in itself is unacceptable.

But they're proposing a ceasefire and a political negotiation between Islamabad and the Obama League.

Now, the situation is what I'm wondering now, Mr. President, is this.

Will the League not go back to them and say,

If this negotiation within the framework of the United Pakistan with maximum autonomy for the East, we are willing to discuss this with them.

That will separate them to some extent from the Indians.

And secondly, it will get us a ceasefire in the West, which we've come to have if the West Pakistanis aren't to be smashed.

And, well...

I think it's very unusual.

No, no, no, the event is not for us.

It was unthinkable a week ago.

Why don't they vote for us?

Why don't they vote for them?

This letter came in last night and they've offered it to this man.

This man, I'm telling you.

It would be a tough pill for Islamabad, but Islamabad can take it now.

And they've already lost everything.

And it's not a three-door.

The whole thing is going to be true.

Where do we come out?

Here, if we take the hard line, what is the goal?

What do we want to have?

What are we trying to do?

The other thing I want to do is, where do we come out?

We can't just lie.

Why do we say we don't think?

No, I would take those lines.

I'd take the hard line.

And open up this line.

Uh, the hard line will get, you know, senators on this line.

I would do both.

These are not alternatives to each other.

I think we ought to authorize today for the Jordanians to move their plane.

We're going to have to follow that in a few minutes.

We're going to have to follow that.

So I'm not saying we should call off the hard line.

We should continue that.

Now there's one thing, Mr. President.

You were saying yesterday it's a pity that Dupree isn't here.

You called him in.

But a lot of friends are so different.

The agriculture minister is here, and he has a personal message for you.

It's not imperative that you see him, but if you could spare 15 minutes and really lay it into him on this situation, today or tomorrow, it'd be better today.

maintain his message and then say the transit is that we were going on a hopeful direction and now all of it is being jeopardized by irresponsible action.

You wouldn't have to say much more than that.

But if we could do it today,

The same defense is going to turn.

Roman Evans was in this morning.

He had, on foreign policy, he's good to us.

He had read the background, and he said this is turning into a long-range calamity, and it will affect the Middle East.

I mean, all the things, you know, he doesn't have to clear the fence.

I don't see anything to say about it.

Now, the thing to say about it, he has a message for you from President.

I think that my recommendation would be to see him for 15 minutes to take the message, and it would be just the vehicle for you to say very soon, very quickly, only you can really do with these communists.

how you feel, he'd be flattered that you saw him.

And they, and you haven't been seductively looking for an opportunity.

You used the advancement of the method from them to express your view very strongly.

And we have a brief point here, Bob, to say that you felt it was scary, but at the beginning it was more apparent to you

Well, you wanted to see more, right?

That's what I thought.

I thought we'd get more.

Yes, that you can order it and get it.

I think he figures he can lay you down if he did unspoken.

No, but I think what the point of the meeting with the actor is, is that Packett is leaving.

And he'd like you to pat him on the back.

On the back?

I did not want to get into that.

But if you give Packett an appointment before he leaves, I'll see to it that Packett will not raise a good analogy.

My understanding is the packet is leaving, no matter what happens.

What I would recommend is seeing him, not on these duck lips, but just to say, express your opinion.

Yeah, you'll be found soon.

in the government, on the India-Pakistan thing.

Helms, anchors, and the trees.

That's pretty good.

But, again, I have to be honest with you.

What they wanted to do on every crisis, nothing.

You go through the list of our crises, from Cambodia, Laos, San Francisco, Middle East,

They, you read the New York Times, that's what they want to do.

They have 500 million Indians, 100 million Pakistanis.

They're on the wrong side.

All of this is irrelevant now.

There are a hell of a lot more countries with less than 500 million than with 500 million, and if that becomes the basic principle of our foreign policy, all these other countries are going to dash to the nearest exit.

I'll tell them now at the 10 o'clock.

Oh yeah, I saw the article that this was drawn.

It wasn't yesterday's daily news.

For them to say they were a son is taken fairly to the grave with few views.

But if you have made few views...

Over a long period of time.

I don't see a wire.

Here we go.

As I told you, Mr. President, if they doesn't take us down to the wire, even on the hard court, we're going to lose.

If we don't take the hard court, we'll surely lose.

You know, it's sort of gambling.

And I think we are better off losing within the constraints that our domestic opinion imposes on us, showing that you've not caved.

I don't know.

The President, unbelievable, Mr. President, if you read my background, every paper printed it as a condemnation of India.

But the Washington Post had a headline, U.S. Dawkins has pro-Pakistan stance.

That's all true, President.

Which is totally untrue.

Thank you.

Did anybody ever find that out?

Yes.

Bush had a very tough basket in coming across, but he had rejected the vote.

That wasn't very strong.

He had a little harder day.

That's it.

The important thing is that the vote can affect

Well, it comes across, but not if it were South Africa being condemned by under the law.

Excuse me.