On January 2, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon, Mark I. Goode, William H. Carruthers, Donald W. Richardson, Robert Wussler, Oliver F. ("Ollie") Atkins, Dan Rather, Gordon Manning, William A. Leonard, II, and Gerald L. Warren met in the Oval Office of the White House at an unknown time between 9:07 pm and 11:59 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 642-001 of the White House Tapes.
Transcript (AI-Generated)This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.
Sure.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, OK. All right.
Go down that box in the corner.
The guy I've seen before.
Okay.
See you.
Good night.
I remind you, I remind you of the boy over there.
He's pretty tall, a lot of that kind of thing.
But yeah, I have worked out with him.
He's really important to me.
He's extremely nice.
I don't know if you can hear me.
uh...
I don't know.
We'll have that all made up.
Peter is on.
Hold on.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's it.
Hello?
Can we get a minute of time, sir?
That's it.
That clock was right up.
It was right up.
For me.
Yeah.
Okay, good.
That's what we worked on.
That is.
And he can tell me.
Wow.
That's what we worked on.
We worked on it.
All right.
Oh, my God.
Now, we're going to come back to fire minutes.
I don't know.
Hello, what are you doing?
Can I ask you a question?
Please, what are you doing?
What are you doing?
All right.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Two minutes gentlemen, two minutes.
Very much.
Right.
I don't know.
30 seconds.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
I wish to welcome all of you to this interview in the Oval Office of the President.
And Mr. Raddick will correct your questions.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President, and all myself, and on behalf of my colleagues in the White House, Mr. Gore, and my colleagues here.
Since this is a new year, may we assume that you are a candidate for re-election?
That's not an expected question.
I will answer it simply by saying that before the 14th of January, I will have to make a decision and announce that decision with regard to candidates, because that is the time that I will have to decide whether to enter the New Hampshire contract.
I will be making a decision.
I will be announcing it by the board meeting.
As far as candidacy is concerned, while I cannot and therefore will not announce it on this program, I will say that I have decided already what I'm going to do during the campaign.
Whatever my decision is, I have decided that I will engage in no public partisan activities until after the Republican campaign.
The problems of the presidency, the problems of this office in which we sit, this year in 1972, are so great that it will not be possible to take time off for parties and politics.
But the sun will have to run your campaign.
You tell us when to do it.
Well, you're getting me right into a question that I didn't mean to answer, but I understand that.
If I make a decision to become a candidate, and there is, of course, good reason to think that I might make a decision in that direction, although there's always the possibility that one might make a decision.
The man who is best qualified to run the campaign is Attorney General Mish.
The only problem I have with that is that he's also, in my opinion, the best man, best qualified to be Attorney General of the United States.
And I have to cross that and break the hip.
That's one of the hardest decisions I'm going to have to make in the event that we come down permanently to everything after crime.
Mr. President, under what circumstances would you not be a candidate for re-election?
Whatever depends, Mr. Ratter, on the circumstances that none of us might foresee at this point, I have often said that it's not well-informed that this is a candidacy that most assume that the man who has served in the honorable president will be a candidate for re-election.
Uh, yes, the Constitution allows him to do so.
You may recall, however, that President Johnson, when he was faced with this difficulty...
I did not anticipate that.
I did not anticipate an amendment that should have led President Johnson to his decision.
may affect my decision.
However, I do know that it's always wise to let him go the last possible moment, and it's a very important decision.
And of course, making the decision to be a candidate for president, as I know better than anybody else, is a very important decision.
Mr. President, can you give us assurances that give you your candidate
that you want to run again with Michael, and that you will be running again.
Yes, you have anything to do with it?
Well, Mr. Ratter, in regard to the vice president, the decision will be made at the convention, as will be the case with the candidate for president.
However, to give you an inlay as to my own thinking in regard to that, if I am a candidate, I obviously will have something to say about it.
My view is that one should not break up a winning combination.
I believe that the Vice President has handled his difficult assignments with dignity, with courage.
He's at times been a man of controversy, but when a man has done a good job at a position, when he has been part of a winning team, I believe that he should say on the team, that is my team at this time.
Mr. President, have you noticed
With regard to the military
Let me say first what I did.
You were president, the White House president, and you always are when I was there, making the last two withdrawal announcements, which were bringing the troops down to 139,000 by the first of February.
And at that time, I said that in the event that the enemy stepped up its infiltration or engaged in other activities, William Harrow, in my opinion,
our remaining forces as our forces were becoming less, that I would take that interview as a situation.
Most of the reporters, and most reporters also wrote, I made exactly what I said.
The enemy did set up this infiltration.
They violated the understanding of 1968 when the bombing halt was agreed to with regard to firing on our own army on the plains.
They held Saigon on December the 19th.
Under those circumstances, I had no other choice
but to bomb, in this case, collected military targets and supply build-up carriers.
Those were the only carriers that were hit.
The results have been very, very effective, and I think that their effectiveness will be demonstrated by the state and I'm not going to make it.
Before the 1st of February, well, before the 1st of February, I would make another withdrawal announcement.
Our withdrawal will continue long session, at least at the present rate, possibly at some other larger rate.
I will not make a decision with regard to the rate at this point, but withdrawal will go forward on soon, and as far as our American characters are concerned,
You know, as recorded on Thursday last week on CBS and other networks, we're one of the lowest in 20 years.
And I believe that we've appeared to be another very, very big ability to average less than that for three months.
We're averaging 300, up to 300 a week when we came into office.
But our companies, as a result of these activities, I believe can be kept at this very low level.
President, you reported in the Time Magazine interview this past week morning, saying the issue of Vietnam will not be a human command, as far as this administration is concerned, because we want to block the American involvement in the command.
I quote, now the one problem you've seen from that is that by the end of the day, there will be no American command to do that, no decision force, funding and support of the ocean command will not be admitted.
And that is the situation with regard to our POWs.
First, as far as American involvement is concerned, we are still pursuing the negotiating track.
And there is a possibility, I know many believe there is no possibility, but I believe there is some, and we are continuing to pursue it, with the meeting presuming next week.
On ending the war through the negotiating, we have offered, as you know, a ceasefire to all of our tracks, including Laos and Cambodia.
We have offered a total withdrawal of all outside forces.
We have offered
in exchange for the OWS.
And under the circumstances, we believe that it is the time that those officers' fathers should have seriously been taken.
in the event that no progress is made on the geodating front, then we will have to continue on what we call the end of the feeding front.
Now that's quite obvious to you with the numbers.
If we're down to $139 on the 1st of February, it might be another announcement in the event approximately the same level, or even somewhat higher level.
or a period in the future that the number of Americans in Vietnam will be down to a very low level, will, for the election.
Now, when he arrives today, can the President of the United States, sitting in his office, with responsibility for 400 POWs and 1,500 missing in action throughout some of these days, because they are also potential POWs, can he
Withdraw all of our forces as long as the enemy holds one American as a prisoner of war.
And the answer is no.
So I would have to say that regardless of the statements I made in Time magazine, our goal is to end the American involvement with Vietnam before the end of this year and before the election.
Not just because of the election, but because this is the way our plans are working out.
Our goal is, our preference is to end it by negotiation.
If that does not work, we will do it by withdrawal or re-identification.
But the POWs are still retained by North Vietnam.
In order to have any bargaining position at all with the Vietnamese in North Vietnamese, we will have to continue retaining a residual force in Vietnam, and we will have to continue the possibility of airstrikes on North Vietnamese.
If you have to maintain a central court and keep open the pistol thread, then you can't campaign, say, into the American bond.
Well, the important thing is not all the EMT with regard to the American involvement.
The important thing is whether the American people are convinced that the President of the United States has done everything that he can to bring this disaster to the difficult war in Manhattan.
and that he is doing everything that he can in view of dealing with families and outlaws, to protect American men, and to get back Americans who are killed, as are Americans who are viewed as the present time.
Now this is a situation that came out of office.
I remember the first day I sat in the room.
I live with a number of Americans being on $539,000.
I live at the county's rate, averaging a high of $300,000.
I thought there was no plan to bring any home.
There was no negotiating plan on the people of Paris.
And what has happened?
Well, we brought $400,000 home.
As we've already indicated, the rate of withdrawal will continue throughout the next few months.
We have reduced the country's for $300,000.
Blackfeet, DuPont, Kilimanjaro team, a less than ten of the past three months, not even many.
One of our nine of the war candidates in the world is still at many of our ranks.
But that is a considerable team.
As far as the POW problem is concerned, that is one that we unfortunately must be coming with.
But let me just give this much hope to our POW.
I believe that as the enemy looks at the alternatives,
that they, many times, as they see the American involvement, that it would be well for them not to even argue about it, standing among the rich,
that it would be necessary for the United States to stay in Vietnam.
I know sometimes that you and some of your colleagues have pointed out, and referring to Ray Smith, that when we have 540,000 in Vietnam, that has no effect on the economy of the United States.
Why is it having 25,000 or 35,000 residual force in Vietnam?
And the answer is, if the Army wants the United States to be withdrawn, they're not working.
Mr. President, speaking of steel guns and that, a lady from Florida called me this afternoon and asked me, asking this question to you, to Gerald Garnie of the Florida Air Force, he's a Muslim, and he's had the ability to pretend he's a prisoner.
He heard about you trying to take us out of the United States for every half year.
Mr. Raddick, that particular matter has been one that has been under discussion.
This is all.
The NARC is and is totally rejecting me.
In other words, that's the deal of saying the police had a deadline.
Uh, and they'll give a fatter deal now.
That's correct.
Remember the United States
And that, he said, with some of the people of .
He was convinced that in the event that we set a deadline, that that would mean that they would release the prisoners.
And the said, deadline for prisoners is more difficult.
That was publicly stated.
Not for those .
This, of course, is a very cruel on their part
reject out-of-handing the possibility of that kind of defunding.
I would say this, looking to the future, that, as I just pointed out, that that's when we come down to the end, as far as our own involvement with the anonymous fire.
The question of whether or not they will return our services in exchange for a total American withdrawal is one that they'll have a chance to end.
I could also point out the fact that we have participated in a great number of other than those .
As a matter of fact, .
I'm beginning to raise the subject with Joe and I on both of these issues.
that, uh, at the time of the meetings that I would have in China and later on in the Soviet Union, uh, we had not made progress in the term of the subject for the Kennedy race.
Uh, no, I had not.
Yes, because what we think, uh, it's a heartbreaking matter to read the letter to the N.W.Y.
Mexican in other ways, to read those letters and to realize how they're opened and made year after year.
But I can tell you that we have a very low-changing time, that we have made a number of offers in very few hours, and that when the record, total record is published, then it will be published in due time and at the perfect time.
I do not want to close any burglary tables because negotiations are underway.
That's part of the question.
because we are we are actually hoping uh that we raise the subject
That's going to be an action because we have raised it at other levels already.
I would point out one slightly hopeful note.
The fact that the Chinese have been holding two American prisoners for many years, recently, even though about two or three weeks ago, that at least they're going to be toward prisoners.
That seems to be much more civilized than I don't know how to see it.
Mr. President, you've run into a surprise to you that I'd like to talk with you about that every once in a while.
You also mentioned that you hope to reach your goals in the war this year, 1972.
Everything seems to be pointing in the direction of crime, actually.
In the election year, what is your hope to go to the war?
If you're listening, write it down.
I want to read it to you.
must be political
Well, that's a very legitimate question, and I understand why many would feel it was politically motivated.
After all, he was the one who called 1968, and I know many on our side felt that that was politically motivated, at least at the time.
I, of course, would have made such a charge, and would not.
And I think you would, because I think President Johnson was interested in it.
doing everything they could while he was president, before they let him, to start some legal hearings in Paris.
But I realize that anyone who sits in this office is one that's going to be charged with having a bullet in one of any president any time.
But there's nothing like this.
Let me say, if I could have ended the war the day I came into office, in a way that would not have encouraged that kind of aggression in other parts of the world, that would not have resulted in what I would have thought England to do, to stop anything now, would have been to try and disallow Americans, Americans or all Jews in the world, bleeding out of the gun.
And one time, the president does letters to the Mexican men who go to war.
He has this constant thought in his mind, the first time he wakes up in the morning, the last time he goes to sleep at night, when he goes to bed, he has in mind what's the need to bring that war to an end, the way that it's going to bring on another war, on the way that it will discourage another war.
And so, as far as the trying of this is concerned, we have one senator delayed the ending of the war .
If we had had it tomorrow, we'd have had it.
As far as we think this is kind of the Moscow that we are concerned, we could have had a Moscow summit when we first came to Milwaukee.
It would have been a failure, just like the Glassboro summit was a failure.
One comment turned out well.
I've been in direct correspondence, as you know, with Mr. Gresham on there for some time, as well as discussions with Rumi and other men.
We're convinced of them too.
We had, I guess, for the agenda, which would lead to possible publicity of agreements we did not have a sign.
And what broke the bank, as far as having the money was concerned, what brought this strain was the Burman area.
the National Guard agreement indicated that the United States, and the Soviet Union, agreed on that great clarity, might find the possibility of agreeing on other conflicts where our interests might run in conflict.
Possibly the Middle East, possibly Lawrence County, certainly trade in other areas.
That's why the law shall come at this time, at this point.
Now the 1937 is one that I, as you may recall, wrote about in 1937.
You may not recall it because in 1937,
uh... uh...
But in that article, I raised the lid on what many people were surprised to see.
When I made the 992nd announcement that we were going to go to China, I said that the United States, looking at the two of you, had to find a way to open the United States.
with the leaders of 750,000 people living in the town.
So a long process began.
If we could have had it in 1939 or 1970, if it could have been properly prepared, we would have done so.
I couldn't do it without delay, because I was thinking, well, if I could just have it before the command of the Crown Army in the year 1972, what a coup.
And the other side of that is, if it makes true that the word God didn't make it real clear, does anybody suggest that the Soviet Union is interested in my religion?
That the United States would step their foot on it so that I could do well?
I don't mean that they would be against my religion, but I'm simply suggesting that those of us who make the dream come true,
Obviously, we have that responsibility.
We are leaders of our party.
We're leaders of our country.
But the country has not
to limit the tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Those decisions have no political connotations.
We could have done it earlier.
We could have done it.
And if it was not the right time to do it, we would have lost the campaign.
Well, that is the question, Mr. President.
I know you're right.
Before you came to this office, about the campaign, the Communists' vote capital became the Washington Post.
and uh...
The second part of the question deals with the whole problem of summary.
And whether or not it is that I think that he raised that point or not, I think it's going to be part of it.
China.
or the matrix in country sometimes becomes dynamic.
I think, in regard to China and in regard to the Soviet Union, that it was clear that the power of the Indians and their countries in avoiding no constitution might be the war in building a world peace, to me.
And the timing was such that it may be now to postpone it.
that something could have occurred in between, so it would not be called at all.
And as I've already pointed out, we couldn't arrange it earlier.
Not certainly with regard to the bargaining thing that we made Monday.
It is not connected.
If there are any misunderstandings, let me make that decision.
Let me hang out of the way.
When I go to meet with the leaders of the United States, to secure my and our time, and later on, the President, if he proceeds, I can assure you that there's not going to be any bargaining with any of these people due to money aside, to affect our election and me.
And I say that not to be frantic about this, not to be pious, but because I know what's right.
What's right here is the future for a generation to come, and the wrong kind of the great.
So give me one, for example.
The wrong kind.
of an agreement with the Chinese, one that would discourage our friends, did not accommodate that kind of agreement so far, would be one that simply wouldn't be worth making.
Let me say, it'd be impressive.
Wouldn't be just me.
It'd be impressive.
Wouldn't want to win the money at that cost.
And I certainly will not.
I'm going to these meetings.
I will go out there and I will go there in defending the United States to negotiate as well as I can and reduce their costs, recognizing that there are basically philosophical differences between us and the two other communist powers and communist powers.
but that unless we talk about those differences, eventually we may end up fighting them out, and that will be the end of the civilization, you know.
As later in March 1971, you said, I quote, under no circumstances will you proceed with the policy of normalizing the election to the Congress of Canada.
Taiwan Taiwan
Well, it's a contradiction, but not the way we fund it.
As far as our normal living and religion is concerned, I should point out they are not in our alliance.
I should also point out that when we do have our meeting in February, beginning of February 21, in the People's Republic of China, that recognition in the conventional sense will not be one of its own.
We do not expect that.
We do not expect that.
The reason is that as long as we recognize Taiwan, we can do it.
And as long as we can do it in our defense treaty with Taiwan, which we will, the People's Republic will not have diplomatic relations in the conventional sense with that country.
So we're not going to have that kind of conversation.
However, we will have normalization, because it is fair.
I know this is certainly the intent of the committee.
That's the question.
We will have normalization in terms of setting up some kind of community, better than we currently have, because nations that do not have diplomatic relations in the conveying sense can have relations.
That's one thing that we will be able to do.
Now, as far as our having that kind of normalization,
at the time that Taiwan was expelled from the community of nations.
We fought hard to avoid Taiwan being expelled.
We thought it was a mistake.
But being a matter of the community of nations, we believe that we have to accept the verdict.
Under the seven senses, however, we will go to the People's Republic.
We will have this relating deal normalized on the basis that I have just
But we will continue also our relations with Taiwan, and we will continue our relationship.
All we can do is grow our relations with Taiwan.
Uh, that's fine.
In front of the big ones is, you know, I know it's out here around the back front in the grave, because there's been reports of the event.
If not, if you were there, you might want to be, uh, if you raised a question about the grave, start finding out the time that it should reach you, then I'm not going to give any of this there.
That, uh, even makes sense.
there were no conditions
on our side, and those things on their side.
This will be a hard bargaining between people who have very little, but people who have one thing in common, and that is that we have better talk about it, or we can end up fighting about it.
Let me just point out one other thing.
We've been talking about Vietnam.
I think many of our viewers may not realize that in a true narrative they're called wars, little wars they call them, that the United States is engaged in.
in the last 20 years.
Both of them are wars of the women of Asia.
Both of them are wars in which the Chinese were involved.
They ran into Korea where, as you know, there were thousands of Chinese volunteers involved in Vice America.
And indirectly, it stopped the atonement for the Chinese, militarily, and militarily.
Well, you look at the past, where the United States in 20 years has had to fight a true war, where the People's Republic of China was involved in the other side.
And you look at the possibilities of the future, when the People's Republic, which is now a weak little bit of power compared to us, will be at our mercy in the 20 years from now.
And it's imperative that we find a way
and allow
heading over the world and heading over to the United States.
It's a great adventure of the most popular thing in the world becoming a nuclear power and outside the world with no contact with the United States of America.
That's why I'm able to go to China and this, of course, will have its major purpose
setting up that long dialogue, which may have hurt, but would otherwise be inevitable.
Why is it vital, or necessary, to establish this type of dialogue with Tommy?
The situation is quite different.
Our policy toward Cuba, rather, is directly related to what Cuba's policy is toward us.
Cuba's a communist country.
What Cuba has in terms of its internal policy is Cuba's business, although we would prefer our policy.
And I think we are many Cubans as well.
China is engaged in a consequent program of political support for the United States and also for its neighbors in the inter-American community.
Now, I suppose it could be said, what about China?
We can point to the Korean War.
We can point to what is going on now in North Korea.
The difference is that at this particular time, we know how many of the Chinese are now ready to talk about narrow and horrible things.
We may do as well to talk about it.
There has been no indication, however, that Castro will receive one hint from his determination of encoding Castro-type revolution all over the last eight years.
Would you move to accept a dialogue with him in a minute?
We have no expectation, whatever, that we follow Mr. Castro's activities in public speaking.
And he tried to make virtually a basket case of killing an army and spurring out trouble in other countries.
And he couldn't possibly survive, if you like, unless he had his policy of .
. .
I need to look at the world tomorrow and talk about something.
That's it.
Fair enough.
And also, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a question.
If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a question.
If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a question.
We have a diplomatic policy that we will not allow the military to be taken.
We have to consider the request of Israel for a claim in order to see that the balance is not human.
We have made it a medical principle that as far as implementing that mechanism in order
I'm I'm
In the case of the environment, you can hold on to a gun, give you a hand on a blackboard, or a hand on a gun, or when there's a change.
But in the case of Harrisville, about 50 times.
I heard that you had two fingers in the fire, and I couldn't help complaining.
And had lack of personal warmth, and nothing.
Why do you want to go through this?
Well, it's because people tell the truth, and that occurs.
So that's what people want to believe.
But on the other hand, without trying to decide whether I like myself or not, I would say that my strong point is not that way.
It is.
It's a big promise.
I always do more than I say.
I always produce more than I promise.
meeting from time to time.
I may not have made promises that I was going to meet, but you only see whether it's in the foreign field or in the domestic field.
I believe that that was just what we got.
And also, I think that's what the country needs at this particular point.
I think we have to realize that when I took office in 1968, not only were we getting the American people we needed to heal in Vietnam, there were 539,000 there.
But we had riots in most of our cities.
At present, we would call at that time, because I'm sleeping throughout the morning, and I said, we will stay for at least a second.
I mentioned that.
That's what we like to call it.
These are the times.
And those were a great deal of water.
Now, at that particular point, I had moved with a great deal of water going into the rental.
This is what got us into the trouble.
that we read in 1938, and a lot of people in 1989 were progressives.
I feel that when the trouble has been caused by too much of a cure for that trouble, it's not more that one of my things, therefore, is that this time, in order to gain the confidence of the people, and let me put it about the right thing, in order to give the people the confidence in their government, is for them to do something different.
That's why I want this administration in three times my name.
I want this to be a certainty, one, that will bring an end to the American involvement in Vietnam.
That will lead on to the beginning of a war, building a landscape of dissonance with the American right, both in and throughout Vietnam.
That can be a cruel debate that we must begin to do, not only to maintain the dominance of our state of the region in that area,
And that's where the message comes from.
In the story of reform of Germany, welfare reform, government rewriting city, attacking the drug problem all the time.
Now, these are basic programs.
I can't go over that.
Performing in some of these fields will have a very great effect on the attitude of the American people.
If I could put it in a general sense,
Maybe not for his presidency first, but for the President's.
The President keeps what's on the line here.
When the President sees things he doesn't want to do, people lose confidence in government.
They lose confidence in Congress.
They lose confidence in the courts.
As a matter of fact, I saw a poll the other day where the people had a very low opinion of confidence as far as the media was concerned.
That's not good.
What we have to do, what you have to do, what I have to do, all of us, in cleaning the responsibility in our society, is to restore confidence that this is a good country, that our government can produce.
And the way to do that is to set our sights high.
But make our comments realistic.
And then make some performance.
And I think that, including my character, I'm going to have quite a bit of performance.
One of the biggest problems is trying to explain how you did it today.
Now you have a background.
Have you made a long amount of money?
what promises
So, in 1968, you said, I pledge to be president of the United States of America without including the number one.
Direct quotation, the number one, which I believe is 3.53.
It's...
Since I got in, we have brought 500-400,000 people home from Vietnam.
There are two million people who have been let out of the defense plans, not only our own persons, as a result of our winding down war in Vietnam.
And if those people were still in the defense plans, and still in Vietnam, unemployment would still be 3.6.
That's too high a cost.
So what's the accuracy of what you're putting in?
That was perceived, but my point is, my point is, what we were, what I was saying, was that we had a combination, a combination of bringing the order to an end, and then moving from there to a kind of a higher requirement and lower requirement that we haven't had.
Since President Eisenhower was president in this room in 1957, that was the only time it was left in Biden's mind.
In all the years of the 60s, unemployment perished by MIT, except in the war years.
And we can do better than that.
And as we move toward a peace in the year 1972, we're going to break the unemployment rate below that.
Now another, I've never done this before, okay, 74% of farm parity is intolerable.
I question my administration, farmers don't have that, quote, farm parity, uh, it is, it has been, it has been, it has been studied now, it has not been backed up to 74%, 74% before the period in the rainy season.
Now, that's where the farm parity is, in terms of other factors.
Uh, why do we not?
which is what farmers really care about right now.
And even though this is also reported in the media since two weeks ago, came up in the last month, I vote for the year 1972 to be the
That would be good either, as far as the farmers are concerned, in terms of their income, and also in terms of pay.
And I just point out that in this instance, we're referring to one of the benefits of agriculture with an annual economic loss.
And you know, Secretary Conlon is bargaining very hard.
He's getting paid signs for bargaining too hard for, again, some kind of trade agreements.
in return for what some of the United States is doing in certain other areas.
Now, this will not come easy, but in dealing with the European Union and in dealing with Japan and other countries, we believe that one of the areas where we can get regular trade opportunities is in the field of agriculture.
That, of course, will be more alarming.
It will be more effective in carrying problems.
We're not going to fight for that number.
We're trying to do better, and we will do better.
Thank you.
really doesn't happen.
You do, and many would like to, but it's difficult because it destroys your credibility.
But let me say that in this respect, I think the important thing for the community in this moment is that you must never be satisfied.
Never be satisfied with what you just said.
And we do.
that we can accept these goals as being a pretty good accomplishment, particularly when we combine it with the redevelopment policy, which is not the way it was first, and we believe we will continue to do that in the next year.
And as we saw with the first
There was a real increase in earnings in the top two to the back.
And the inflation is really coming down.
And we find that for the first time, we were on a treadmill for four years from 1967 to 1970.
Now, in the year 1971, for the first time in five years, it began to make a big difference.
When we see all these things, I think we could well say that it's a part of the record.
That is enough, folks.
That is enough.
As I tried to say a moment ago, in the New York Times and anything else, at least now that we've done that growth, now that we've done 25 years, you know, I get back to the real racing for the channel.
The real racing is...
Despite the fact it would be easier, it's easier not to raid.
It's a difficult problem in Japan.
I've been criticized very strongly from people in my own part of the town.
We are friends with the world, the Japanese, and others with each other.
It would be easier simply to continue the line that we've been taking with regard to China.
I cannot attempt to open the sidewalk, recognize and cooperate directly.
But looking down that road,
uh
As a result of what we've done now, we have earned a competition in China.
It will all be worth it.
Is that true?
Well, Chairman McCracken is reflecting the view that in some areas, controls may be necessary.
I agree in another way, without disagreeing with Chairman McCracken.
We will keep controls on only as long as we need them.
To add, we are running disease control just as fast as we can.
As the inflation in psychology runs in force, like I said, there's blood samples and blood controls.
We know, for example, that in certain areas of the country, there's a very high number of patients.
Well, that area should be in control right now, because we have a number of agencies that we recognize that are not in control.
And so there's a certain number of areas.
I do not believe in a controlled economy.
I believe that we had to have these controls in order to break the contagion of cytotoxicity, which is the fuel of the war.
And we know it wasn't going to be broken unless we took the very hard path that we did take.
We want to reach our goal, and we believe that we will achieve our goal, of keeping inflation at 2-3% level for the year 1972, and we believe major achievement does happen when we look back.
Perhaps, but I would try to emphasize very strongly, because I wouldn't want to, if we could have all of us have a comment on this, and then say that I didn't keep my mind.
Perhaps, except that if the program of control is as successful as we would hope it would be,
The amount of controls that we have toward the end is far less than the same amount.
I see that we need control coming, perhaps at a faster pace, but we can come on in an hour.
What was it you included in this interview as saying, can I go over this?
Black people are different than white people.
I'm quoting now.
I don't understand what you mean by that.
Exactly what do you mean by that?
How are black people different from white people?
Well, the main way of looking at it is that black people are white people.
Black people are white people.
Black people are white people.
I've gone through with an individual who grows up in America and is black.
has, why don't we talk very frankly, the inevitable memory of what happened to God over the years.
uh...
He, therefore, has problems that the white person doesn't have.
And I think it must be recognized that we're not going to do the right kind of job that we should.
Mr. President, do you consider Governor Tuerkwald, in what he stands for, a threat to holding this society together?
Well, I know that at the moment that he
And she decided to enter the Democratic primary.
And I really didn't hear that question.
You should be corrected that the Democratic candidate was landing on the April 5th.
And I'm sure you're going to hear a question about this program.
Well, I'm very much an advocate for the Democratic candidate.
But the question was put directly to you.
I believe the problem is not the problem here, but of our party.
President, the reason why you were asked the question, not the answer to it, you were asking for the opinion.
Two years.
You know them as an alternative service, under which the U.S. will take even the hands of the U.S. And you know the question that I was answering, and that's the kind of thing you referred to.
And you recall the problem of money, where I had talked about the thing here, the problem of armed forces, and why didn't you bring me to that side of the road?
And people are asking me whether they're all according to my embassy, and I said, no.
The answer is, at this time, no.
As long as there are Americans who chose to serve their country rather than deserve their country, then it's a hard choice by the end of Vietnam.
There will be no amnesty for those who deserve their country.
As long as there are any people who are going to tell a dark piece of news, there will be no amnesty for those who deserve their country.
The only thing to wrap around that, which I'm going to say, is because I'm an archivist,
I say it because it's the only right thing to do.
Two and a half million young Americans that have to make the choice whether or not they want to go to Vietnam.
Most of them aren't sure if they want to go.
It isn't a very pleasant place.
I've been there a hundred times.
Nice people, but not a pleasant place in the land of the Soviet Union.
I imagine most of those young Americans, when they land there, that move forward unreliably, but they do it in prayer.
And until this war is over, and until we have the people of this country, those people can quit their country if they want to.
They can live with that.
That's right.
But in some future times, if there were only a few of us, we always, we always would be rather under our feet, provided we remember Abraham Lincoln.
And the last year, the last day, as a matter of fact, or just before his death,
to anyone who had discerned it, that he would come back and reveal to anyone and tell about his history of the time.
And then, of course, that this is always
in the variety of the chief executive.
I, for one, would be very liberal in the United States.
If not well, there are Americans in Vietnam fighting to build their country, to own their country, and not fight to deal with others.
I hope that, after that, we will be clear that whether we're happy with our basis in there, personally, or I can end up here, those are values of all.
I mean, it's good to be an American, and I'm going to be a product of that system.
Why not do that at the White House?
I, uh, I, uh, I, uh, I, uh, come from a minister.
This is, uh, you know, I've been wanting to, uh, do it the other way, of course, we, uh, I, uh, I, uh, I, uh, I, uh, I, uh, I, uh,
I'd say that, as we consider the role of women in our political life, that a woman is very important.
I'm not suggesting that that's going to happen soon.
I am suggesting, however, that looking at the future and the place that women now live in,
and women develop respect for themselves as executives rather than women, that their place in political life is to be recognized more and more.
I don't want to go home.
As far as I'm concerned, I have the greatest respect for women in both capacities, those who are homemakers and those who decide to go into politics for a living.
but let us have freedom of choice for life.
I didn't know what to do.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
All right, I'll just do this one.
All right.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
And of course, of course, you and Faro, I remember that you said, oh, no, Faro, you know, you people rushed into China.
And I'm not going to miss that.
Which faro?
You mean the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
What are you guys are asking about?
We thought you guys didn't know about the football game today.