 This is, I think things are new, the other things are left over from our, it's not maybe. This is so if anybody needs a pen, a script, a book, machines, give out or anything, we can... I guess I am, I think we'll provide pre-arrangement. I wanted to ask you a question that comes out of the interview with the TV anchor man, which you referred I think twice to while you said that the start was another gigantic step toward the elimination of nuclear weapons and you also said that Reykjavik, we had come to an agreement on literally total nuclear disarmament when the Soviets brought up SDI and you came home. Mr. Gorbachev is using the same kind of language on his way over here with Mrs. Stature and I'm just wondering what you and the General Secretary imagine, what kind of world you imagine, what kind of relationship between the two systems that would permit a world without nuclear weapons. Well he made it very plain that in Reykjavik when we were talking there that he was interested in the whole gamut and it came out of a discussion in which we had constantly talked missiles and he finally wanted to know why we weren't talking weapons, arms, because there are more than missiles, there are battlefield artillery shells, there are nuclear, there are bombs from airplanes and so forth and I was kind of surprised because I thought that they might be more prone to wanting nuclear weapons than us and it surprised me and I said well that's good enough for me, I'm willing to talk all weapons but suddenly, and this was on the very last day, suddenly up came this other that it was all at the price of not having any strategic defense initiative and that's where I walked away. Well aren't you in danger of making the world safe for conventional war and putting the Europeans at some risk when you talk about no nuclear weapons? No, but I think there is such a difference between nuclear and conventional as we've always known it and that is the idea that two countries are basing their mutual defense on what's called the mad policy, mutual assured destruction, that the preventive is supposed to be that well if they push the button and all those missiles in less than a half an hour are here exploding all over our country, we will have pushed the buttons also and they'll be exploding all over their country and it seems to me that to begin with is such a violation as to the rules of warfare that were violated also in World War II but that how uncivilized are we if we simply now say that all people, men, women and children, non combatants are going to be the target of this new weapon when we've had rules of warfare adopted by all the civilized world that is to protect the non combatants from being a victim of war. Well I just follow up, I mean we did fire bomb Tokyo in World War II and non combatants were involved and among other things. Yes, I see we did violate it, we did break it, when Hitler created a thing called Total War well we followed suit and proved to be better at it than he was. How worried would you be about the conventional imbalance in Europe if you just did away with all this? Well that of course is most important and I have to say with regard to the General Secretary he has made it plain that in his wanting a reduction of armaments that extends to conventional weapons also. What reassurance can you offer to our conservative friends that this INF Treaty isn't a national interest and in their interests? Well it is and I know that most of the things we hear is that they believe that somehow by this INF agreement we have changed the balance of power in Europe and that the Soviets who do have admittedly a conventional superiority now have been given an advantage but that isn't so. There are still hundreds and hundreds of nuclear weapons left in Europe. The tactical battlefield weapons and those are the weapons that do equalize that imbalance in conventional weapons. Now before you would go into any treaty about those tactical battlefield weapons that would have to follow parity in the conventional weapons because if we eliminated and they eliminated the tactical battlefield weapons they automatically would end up with a great superiority if it was reduced to conventional weapons and in this instance I feel they're so wrong because they are giving up four times as many warheads as we have to give up. In our Pershings and the cruise missiles we didn't have anywhere near the number of warheads and their intermediate range missiles were not targeted on military targets. They covered all the way to London in other words every principal city and port and so forth in Europe was open to that particular weapon. Sir this is a very sharp specific answer that you've given that I'm sure would silence Howard Phillips for a few minutes but Phillips and guys like that then they would also rush back and say I suspect has our ideological leader softened up how would you reassure them that you still are vigilant as regards the danger of communism to world peace? Well when I got my temper back after a charge of that kind I think I would make it very plain to them that no I haven't softened up I have believed from the very beginning that our best posture had to be strength and realism and when I first in 1961 brought up the idea of a zero option and they walked out of the discussions and said they wouldn't be back. 1981 sir? Yes that was the first time that I ever thought about it and said they wouldn't be back. Well I didn't give in and they came back and in Reykjavik when they wanted SDI done away with I walked away and they came back. I believe you deal from strength and I think they got the idea that we weren't just hungry for a detente and that we would sign anything to pretend that we had some kind of an agreement. Let me follow up on that really I was re-reading your British Parliament speech from 1982 and it says the Soviet Union is running against the tide of history and that Marxism-Leninism is on the ash heap or is going to end up on the ash heap of history and then here you are on this happy obviously in a good mood happy first name basis with the general secretary you have conservative critics at home as Bob mentioned calling you I guess it was Howard Phillips said that you're selling the Soviet case you are in Lenin's term a useful idiot and what so many people are wondering is you know why is this man Ronald Reagan smiling under such circumstances and listening to your last answer what I am speculating and I'd like to comment on it if you could is this is it possible I mean everybody is looking to say what's the big picture this week and is it possible that you believe that what the turning point is and the watershed of this week is that we in the west are winning and that's why you're so happy in other words they came to INF because the Europeans deployed there after the deep cuts because they're afraid of SDI they're talking about getting out of Afghanistan because they're taking a beating there they're going into perestroika because their system is gone down the tubes so I'm sitting here saying maybe Ronald Reagan is so happy because he's saying we're winning and this is the turning point well I don't like to put it on that term when we are arriving at agreements which were both satisfied for example in this treaty we just signed the there's never been an agreement signed between us that has the verification features that this one does we've gone as far I believe it can be done and I think the winners are the people who are going to benefit from this you have to remember that this is the fourth Soviet leader in my term as president and this is the first Soviet leader that has openly discussed Glasnost that there are flaws in their economic system that need correcting and which maybe partially confirms some of the things that I said before about their system because some of the things he wants to do are real departures from what has been the general policy now he's loyal to their philosophy but he believes that there are things that need correcting and as I said he has talked voluntarily on what he sees as a need for all of us to reduce military forces not just nuclear power but that they are a drain on the citizenry and that we would all be better off if we didn't have such vast military machines do you still think that Marxism-Leninism is going to end up on the ash heap of history well he of course probably thinks capitalism is going to end up on the ash heap of history but yes I've always believed that the greatest revolution in the history of man I think that ever maybe I've gone too far but that I really believe that occurred was in this country with three words we the people now every other country in the world has a constitution that virtually all of them I only know of one exception other than ourselves all of them their constitutions have we the government permit you the people the following privileges and rights our constitution is so unique because it says we the people permit government the following rights and we make it specific in that constitution that nothing not openly given in that constitution to government no power can be taken by government everything that isn't mentioned remains in the hands of the people and I would say that on comparison down over the years 200 years now our revolution proved to be the correct one you only have to compare what has been accomplished Sir can I ask you how did you feel this morning when you woke up? Is this the happiest day of your life? Well I felt good I think that yesterday was quite a day after years of debate and discussion and walking away from things without settlement I thought it was quite a day You looked happy all day Yes Sir and the regional issues I know that this hasn't been settled yet but do you see that this is going to move Afghanistan Middle East peace international peace conference do you see anything yet or is it too early? Well there are people involved in the Middle East situation who do not see an international panel as the answer and obviously you can't impose it on them they have to be willing for that but I do believe also that this general secretary feels as we do about the futility and the tragedy of the Iran-Iraq war joined us in adopting the UN resolution 598 about calling on Iran and Iraq to end their war and yes I think that some of this can cause improved relations in other places and I know that our allies in Europe in spite of a lot of talk that they aren't happy about this that isn't what I'm hearing from them they're very pleased with what has been done I derive from what you said that really like your view has not changed but that it is quite conceivable that you are dealing with a new kind of Soviet leader and this is what is bringing this about Possibly the fundamental change is that in the past Soviet leaders have openly expressed their acceptance of the Marxian theory of the one world communist state that their obligation was to expand and make the whole world and no longer feel that way I think we're dealing with an administration and this doesn't mean that I'm dropping my guard or anything but that we have a potential here of a recognition that we have two systems that are competitive that aren't alike that have different values but a desire to prove that we can live in the world together at peace and this is what is this is what I've been seeing in the discussions in these three meetings and even more in this last meeting with the General Secretary that the Soviet Union is expressing a belief in our yes competitive societies but living in peace in the world together now again as I say I don't think either one of us are going to drop our guard we're going to insist on well as he pointed out yesterday that I said in every meeting yes Dovayi no Provyi trust but verify I can't remember exactly who brought it to my attention but it was way back before the first Geneva meeting and someone called attention and I used it in the first meeting Does this mean that you expect the Soviets to pull out of Afghanistan soon and stop supporting the sign of Nistas soon in Nicaragua? They have he has expressed and in fact not just to me but publicly that they want to get out of Afghanistan and I can't go beyond that other than that saying that our people are people we have working in all of these things are working on that particular question right now is to when and how and in Nicaragua? Well we've made the same point there with regard to Nicaragua and pointed out the similarity in the two situations Mr. President So again that's being worked on Has the General Secretary ever said what you've said which is that you think the possible fundamental change that's going on is that the Soviet leaders are no longer seeking world domination I know they no longer go around making the affirmative case that that's what they see but I have not seen to my knowledge that they have said what you have just said which is that they are no longer seeking No he has never said that but again he is the first He is the first and only leader that has never affirmed that that has never stood up there before the great Soviet Congress and openly stated that goal as the others all have and again I have to say that knowing our discussions just the things that he's willing to discuss and to talk about in the relationship is evidence to me that he's looking for us competing but living peacefully together in the world And that really represents a watershed change either in what has happened there or what has happened as to your perception I mean you believed all along as many of us did that the Soviets were seeking global domination and you're now saying that they're not or that the evidence for the moment The evidence is that and so let's just put it that I'm watching carefully Mr. President, yesterday the Secretary General at the afternoon session even went so far as to say that we come from the same civilizations which would back up what you I don't think they've ever said that before have they? No, nor have I ever heard anyone say before what he said the other day Which was that? That they are going to observe the millennia the thousandth anniversary of the baptizing of a Christian in the Soviet Union that Christianity came to this, well not the Soviet Union, to Russia Christianity came to Russia a thousand years ago That's next year isn't it, 88 I think Is it next year? I guess it's the coming year That's fascinating Thank you very much How did you like this Gorbachev? What? How did you like Raisa Gorbachev? Oh, she seemed very pleasant I just, we just had a little moment here maybe I shouldn't give this away but I will His schedule was very busy today and we our meeting ran over here in the local office And I kept finally I told him I said I've been told that I'm to take him over to the diplomatic entrance there to meet his wife who was with Nancy and then so they could go on with their schedule And then when we got there we found out that Nancy and Raisa were having coffee together and they were late So when we stayed down there in the dip room waiting for them to come down I suggested something to him and we both did it But when finally they came around and through the door he and I were both looking at our watches We got a laugh Mr. President speaking of the wives and the ladies The story has been out that Mrs. Reagan feels very strongly about your quotes place in history That's really what's driving this whole thing is that you want to go down in the history books What do you think about that whole line of I don't know where they got Well it says this in some detail I think that if you check though that has been said that he said that And I understand that he's either thinking or has started a lawsuit over some of those statements that were made No all of that talking about Nancy and so forth No that isn't true What about the places in history argument? Forget about Mrs. Reagan for the moment I mean is that what's driving you? People always say it's almost a cliché The last year of a presidency all the president wants to make his case for history books and that kind of stuff Is that what's in the back of your mind? You don't become the president You have temporary custody of an institution known as the presidency And I don't think maybe some people have just taken it for because of the nature of it or something But no I had some very strong beliefs And if you go back about 25 years or so you'll find that out there in the mashed potato circuit I was voicing those before I ever thought that I would get into politics myself In fact I was dragged kicking and screaming into running for office But I believe very strongly in some certain things And I came here with the pledge that I was going to try to carry out those things I believed in And that's all I'm interested in And now getting down here to the final wire My motivation is that we have achieved quite a bit I think The expansion, the economic expansion proves it And I want to see now if I can't kind of pin some of those things down for whoever follows me That they won't just disappear without us being here I think there are things that in the whole budgetary process Having been a governor I have to tell all of you I don't think there's a state in the union that has a budget process That is as Mickey Mouse as the federal governments And no state would put up with it And there are things that I would like to see done such as a balanced budget amendment And what I had as a governor and 43 governors have a line item veto And stop some of the log rolling that goes on up there on the hill Things of that kind and no I don't know what history is going to say If history reads a lot of the print it follows that it's going to be quite inaccurate So in those old days did you think about weaponry, about even the remote possibility of this kind of thing? Of what? Of nuclear weapon cut backs I mean you start out to say when you were making speeches years ago Was this on your agenda then? I mean was this deep in your... Well I have always felt if you look back there had been about 19 efforts made Involving the Soviet Union too by administrations in this country To do something about nuclear weapons before they ever got to the extent they are now As a matter of fact clear back in the very beginning The first proposal by this country was to the effect of perhaps turning nuclear power itself Over to an international kind of group that could control it And keep it from spreading into the weapon thing and so forth And we seen of the only country that wanted to do that So it never got any place But as I say I just happened to believe that I summed it up in that same speech that you mentioned I summed it up in this that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought What success is there if two countries so poison their very earth That the people can't live there who could call themselves a victor And I think maybe there's been some effect now as we've seen the disaster at Chernobyl The latest figure I've seen is that 135,000 people cannot return to where they lived Because it is not safe, the radioactivity and all that And Chernobyl had less power than a single warhead Now you suddenly imagine tens of thousands of warheads dropping on a country And that country doing the same to another Who wins? Everybody loses I know Congratulations again Nice to see you Nice to see you sir, you know the historians are going to base your right about your administration Not based on the press but on the American specter, what we say You don't have to be so pessimistic about it Not to mention TV clips Well, I included those, yes By the press I've noticed that most of the time when I make a speech on some placements covered on the national TV programs You see me up there talking but you hear a voice over Tons of people wanting to say Translation Was this the happiest day of your life? Or is that time? You've had a lot of that Has been married, how could I say that? I can see why Thank you very much