 Gary, I'm like a head of state. I hope they don't ask me any questions. Oh, you can't trust the press. They'll try. I know. Basically, we found out that that distant mic here for the tape and if any of you needed the tape, but it didn't. Well, I told them I wasn't going to answer any questions. What about if I ask questions? That's all right. That's a switch. Everybody's ready? Mr. President, if I could start looking back over the past year, what do you think you did wrong and what would you have done differently? Well, I think there are always things that you'll think you did wrong. But I think, basically, we have continued on the path that we set in 1981. The progress that we've made economically is apparent. It is the first time in many years that we've had a recovery from a recession in which not only is industrial, well, let's say, just productivity increasing, personal earnings increasing, inflation, and unemployment both going down. All of these things happening at the same time. This hasn't happened in a recovery for many, many years, which makes me believe we are on a firm footing for a later foundation for a solid recovery. That part is one. There are things, if you say, what should we have done differently? Well, there are things in trying to negotiate bipartisan agreements on some of these. If you look back and think, well, maybe if we'd worked harder in one direction or another, we might have gotten more cooperation in our need to reduce government spending. And the international scene, I think that our continued buildup of our strength has changed international relations a great deal. I don't think without that we would have had the beginning negotiations that we've had with regard to reduction of nuclear weapons, both the INF and the start talks. I think it is due to that. I think we've got a finer relationship than we've had for a long time with our own friends and allies. This is particularly true in the efforts that we've made in Asia, as well as our long time friends in Europe. So all in all, I think that there has been progress, but it is a foundation laid for more progress. But surely, was there anything you went back at the end of the day and say, oh darn, I really, that didn't work right. We should have done it. Is there any one thing that you can pick out? Well, I probably could get some incensed about that. But this was before 1983, earlier than that, going for the tax bill on the assumption that we'd been promised about $3 in reductions in spending for every dollar of tax revenue. And we have never seen the $3 in reduced spending. Mr. President, do you think the new rapprochement between Arafat and Mubarak now opens away as a breakthrough for the possibility of your peace plan getting moving and Hussein taking part? Well, Helen, I'm always a little leery about saying a breakthrough, but I do think this. We are optimistic about this because if you look at the relationship there in the two country or the two peoples that were involved, Mubarak is the head of state of the one country in the Arab world that has gone forward and has a peace treaty with Israel. We are hopeful that the peace process will bring about more Arab nations making their peace with Israel. Obviously, part of that process depends on fair and just settlement of the Palestinian question. And Arafat has in the past been one who has refused to recognize Israel's right to exist as a nation. But the fact that earlier and before this split in the PLO ranks, he had begun to discuss with King Hussein and participating in those negotiations on behalf of the Palestinians, then that broke down with the split in the Palestinian movement. Now, I think that what Mubarak is doing is talking to him about returning to where he was earlier, making contact with King Hussein, and getting those peace negotiations our peace proposal underway again. And do you think there's a good chance? Yes, I do. I really do. Because we had believed that settlement in Lebanon had to precede going further with that, I don't think that's necessarily true now. I think enough progress has been made there that we can go forward with the peace movement. May I follow up, Mr. President? Israel has denounced the talks between Arafat and President Mubarak, saying it was a clear violation of Camp David agreements. What do you respond to that? Well, I don't think it was a violation. And I think I can understand their feelings and view of the recent tragedy in Jerusalem and the group taking credit for that claim to be a PLO group and all. But at the same time, I think as they look at this a little more clearly, they will see that Mubarak, based on the experience of Egypt and its willingness to go forward for peace, is simply trying to persuade others to change their thinking. There was one point not too long before the peace treaty with Egypt in which Egypt was as violent in its hostility as perhaps today the elements of the PLO are. And so who is better able to try and bring in another person into the peace process than someone who has made the change that Egypt has made? Do you think Mr. Arafat is still a popular leader among the Palestinians themselves? Well, this is what we need to find out. I can't believe that that radical group that, under the influence of the Syrians, created all this tragedy around Tripoli, the innocent people that were killed because of the violence of that battle. I can't believe that the millions of Palestinians are going to choose that leadership. Mr. President, on a slightly different subject, you mentioned that due to our arms build-up, that brought the Soviets to the negotiating table. And now we've had a breakdown of the arms talks, and there seems to be an increased level of tension. Do you think we're at a confrontation state with the Soviets? And what do you see the chance of an arms accord in 1984? Well, we're going to keep on with that. And actually, the Soviets have not said no. They said they wouldn't set a date yet for the resumption of these talks. In INF, they said they just walked in. In INF talks, they just walked in. Yes, but since then, there have been statements to the fact that they just are not ready, and they're unwilling at this point to set a date. I believe they will be back. And I don't believe, I believe we're further from a confrontation possibility because of the deterrent capability of the United States and our allies at this point. I think there was a far more unstable condition when we had let our own strength deteriorate to the point that there was a window of vulnerability. And I would like to call your attention to one thing. There have been 19, prior to this, to our talks, there have been 19 efforts since World War II to engage the Soviet Union in talks about arms reduction. There has never been any progress made in those. The salt talks actually were not arms reductions. They were supposed to be setting a ceiling on how many more weapons would be built. And yet that has not been ratified, the SALT II treaty. But in these negotiations, even though the Soviets were not as forthcoming as we would like to have had them be, they still did make a couple of offers to reduce the number of their weapons. Now, that is the first time they have ever done that in any negotiations in all these previous 19 attempts. And I think that now that they see that we are determined to maintain our own ability to defend ourselves and our allies with us are included in that, I think that they have to see that these negotiations are in their interest as well as ours. Do you have any signals that they are actually planning to come back or are you just looking at it from what you see as common sense? No, I think the things that we have heard. I think that this is, you might say, almost a part of the negotiating process. Their whole principle move over this last year or so has been an effort to stop the deployment of the intermediate-range weapons that were asked for by NATO. And the fact that we are going ahead, this maybe could still, that could be tied to that as still, you might say, an element of negotiating. But we are going to proceed with the installation of those weapons. We don't think it's three minutes to 12 o'clock at doomsday o'clock. The scientists seem to think so. And they think it's a more dangerous world now. Well, maybe the scientists know more about science and from the standpoint of the power of the weapons, yes, they are more powerful, they are more destructive on both sides than they were before. And maybe looking at it from a scientist's viewpoint, that moves up there at doomsday o'clock. But they're not involved in the diplomatic and political end of this as we are. Sir, you only have really three minutes now to make a decision on warranties in the nuclear, according to the nuclear scientists, there would be three minutes on each side. Well, now, Helen, in the Bible, weren't we told that a long period of time was only a moment or even a second to God? I don't know whether they're, what their three minutes refers to. I know it doesn't refer to three minutes. You think it would be a lot longer for you to decide? Well, I'm wondering on their doomsday o'clock each minute on that clock is that weeks, is that months, is that years that they're, and they've never said of what it is. But no, I believe that actually, and I can understand their feeling, all that they hear and forgive me, but a lot of the editorial content is that, oh, there are great tensions. There has been, let's say, more heat in rhetoric. There has not been more heat in the actual relationship at the time that the rhetoric was being used from both sides. Our negotiators were sitting there at the table negotiating. Mr. President, can I come back on the prospects of these talks, these arms talks? There's a lot of concern, especially in Europe, that with the lack of dialogue between West and the East, especially as the U.S. is entering an election year. If you run for reelection, the Soviets are not likely to help you. And so how do you see the prospects for some kind of an agreement before the elections? Well, I would hope that the Soviet Union would remember their failure in trying to influence the German election and decide not to go down that road again. But as far as I am concerned, whoever our candidate may be, I don't think any decisions on a subject of this kind should be made on our part, on our side, on the basis of, as I said the other night, of political considerations. We are going to continue to do everything we can to resume and achieve arms reductions as sizable as we can make them, and ultimately I would hope, total elimination of nuclear weapons. They have no real place in a civilized world. The goal is peace. And I've been a little disturbed by the tendency of so many in this country to seem to feel that somehow we're at fault when they are the ones who left the table without setting a date for return. So you're not going to make any proposal before I go ahead? Oh, we're in communication. We haven't broken off communications. We're not, as we've been portrayed, that the two superpowers are here separated with no contact at all. No, we're in communication with them. And we want to continue these policies that would lead toward reduction of arms and would lead toward peace. I am prepared to say, if the Soviet government wants peace, there will be no war because I don't know, I know for a fact that no other country wants war with the Soviet Union. The ball is really in their court. If they want peace, they can have it. And isn't that, though, what's kept the peace, this mutual terror? I think the deterrent capability, yes. This is, see, we have a weapon here in the world today, the nuclear weapon, that for the first time in the history of all man's weapons has never resulted in a defensive weapon being created against it. The only thing we have is deterrence. The only thing we have is the knowledge that on both sides, the punishment would be more than any nation could afford. If they started it, they would have to be prepared to accept virtually as much punishment as they were administering. And this has kept the peace. I've had some meetings with young people who have brought this very subject up and they're greatly concerned. And I've asked them a question and I must say they come up with a pretty sound answer. I've said we're the only ones that has ever used a nuclear weapon in Japan in World War II. Would we have used that weapon if we knew they also had that weapon and could use it back against us? And without fail, every group I've ever said this to has decided that no, we would never have used the weapon. So that's the real deterrent to war? Yes, yeah. Mr. President, in Central America recently, there have been some apparently conciliatory gestures from Michel Albert. Do you think these are sincere moves or they're propaganda ploys and do you intend any response to them? I think that there is more they can do than they've done. It's, I think the situation with them right now is covered by the words of Demosthenes in the Athenian marketplace 2,000 years ago when he said what man would let another man's words rather than his deeds tell him who was at peace and who was at war with him. You don't think too much of these gestures end? We've made it plain and there again there's been contact and as our Ambassador Stone has made it plain to them that all they have to do is re-institute the principles of their own revolution, the things that they promised the people they were going to bring about if their revolution succeeded and they have not done that. They betrayed their own revolution and created a totalitarian state. Well if you turn the Demosthenes around, might the people of Monago not say we want to see some deeds from the United States? Well, what hostile deeds have they seen? They think Grenada for one, maybe we think maybe you think it was very benign. Brown forces preparing to invade. But those rebel forces are part of their own original revolution. The people that once they succeeded were ousted because they wanted to institute the democratic policies. But they're being armed by us. But well, we set out after the revolution succeeded prior to my administration, previous administration immediately started to come to the financial aid, economic aid to the Sandinista government until it found out that the Sandinista government was not keeping the promise of its revolution and the aid was withdrawn. Now to invoke Grenada here again, I think the words of the Grenadan people themselves, the governor general, the people of Grenada, the people, our own people who were there and who were rescued have revealed this was not an invasion, this was something in the nature of a commando operation and it was a rescue mission. And the people of Grenada have made it very plain that they feel that they too were rescued. And the fact that we have withdrawn our combat troops so precipitously that some of the Grenadians are a little alarmed that they don't think we should have left yet. Mr. President, have you seen the Pentagon report yet or do you know anything about it? It's so critical. It has finally been delivered over here. It hasn't reached me as yet. Has it not been briefed at all on it? No, just a... It sounds devastating. Well, I'm not going to comment until I see it. You don't really have any idea what's in it. I have no more than I read in the papers. Do you think that a lot of people are going to suffer from it? I just, Helen, I just can't comment until I see it. We've all heard that it in some way criticizes everyone in the chain of command. Do you philosophically or anyway feel that that chain of command is... You're at the top of it in this case and you bear some of that responsibility? Well, there's no way to discount responsibility. As Commander-in-Chief, the operation could not have gone forward without my approval. So in that sense, I think that the investigation was being very thorough. The... Yes, there would have been no mission without my decision to go forward with it. Mr. President, in Lebanon, President Partini of Italy today called for withdrawal of the Italian contingent of the multinational force. Apparently there have been 15 countries who were asked to join that force and who have refused. Are you not concerned that the United States, by siding with Israel, is going to end up alone in Lebanon? No. I think that there was a not completely thorough statement of our meeting with Prime Minister Shamir. It was portrayed, and many people saw it as somehow arriving at some new coalition with them and even the word conspiracy was used by some in there. But no, there was a reaffirmation by us of what our relationship with Israel has been since 1948. And we discussed this not from any standpoint of Israel and its relationship with Arab countries in the sense of taking their part in anything of that kind. We're dedicated to the idea of trying, if we can, to act as a friend to both the Arab states and Israel in settling those longtime disputes and bringing about the kind of peace that we find between Egypt and Israel now. Do you think a UN force would be better in there? I would have wished from the very first for a UN force. But what has prevented it? The Soviet Union veto. If you look at the unifil force that is presently in the south of Lebanon, it is so bound by restrictions that were imposed in order to get the Soviet Union vote that it literally is helpless to do anything. It isn't that these people are ineffective or that they aren't capable. So that they couldn't possibly be replaced. Well, I could still hope that the Soviet Union now would recognize the value of having a UN force in there. And as I say, we would have preferred this in the very first, but it was something that couldn't be obtained. But where was I on? I was asking, aren't you concerned of the early reluctance of your allies to assume part of the revolution in heaven? Well, we have been in communication, and I think that they understand better now. Because we were just as forthright in talking to Prime Minister Shamir about our intentions in our dealings with the Arab states and the things that we were going to do in linkage with them. All of this aimed at being able, if a mediator can be of use in that peace process that we proposed, to ensure a fair solution to the problems. We have no plan that we're going to impose. That would be wrong of us to go in and say, here is the peace plan. It must be negotiated out. On one side, there is territory. On the other side, there could be assurances of security. And someplace there has to be a balance in there in which one is traded to the other. But that is up to them to negotiate. And I think our meeting with the foreign minister of Egypt, my own personal communication with President Mubarak, other communications that we have made straightening out what the situation was and what our relationship with Israel is and what we want in a relationship with them. And I think there was some discomfort at first. I don't think so anymore. But is there any concern that 15 other allied nations are asked to join this force and have backed out? But you're going back. Remember, I think this was back when we were putting it together. We were trying to get forces that would join in it. Well, now there could be a number of reasons why a nation wouldn't. There could be the very fact of cost that to some nations. And remember, this recession has been worldwide. So whatever the reasons were, but this was back when we were trying to put the multinational force together. And I think the very fact that the United Kingdom, that Italy, France, the United States were able to provide what we thought was an adequate force for the purpose we had in mind. We've got four true and false questions. Is Jean Kierke Patrick leaving? Yes or no? No, Jean came in as she has every year. Would you go for a summit? What? Would you go for a summit if the Soviet proposed it? Well, I've always been willing to go if there is a possibility of accomplishing something. And what do you want to happen next year? I want the recovery to continue. I want us to achieve more control over spending. Therefore, I would hope that the press would reveal to the people of this country how valuable line item veto could be in the helping to get control over extravagance. And I would hope that we would be far more advanced toward peace and toward a reduction of nuclear weapons. And on new tax? New tax. I would hope that that wouldn't be necessary. Thank you. We have a New Year's resolution. He's leaving so I can defy him. Oh, a New Year's resolution. Don't make him. No, I don't think I've bothered with one of those for a long time. Thank you. Well, thank you. Merry Christmas. Thank you, happy New Year. Jim, Merry Christmas. Andy, Merry Christmas. Thank you. I think I'm wired here. Yeah, you better. You'll get that tape edited down to everything. Censored. Not at all. Are you looking forward not to the holidays and having a good time? Yes. Christmas here, New Year's. Really have been busy. People have had a lot of weather out there than we've had the past two years. Yes, well, and right now, let's keep your fingers crossed because there's a storm coming in all off the coast. So let's hope that it will go like this weekend and the next weekend will be right there. I've never been in Palm Springs yet, but it hasn't been cold. Yeah, it can get very cold. Do you call Dean Kelly? What? Did you call him? No, but I've sent him the wire. Terrible, huh? No, that was a, what a miracle it was, the way you said it. I've heard a story about it from someone out there. How his son got burned, the main staircase going upstairs to wake his father was on fire, and he got burned, but he took his father and the sister down a back stairway and got them out with the hose. By that time, he was gone. He had left the Christmas tree lights on all night. For people that might be going by, thought it would be nice to let them see the cheerful lights. Well, who do you think's buying my silver ball? I can't talk about those things now. You have to go to California, too. Thank you. I know. I've got to be down the middle of this.