 I know we should have done that with that big an audience I couldn't say it again it wasn't going to say no comment that's too important okay secretary Schultz did give rather a bleak news conference in Moscow it seemed to have struck out coming back empty-handed that may or may not be true maybe you're getting private information otherwise but is it so and do you think that the Soviet are being very hard-line and what are your maximum and minimum goals for this summit what do you really think you can get out of it oh I haven't Helen I haven't tried to pin it down to success or failure in terms of that kind we're going there to try and basically eliminate if we can or certainly reduce the distrust between our two countries we have to live in the world together and it is that distrust that causes the problems and causes the situation with regard to arms negotiations so I cited to our Russian friends when they were in here the other day that statement it isn't mine I wish it were but a statement that I read in the press the other day that summed it up so succinctly and that is that nations do not distrust each other because they're armed they are armed because they distrust each other well I will be presenting the same thing that I told those others my concept of the strategic defense system has been one that if and when we finally achieve what our goal is and that is a weapon that is effective against incoming missiles not a weapon a system that's effective against incoming weapons missiles then rather than add to the distrust in the world and appear to be seeking the potential for a first strike by rushing to implement my concept has always been that we sit down with the other nuclear powers with our allies and our adversaries and see if we cannot use that weapon to bring about the elimination of or that defensive system for the elimination of nuclear weapons and that certainly I will discuss there and try to impress upon them how firmly we believe in this I don't think the negotiation of facts and figures about which weapon and how many and numbers and so forth of in weaponry should take place at the summit I think that belongs where we have already put it and that is with the arms control negotiators that are already in Geneva that's their kind of figuring that should go on we shouldn't be doing that with all of the things we have to discuss at the other at the summit meeting at that meeting there are a number of things as some of them I hinted at in the speech in the UN regional situation in other words try to as I say eliminate the distrust that exists yes because the other things would automatically follow considering what you told the Soviet journalists when they were here last week there seems to be some discrepancy between your your comments to them and your comments today about what what this this what the conditions for deployment would be could you explain it to us now yes I could because I have already explained that to our allies at the United Nations and this was the first misunderstanding that I have seen about it I went through the transcript of that interview and I mentioned it three or four times through there in the transcript and I think it was someone just dumped to a false conclusion when they suggested that I was giving a veto to the Soviets over this that in other words if if that thing that I've just described to you that meeting took place and we couldn't get satisfaction that I would say well then we we can't deploy this defensive system I couldn't find any place that where that was anything but an erroneous interpretation of what I'd been saying obviously if this took place we had the weapon I keep using that term it's a defensive system we had a defensive system and we could not get agreement on their part to eliminate the nuclear weapons if we would have done our best and no we would go ahead with deployment but I even though as I say that would then open us up to the charge of achieving the capacity for a first strike we don't want that we want to eliminate things of that kind and that's why we frankly I think that any nation offered this under those circumstances that I've described would see the value of going forward remember that the Soviet Union has already stated its wish that nuclear weapons could be done away with you said you say today that you would go ahead with deployment if you if you had the system and there weren't international agreement on mutual deployment the other day you said that you would go ahead you that deployment would be only on condition of what you call disarmament well this this misunderstanding it seems to me on whoever's part has caused a lot of confusion does that does that disrupt your negotiations with Gorbachev and and what can he expect when you have said this to his journalists and now you're telling us something different no I'm not telling something different I'm saying that reading that transcript of what I told to the journalists someone has jumped to a to an erroneous conclusion I don't find anything in there maybe it's because I have talked about this with so many individuals as I've said the UN and all that maybe having more of an understanding of it I see it more clearly than some others might but I have not and I've had others now that look at this transcript and they don't get that interpretation that I'm giving anyone a veto over this defensive system you are more you have been more flexible in the way you have you have talked about the SDI you have not said that it could not be a bargaining chip as you used to say very often before is there are you more flexible do you want your message to be seen as more flexible is there room for compromise or well this is the point where where flexibility I think is is not involved the demands that have been made on us already with regard to arms control are that we stop the research and any effort to create such a defensive system and I have said that there's no way that we will give that up that this means too much to the world and to the cause of peace if it should be possible to have an effective defensive system I've in discussions here in the office I've likened it many times to the gas mask 1925 when all the nations of the world after World War one and the horror of poison gas in that war when it was over all the nations got together in Geneva and ruled out the use of poison gas but we all had gas masks and no one did away with their gas masks well this in a sense is how I see what this could be the defense that would it would be so practical and sensible for any country including the Soviet Union to say why go on building and maintaining and modernizing these horrible weapons of destruction if there is something that can be implemented that makes them useless Secretary Schultz held a press conference in Iceland today on his way back to you and with him was a senior official not identified but we can guess who it is who held a background briefing for reporters and he said that the impression that the American delegation got during the recent this weekend's talks in Moscow was that mr. Gorbachev was concerned that US policy was influenced by a small circle of anti-Soviet extremists now if mr. Gorbachev said that to you personally how would you respond this president I would respond with the truth as clearly as I could annunciate it this is one of the things that I talk about for feel with regard to the distrust that the Soviet Union tends to be distrustful and suspicious that that things that are presented to them are perhaps concealing some ulterior motive and I want to discuss with him the record our own record that if this were true that if the United States was guided by some desire to one day assault the Soviet Union why didn't we do it when we were the most powerful military nation on earth right after World War two our military was at its height we had not had the great losses than in the millions that the other nations had had that had been there longer our industry was intact we hadn't been bombed to rubble as all the rest had and we were the only ones with the ultimate weapon the nuclear weapon we could have dictated the whole world and we didn't we set out to help the whole world and the proof of it is today that our erstwhile enemies and there could never have been more hatred in the world and there was between the enemies of World War two and ourselves there today our staunchest allies and yet here is a former ally there are Americans buried and in the soil of of the Soviet Union that fought side by side against these same enemies and so I think we can prove by the record that any fair-minded person would have to see that we did not have expansionism in mind we never took an inch of territory as a result of the victory of World War two or of World War one for that matter and on the other hand to point out to him why we are concerned about them that their expansionist policy is very evident the gunfire hasn't stopped for a moment in Afghanistan the we could name all the other spots where they or their surrogate troops are in there so this is my hope that I can convince him if it's a reasonable man and every indication that he is would see that if we both want peace there'll be peace Mr. President your remark that you think Mr. Gorbachev is a reasonable man brings me to another question I assume that you have been doing a lot of reading about Mr. Gorbachev the man and Gorbachev the leader of the Soviet Union and that perhaps you've even seen some videotapes of him in action what sort of an opponent do you expect to face across that table in Geneva if I would think that any Soviet leader who reaches the office that he holds would be a formidable opponent if he does not subscribe to the party philosophy he wouldn't be in that position yes yes have you ordered the investigation of the CIA handling of and have you gone even further to order investigation of handling by any agency of defectors per se well right now the Justice Department is investigating the INF and their INS I mean their handling of the Medved incident down in New Orleans to see just what led to all of that I have to say that this coming as they do together these three particular incidents you can't rule out the possibility that this might have been a deliberate ploy or maneuver here you have three separate individuals in three different parts of the world who defected and then recanted and of their own free will said they wanted to return to the Soviet Union and in every one of the three incidents we insisted on and did secure the last word the final meeting with each one of them to make sure that they understood completely that they were welcome here that we would provide safety and sanctuary for them here in the United States and in every incident that was repudiated and we had to say that of their own free will as far as we could see and for whatever reason they wanted to go back and is this a sort of a disinformation plan to work as I say you can't there's no way that you can prove that that isn't so on the other hand there's no way that you can prove that it is so you you just have to accept that we did our best and view of their expressed desires and then they did what other defectors before them have not done and they I think here and there there's been one or two that that went back so you can't rule out personal desires homesickness whatever it might be I'm sure that as has been suggested by some in discussing this that people who go through that must be under quite some strain and it must be a traumatic experience to step forth from the land of your birth and denounce it and say you want to live someplace else in another country but there's no way to establish either they honestly did feel they wanted to defect and then change their minds or the possibility is there that this could have been a deliberate ploy leaning toward the ladder that we that there has been something very systematic no I just maybe I spent more time explaining why I didn't think you could rule out no no I no I said there is this suspicion that has been voiced by more people than me and all I have to say is we just have to live with it because there's no way we can prove or disprove it do you think that that makes the information that he did give the CIA worthless or perhaps even you know that it was misinformation well actually the information that he provided was not anything newer sensational it was it was pretty much information already known to the CIA really so so that would tend to support your thought that perhaps this whole thing was cooked if you want to take it that way I'm not going to comment on that one way or the other would you say you're perplexed by it yes I think anyone is perplexed by this I think it's awfully easy for any America to be perplexed by anyone that could live in the United States would prefer to live in Russia one more time that there's no way to tell you the way you said about four times but the answer questions to the summit preparation what do you expect from the summit on the human rights issue you have been very cautious on the human rights issue in the Soviet Union is it because you sense that there might be something positive coming out and you don't want to I have always felt that there are some subjects that should remain in confidence between the leaders discussing them in this world of public life and politics if you try to negotiate on the front page some items you have almost put the other fella in a corner where he can't give in because he would appear in the eyes of his own people as if he's taking orders from an outside government and the greatest success that I think has been had in in this particular area has been with predecessors of mine who have discussed these subjects privately and quietly allowed to have medical treatment in the West or you think it's just something to diffuse the issue I don't know but I welcome it it's long overdue and we're pleased to see it happen but what I'm trying let me point out also this does not mean that human rights will not be a subject for discussion they will be very much so they're very important to the people of our country and in their view of a relationship with with the Soviet Union but I don't think that it is profitable to put things of this kind out in public where any change in policy would be viewed as a succumbing to another power Mr. President talking of spies some months ago I forget the date in one of your Saturday radio speeches you said there were too many Soviet and East European diplomats in this country and too many spies among them and you said in effect perhaps precisely that you were going to cut these numbers down brief us on what has happened since then well we've we're having discussions about that and reducing numbers we recognize that when we do anything of this kind it's there's going to be retaliation but what we're trying to do is to simply arrive at agreements that will be mutual and with regard to reductions of of staff and numbers in each other's countries when you say you're having discussions you mean with with the Soviet Union and East European countries yes this has been done at a ministerial level let me simply say no secretary Weinberger isn't trying to sabotage anything of the kind he's been most helpful in all of the meetings that we have had on this and all of the talk that we unhappily read about feuds and so forth again this is a distortion or misinterpretation of my desire for what I've always called cabinet type government where I want all views to be frankly expressed because I can then make the decision better if I have all those viewpoints and the fact that we have debate and discussion in that regard in that way should not be construed as feuds and battles and so forth I want all sides okay in public and on the front page well not the way it's been portrayed in the front page it's been portrayed well but it been portrayed not in the spirit in which I just spoke of it it's been portrayed as animus and anger and so forth and it isn't that kind it's it's the devil advocate type of thing where I I hear all sides now with regard to Gaddafi let's just say we don't have a very personal relationship well you're going to try to overthrow him no we no comment on no comment on are you trying to overthrow him I never like to talk about anything that might be doing being done in the name of intelligence to the long-range success of any progress that you make at the summit why won't you permit the release of the test results from your periodic examinations to reassure the public that there's no recurrence of the cancer well for heaven's sakes first of all that term the recurrence of cancer you've given me an opportunity to give an answer I've wanted to give for some time I'm deeply appreciative of the concern of people and the all the letters of condolence and good wishes and so forth that I've received but I feel the people have been doing this under a little misapprehension the whole thing has been portrayed as that I was a sufferer of cancer I had cancer and then an operation took place and and now I have I've had a good recovery no the truth of the matter was I had a polyp it is there are two kinds of polyps in the intestines and one kind if allowed to go on eventually becomes cancers and then would spread I had a polyp removed it is true that it within itself had begun to develop a few cancer cells but it was still a self-contained polyp the only way that type of polyp can be removed is by major surgery so in reality the only real illness that I suffered in any way and at any time was the incision and my healing was only not a healing of cancer mine was a healing of a 10 or 12 inch incision so I'm delighted to get this out and on the table before you now the examination yes they gave me a complete schedule and they said we will want to do this down the the line periodically and then it gets farther and farther apart as time goes on it would mainly be an examination periodically to see if any further polyps of that kind if one could start I suppose another could start and then if so you'd want to get rid of them the examinations that I have had are also spaced out like this last time are part of the kind of annual physical that I've had for many years long before I came here where once I used to go into the hospital for a few days and have all the whole physical done well now we do it in bits and parts so this last one mainly I went in and they simply examined the incision one see how the healing was coming and then I had some x-rays of the lungs which had nothing to do with the operation but that are normal part of the of the just general physical that I have now there will be another trip there coming up in the near future and that will be the first trip for a look at at the intestines for the possibility of polyps and so when the doctors come out and when the doctors they say the same thing to me that has been said to you maybe I'll have them say it to you instead of me repeating it when they stand there in front of me and say you had 100% recovery everything is just fine as healthy as you could possibly be I go out and tell you that and you think I'm covering something up I just believe they do the examination to see to check if there's another problem well the only test is they say to you there wasn't one or there is one and whichever way it comes out so it's a case of verbalizing there isn't any report to be given you that oh incidentally I also had had the the blood check taken this time also with the x-rays but that was done here a few days before not at Bethesda I take a little blood see what it is and and that would be done this would have been done now even without any physical examination they always do this prior to a trip abroad make sure that they've they know what's there and in the event of an accident or anything they know what could be needed we were talking about Gaddafi but do you think the US should should give some aid to the rebels in Angola as it is doing in in Nicaragua or in Afghanistan we have believed we were embarked on a plan of trying to negotiate the Cubans out of Angola and the independence of Namibia and this also involved that in that there would be a reconciliation between Unite the Sevimbi forces and the present government which more or less was installed by the presence of the Cuban troops now with the elimination of the Clark amendment we are still most supportive of that we believe a settlement in Angola should involve Unite and the people of that country have a choice in making a decision as the government they wanted to have and so all of this is going forward so there's no you don't envision a covertade to rebels in Angola because of the the Clark amendment as you mentioned I think being no I think there's some areas where we can be of help to them how do you feel on the anniversary of your election well I feel just fine I wish the Congress would have a sharp memory of it as they're discussing tax reform and some other things you have any particular goals for the next three years oh yes and you you know most of them tax reform a program that will set us even longer than three years on a course for the elimination of the deficit then the achievement of the balanced budget amendment so that once and for all we'll be free of this and I've had one tucked away in the back of my mind for a long time but once we can do that then I would like to see us start on the reduction of the national debt well then would you be told the house that's right to the house version of the Graham Rudman as it stands now you know Helen I never comment on whether I will or will not veto until it separate tax increases well I won't get there before I'll tell you visit tomorrow night I'm sure I'm sure she will and I'll see you in the next send me to get up and press off the end of the delivery thing I'll wait so I like to wear and you go to the side where to go kind of revved up I'm kind of looking forward to this family it's not this person around thank you sir