Walter mondale. Our panelists for tonights debate on defense and Foreign Policy issues are georgie anne geyer, syndicated columnist for universal press syndicate, marvin kalb, chief Diplomatic Correspondent for nbc news, morton kondracke, executive editor of the new republic magazine, and henry trewhitt, Diplomatic Correspondent for the baltimore sun. Edwin newman, formerly of nbc news and now a syndicated columnist for king features, is our moderator. Ed . Edwin dorothy ridings, thank you. A brief word about our procedure tonight. The first question will go to mr. Mondale. Hell have two and a half minutes to reply. Then the panel member who put the question will ask a followup. The answer to that will be limited to one minute. After that, the same question will be put to president reagan. Again, there will be a followup. And then each man will have one minute for rebuttal. The second question will go to president reagan first. After that, the alternating will continue. At the end there will be fourminute summations, with president reagan going last. We have asked the questioners to be brief. Lets begin. Ms. Geyer, your question to mr. Mondale. Georgie mr. Mondale, two related questions on the crucial issue of Central America. You and the Democratic Party have said that the only policy toward the horrendous civil wars in Central America should be on the Economic Development and negotiations, with perhaps a quarantine of marxist nicaragua. Do you believe that these answers would in any way solve the bitter conflicts there . Do you really believe that there is no need to resort to force at all . Are not the solutions to Central Americas gnawing problems simply, again, too weak and too late . V. P. Mondale i believe that the question oversimplifies the difficulties of what we must do in Central America. Our objectives ought to be to strengthen the democracies, to stop communist and other extremist influences, and stabilize the community in that area. To do that we need a threepronged attack, one is military assistance to our friends who are being pressured, secondly, a strong and sophisticated Economic Aid Program and Human Rights Program that offers a better life and a sharper alternative to the alternative offered by the totalitarians who oppose us, and finally, a strong diplomatic effort that pursues the possibilities of peace in the area. Thats one of the big disagreements that we have with the president , that they have not pursued the diplomatic opportunities either within el salvador or as between the countries and have lost time during which we might have been able to achieve a peace. This brings up the whole question of what president ial leadership is all about. I think the lesson in Central America, this recent embarrassment in nicaragua where we are giving instructions for hired assassins, hiring criminals, and the rest, all of this has strengthened our opponents. A president must not only assure that were tough, but we must also be wise and smart in the exercise of that power. We saw the same thing in lebanon, where we spent a good deal of americas assets. But because the leadership of this government did not pursue wise policies, we have been humiliated, and our opponents are stronger. The bottom line of National Strength is that the president must be in command, he must lead. And when a president doesnt know that submarine missiles are recallable, says that 70 of our Strategic Forces are conventional, discovers three years into his administration that our arms control efforts have failed because he didnt know that most soviet missiles were on land, these are things a president must know to command. A president is called the commander in chief, and hes called that because hes supposed to be in charge of the facts and run our government and strengthen our nation. Georgie mr. Mondale, if i could broaden the question just a little bit. Since world war ii, every conflict that we as americans have been involved with has been in nonconventional or irregular terms. And yet we keep fighting in conventional or traditional military terms. The Central American wars are very much in the same pattern as china, as lebanon, as iran, as cuba, in their early days. Do you see any possibility that we are going to realize the change in warfare in our time, or react to it in those terms . V. P. Mondale we absolutely must, which is why i responded to your first question the way i did. Its much more complex. You must understand the region, you must understand the politics in the area, you must provide a strong alternative, and you must show strength, and all at the same time. Thats why i object to the covert action in nicaragua. Thats a classic example of a strategy thats embarrassed us, strengthened our opposition, and undermined the moral authority of our people and our country in the region. Strength requires knowledge, command. Weve seen in the nicaraguan example a policy that has actually hurt us, strengthened our opposition, and undermined the moral authority of our country in that region. Georgie mr. President , in the last few months it has seemed more and more that your policies in Central America were beginning to work. Yet, just at this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a cia guerrilla manual for the antisandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs. Is this not, in effect, our own statesupported terrorism . Pres. Reagan no, but im glad you asked that question, because i know its on many peoples minds. I have ordered an investigation. I know that the cia is already Going Forward with one. We have a gentleman down in nicaragua who is on contract to the cia, advising, supposedly on military tactics, the contras, and he drew up this manual. It was turned over to the agency head of the cia in nicaragua to be printed. And a number of pages were excised by that agency head there, the man in charge, and he sent it on up here to cia, where more pages were excised before it was printed. But some way or other, there were 12 of the original copies that got out down there and were not submitted for this printing process by the cia. Now, those are the details as we have them, and as soon as we have an investigation and find out where any blame lies for the few that did not get excised or changed, we certainly are going to do something about that. Well take the proper action at the proper time. I was very interested to hear about Central America and our process down there, and i thought for a moment that instead of a debate i was going to find mr. Mondale in complete agreement with what were doing, because the plan that he has outlined is the one weve been following for quite some time, including diplomatic processes throughout Central America and working closely with the contadora group. So, i can only tell you about the manual, that were not in the habit of assigning guilt before there has been proper evidence produced and proof of that guilt. But if guilt is established, whoever is guilty, we will treat with that situation then, and they will be removed. Georgie well, mr. President , you are implying then that the cia in nicaragua is directing the contras there. Id also like to ask whether having the cia investigate its own manual in such a sensitive area is not sort of like sending the fox into the chicken coop a second time . Pres. Reagan im afraid i misspoke when i said a cia head in nicaragua. Theres not someone there directing all of this activity. There are, as you know, cia men stationed in other countries in the world and, certainly, in Central America. And so it was a man down there in that area that this was delivered to, and he recognized that what was in that manual was in direct contravention of my own executive order, in december of 1981, that we would have nothing to do with regard to political assassinations. Edwin mr. Mondale, your rebuttal. V. P. Mondale what is a president charged with doing when he takes his oath of office . He raises his right hand and takes an oath of office to take care to faithfully execute the laws of the land. A president cant know everything, but a president has to know those things that are essential to his leadership and the enforcement of our laws. This manual, several thousands of which were produced, was distributed, ordering political assassinations, hiring of criminals, and other forms of terrorism. Some of it was excised, but the part dealing with political terrorism was continued. How can this happen . How can something this serious occur in an administration and have a president of the United States in a situation like this say he didnt know . A president must know these i dont know which is worse, not knowing or knowing and not stopping it. And what about the mining of the harbors in nicaragua which violated International Law . This has hurt this country, and a president is supposed to command. Edwin mr. President , your rebuttal. Pres. Reagan yes. I have so many things there to respond to, im going to pick out something you said earlier. Youve been all over the country repeating something that, i will admit, the press has also been repeating, that i believed that Nuclear Missiles could be fired and then called back. I never, ever conceived of such a thing. I never said any such thing. In a discussion of our strategic arms negotiations, i said that submarines carrying missiles and airplanes carrying missiles were more conventionaltype weapons, not as destabilizing as the landbased missiles, and that they were also weapons that, or carriers, that if they were sent out and there was a change, you could call them back before they had launched their missiles. But i hope that from here on you will no longer be saying that particular thing, which is absolutely false. How anyone could think that any sane person would believe you could call back a nuclear missile. I think is as ridiculous as the whole concept has been. So thank you for giving me a chance to straighten the record. Im sure that you appreciate that. , your question to the president. Alson mr. President , you youve often described the soviet union as an evil empire, but you said if they want to keep their mickey mouse system they can. Do you want to reestablish to taunt or rollback their empire . Ive said exactly what i believe about the soviet union. I believe many of the things they have done are people in any concept of malady that we have. As the twognize that great superpowers in the world we have to live with each other. I said we do not like their system, they do not like ours. We will not change their system and they better not try to change ours. Between us, we can destroy the world or we can save it. I suggested that certainly it was to their common interest, along with hours, to avoid a conflict and to attempt to save the world and remove the Nuclear Weapons. Established as we better understanding. I think in dealing with the soviet union, one has to be realistic. I know mr. Mondale has made statements as if they were just people like ourselves and if they were good and did something nice they would respond accordingly. The result was unilateral disarmament. B1. Nceled the what did we get . Nothing. The soviet union has been engaged in the biggest military buildup in the history of man come at the same time we tried the policy of unilateral disarmament, of weakness. Defensere putting up a of our own and ive made it very plain to them we seek no superiority. We simply are going to provide a deterrent so it will be too costly for them if they are nursing any ideas of aggression against us. They claim they are not. I made it plain to them we are not. No change in my attitude at all. I thought when i came into office it was time there was realistic talk to and about the soviet union. Their get we did get attention. Marvin a related question. Since world war ii the vital interests of the United States have been defined by treaty commitments and president ial proclamations. Aside from what is obvious, such as nato, which countries, which regions in the world you regard as Vital National interests of this country, meaning you would send american troops to fight if they were in danger. Pres. Reagan you have added a hypothetical at the end about where we would send troops in to fight. I am not going to make the decision as to what the tactics could be. Obviously there are a number of areas in the world of importance to us. One is the middle east. That is of interest to the whole western world and industrialized nations because of the great supply of energy on which so many depend. America ares in vital to us. , tryingorking right now to be of help in Southern Africa with regards to the independence bia and the removal of cuban circuits from angola. There are great many interests. We have a great interest in the pacific basin. That is where i think the future of the world lies. One andgoing to pick up hypothetically say we would send troops there. Edwin im sorry, your time was up. Marvin mr. Mondale, youve describe the soviet leaders as cynical, ruthless, and dangerous. In that case, what makes you think the summit meetings with them you have proposed would result in agreements that would satisfy the interests of this country . V. P. Mondale the only type of agreements to reach the soviet union are the type specifically defined, so we know exactly what they must do, subject to full verification, which means we know every date whether they are living up to it, and followups wherever we find suggestions they are violating it, and the strongest possible terms. I have no illusions about the soviet Union Leadership or the nature of that state. They are a top and ruthless adversary. We must be prepared to meet that challenge and i would. President rt with the s despite all of those differences, we must, as past president s have done, meet on the Common Ground of survival. The president has opposed every arms control agreement by every president of both Political Parties since the bomb went off. He now completes this term with no progress towards arms control at all, but with a very dangerous arms race underway instead. There are now over 2000 more warheads pointed at us today than there were when he was sworn in, and that does not strengthen us. Realistic andy the nature of that leadership, but we must grind away and talk to find ways of reducing these differences, particularly where arms races are concerned and other dangerous exercises of soviet power. There will be no unilateral disarmament under my administration. I will keep this nation strong. I understand exactly what the soviets are up to, but that, too , is a part of National Strength. To do that, a president must know what is essential to command and leadership and strength. That is where the president s failure to master the essential elements of arms control has paused us dearly. These four years, three years into this administration he said he just discovered most soviet missiles are on land and that is why his proposal to not work. I invite the American People tomorrow, because i will issue the statement, quoting president reagan. He said exactly what i said he said. He said these missiles were less dangerous than Ballistic Missiles because you could fire them and you could recall them if you decided there had been a miscalculation. A president must know those things. Related question on Eastern Europe. Do accept the conventional diplomatic wisdom that Eastern Europe is the soviet sphere of influence, and if you do, what could a Mondale Administration do to help the people of Eastern Europe achieve the eastern achieve the human rights guaranteed to them as a result of the helsinki accords. The central strategy of the United States ought not to accept any soviet control over Eastern Europe. We have to deal with each of the country separately and pursue strategies that help them pull away from their dependence upon the soviet union, where the soviet union has acted irresponsibly, especially in poland, i believe we ought to assist that western credit extended to the soviet union bear the market rate. Make the soviets pay for their irresponsibility. That is a very important objective, to make certain we continue to look forward to progress towards greater independence by these nations and work with each of them separately. Edwin mr. President , your rebuttal. I will not respond to the repetitions of falsehoods respondagan i will not to the repetitions of falsehoods and already stated. I know mr. Mondale has a commercial where he is on the deck of the nimitz watching f14s takeoff, yet if he had had his way when the nimitz was being planned he would been deep in the water because there were not have been any nimitz to stand on. He was against it. He was against the f14, he was against the m1 tank, he was against the b1 bomber, he wanted to bring home half of the American Forces in europe. He has a record of weakness with regard to our National Defense that is second to none. He was on that side throughout all these years in the senate and he opposed even president carter when president carter wanted to increase the defense budget. Edwin mr. Mondale, your rebuttal. I accept your commitment to peace, but i want accept a commitment to strong National Defense. I propose a budget that would increase our nation strength by double the soviet union. Ill tell you where we disagree. It is true over 10 years ago i voted to delay production of the f14, and ill tell you why. The plane wasnt flying the way it was supposed to be, it was a waste of money. Your definition of National Strength is to throw money at the Defense Department. My definition of National Strength is to make certain that a dollar spent buys us a dollars worth of defense. Theres a big difference between the two of us. A president must manage that budget. I will keep us strong, but youll not do that unless you command that budget and make certain we get the strength that we need. When you pay 500 for a 5 hammer, youre not buying strength. Edwin i would ask the audience not to applaud. All it does is take up time that we would like to devote to the debate. Mr. Kondracke, your question to mr. Mondale. Morton mr. Mondale, in an address earlier this year you said that before this Country Resorts to military force, and im quoting, american interests should be sharply defined, publicly supported, congressionally sanctioned, militarily feasible, internationally defensible, open to independent scrutiny, and alert to regional history. Now, arent you setting up such a gauntlet of tests here that adversaries could easily suspect that as president you would never use force to protect american interests . V. P. Mondale no. As a matter of fact, i believe every one of those standards is essential to the exercise of power by this country, and we can see that in both lebanon and in Central America. In lebanon, this president exercised American Power, all right, but the management of it was such that our marines were killed, we had to leave in humiliation, the soviet union became stronger, terrorists became emboldened. And it was because they did not think through how power should be exercised, did not have the American Public with them on a plan that worked, that we ended up the way we did. Similarly, in Central America, what were doing in nicaragua with this covert war which the congress, including many republicans, have tried to stop is finally end up with a public definition of American Power that hurts us, where we get associated with political assassins and the rest. We have to decline, for the first time in modern history, jurisdiction in the world court because theyll find us guilty of illegal actions. And our enemies are strengthened from all of this. We need to be strong, we need to be prepared to use that strength, but we must understand that we are a democracy. We are a government by the people, and when we move, it should be for very severe and extreme reasons that serve our National Interests and end up with a stronger country behind us. It is only in that way that we can persevere. Morton youve been quoted as saying that you might quarantine nicaragua. Id like to know what that means. Would you stop soviet ships, as president kennedy did in 1962 . And wouldnt that be more dangerous than president reagans covert war . V. P. Mondale what im referring to there is the mutual selfdefense provisions that exist in the interamerican treaty, the socalled rio pact, that permits the nations, our friends in that region, to combine to take steps, diplomatic and otherwise, to prevent nicaragua, when she acts irresponsibly in asserting power in other parts outside of her border, to take those steps, whatever they might be, to stop it. The nicaraguans must know that it is the policy of our government that that leadership must stay behind the boundaries of their nation, not interfere in other nations. And by working with all of the nations in the region, unlike the policies of this administration and unlike the president said, they have not supported negotiations in that region, we will be much stronger, because well have the moral authority that goes with those efforts. Morton president reagan, you introduced u. S. Forces into lebanon as neutral peacekeepers, but then you made them combatants on the side of the lebanese government. Eventually you were forced to withdraw them under fire, and now syria, a soviet ally, is dominant in the country. Doesnt lebanon represent a major failure on the part of your administration and raise serious questions about your capacity as a Foreign Policy strategist and as commander in chief . Pres. Reagan no, morton, i dont agree to all of those things. First of all, when we and our allies the italians, the french, and the United Kingdom went into lebanon, we went in there at the request of what was left of the lebanese government to be a stabilizing force while they tried to establish a government. But the first, pardon me, the first time we went in, we went in at their request because the war was going on right in beirut between israel and the plo terrorists. Israel could not be blamed for that. Those terrorists had been violating their northern border consistently, and israel chased them all the way to there. Then we went in with the Multinational Force to help remove, and did remove, more than 13,000 of those terrorists from lebanon. We departed. And then the government of lebanon asked us back in as a stabilizing force while they established a government and sought to get the Foreign Forces all the way out of lebanon and that they could then take care of their own borders. And we were succeeding. We were there for the better part of a year. Our position happened to be at the airport. Oh, there were occasional snipings and sometimes some artillery fire, but we did not engage in conflict that was out of line with our mission. I will never send troops anywhere on a mission of that kind without telling them that if somebody shoots at them, they can darn well shoot back. And this is what we did. We never initiated any kind of action, we defended ourselves there. But we were succeeding to the point that the lebanese government had been organized. If you will remember, there were the meetings in geneva in which they began to meet with the hostile factional forces and try to put together some kind of a peace plan. We were succeeding, and that was why the terrorist acts began. There are forces there, and that includes syria, in my mind, who dont want us to succeed, who dont want that kind of a peace with a dominant lebanon, dominant over its own territory. And so the terrorist acts began and led to the one great tragedy when they were killed in that suicide bombing of the building. Then the Multilateral Force withdrew for only one reason, we withdrew because we were no longer able to carry out the mission for which we had been sent in. But we went in in the interest of peace and to keep israel and syria from getting into the sixth war between them. And i have no apologies for our going on a peace mission. Morton mr. President , four years ago you criticized president carter for ignoring ample warnings that our diplomats in iran might be taken hostage. Havent you done exactly the same thing in lebanon, not once, but three times, with 300 americans, not hostages, but dead . And you vowed swift retaliation against terrorists, but doesnt our lack of response suggest that youre just bluffing . Pres. Reagan morton, no. I think theres a great difference between the government of iran threatening our diplomatic personnel, and there is a government that you can see and can put your hand on. In the terrorist situation, there are terrorist factions all over. In a recent 30day period, 37 terrorist acts in 20 countries have been committed. The most recent has been the one in brighton. In dealing with terrorists, yes, we want to retaliate, but only if we can put our finger on the people responsible and not endanger the lives of innocent civilians there in the various communities and in the city of beirut where these terrorists are operating. I have just signed legislation to add to our ability to deal, along with our allies, with this terrorist problem. And its going to take all the nations together, just as when we banded together we pretty much resolved the whole problem of skyjackings sometime ago. Well, the red light went on. I could have gone on forever. Edwin mr. Mondale, your rebuttal . V. P. Mondale groucho marx said, who do you believe . Me, or your own eyes . And what we have in lebanon is something that the American People have seen. The joint chiefs urged the president not to put our troops in that barracks because they were indefensible. They went to him five days before they were killed and said, please, take them out of there. The secretary of state admitted that this morning. He did not do so. The report following the explosion of the barracks disclosed that we had not taken any of the steps that we should have taken. That was the second time. Then the embassy was blown up a few weeks ago, and once again none of the steps that should have been taken were taken. And we were warned five days before that explosives were on their way, and they werent taken. The terrorists have won each time. The president told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. He didnt. They called their bluff. And the bottom line is that the United States left in humiliation, and our enemies are stronger. Edwin mr. President , your rebuttal . Pres. Reagan yes. First of all, mr. Mondale should know that the president of the United States did not order the marines into that barracks. That was a command decision made by the commanders on the spot and based with what they thought was best for the men there. That is one. On the other things that youve just said about the terrorists, im tempted to ask you what you would do. These are unidentified people, and after the bomb goes off, theyre blown to bits because they are suicidal individuals who think theyre going to go to paradise if they perpetrate such an act and lose their life in doing it. We are going to, as i say, were busy trying to find the centers where these operations stem from, and retaliation will be taken. But were not going to simply kill some people to say, oh, look, we got even. We want to know when we retaliate that were retaliating with those who are responsible for the terrorist acts. And terrorist acts are such that our own United States capitol in washington has been bombed twice. Edwin mr. Trewhitt, your question to president reagan . Henry mr. President , i want to raise an issue that i think has been lurking out there for two or three weeks and cast it specifically in National Security terms. You already are the oldest president in history, and some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with mr. Mondale. I recall yet that president kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the cuban missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances . Pres. Reagan not at all, mr. Trewhitt, and i want you to know that also i will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponents youth and inexperience. [laughter] if i still have time, i might seneca or cicero who said if it was not for the elders correcting the mistake of the young, there would be no state. Henry mr. President , id like to head for the fence and try to catch that one before it goes over, but ill go on to another question. You and mr. Mondale have already disagreed about what you had to say about recalling submarinelaunched missiles. Theres another, a similar issue out there that relates to your it is said, at least, that you were unaware that the soviet retaliatory power was based on landbased missiles. First, is that correct . Secondly, if it is correct, have you informed yourself in the meantime . And third, is it even necessary for the president to be so intimately involved in strategic details . Pres. Reagan yes, this had to do with our disarmament talks. And the whole controversy about land missiles came up because we thought that the Strategic Nuclear weapons, the most destabilizing are the landbased. You put your thumb on a button and somebody blows up 20 minutes later. So, we thought that it would be simpler to negotiate first with those. And then we made it plain, a second phase, take up the submarinelaunched or the airborne missiles. The soviet union, to our surprise, and not just mine, made it plain when we brought this up that they placed, they thought, a greater reliance on the landbased missiles and, therefore, they wanted to take up all three. And we agreed. We said, all right, if thats what you want to do. But it was a surprise to us, because they outnumbered us 64 to 36 in submarines and 20 more bombers capable of carrying Nuclear Missiles than we had. So, why should we believe that they had placed that much more reliance on landbased . But even after we gave in and said, all right, lets discuss it all, they walked away from the table. We didnt. Henry mr. Mondale, im going to hang in there. Should the president s age and stamina be an issue in the Political Campaign . V. P. Mondale no. And i have not made it an issue, nor should it be. Whats at issue here is the president s application of his authority to understand what a president must know to lead this nation, secure our defense, and make the decisions and the judgments that are necessary. A minute ago the president quoted cicero, i believe. I want to quote somebody a little closer to home, harry truman. He said the buck stops here. We just heard the president s answer for the problems at the barracks in lebanon, where 241 marines were killed. What happened . First, the joint chiefs of staff went to the president , said, dont put those troops there. They did it. And then five days before the troops were killed, they went back to the president , through the secretary of defense, and said, please, mr. President , take those troops out of there defend them. They didnt do it. And we know what happened. After that, once again, our embassy was exploded. This is the fourth time this has happened. An identical attack, in the same region, despite warnings even public warnings from the terrorists. Whos in charge . Whos handling this matter . Thats my main point. Now, on arms control, were completing four years. This is the First Administration since the bomb went off that made no progress. We have an arms race underway instead. A president has to lead his government or it wont be done. Different people with different views fight with each other. For three and a half years, this administration avoided arms control, resisted tabling arms control proposals that had any hope of agreeing, rebuked their negotiator in 1981 when he came close to an agreement, at least in principle, on mediumrange weapons. And we have this arms race underway. And a recent book that just came out by perhaps the nations most respected author in this field, Strobe Talbott, called deadly gambits, concludes that this president has failed to master the essential details needed to command and lead us, both in terms of security and terms of arms control. Thats why they call the president the commander in chief. Good intentions, i grant. But it takes more than that. You must be tough and smart. Henry this question of leadership keeps arising in different forms in this discussion already. And the president , mr. Mondale, has called you whining and vacillating, among the more charitable phrases weak, i believe. It is a question of leadership. And he has made the point that you have not repudiated some of the semidiplomatic activity of the reverend jackson, particularly in Central America. Did you approve of his diplomatic activity . And are you prepared to repudiate him now . V. P. Mondale i read his statement the other day. I dont admire fidel castro at all. And ive said that. Che guevara was a contemptible figure in civilizations history. I know the cuban state as a police state, and all my life ive worked in a way that demonstrates that. But Jesse Jackson is an independent person. I dont control him. And lets talk about people we do control. In the last debate, the Vice President of the United States said that i said the marines had died shamefully and died in shame in lebanon. I demanded an apology from Vice President bush because i had, instead, honored these young men, grieved for their families, and think they were wonderful americans that honored us all. What does the president have to say about taking responsibility for a Vice President who wont apologize for Something Like that . Edwin mr. President , your rebuttal . Pres. Reagan yes. I know itll come as a surprise to mr. Mondale, but i am in charge. And, as a matter of fact, we havent avoided arms control talks with the soviet union. Very early in my administration i proposed, and i think something that had never been proposed by any Previous Administration, i proposed a total elimination of intermediaterange missiles, where the soviets had better than a 10 and still have better than a 101 advantage over the allies in europe. When they protested that and suggested a smaller number, perhaps, i went along with that. The socalled negotiation that you said i walked out on was the socalled walk in the woods between one of our representatives and one of the and it wasnt me that turned it down, the soviet union disavowed it. Edwin mr. Mondale, your rebuttal . V. P. Mondale there are two distinguished authors on arms control in this country there are many others, but two that i want to cite tonight. One is Strobe Talbott in his classic book, deadly gambits. The other is john neuhaus, whos one of the most distinguished arms control specialists in our country. Both said that this administration turned down the walk in the woods agreement first, and that would have been a perfect agreement from the standpoint of the United States in europe and our security. When mr. Nitze, a good negotiator, returned, he was rebuked, and his boss was fired. This is the kind of leadership that weve had in this administration on the most deadly issue of our times. Now we have a runaway arms race. All theyve got to show for 4 years in u. S. Soviet relations is one meeting in the last weeks of an administration, and nothing before. Theyre tough negotiators, but all previous president s have made progress. This one has not. Edwin ms. Geyer, your question to mr. Mondale. Georgie mr. Mondale, many analysts are now saying that actually our number one Foreign Policy problem today is one that remains almost totally unrecognized, massive illegal immigration from economically collapsing countries. They are saying that it is the only real territorial threat to the american nationstate. You, yourself, said in the 1970s that we had a hemorrhage on our borders. Yet today you have backed off any Immigration Reform, such as the balanced and highly crafted simpsonmazzoli bill. Why . What would you do instead today, if anything . V. P. Mondale this is a very serious problem in our country, and it has to be dealt with. I object to that part of the simpsonmazzoli bill which i think is very unfair and would prove to be so. That is the part that requires employers to determine the citizenship of an employee before theyre hired. Im convinced that the result of this would be that people who are hispanic, people who have different languages or speak with an accent, would find it difficult to be employed. I think thats wrong. Weve never had citizenship tests in our country before, and and i dont think we should have a citizenship card today. That is counterproductive. I do support the other aspects of the simpsonmazzoli bill that strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen other ways of dealing with undocumented workers in this difficult area and dealing with the problem of settling people who have lived here for many, many years and do not have an established status. I have further strongly recommended that this administration do something it has not done, and that is to strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen the officials in this government that deal with undocumented workers, and to do so in a way thats responsible and within the constitution of the United States. We need an answer to this problem, but it must be an american answer that is consistent with justice and due process. Everyone in this room, practically, here tonight, is an immigrant. We came here loving this nation, serving it, and it has served all of our most bountiful dreams. And one of those dreams is justice. And we need a measure and i will support a measure that brings about those objectives but avoids that one aspect that i think is very serious. The second part is to maintain and improve relations with our friends to the south. We cannot solve this problem all on our own. And thats why the failure of this administration to deal in an effective and a goodfaith way with mexico, with costa rica, with the other nations in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute in Central America has undermined our capacity to effectively deal diplomatically in this area as well. Georgie sir, people as wellbalanced and just as father Theodore Hesburgh at notre dame, who headed the select commission on immigration, have pointed out repeatedly that there will be no Immigration Reform without employer sanctions, because it would be an unbalanced bill, and there would be simply no way to enforce it. However, putting that aside for the moment, your critics have also said repeatedly that you have not gone along with the bill or with any Immigration Reform because of the hispanic groups or Hispanic Leadership groups who actually do not represent what the hispanicamericans want, because polls show that they overwhelmingly want some kind of Immigration Reform. Can you say, or how can you justify your position on this . And how do you respond to the criticism that this is another, or that this is an example of your flipflopping and giving in to special Interest Groups at the expense of the american nation . V. P. Mondale i think youre right that the polls show that the majority of hispanics want that bill, so im not doing it for political reasons. Im doing it because all my life ive fought for a system of justice in this country, a system in which every american has a chance to achieve the fullness in life without discrimination. This bill imposes upon employers the responsibility of determining whether somebody who applies for a job is an american or not. And just inevitably, theyre going to be reluctant to hire hispanics or people with a different accent. If i were dealing with politics here, the polls show the American People want this. I am for reform in this area, for tough enforcement at the border, and for many other aspects of the simpsonmazzoli bill, but all my life ive fought for a fair nation. And despite the politics of it, i stand where i stand, and i think im right, and before this fight is over were going to come up with a better bill, a more effective bill that does not undermine the liberties of our people. Georgie mr. President , you, too, have said that our borders are out of control. Yet this fall you allowed the simpsonmazzoli bill which would at least have minimally protected our borders and the rights of citizenship because of a relatively unimportant issue of reimbursement to the states for legalized aliens. Given that, may i ask what priority can we expect you to give this forgotten National Security element . How sincere are you in your efforts to control, in effect, the nationstate that is the United States . Pres. Reagan georgie anne, we, believe me, supported the simpsonmazzoli bill strongly and the bill that came out of the senate. However, there were things added in in the house side that we felt made it less of a good bill, as a matter of fact, made it a bad bill. And in conference we stayed with them in conference all the way to where even senator simpson did not want the bill in the manner in which it would come out of the conference committee. There were a number of things in there that weakened that bill. I cant go into detail about them here. But it is true our borders are out of control. It is also true that this has been a situation on our borders back through a number of administrations. And i supported this bill. I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. With regard to the employer sanctions, we must have that not only to ensure that we can identify the illegal aliens, but also, while some keep protesting about what it would do to employers, there is another employer that we shouldnt be so concerned about, and these are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into this country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits that we think are normal and natural for workers in our country, and the individuals cant complain because of their illegal status. We dont think that those people should be allowed to continue operating free. And this was why the provisions that we had in with regard to sanctions, and so forth and and im going to do everything i can, and all of us in the administration are, to join in again when congress is back at it to get an immigration bill that will give us, once again, control of our borders. And with regard to friendship below the border and with the countries down there, yes, no administration that i know has established the relationship that we have with our latin friends. But as long as they have an economy that leaves so many people in dire poverty and unemployment, they are going to seek that employment across our borders. And we work with those other countries. Georgie mr. President , the experts also say that the situation today is terribly different quantitatively qualitatively different from what it has been in the past because of the gigantic population growth. For instance, mexicos population will go from about 60 million today to 120 million at the turn of the century. Many of these people will be coming into the United States not as citizens, but as illegal workers. You have repeatedly said recently that you believe that armageddon, the destruction of the world, may be imminent in our times. Do you ever feel that we are in for an armageddon or a situation, a time of anarchy, regarding the population explosion in the world . Pres. Reagan no. As a matter of fact, the population explosion, if you look at the actual figures, has been vastly exaggerated over exaggerated. As a matter of fact, there are some pretty scientific and Solid Figures about how much space there still is in the world and how many more people we can have. Its almost like going back to the malthusian theory, when even then they were saying that everyone would starve with the limited population they had then. But the problem of population growth is one, here, with regard to our immigration. And we have been the safety valve, whether we wanted to or not, with the illegal entry here, in mexico, where their population is increasing and they dont have an economy that can absorb them and provide the jobs. And this is what were trying to work out, not only to protect our own borders but to have some kind of fairness and recognition of that problem. Edwin mr. Mondale, your rebuttal . V. P. Mondale one of the biggest problems today is that the countries to our south are so desperately poor that these people who will almost lose their lives if they dont come north, come north despite all the risks. And if were going to find a permanent, fundamental answer to this, it goes to American Economic and trade policies that permit these nations to have a chance to get on their own two feet and to get prosperity, so that they can have jobs for themselves and their people. And thats why this enormous National Debt, engineered by this administration, is harming these countries in fueling this immigration. These high Interest Rates real rates that have doubled under this administration have had the same effect on mexico and so on, and the cost of repaying those debts is so enormous that it results in massive unemployment, hardship, and heartache. And that drives our friends to the south up into our region, and we need to end those deficits as well. Edwin mr. President , your rebuttal. Pres. Reagan well, my rebuttal is ive heard the National Debt blamed for a lot of things, but not for illegal immigration across our border, but with regard to these high Interest Rates, too, at least give us the recognition of the fact that when you left office, mr. Mondale, they were 21. 5 the prime rate. Its now 12. 25, and i predict itll be coming down a little more shortly. So, were trying to undo some of the things that your administration did. Edwin . Your question to the president. Marvin youve said we are heading for some sort of biblical armageddon. Headingeel we are now for some kind of nuclear armageddon, and you feel this country and the world could survive that kind of calamity . Kalb, what hasr. Been hailed as something i am supposedly discussing his principal. Some philosophical discussions with people interested in same things, and that is the prophecies down through the years, the biblical prophecies of what would portend the coming of armageddon and so forth. The fact that a number of theologians for the last decade or more have believed this was true, that the prophecies are coming together that portend, but no one knows whether armageddon, whether those prophecies mean armageddon is 1000 years away or the day after tomorrow. Seriously warned and said we must plan according to armageddon. With regard to having to say whether we would try to survive in the event of nuclear war, of course we would. Let me also point out that several parliaments around the world in europe and asia, ive made a statement to each one of them and i will repeat it here. Won andr war cannot be must never be fought. That is why we are maintaining a deterrent and trying to achieve a deterrent capacity to where no one would believe they could start such a war and escape with limited damage. The deterrent, that is what it also what led me to propose what is now being called the star wars concept, and if such a defense could be found, would it not be more humanitarian to say we could defend against a nuclear war by destroying missiles instead of slaughtering millions of people . Marvin when you made that proposal, the socalled star wars proposal, you said, if i am not mistaken, that you would share this super Sophisticated Technology with the soviet union. After all of the distrust over the years you have expressed towards the soviet union, do you really expect anyone to take seriously that offer that you would share the best of Americas Technology in this weapons area with our principal adversary . Pres. Reagan why not . What if we did . I hope we can. We are still researching. What if we come up with a weapon that renders those missiles obsolete. There has never been a weapon and invented in the history of man that has not led to a defensive counter weapon. Suppose we came up with that. Some people have said that would make war imminent because they would think we could launch a first strike because we could defend against the enemy. Why not do what i have offered to do and ask the soviet union to do, say here is what we can do, we will even give it to you now. You sit down with us and once and for all get rid of these Nuclear Weapons and free mankind from that threat . I think that would be the greatest use of a defensive weapon. Mondale, youve been sharply critical of the president strategic defense initiative. What is wrong with the major effort by this country to use its best technology to knock out as many incoming Nuclear Warheads as possible . V. P. Mondale let me sharply disagree with the president on ensuring the most advanced and most dangerous and most Important Technology in america with the soviet union. We have had, for many years, understandably, a system of restraints and High Technology because the soviets are behind it, and other research or development along the star wars theme would inevitably involve our most advanced computers, most advanced engineering, and the thought that we would share this with the soviet union is a total nonstarter. I would not let the soviet union get their hands on it at all. What is wrong with star wars . There is nothing wrong with the theory of it. If we can develop a principal that would say both sides can fire all of their missiles and no one would get hurt, i suppose it is a good idea. The fact of it is, we are so far surge that comes close to that that the director of research at the Defense Department says to get there we would solve eight problems, each of which are more difficult than the atomic bomb and the manhattan project. It would cost Something Like 1 trillion to test and deploy weapons. The second thing is, this all assumes the soviets would not respond in kind. They always do. We do not get behind, they will not get behind, and that is been the tragic story of the arms race. We have more at stake in its satellites than they do. If we can stop right now, the testing and the deployment of the space weapons and the president s proposals go beyond research, if it was research we would not have any arguments because maybe someday someone would think of something. To commit this nation to a buildup of antisatellite in space weapons at this of satelln their crude state would bring about an arms race that is dangerous indeed. The most point dangerous aspect of this proposal is that for the first time we would delegate to computers the decision as to whether start a war. That is dead wrong. It would be decided by remote computers. It might be an oil fire. The computer might decide it is a missile and off we go. Why dont we stop this madness now and draw a line and keep the heavens free from more. In this general area of armscontrol, president thers people said Nuclear Freeze is a hoax. If the basis of your proposal is a mutual freeze on Weapons Systems, in your view, which specific Weapons Systems could be subjected to a mutual and verifiable freeze and which could not . Every system that is verifiable should be placed on the table. I would not agree to any agreement that involved conduct on the part of the soviet union that we could not verify every day. I would not agree to any agreement in which United States security interest was not fully supported and recognized. That is why we say mutual and verifiable friezes. Freezes. Why do i support the freeze . Because this madness makes both nations less secure. It is more difficult to defend this nation. It is putting a hairtrigger on nuclear war. By goingnistration into the star wars system will add an undue escalation. We have to be tough on the soviet union. Time is up. President reagan, your rebuttal . My rebuttal once again is this invention that has been created here of how i would go about rolling over for the mondale,ion, no, mr. We would sit down with them, give them a demonstration and then say here is what we can do. If you are willing to join us in getting rid of all the Nuclear Weapons in the world, then we will give you this one so we would both know that no one can cheat, we both have something if you can keep star waring it, im not a science. The joint chiefs of staff agreed with me that it is time for us to turn our Research Ability to seeing if we could not find this type of a defense of weapon and suddenly someone says star wars if we can come up with when i think the world will be better off. That is why the president is supposed to know where those weapons will be. If they are space weapons, i assume they will be in space. If they are antisatellite weapons, i assume they will be antisatellite. This is the most Dangerous Technology we possess. Soviets tried to spy on us and still this stuff and to give them technology of this kind, i disagree with. You have not just accepted research. You have set up a strategic initiative, an agency, you are talking about deploying, you are asking for a budget of 30 million for this budget. This is an arms escalation and we will be far better off if we stop right now because we have more to lose in space than they do. If someday somebody comes along with an answer, that is something else, but that there would be an answer in our lifetime is unimaginable. Why do we start things that we know the soviets will match and make assault less secure . With. Mondale, you say respect to the soviet union you want to negotiate a mutual freeze, get you would give up the b1 bomber before talks have begun and you have announced in advance that reaching an agreement with the soviets is the most important thing to you. Beforeyou giving it up you sit down to talk . Range ofe a vast weaponry right now that provides all the bargaining chips we need. I support ground launch cruise missiles, the d5 submarine, the Stealth Technology, the midget whole range of technology. Why i disagree with the mx is duck. E it is a sitting it is a dangerous, destabilizing similarly the b1 is being opposed because the soviet union has been preparing to eat b1. 1 meet the i want to build the midget man, which is mobile and therefore vulnerable. It would contribute to an incentive for armscontrol. Am in support of Stealth Technology that can penetrate the soviet Defense System without any hope that they can perceive where it is because their radar system is frustrated. A president has to make change choices. This makes us stronger. We can use the money we save on these weapons to spend on things we really need our conventional strength in europe. We need to strengthen that to make sure our western allies, our presence there, a strong defense, but also diminish the likelihood of a war and the use of Nuclear Weapons. Areaking wise choices, we stronger, we enhance the chances of armscontrol. Every president until this one has been able to do it into the world is more dangerous as a result. Followup allow it seems to me on the question of verifiability, you do have problems with the extent of the freeze. Testing would be difficult to do to verify because the soviets in encrypt. That, what is going to be frozen . To anyll not agree armscontrol agreement including freeze that is not verifiable. Lets take your warhead principal. Thereave been counting have been counting rules for years. Whenever that warhead is used, we count the number of the warheads whether they have that number or less on it. These are standard rules. We haveot agree unless the ability to verify those agreements. I do not trust to the russians. I believe any agreement we reach must be verifiable and i will not agree to anything we cannot count every day. We have to be tough but in order to stop this arms madness, we have to push forward with tough agreements. I want to ask you a president a question about negotiating with france. Criticized president carter. Heading foraders similar problems such as president pinner shea. What what can you do to keep the philippines from becoming another nicaragua . President riticize the for what was in undercutting of a stalwart ally, the shaw of iran. Iran. He shah of out t convinced he was that out from his people and that they were unhappy with what he was doing. They have carried our load in the middle east for some time and i do believe that was a blow on our record. Taken land away and was distributing it to the peasants, that kind, but we turned it over to a maniacal fanatic who has slaughtered thousands of people, calling it executions. , no, iter of some osa never defended samosa. The Previous Administration ford by and so did i but this revolution to take place, and the promise of the revolution was free press, free labor unions, and then just as castro had done in cuba, the sandinistas ousted others. They jailed some, they murdered installed ay leninist totalitarian government. This isave to say about doy times, and this has to there are things that do not look good to us from the standpoint of democratic rights, but what is the alternative . It is a large, communist movement to take over the philippines. They have been our friends since their inception as a country. Record of allowing under the guise of revolution someone that we thought was a little more right than we would be, letting that person go, and then winding up with totalitarianism, pure and simple, as the alternative. And i think that we are better off, for example with the philippines, of trying to retain our friendship and help them right the wrongs we see, rather than throwing them to the wolves and then facing a communist power in the pacific. Morton mr. President , since the United States has two strategically important bases in the philippines, would the overthrow of president marcos constitute a threat to vital american interests and, if so, what would you do about it . Pres. Reagan well, as i say, we have to look at what an overthrow there would mean and what the government would be that would follow. And there is every evidence, every indication that that government would be hostile to the United States. And that would be a severe blow to our abilities there in the pacific. Morton and what would you do about it . Edwin sorry. Sorry, you have asked the followup question. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal . V. P. Mondale perhaps in no area do we disagree more than this administrations policies administrations policies on human rights. I went to the philippines as Vice President , pressed for human rights, called for the release of aquino, and made progress that had been stalled on both the subic and the clark airfield bases. What explains this administration cozying up to the argentine dictators after they took over . Fortunately, a democracy took over, but this nation was prize winner, two days ago, said this administration is seen as working with the oppressive government of south africa. That hurts this nation. We need to stand for human rights. We need to make it clear we are for human liberty. National security and human rights must go together. But this Administration Time and time again has lost its way in this field. Edwin president reagan, your rebuttal. Pres. Reagan well, the invasion of afghanistan did not take place on our watch. I have described what has in iran, and we were not here then either. I do not think that our record of human rights can be assailed. I think that we have observed, ourselves, and have done our best to see that human rights are extended throughout the world. Mr. Mondale has recently announced a plan of his to get the democracies together and to work with the whole world to turn to democracy. And i was glad to hear him say that because that is what we have been doing ever since i announced to the British Parliament that i thought we should do this. Human rights are not advanced when, at the same time, you then stand back and say, whoops, we did not know the gun was loaded, and you have another totalitarian power on your hands. Edwin in this segment, because of the pressure of time, there will be no rebuttals, and there will be no followup questions. Mr. Trewhitt, your question to president reagan. Henry one question to each candidate . Edwin one question to each candidate. Henry mr. President , could i take you back to something you amd earlier, and if i misquoting you, please correct me. But i understood you to say that if the development of Space Military technology was successful, you might give the soviets a demonstration and say, here it is, which sounds to me as if you might be trying to gain the sort of advantage that would enable you to dictate terms, and which i will then suggest to you might mean scrapping a generation of Nuclear Strategy called mutual deterrence in which we, in effect, hold each other hostage. Is that your intention . Well, i cannot say that i have roundtabled that and sat down with the chiefs of staff, but i have said that it seems to me that this could be a logical step in what is my ultimate goal, my ultimate dream, and that is the elimination of Nuclear Weapons in the world. And it seems to me that this could be an adjunct, or certainly a great assisting agent in getting that done. I am not going to roll over, as mr. Mondale suggests, and give them something that could turn around and be used against us. But i think it is a very interesting proposal, to see if we can find, first of all, something that renders those weapons obsolete, incapable of their mission. But mr. Mondale seems to approve m. A. D. M. A. D. Is mutual assured destruction meaning, if you use Nuclear Weapons on us, the only thing we have to keep you is that we will kill as many people of yours as you will kill of ours. I think that to do everything we can to find, as i say, something that would destroy weapons and not humans is a great step forward in human rights. Henry mr. Mondale, could i ask you to address the question of Nuclear Strategy then . The formal doctrine is very arcane, but i am going to ask you to deal with it anyway. Do you believe in mad, mutual assured destruction, mutual deterrence as it has been practiced for the last generation . V. P. Mondale i believe in a sensible arms control approach that brings down these weapons to manageable levels. I would like to see their elimination. And in the meantime, we have to be Strong Enough to make certain that the soviet union never tempts us. Now, here we have to decide between generalized objectives and reality. The president says he wants to eliminate or reduce the number of Nuclear Weapons. But, in fact, these last four years have seen more weapons built, a wider and more vigorous arms race than in human history. He says he wants a system that will make nuclear wars safe so nobody is going to get hurt. Well, maybe someday, somebody can dream of that. But why start an arms race now . Why destabilize our relationship . Why threaten our space satellites upon which we depend . Why pursue a strategy that would delegate to computers the question of starting a war . A president , to defend this country and to get arms control, must master what is going on. I accept his objective and his dreams. We all do. But the hard reality is that we must know what we are doing and pursue those objectives that are possible in our time. He has opposed every effort of every president to do so, and in the four years of his administration he has failed to do so. And if you want a tough president who uses that strength to get arms control and draws the line in the heavens, vote for walter mondale. We have arrived at the point in the debate now where we call for closing statements. You have the full four minutes, each of you. Mr. Mondale, will you go first . V. P. Mondale i want to thank the league of women voters, the good citizens of kansas city, and president reagan for agreeing to debate this evening. This evening we talked about National Strength. I believe we need to be strong, and i will keep us strong. But i think strength must also require wisdom and smarts in its exercise. That is key to the strength of our nation. A president must know the essential facts essential to command. But a president must also have a vision of where this nation should go. Tonight, as americans, you have a choice. And youa™re entitled to know and you are entitled to know where we would take this country if you decide to elect us. As president , i would press for longterm, vigorous economic growth. That is why i want to get these debts down and these Interest Rates down, restore americas exports, help rural america, which is suffering so much, and bring the jobs back here for our children. I want this next generation to be the best educated in American History, to invest in the human mind and science again, so we are out front. I want this nation to protect its air, its water, its land, and its public health. America is not temporary. We are forever. And as americans, our generation should protect this wonderful land for our children. Children. I want a nation of fairness, and as americans, our generation should protect this wonderful land for our children. I want a nation of fairness, where no one is denied the fullness of life or discriminated against, and we deal compassionately with those in our midst who are in trouble. And, above all, i want a nation that is strong. Since we debated two weeks ago, the United States and the soviet union have built 100 more warheads, enough to kill millions of americans and millions of soviet citizens. This does not strengthen us. This weakens the chances of civilization to survive. I remember the night before i became Vice President. I was given the briefing and told that any time, night or day, i might be called upon to make the most fateful decision on earth whether to fire these atomic weapons that could destroy the human species. That lesson tells us two things,. One, pick a president that you know will know if that tragic moment ever comes what he must be noecause there will be time for staffing committees or advisers. A president must know right then. But above all, pick a president who will fight to avoid the day when that godawful decision ever needs to be made. And thats why this election is so terribly important. America and americans decide not just whats happening in this country. We are the strongest and most powerful free society on earth. When you make that judgment, you are deciding not only the future of our nation. Respect, youfound are deciding the future of the world. We need to move on. It is time for america to find new leadership. Please, join me in this cause to move confidently and with a sense of assurance and command to build the blessed future of our nation. [applause] edwin president reagan, your summation, please. Pres. Reagan yes. My thanks to the league of women voters, to the panelists, the moderator, and to the people of kansas city for their warm hospitality and greeting. I think the American People tonight have much to be grateful for. An economic recovery that has become expansion, freedom and, most of all, we are at peace. I am grateful for the chance to reaffirm my commitment to reduce Nuclear Weapons and, one day, to eliminate them entirely. The question before you comes down to this do you want to see america return to the policies of weakness of the last 4 years . Or do we want to go forward, marching together, as a nation of strength and that is going to continue to be strong . Nothould the past, or even the present. The meaning of this election is the future and whether we are going to grow and provide the jobs and the opportunities for all americans and that they need. Several years ago, i was given an assignment to write a letter. It was to go into a time capsule and would be read in 100 years when that time capsule was opened. I remember driving down the california coast one day. My mind was full of what i was going to put in that letter about the problems and the issues that confront us in our time and what we did about them. But i could not completely neglect the beauty around me the pacific out there on one side of the highway, shining in the sunlight, the mountains of the coast range rising on the other side. And i found myself wondering what it would be like for someone wondering if someone 100 years from now would be driving down that highway, and if they would see the same thing. And with that thought, i realized what a job i had with that letter. I would be writing a letter to people who know everything there is to know about us. We know nothing about them. They would know all about our problems. They would know how we solved them, and whether our solution was beneficial to them down through the years or whether it hurt them. They would also know that we lived in a world with terrible weapons, Nuclear Weapons of terrible destructive power, aimed at each other, capable of crossing the ocean in a matter of minutes and destroying civilization as we knew it. And then i thought to myself, what are they going to say about us, what are those people 100 years from now going to think . They will know whether we used those weapons or not. Well, what they will say about us 100 years from now depends on how we keep our rendezvous with destiny. Will we do the things that we know must be done and know that one day, down in history 100 years or perhaps before, someone will say, thank god for those 1980s for in the preserving our freedom, for saving for us this blessed planet called earth, with all its grandeur and its beauty. You know, i am grateful to all of you for giving me the opportunity to serve you for these 4 years, and i seek reelection because i want more than anything else to try to complete the new beginning that we charted four years ago. George bush, who i think is one of the finest Vice President s this country has ever had, george bush and i have crisscrossed the country and we have had, in these last few months, a wonderful experience. We have met young america. We have met your sons and daughters. Amin mr. President , i obliged to cut you off there under the rules of the debate. Im sorry. Pres. Reagan all right. I was just going to [applause] edwin perhaps i should point out that the rules under which i did that were agreed upon by the two campaigns pres. Reagan i know. I know. Edwin thank you, mr. President. Thank you, mr. Mondale. Our thanks also to the panel, finally, to our audience. We thank you, and the league of women voters asks me to say to you, do not forget to vote on november 6. [applause] American History tv is on social media. Cspanhistory. The president s, from Public Affairs presents biographies of every president inspired by conversations with noted historians about the leadership skills that make for a successful presidency. As americans go to the pole next month to decide who the polls next month to decide who should lead our country to learn about the books featured historians, visit cspan. Org thepresident s. Youre watching American History tv covering history cspan style with event coverages eyewitness accounts, lectures in College Classrooms and visits to museums and historic places. All weekend every weekend on cspan 3. This fall American History looks back at pat past president ial races. On behalf of the commission on president ial debates, i am pleased to welcome you to the second president ial debate. I am bernard shaw of cnn, cable news network. My colleagues on the panel are ann compton of abc news; Margaret Warner of newsweek magazine; and Andrea Mitchell of nbc news. The candidates are Vice President george bush, the republican nominee; and governor michael dukakis, the democratic
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.