(This transcript has not yet been checked against videotape. Accuracy as to speakers and spellings not guaranteed.)

ABC NEWS

THIS WEEK WITH DAVID BRINKLEY Show #360

September 18, 1988

**ANNOUNCER:** From ABC News, This Week with David Brinkley. Now, from our Washington headquarters, here's David Brinkley.

**DAVID BRINKLEY:** Presidential elections [?] are supposed to be about something. If this one is about anything, it is difficult to tell what it is. The candidates call each other funny names, accuse each other of various failures, of weaknesses of character, of doing nothing or of doing something that turned out to be wrong. One will not raise taxes, period, the other will not raise them now. And so on. What are the issues that are being neglected and what should they be saying about them? We'll ask today's guests: Senator Bill Bradley, Democrat, New Jersey, National Co-Chairman of the Dukakis Campaign; Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State and Co-Chairman of the Bush Task Force for Foreign Relations; Senator George Mitchell, Democrat, Maine, a member of Senate Democratic leadership; and Representative Lynne Martin, Republican, Illinois, National Co-Chairwoman of the Bush Campaign. Some background from our man Jack Smith and our discussion here with George Will, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts. All here on our Sunday program.

First, a little news. In Haiti, for 200 years, one dictator has seized power in a coup and then soon been replaced by another dictator in another coup. Now, today, there is another one in an endless progression. And another coup on the other side of the world, in Burma. After weeks of riots and disorder and killing, the military overthrew the civilian president and promised to restore order and to hold democratic elections. Here's Jeanne Meserve at the State Department.

**JEANNE MESERVE:** David, military commander Sau Hmong [?] has apparently overthrown President Hmong Hmong [?] in a bloodless coup in Burma. He is promising, as you say, to hold multi-party elections in that country, which is exactly what demonstrators in Burma have been demanding for the last two months. However, the army is known to have longstanding ties with the ruling party in Burma and some people are saying the students who have been demonstrating are unlikely to be satisfied by this change in leadership.

In Haiti, we're seeing the second coup in three months. Army Brigadier General Prosper Avril [?] has taken command from Henri Namphy. Namphy had seized command in June from the democratically elected president, Leslie Manigat [?]. Avril is not unknown. He was an adviser to both Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier and although he also is talking about human rights and democracy, because of his past associations there is sure to be skepticism.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Thank you. Hurricane Gilbert's worst is over, after a last devastating blow in Mexico and in Texas. Here ABC's Al Dale [?].

**AL DALE, ABC News:** [voice-over] Brownsville, 100,000 people on the toe of Texas, woke up this Sunday morning thankful that Gilbert came ashore 120 miles south. The Texas city that everyone expected to bear the brunt of Hurricane Gilbert, escaped with barely a scratch. It was Mexico that would suffer the most. Near Monterrey, four buses carrying 150 to 200 evacuees overturned in the swollen Santa Caterina River. Only a handful were rescued. Several policemen attempting to help the trapped victims were also killed.

On the Mexican coast, in towns such as San Fernando, destruction was also high. "Come see our town," this man said, "There is nothing there." Those made homeless walked the rural roads to other villages that might provide shelter. Some tried immediate repairs and rebuilding, in case more rains came. At a San Fernando hospital, victims told what happened to them. The roof of this woman's house collapsed on her.

Farther down the coast in Carbonera, [?] in a village of 400 people, three were

-2-

killed as much of the town washed away in the raging waters. In Punta de la Lam-
bre, [?] 80 homes were destroyed, leaving 300 people homeless. People who live
there tried to save what they could, even the smallest items that might be of use.
the storm had been expected to head northeast after crossing into Mexico, but it

there tried to save what they could, even the smallest items that might be of use.
The storm had been expected to head northeast after crossing into Mexico, but it
continued west, spreading death and destruction. It stayed south, sparing towns on
the Texas border, towns that had braced for the worst. Al Dale, ABC News,
Brownsville, Texas.
Mr. BRINKLEY: And finally, the first gold medal in the Seoul Olympics to a Russian,

Mr. BRINKLEY: And finally, the first gold medal in the Seoul Olympics to a Russian,
the winner in women's air rifle shooting, air rifles. We'll be back with all the rest of
today's program in a moment.
[Commercial break]

[Commercial break]

Mr. BRINKLEY: Maybe it should be said that if answers to our national problems were available, the problems would already have been solved and we would no longer be talking about them. So those that remain now are not easy. The answers are not obvious and, therefore, the candidates don't want to talk about them much because they don't have much to offer. Before we go into all of this with our guests, here's some background from Jack Smith. Jack?

JACK SMITH: [voice-over] David, the candidates both say it's a crucial election but you wouldn't know it from the issues they've been raising.
GEORGE BUSH: Should public school teachers be required to lead our children

GEORGE BUSH: Should public school teachers be required to lead our children
in the Pledge of Allegiance. My opponent says no and I say yes.
SMITH: [voice-over] Dukakis said that was an attack on his

patriotism.
SMITH: [voice-over] Dukakis said that was an attack on his

patriotism.
**Gov. MICHAEL DUKAKIS:** The American people and the people of Texas can
smell the garbage.
**SMITH:** [voice-over] The campaign has been dominated

Gov. MICHAEL DUKAKIS: The American people and the people of Texas can
smell the garbage.
**SMITH:** [voice-over] The campaign has been dominated more by questions of
character and competence than by substantive issues. Despite broad differences in
outlook and ideology, the candidates don't seem to articulating them. Why? With
the polls relatively close, the smart tactic is caution. Take the economy:
**Gov. DUKAKIS:** The voters this fall will have a fundamental choice between two

very different ideas of prosperity.
**SUSAN ESTRICH, Dukakis Campaign Manager:** There are regions of this
country that have been hurting and hurting badly for the last seven years and
things are getting worse rather than better.
**SMITH:** [voice-over] Not so, says the Bush Campaign.

very different ideas of prosperity.
**SMITH:** [voice-over] Not so, says the Bush Campaign.
DEBORAH STEELMAN, Bush Political Adviser: Well, there's no question

DEBORAH STEELMAN, Bush Political Adviser: Well, there's no question
they're better off today. We've cut inflation in half, we've cut interest in half.
Mr. BUSH: All we have to do is keep the economy growing at the same rate and

they're better off today. We've cut inflation in half, we've cut interest in half.
Mr. BUSH: All we have to do is keep the economy growing at the same rate and
guarantee that everyone who wants a job has a job.
**SMITH:** [voice-over] Two entirely different views yet, when it comes to the biggest

guarantee that everyone who wants a job has a job.
**SMITH:** [voice-over] Two entirely different views yet, when it comes to the biggest
economic challenge facing the country, the mountain of debt sustaining government
spending, neither candidate has much to say. Bush would bring down the federal
deficit and pay for new social programs with an unspecific flexible freeze on spend-
ing. Dukakis claims he'd get the needed revenue from better tax enforcement.
**BARRY BOSWORTH, The Brookings Institution:** Both of them have proposed

ing. Dukakis claims he'd get the needed revenue from better tax enforcement.
**BARRY BOSWORTH, The Brookings Institution:** Both of them have proposed
programs in that area that I thick both recognize are frauds, that they're not
serious proposals and they're trying to avoid that issue?

Mr. BUSH: Read my lips: no more taxes.
**SMITH:** [voice-over] Why? Because serious talk about cutting the deficit means talk
about taxes and both are convinced this year that means political death.
**SMITH:** [voice-over] George Bush has taken a pledge not to raise taxes. Dukakis

hasn't gone as far. He'd only raise them as a last resort.
**SMITH:** [voice-over] George Bush has taken a pledge not to raise taxes. Dukakis

hasn't gone as far. He'd only raise them as a last resort.
New social programs: both candidates, responding to voter demand, have come
out in favor of similar programs, child care, parental leave, higher minimum wage,
the environment. Sounds like a liberal agenda but Bush supports it, too.
**Gov. DUKAKIS:** Talk about an election year conversion.
**SMITH:** [voice-over] Maybe, but if Bush differs from Dukakis, it's really only an ap-

 Gov. DUKAKIS: Talk about an election year conversion.
**SMITH:** [voice-over] Maybe, but if Bush differs from Dukakis, it's really only an ap-

-3-

proach.

**MICHAEL BARONE, Political Columnist:** Bush tends to take an approach more along the lines of saying, "I will cut your taxes for child care and other things and let you try and decide how to spend the money." Dukakis veers a little more towards the idea of "Well, we'll put in place some government program or gov-ernment guidance.

**SMITH:** [voice-over] It's only in the area of national security that real differences seem to emerge.

**Mr. BUSH:** I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks that a naval exercise is something you find in Jane Fonda's workout book.

**SMITH:** [voice-over] For the past month, Bush has attacked Dukakis as naive and dangerously soft on defense and foreign policy. The record? Dukakis opposes military aid to the Contras. Until recently, he had also criticized the invasion of Grenada and the raid on Libya and had supported a ban on missile testing, a nuclear freeze and cancellation of most new strategic weapons programs.

**AUDIENCE:** Boo!

**Sen. LLOYD BENTSON:** We understand that the VFW--

**SMITH:** [voice-over] His running mate, Lloyd Bentson, was booed last month when he told a veterans' convention Dukakis believed in a strong defense. This week, in a series of staged appearance, Dukakis sought to convey a tougher image.

**Gov. DUKAKIS:** We use force when it's necessary to protect our territory, our citizens or our vital interests.

**SMITH:** [voice-over] And he stressed the weapons he wants to keep: the Trident Missile, the Stealth Bomber and the advanced Cruise Missile. Nevertheless, he has shift on SDI, the "Star Wars" defense and, while he now favors modernizing land-based missiles, he still opposes the only two new ones the U.S. has, MX and Midget-man.

Bush has his own problems. There isn't enough money around to pay for all the weapons the administration has put into the procurement pipeline.

**ROBERT KLOMER, Defense Analyst:** Whether it's a Democratic or a Republican president, he is not going to be able to call for a Reagan-type buildup.

**SMITH:** [voice-over] Cuts there must be, but Bush has yet to identify a single weapon he's sacrifice. Nevertheless, it is Dukakis who concerns many. Bush is simple more of a known quantity. James Schlesinger, who's held cabinet posts in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

**JAMES SCHLESINGER:** He has many convictions that are left over from the 1960's and '70's on defense that he has at least a suspicion about military issues, if not an anti-military feeling.

**SMITH:** [voice-over] But even here, on national security, where there do seem to be differences, Dukakis is hastening toward the mainstream to disguise them. On economic and social policy, too, where are the differences?

**Mr. BARONE:** If the differences that they're talking about aren't as great as in some past elections, I think that's because they're responding to Americans who are not terrifically discontent with where we are now.

**SMITH:** In other words, peace and prosperity, which is what the U.S. now enjoys, can make for the appearance of a relatively issueless campaign, certainly less of one than the personalities of the two men running for the White House would suggest. David?

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Jack, thank you. Coming next, Representative Lynne Martin, Republican, Illinois, Co-Chairwoman of the Bush Campaign, and Senator George Mitchell, Democrat, Maine, on domestic political questions. And shortly, on foreign policy, Senator Bill Bradley, Democrat, New Jersey, National Co-Chairman of the Dukakis campaign and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State and now Co-Chairman of the Bush Task Force for foreign relations. In a moment.

[Commercial break]

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Congresswoman Martin and Senator Mitchell, thank you both very

-4-

much for coming in today. Happy to have you with us.

**Senator GEORGE MITCHELL, National Co-Chairman, Dukakis Campaign:** Thank you, David.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Here in the studio with us are George Will of ABC News and Sam Donaldson, ABC News White House Correspondent. Now, a question for both of you, Ms. Martin first, if you will. The perception is abroad that neither candidate this time is dealing really with what are called "the issues" — a term that is, of course, somewhat elastic — but there are problems in our country that need attention they're not getting, have not heard much about them. What are your thoughts on this? Ms. Martin?

**Representative LYNNE MARTIN, National Co-Chairman, Bush Campaign:** Well, two, and one will surprise you because I think this is probably true — I'll let George say it for Michael Dukakis — but early on in the campaign, there were weeks of issue papers coming from the Bush Campaign — I suspect from the Dukakis Campaign — major speeches on education, the future, the technology of the future, our relevance in everything from the Middle East to what we should be doing with Central and South America. And they got about as much coverage, you know, as, well, they got none. It was sort of who's— you'd interview someone or there'd be a paper interview of someone who was holding some kind of a banner for or against something else.

So I think part of the problem is not the candidates. They just don't get coverage. I will admit it's more fun to bait Michael Dukakis on the Pledge and it's also more fun to listen to him try to weasel out about weekend parole for murders but both candidates have tried to talk about the issues. Certainly George Bush has. He's had eight years of experience to want to talk them.

Part of it is we complain every election we don't want it to be on personalities and then we do kind of the *People Magazine* routine and go at both of them and find out about children, cousins, who— you know, who's at what event. So I suspect there's blame enough to go around and I think if you look, that both candidates — and certainly George Bush — have attempted to talk about major domestic, international and military issues and, regrettably, we don't sit to four hours of debate about them.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Senator Mitchell?

**Sen. MITCHELL:** Well, of course, the same perception has existed in virtually every election in recent years. If you go back and look at the reports of the previous presidential elections, the same allegation was made. I think, in this case, there is probably more substance to it in the past. I think the Vice President's concentrated very heavily on what I think are phony, non-issues and Representative Martin just mentioned two of them, the so-called Pledge of Allegiance and Furlough Policy which I think—in which case, the Vice President's wrong on both issues. I'd like to address it, if I have the opportunity to do so, during this show.

I think Governor Dukakis has addressed the issues in a serious, responsible way.

**GEORGE WILL, ABC News:** Representative—

**Rep. MARTIN:** I wonder if I could add something here. Governor Dukakis has run in a very democratic state. I don't think he's as used to running against top Republicans and so I think there is a kind of a thin-skin and maybe he reacts at times he shouldn't.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** George?

**Mr. WILL:** Senator Mitchell—

**Sen. MITCHELL:** Yes.

**Mr. WILL:** Governor Dukakis has said that the prosperity, such as it is — and he questions the validity of that characterization — that the prosperity in America today is a house of cards, that the economy is in deep trouble. If this is true, why has he not proposed something as radical as his characterization of it? I mean, more tax collection will not be the answer to this problem.

**Sen. MITCHELL:** But more tax — more tax collection by itself will not be the answer to the problem but it is an essential first step and I think he has proposed serious domestic policies as well as foreign — I understand we're talking about domestic policy here—

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Right.

**Sen. MITCHELL:** —that I think will deal with the problem.

— 5 —

**Mr. WILL:** Well, can— Representative Martin, is it fair to say that Republicans for years have said, "Don't put Democrats in power because they are reckless deficit spenders." Since the Reagan/Bush Administration now holds the Olympic record for deficit spending, how do you make this argument that the American people ought to be afraid of Michael Dukakis?

**Rep. MARTIN:** Well, two reasons. One, you'll notice Senator Mitchell, after talking about tax collection, didn't add anything Michael Dukakis has said should be done about the economy because there haven't been any new plans. I think Americans are going to choose in prosperity. It's not just the deficit. I know this disturbs everyone in Washington, but all of America doesn't go around saying, "Oh, my God, the deficit, I have to die tomorrow." We're enjoying higher incomes, we're looking around at prosperity. I'm back in Illinois. I'm looking at a state recovering and attempting to go on farther than this. So I think if Michael Dukakis wants to talk about real kinds of change, he'd better—he'd better say what it is. Everything we've heard so far, at least out here in Illinois, first of all has nothing to with agriculture, which is a domestic issue that's been ignored by his campaign, and secondly talks about going back to Carter years. Boy, that's not the kind of change we want to see.

**SAM DONALDSON, ABC News White House Correspondent:** Now, just a moment. Ms. Martin, you say Governor Dukakis has talked about going back to Carter years. Can you cite an instance? I've traveled with him for several weeks now. I've never heard him say that.

**Rep. MARTIN:** Well, of course, he wouldn't because everyone would notice it but listen to what he—listen to what he's done in Massachusetts and in here. He talks about more—he's going to have to, as a last resort, do more taxes. I know this is going to sound almost simplistic, but anytime a politician says last resort taxes, everybody knows what that means. That means more taxes.

He talks about going back to a more centralized economy, the kinds of things that government. You could give the same speech as Jimmy Carter did, you could put Michael Dukakis's name on it.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, Senator Mitchell—

**Sen. MITCHELL:** Yes?

**Rep. MARTIN:** I think Americans want to make that shift.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Senator Mitchell, what about that? It is true. Governor Dukakis says as a last resort, if you can't reduce the deficit any other way, he would look at new taxes.

**Sen. MITCHELL:** In ten years as governor, Mike Dukakis balanced the budget ten times and cut taxes five times and had the lowest unemployment rate of any industrial state in the country. Contrast that with the Reagan/Bush record, never had a balanced budget, record deficits, cut taxes twice but raised them 11 times. Six of those 11 tax increases were major tax increases. Ten of the 11 occurred while Republicans controlled the Senate.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, what do you consider—

**Sen. MITCHELL:** What economic prosperity exists in this country — and it does in many areas — is a direct of the deficit spending that's occurred in this decade. We've primed the pump. Anybody can come in and spend $200 billion in hot checks around the country and inflate the economy. That's occurred as a result of that deficit spending and the next president is going to have to deal with the legacy.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** What do the two of you consider taxes? Governor Dukakis has, just in balancing this last budget — and many people say it's really not in balance — has had to extend the cigarette taxes and other things, which are not general income taxes. And Ms. Martin, you know that President Reagan has signed bill after bill that has increased the take from Americans through user taxes and other taxes.

**Rep. MARTIN:** I—of course, and I think we have an interesting thing. We talk—I mean, I just heard Senator Mitchell talk about inflation. That's what we got when we had Democrats, that's what Reagan and Bush have gotten rid of. Let's look at specific user taxes. I can tell you what I have voted for. I voted for a gas tax to rebuild the na-

— 6 —

tion's highways. But one of the tax bills that— and it's a tax bill, was to cut the marginal rates for working men and women. Those are the kinds of things the Democrats used to be for, working men and women. Now, you hear this whole song and dance about no, we can't do that and no, we mustn't do that. If you're going to put a use tax— we always hear Democrats talk about taxing the rich. Guess what? The rich aren't people who make $25,000 and $30,000 and $40,000 a year and that's who Republicans have helped and that's what George Bush wants to continue.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Senator Mitchell, what about taxes?

**Sen. MITCHELL:** It's just the opposite. In the Senate, when the tax bill was under consideration, I proposed an amendment that would have given greater tax relief to everybody making less than $75,000 and less tax relief for the very wealthy. Ninety-five percent of the Republicans voted against it and the Administration strongly opposed it. If you are in the top two percent of income-carners in this country, you have benefited from the Reagan/Bush tax policies. Below that, you haven't. Now, the fact of the matter is, that's been the policy of this administration.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** How many Democrats voted against that, Senator?

**Sen. MITCHELL:** About— about half. Democrats split half and half.

**Rep. MARTIN:** Yes, you know, the Senate is hardly the microcosm of America. I believe 87 percent of the senators are millionaires. You know, I took the tax bill all over the—

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** May I break in? You two have been talking about— May I break in? You two have been talking about what you would you— excuse me, Ms. Martin, because it's very interesting, neither one of you is running, so let's get back to the candidates. Senator Mitchell, you brought up the point a moment you wanted to talk about, the business about the Pledge of Allegiance—

**Sen. MITCHELL:** Yes.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** —and who's soft on crime.

**Sen. MITCHELL:** Yes.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Do both of you think that these things are really irrelevant.

**Rep. MARTIN:** Yes.

**Sen. MITCHELL:** Let me just say first that the furlough policy of the federal government is the real scandal in this country. Since George Bush has been number two man in this administration, thousands of federal prisoners have been released on social furloughs, including drug traffickers, people convicted of homicide, extortion and robbery. He's got nerve to criticize Dukakis over one or two prisoners.

Secondly, on the Pledge of Allegiance, there's no greater phony issue that's been raised in this campaign. The United States government is the most powerful entity in the world but it does not have the power to compel a single American, even a child, to say something that child doesn't want to say or to infringe upon that person's religion. During the Second World—

**Rep. MARTIN:** I'd like to—

**Sen. MITCHELL:** Let me just— let me finish. During the Second World War, the Supreme Court said that no government can force an American to say something the American doesn't want to say or to infringe on that person's religion. That's what's at stake in this case here. The issue is freedom and — there are places, there have been places where loyalty oaths can be forced. Nazi Germany was one. Soviet Russia was another. But the United States, we don't force people to make loyalty oaths or to infringe on their religion—

**Rep. MARTIN:** I will tell you—

**Sen. MITCHELL:** —and that's why the Pledge means something—

**Rep. MARTIN:** I will tell you the senator is in Washington—

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Ms. Martin, I'll give you the last word.

**Sen. MITCHELL:** —and you can, I think you— I mean, I cannot believe what I've just heard, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. You know what? I'm just going to say it flat out. Most people think it's okay to start a classroom with the Pledge of Allegiance. Most people don't think that's unconstitutional. Most people don't think that's Nazi

-7-

Germany or the Soviet Union and now— and I will agree it's not the single issue of the campaign, but listening to the senator's answer, I can see why it's working against Michael Dukakis and should. Americans believe you can say the Pledge of Allegiance, you don't have to be ashamed of it and you don't have to hear that that makes you a Nazi or a Communist. That's the most ludicrous explanation I've heard.

**Sen. MITCHELL:** The fact of the matter is that the case which the Supreme Court decided involved the Jehovah's Witnesses, a small group, unpopular, not considered usual. Their religion prohibits them from stating a pledge or an oath to any person or thing other than their god and the Supreme Court said you cannot force an American to say something he doesn't want to say and you cannot infringe on an American's religion. And Ms. Martin says most Americans believe that. The Constitution does not apply to most Americans, it applies to every single American, however less popular they may be.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Our time is almost up.

**Rep. MARTIN:** Ask Senator Mitchell— every American starts the day and did start the day with the Pledge of Allegiance. No one is talking about forcing a child. We have one of the lawyerlike answers—

**Sen. MITCHELL:** That's exactly the case.

**Rep. MARTIN:** —that Michael Dukakis, instead of saying—

**Sen. MITCHELL:** No, it hasn't.

**Rep. MARTIN:** —"Look, in our schools, we can say the Pledge of Allegiance." In fact, the House of Representatives, under a Democratic Speaker, has thought it such a good idea that we're now doing it every day.

**Sen. MITCHELL:** You are trying to force it on people.

**Rep. MARTIN:** It's not the only issue but Michael Dukakis is absolutely wrong and it shows the kind of Harvard Yard thinking that would take over America. You can't— now, we're hearing you can't even say the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools. It's ludicrous.

**Sen. MITCHELL:** No one is saying— what you— the position you're taking is shameless pandering for votes and is an effort to impugn the integrity of Governor Dukakis and others who disagree with you and you ought to read what the Supreme Court said before you make these kind of statements. And I repeat—

**Rep. MARTIN:** I will say this—

**Sen. MITCHELL:** —in America— in America, the Pledge means something because we say it freely—

**Rep. MARTIN:** Well, I don't—

**Sen. MITCHELL:** —as free men and women who volunteer our support for our country. We are not forced to do so—

**Rep. MARTIN:** Of course.

**Sen. MITCHELL:** —and we can practice what religion we want.

**Rep. MARTIN:** And of course we can practice and that's incredibly important, race and religion and all of these, that you should be able to be what you want. But you're saying something very else and I am for a moment going to say this. You talk about us impugning, here are you setting yourself up, some godlike posture, I'm sorry, I do believe— and that's what we have a right say. I believe it's okay to say the Pledge in classrooms around America.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Thank you. Thank you both very much.

**Rep. MARTIN:** Thank you.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** It's been interesting but time is— cannot stop the clock. Thank you very much. Enjoyed having you. Coming next, Senator Bill Bradley, Democrat, New Jersey, National Co-Chairman of the Dukakis Campaign; and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State and now Co-Chairman of the Bush Task Force for Foreign Relations. In a moment.[Commercial break]

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Senator Bradley, Mr. Kissinger, thank you for coming.

**Senator BILL BRADLEY, National Co-Chair, Dukakis Campaign:** Thank you.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Glad to have you with us today.

— 8 —

**Sen. BRADLEY:** Good to be back.

**HENRY KISSINGER, Bush-Quayle Task Force:** Glad to be here.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Now, first question for Senator Bradley. Vice President Bush has been saying, as you certainly know, that Governor Dukakis is, in his view, soft on defense and in one of his cute little phrases, he has opposed every new weapon since the sling-shot, which may be excessive but this is politics. So, how would you respond to that?

**Sen. BRADLEY:** I think it's a ridiculous charge. This week, Michael Dukakis listed a number of weapons systems that he supports, D-5 Missile [?], Cruise Missile. He has been very strong on defense. The next—the foreign policy of the next president of the United States has got to have clarity, coherence and it's got to involve serious negotiation with our allies. This week, Michael Dukakis made major speeches on the U.S.-Soviet relation, on national defense, on the international economy. This week, by coincidence, Mikhail Gorbachev made a major speech, too, about the Soviet relationship in Asia. World leaders make major speeches.

It is interesting that, in this campaign, George Bush has not enunciated, in a major speech, his strategy for dealing with the U.S.-Soviet relationship. He is running a campaign of 30-second news bites. Now, that is not sufficient, in my view. Michael Dukakis has greater respect for the American public, but if George Bush is going to run a campaign of 30-second news bites, what do we hear? Well, we hear his vice presidential candidate going around calling Gorbachev a Stalinist. We hear his candidate referring to Bobby Knight [?], who's a friend of mine, who says that the best offense—the best defense is a good offense.

It's ridiculous. At the same time, George Bush apparently support U.S. taxpayer assistance and subsidies of trade with the Soviet Union. Now, there is no coherence in the Bush message. This campaign deserves better. It deserves a major debate. Michael Dukakis began that this week.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Well, let me interrupt at this point, Senator. We'll get back. Mr. Kissinger, what is your response to this?

**Dr. KISSINGER:** [?] I believe that—I believe that there's a substantial philosophic difference between—between the two sides. Governor Dukakis mentioned a few miscellaneous weapons systems this week which happened to be totally contrary to what he has been saying for the last 20 years of his public life. Let me talk, not about individual weapons systems, but about the basic strategic problem the United States faces. American land-based weapons are becoming vulnerable due to technological changes, increases in the Soviet power. Soviet—the Soviet nuclear threat has grown to a point where our traditional nuclear strategy has to be changed to more discriminating weapons. We therefore need weapons that are either mobile, that are either defended or that are based in a more secure manner.

Governor Dukakis has opposed all of these types of weapons, until recently with rather sneering comments. And if one reads carefully what he is saying, even now, he is not saying he would deploy any of the new weapons. All he—that he's now in favor of, which are not many. What he's saying is he would develop them and then trade them away, perhaps, in arms control negotiations. The fact is arms control negotiations, as they are conceived, make all these problems more difficult. We therefore need more vulnerable systems. We need them either mobile or defended and there is no way around it.

And secondly, Governor Dukakis speaks vaguely about building up conventional forces and has one example, going from three light [?] divisions to three mechanized divisions. What difference does that make? The real buildup of conventional forces, first of all, is extremely expensive. Secondly, the conventional forces, in fact, have to be built up by our allies. We have to concentrate on high technology, nuclear weapons, naval forces and, if our allies don't build up substantial conventional forces, whether we play around three light [?] divisions converted to mechanized divisions is irrelevant.

**Mr. WILL:** But Secretary--

**Dr. KISSINGER:** And finally, I think Governor Dukakis's view of doing everything on a multilateral basis—recently, there was a meeting of 110 so-called non-aligned na-

-9-

tions in Nicosia who passed a series of bloodcurdling resolutions, all of which condemned everything the United States has ever done and it's statistically impossible that we're always wrong. And to put our foreign policy into their hands is dangerous.

**Mr. WILL:** Secretary Kissinger, however, Ronald Reagan who is the paragon that Bush would seek, it seems, to emulate, says that Gorbachev's a fundamentally new kind of Soviet leader, the Soviet is a radically transformed system, that it has abandoned its traditional goal of world hegemony. If Ronald Reagan is right and Bush, as a student of Ronald Reagan, is right, then does not the Dukakis approach to foreign policy and to the size of the defense budget make more sense than Bush's?

**Dr. KISSINGER:** No. First of all, I have high—I have high regard for the foreign policy President Reagan conducted and he's gotten us into a position where we can negotiate effectively with the Soviet Union. I don't happen to agree that we can make our foreign policy dependent on one Soviet leader. Every Soviet leader has disavowed his predecessor and whatever we think of Gorbachev, we have absolutely no assurance what his successor will do. The Soviet empire has been expanding for 400—Russian empire has been expanding for 400 years under tsars and commissars. An American president needs a strategy that is independent of personalities and that can maintain the global balance of power and I think that Vice President Bush has a much better appreciation of that than Governor Dukakis.

**Mr. WILL:** Senator Bradley?

**Sen. BRADLEY:** But that's the question. What is George Bush's strategy to deal with Mikhail Gorbachev? He has not enunciated a strategy. This week, Michael Dukakis said that we shouldn't just trust Mikhail Gorbachev's words, but he's got to match—he's got to have deeds that live up to those words. And he laid out five very specific tests. Will the Soviet Union reduce conventional forces in central Europe? Will the Soviet Union reduce Third World adventurism? Will the Soviet combat terrorism instead of supply the Libyas of the world. Will they abide by the Helsinki Accords and will they stop shipping high technology missiles and weapons around the world? Those are the tests.

**Dr. KISSINGER:** Those are all—

**Sen. BRADLEY:** Those are the tests that Michael Dukakis this week will measure whether Gorbachev's words are—ended measuring his deeds, whether the deeds equal the words.

**Dr. KISSINGER:** No, those are all—those are all terrific questions, but what Governor Dukakis has to tell us is how he's going to achieve those objectives.

**Sen. BRADLEY:** Yes.

**Dr. KISSINGER:** How do you— one objective he has is for the Soviets to get rid of all their heavy missiles. How do you get the Soviets to get rid of all their heavy missiles if he enter office getting rid of the largest missiles that we have which is the MX missile—

**Sen. BRADLEY:** He is not getting rid of the MX missile.

**Dr. KISSINGER:** —and giving up the strategic defense initiative which happens to be—

**Sen. BRADLEY:** He is not getting rid of the missile that's already deployed. He has said very clearly he is not going to get rid of the MX missile.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, may I just jump in here and ask both of you a question about that, particularly you, Dr. Kissinger? As I understand it, the MX missile was, as you said earlier, something that was to be mobile because the Soviets' accuracy is such now that, in hardened silos even, we're afraid that our Minutemen force can be taken out. But, as you well know, this administration—

**Dr. KISSINGER:** That's right but even in hardened silos—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** May I just finish?

**Dr. KISSINGER:** But even in hardened silos, the MX is better than the Minuteman.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, the only thing this administration could come up with was an interim plan to put the MX in hardened silos, not mobile, and now it proposes to put them in rail barns. [?] I want to ask you specifically, Dukakis says that's a Pearl Harbor defense, they're sitting ducks in rail barns. Do you disagree?

— 10 —

**Dr. KISSINGER:** I am not enough of a technical expert to judge this and neither is Governor Dukakis, in my view.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, is George Bush?

**Dr. KISSINGER:** To make a point, though, I think— I think any fair reading of what Governor Dukakis has said over ten years, not over the last ten days, shows that he is emotionally, philosophically opposed to almost every new weapon—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, now General Skocroft's [?] Commission, as you well know—

**Dr. KISSINGER:** —and if they are vulnerable in rail sheds, then one has to find some other mobile basing— basing mode.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, General Skocroft's Commission suggested the Midgetman.

**Dr. KISSINGER:** —has decided to make the mobile—I am sure that American technical ingenuity can find a way of doing it.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, but may I just say that General Skocroft's Commission, appointed by President Reagan, suggested the Midgetman as something that made more sense than the MX? And the administration said no. George Bush said no.

**Sen. BRADLEY:** Well, if we could—

**Dr. KISSINGER:** No, I'm not sure George Bush said no. I think there's a tendency among opponents of weapons to attack any new weapons system on two grounds: one, that the existing one is— is good enough and that a terrific one is coming—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Senator Bradley?

**Sen. BRADLEY:** Could I get off of the arcane weapons systems—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Why is it arcane, Senator?

**Sen. BRADLEY:** —and deal with another very basic issue?

**Dr. KISSINGER:** But I have no objection to the Midgetman. I think that would be a good system.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** That's what Bush says.

**Sen. BRADLEY:** Let's deal with another very basic issue in the Soviet-U.S. relationship. What should be our economic relationship to the Soviet Union? Should we trade? Should we encourage banks to loan money to the Soviet Union? Is that bailing Gorbachev out? Now, this administration has had eight years of economic summits with our allies present. Not once has the economic question, with regard to the Soviet Union, been on the table. There is no strategy in this administration to deal with the multi-pronged approach of Mikhail Gorbachev's.

**Dr. KISSINGER:** Until 1986— until 1986, there wasn't really a Soviet leader to talk to because we were dealing with a series of decrepit and dying— and dying men. Early in the administration, in fact, President Reagan did put the issue on the table with respect to the pipeline. I do be— I do believe that the issue—

**Sen. BRADLEY:** What is the strategy?

**Dr. KISSINGER:** —of economic relations should be put on the table, but I also think that Vice President Bush is in a— is philosophically better equipped to do it than Governor Dukakis.

**Mr. WILL:** Senator Bradley—

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** George, make it a brief question.

**Sen. BRADLEY:** Here we are, we're having a great, spontaneous, unrehearsed broadcast news conference of the air.

**Mr. WILL:** Well, that's all right. Senator Bradley, you are a surrogate for Governor Dukakis, allowed to speak for him. Let's get to the critical issue, then, of linkage. Would you support linkage, say, of the sort that Governor Carter endorsed and President Carter practiced, this is, say, an— a grain embargo? Linkage of—

**Sen. BRADLEY:** No.

**Mr. WILL:** You would not? Well, then, how are you going to— Dukakis keeps saying, "I will challenge to do X, Y and Z." What are the teeth behind the challenge in his policy?

**Sen. BRADLEY:** Well, first of all, the United States alone can't do it. You have to get your allies in agreement with how you're going to, if you are, trade and provide credit to the Soviet Union. Now, that has— that can't come willy nilly. That has to come pur-

— 11 —

suant to a strategy. That involves a lot of conversations with the Germans and the Jap-
ancese. That's not there now. That's not there now. It hasn't even been conceptualized.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Senator Bradley, thank you. Dr. Kissinger, thank you very much.
Thank you both for coming. Pleasure to have you. Coming next, our discussion here
and joining us will be ABC Special Correspondent Cokie Roberts. In a moment.

[Commercial break]

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Among the great and no doubt historic events in Washington this week were the— was the vote to— on a seven-day waiting period to buy a handgun. It was defeated. So people who like guns, the NRA and others, have won again. Is— are we to make anything of this? George?

**Mr. WILL:** Well, it—I would have voted for the seven-day waiting period. I don't think it's an earth-shaking event. It does demonstrate a certain dynamic in politics. If you vote against—or for the waiting period, you make angry some very determined, single issue voters who'll pull the lever against you on that issue. If you vote for it, you're not going to improve society very much because there are I don't know how many millions, scores of millions of handguns loose in the country and an eight-day waiting period is not even a band-aid on this national wound.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** But you're going to improve society some because the seven-day waiting period, back by Ronald Reagan among others, would simply require dealers not to just hand over a gun on demand for cash but it's a cooling off period. You check them. Who is this person who wants to buy the gun? And if the person wants to buy it because they're nuts, they forget about that, too. I don't know, how should you be opposed to that? I mean, why would the gun enthusiasts be opposed to it?

**COKIE ROBERTS, ABC News Special Correspondent:** Well, one of— what's so in-
teresting about this—one of the things so interesting about the debate was that you had
many members of police companies around the country there in full uniform sitting in
the gallery, standing outside the chamber. Sarah Brady, the wife of the Press Secretary,
Jim Brady, who was injured when President Reagan was shot, was also standing there
and you had a lot of very conservative Republicans in Congress getting up, speaking for
the waiting period. And everybody filed past those policemen who were for the waiting
period, past Sarah Brady who was for the waiting period, and voted against it. You did
have— see the NRA—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Oh, well, the NRA, Cokie, is against measures to control cop killer bullets, so-called. I mean, the NRA—

**Ms. ROBERTS:** They changed on that in the end.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, in the very end, but for a long time, they opposed that. The NRA has the idea that any means to try to control the dissemination of handguns to people somehow infringes the people's right to have—

**Ms. ROBERTS:** But this is, you know, a change in their view. They used to say — and
this was brought up repeatedly in the debate — they used to say that a waiting period
was a sensible solution to the— and a good alternative to the notion of gun registration.
But now that they have— feeling their clout and have organized so well, I mean, what
you're really seeing in the power, as George said, of a single interest lobby but you're
seeing in spades. I mean, they are caving to them all over the place.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** If the idea is to reduce violent crime by criminals using guns, does anyone think this would work? Is a criminal going into a store and give his name, address and phone number to buy a gun?

**Ms. ROBERTS:** Well, they claim they have, in the states that have the law, that they have been able to stop felons from getting guns and by the thousands, but

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Once that is understood, would [unintelligible] people do it again or not?

**Ms. ROBERTS:** The other question is people who are crazed at the moment.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Well, that's something else.

**Ms. ROBERTS:** Well, but that is—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, the Hinckleys of this world—

**Mr. WILL:** Hinckley is a test case. If Hinckley had had to go through any kind of

— 12 —

bureaucratic maze, however small, to delay him, the event might not have happened
outside the Washington Hilton.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** I don't remember now. Where did he get his gun? Do we know?

**Ms. ROBERTS:** Down in Texas but they would have not allowed that kind of going
across state borders if they had had the check. He was— he had had enough mental
treatment. We do have laws that say certain people are not allowed to own guns but we
have no way to enforce those laws so that was the attempt here but it failed miserably,
with a whole lot of Democrats voting against that waiting period.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** All right. And also this week, the NIH, National Institutes of Health —
if I have this right — had a meeting to discuss the use of fetal cells in medical research
and in pursuit of cures for Alzheimer's and what's the other?

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Parkinson's

**Ms. ROBERTS:** Parkinson's Disease, diabetes.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Diabetes and some others. NIII itself, I believe, is forbidden by law to
use fetal cells for this or any other research purpose. It's an interesting subject. I don't
know where it's going to lead and I wonder what we think about it? What do you think,
Cokie?

**Ms. ROBERTS:** I think that, at this point, it's really a federal guideline rather than a law
that keeps federally funded scientific research from using fetal cells. But the question is,
does it encourage abortion? Does it say that— I mean, where are these fetal cells com-
ing from? They're coming mainly from abortions and what the panel tried to do was
sidestep that issue and say, well, we're not going to make any statement abortion but we
are going to say that it's all right to go ahead and use the cells.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** But, of course, you can't sidestep it.

**Ms. ROBERTS:** I don't see how you can do that. I mean, it's—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** I'll just point out that's where you get the tissue. And I think your
view of it has to go back to your view of abortion. If you think abortion under all cir-
cumstances, or almost all circumstances, is wrong, then I guess you have to say, there-
fore, even though fetal tissue may help cure these awful diseases, we will pass by the
cure. We'll pass by the cure. Let's accept the disease.

**Mr. WILL:** Well, there are— there are spontaneous abortions and stillbirths and they do
not raise the issues here. No one objects to using, say, an organ from a cadaver from an
automobile accident because that's using a tragedy and getting some human good from
it. What worries people is the possibility that (a), in a sort of philosophic sense, you will
be degrading human material to mere meat if you do this. And the reason that worry be-
comes pertinent is there's a fear of the systematic harvesting of fetal tissue if this be-
comes large scale enterprise.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** But obviously, George, you would have—

**Mr. WILL:** Well—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** —have to have some safeguards—

**Mr. WILL:** Okay, when a woman—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** —to prevent people from saying —

**Mr. WILL:** —has said — a woman has said she wants to become pregnant, then abort her
fetus and use the cells on herself as a form of treatment. Another woman has said she
wants to become pregnant—

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Can that be done? Used on the— well, self?

**Mr. WILL:** Yes.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, but those are extreme cases.

**Mr. WILL:** Well, bad cases— hard cases may make bad law but they are hard cases and
you have to have some law to deal with them.

**Mr. DONALDSON:** All right, you have to have some safeguards. Absolutely. And these
safeguards will never be a hundred percent clear.

**Ms. ROBERTS:** But they — it seems that what we have had this week is no safeguards
put in place and no decisions made about the basic question of where does these—
where do these cells come from?

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Because I think we're just starting the debate. I mean, it's early on

— 13 —

JOURNAL GRAPHICS, INC.

(LC)

in this business of using fetal tissue.

**Ms. ROBERTS:** And you can imagine—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** I mean, you sort of have to sort out how you feel abortion, number one, how you feel then whether safeguards are adequate, number two—

**Mr. WILL:** Well, you see, if the Supreme Court teaching on abortion is right — I believe it profoundly wrong — then there is nothing to prevent someone from taking a third trimester fetus and harvesting it because, under the Supreme Court guidelines—

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Well, next week, they'd be sold, George, if the demand becomes high enough.

**Mr. WILL:** Under the Supreme Court teaching in Roe v. Wade, the fetus in a mother's stomach has no more moral status than a hamburger in the mother's stomach, to put it bluntly and brutally, which they in fact did.

**Ms. ROBERTS:** But you can also imagine a situation where a young woman who does not know what she wants to do feels herself being pressured into an abortion, being told that this would be very— she could be saving someone's life by allowing her fetus to have its tissues used. I mean, I can see all kinds of really very dangerous situations.

**Mr. WILL:** We have people at the margins of society selling blood to keep afloat. I mean, that's a standard thing and dangerous thing in America's cities. You could have people selling fetuses.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** —that a person one of these terrible diseases would— has a legitimate hope that this might somehow be cured, whereas selling blood is just strictly a cash deal to buy drugs—

**Mr. DONALDSON:** Well, it may be at the end. I mean, I don't know where I stand on this. Maybe at the end, when we decide that we do just want to pass by the possibility that fetal tissue will save a lot of people from the other diseases because of the very social and moral and ethical questions we've been talking about.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Well, it's a kind of question that is going to be very difficult on moral, ethical, medical, other grounds. I wonder if we are tooled up, really, to deal with it? You think so?

**Ms. ROBERTS:** Well, I— it didn't appear so this week but I think that this is always a problem. I mean, we have really not made decisions in this society about when death occurs, when life begins, when all kinds of things happen because it used to be really obvious when those things happened. But now there's so much— it's so difficult to determine that and we aren't a society that agrees about it. And that's a terrible problem in a pluralistic society if we don't agree.

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Well, on that note we have to wind it up. Thank you. Our time is up. Thank you very much. We'll be back with a few words about how liberal has become a dirty word. In a moment.

[Commercial break]

**Mr. BRINKLEY:** Finally, as discussed here, both candidates have avoided discussing many of the issues, as if afraid of getting their hands dirty. Instead, Governor Dukakis says Vice President Bush idled around the White House as a not-so-innocent bystander — while nothing was done about drugs, much was done about spending money — while Bush has been having a good time calling Dukakis a liberal — making it sound like a word not fit to be used in front of the children — and, interestingly, never calling Dukakis by name, instead referring to him as the liberal governor, a member of Democratic Party's far left liberal wing, and so on. A liberal, we are led to believe, is one who is weak on foreign policy and defense, who loves to spend money on programs that don't work and who cares about minorities but nobody else. So that's the campaign we have, the Democrat a faceless, nameless liberal opposing a Republican who ignored a drug problem while standing by and watching the deck go up. If you believe all of that or any of that, there will be, as they tell us, tough choices to be made, but not by the politicians, by the voters.

For all of us at ABC's This Week, until next Sunday, thank you.

(c) 1988 by American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

— 14 —