I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
...wether Summit meetings have any value.
Do you think it was an error to institute the thing in the first place? I am not in a position to give you an intelligent answer on that.
Anything that will contribute to the peace of the world ought to be tried.
It may turn out all right.
I was thinking about past Summit meetings.
Some of them have been all right.
Some of them haven't.
And it's a dangerous situation unless the United States government is in control of the situation, which I hope they will be this time.
Do you think this effort ought to be abandoned now, apparently at all? Well, I can't answer that question because I don't have access to the Central Intelligence Agency and I can't tell you exactly what's going on in the world.
I think every effort ought to be made to arrive at a peaceful settlement of things so we can end this Cold War and not be in danger of a hot one.
That's the objective of the whole thing.
What would you say was the Russians' intention in instituting a summit idea in the first place? I can't answer that.
The only way you can answer that would be the way that it comes out from sea.
Well, Mr.
Truman, it's been quite frequently your movements in Korea and Mr.
Eisenhower's movements in Lebanon have been compared.
Do you find any grounds for comparison of the two situations? Well, if you'll remember, I immediately came out with a statement which was published in a great many of the papers of the country, setting out my position, which was to support the President of the United States.
He's the only man in the country that can make foreign policy for the country and he ought to be supported.
I never thought partisanship ought to go beyond the water's edge.
When it comes to domestic affairs, that's a different thing.
Before we leave Lebanon, do you see any graceful way for us to get out of there? I can't answer that question either for the simple reason that I do not have access to all the intelligence information that's necessary to make a decision on that.
Nobody can make that decision but the President.
Mr.
Truman, do you feel that our moral right in being in Lebanon is somewhat damaged by recognizing Iraq? I don't answer that question for the simple reason that that's another one that the President can only decide on.
And I don't believe in starting a political controversy on foreign affairs.
I never have.
Although it was done to me time and again.
You've got a paper here in Chicago that tries to tell everybody what to do in foreign affairs and it never did come out right on.
If you want me to name the Chicago Tribune, I'll do it.
Mr.
President, you don't feel that there's any loss of prestige at all in changing the conference from the Security Council over to the General Assembly? No, I think the General Assembly is a better place to have it.
They can't veto it in the General Assembly and the majority can pass on things.
Can't do that in the Security Council.
Mr.
President, do you think the Red Chinese had anything to do with influencing Russia to change their minds about this? Well now, the only way you can find out about that is to ask the Russians.
I can't tell you.
I can't answer that question.
You'll have to wait and see what the result is.
I'm not a political prophet, as you know.
I take action in my hand.
Mr.
Truman, after the truce went into Lebanon, you made a statement published in several papers that we should be exceedingly careful not to leave any room for misunderstanding as to what we're prepared to do at all stages.
Do you think the administration at all times knows exactly what its own policy is? Well now, that's a conclusion you can draw as well as I can and I don't like to make a public statement on it at this time.
Do you think, sir, that the administration has misled the public at any time? Well, a little later on when the political situation gets a little hotter, I'll tell you about that.
I'm not ready to make my political speech here today.
I'm making no political speech here today.
But that will be a factor in the political campaign? Undoubtedly it will.
Will foreign affairs be such a factor? No, it should not be.
You'll never see me bring foreign affairs into a political campaign.
It will be devoted strictly to domestic affairs as far as I'm concerned.
What domestic affairs do you think will be considered in a political campaign? Well, I've got five speeches that I expect to make on that subject.
Now I'll send you a copy of each one of them as it comes off the press.
Mr.
Tillman, do you feel that the practical reelection of Governor Faubus will set back the Democratic Democratic Party's...
I sincerely hope it has not.
I sincerely hope that it has not.
You feel that it perhaps has.
I'm not in sympathy with Governor Faubus and never have been in his policy.
Do you think that's heard us around the world, Mr.
President? It can very well heard us around the world.
For your information, I'm told that there are about 2 billion 300 million people in the world and about 65 or 70 percent of them are people of color.
Red, black and white.
And I don't think that 60 percent of the...
between 60 and 70 percent of the people in the world of that 2 billion 300 million are people of color.
And of course they are very much put out when we display a situation as has been displayed in Arkansas.
Do you think that the Democratic Convention will take a stand on a strong civil rights plank? They always have.
You read the civil rights plank that I wrote for the last convention.
It's a good one.
Yes, sir.
But do you think the South will walk out again as they did in 48? Did they have any effect on the result by walking out in 48? That's the best answer for it.
Do you think it would help with the South Civil Rights plank? No, I don't like to see that.
I like to have all the votes I can possibly get in the Democratic year.
And we'll get all the votes as possible as necessary.
Do you consider this a Democratic year? Yes.
Sir, can we go back to Arkansas again for a minute? And there are some second guesses now as to what happened and pointed out that more than 73 percent of the voters who voted in greater numbers in the primary in Arkansas than they ever did before, selected Mr.
Faubus.
He didn't select himself.
So here's an exercise of the voters' privilege, Democratic voters' privilege.
Who is responsible here, Mr.
Faubus or the voters? Well, Mr.
Faubus had to be the leader in a situation of that kind.
You couldn't just go out and elect nobody.
You had to have somebody to lead the proposition.
But I think he's wrong, as I told you a while ago.
Are these voters wrong as well? Of course they are.
They're not educated to the point where the situation will finally develop.
You'll find that most people, when they know the facts, have an idea of what's right and wrong.
And it'll eventually work itself out.
It has to because that's what the Constitution provides.
Would you say, Mr.
President, that it was the Democratic machine that elected Faubus in Arkansas? No, I think it was a wave of sentiment that went over kind of a hysterical situation.
And it's too bad.
We are governed by hysterics.
We had a sample of that up here in Wisconsin not long ago.
I'm very much against overconfidence.
I think that when a man is running for office, he ought to run scared all the time.
Do you have any comment on the race in New York State for the Democratic nomination for Senator, as to Farley or Fenlender? I have no comment to make on the operations of a primary in another state.
That's the business of that state.
I'll take care of the Missouri primaries and the other states can take care of theirs.
Mr.
President, what do you see as the big guns in the 1960 presidential campaign? After the election in November of this year, then I'll begin to talk to you about 1960, but not now.
How many men are there right now that you figure have a good chance? Plenty of them.
Do you consider Adlai Stevenson as a candidate? If he wants to be, of course he can.
It's up to him.
It's up to him.
That's up to him.
I'm not nominating anybody in 1960.
Are you going to choose someone as you did in 19...
Well, now you'd better wait until convention begins.
Mr.
Truman, are there any circumstances in which you might consider running again? Could a 76 -year -old you think stand the terrific pressure that's on a man now, under world conditions? That's the best answer I know of.
Well, that's about the citizens who are in that country.
I'll be 76 in 1960, and of course I'm in pretty good shape, but I have no ambitions to be President of the United States again.
It's the biggest and the hardest job in the history of the world.
Mr.
President? Yes, I think the Senate's the nicest job there is in the country.
I liked it very much.
I was there for ten years.
Did you consider running for the Senate again? I have been asked that question time and again.
We have two excellent Democratic senators from Missouri, and I have no desire to see either one of them unseated.
I'm not on the court, and I can't make decisions for the Court of Appeals.
That's their business.
Do you have an opinion, sir, as to how this Arkansas situation has delayed integration? No, I haven't.
I'm hoping that it has not, because eventually it's going to have to be done.
It might as well be done in a straightforward, common -sense manner, as it eventually will be done.
I'm not personally acquainted with Mr.
Nasser.
I can't give you a personal opinion on him, but I think for the welfare of the world it would be a good thing to talk to him.
He's in charge of Egypt.
Do you think our move then to send Mr.
Murphy to see him was a good one? Yes, yes I do.
Murphy's a very able man.
I know him very well.
He's done a lot of things for me when I was president.
He's a very able man.
Mr.
Chairman, can you give us your personal opinion of Mr.
Bell? Why do you want me to do that outside of a political platform? I think you've got the opinion, all the opinions that are necessary.
I'm not making any personal remarks about any of these people until the campaign really starts.
And I'll tell you what I think of them and what I think they've done that they should not have done, but I'm not going to do it here today.
I came here for another purpose.
Do you have any plans about making a trip to perhaps Russia with Mr.
Stevenson? No.
Do you have no wish to talk to Mr.
Truman? No.
Mr.
Truman, uh...
What reason would it be for me to talk to him? Just a retired farmer in Missouri wouldn't have any influence on him.
Mr.
Truman, you've said that there will be no partisan issue made out of foreign policy or you'd like to see none made out of it.
If you go into the election year completely dissatisfied with the foreign policy of the United States, would you not then feel inclined possibly to...
Well, now you're asking me a hypothetical question.
It'll take care of...
Ambassador in Moscow may have one here.
In negotiation is the function of ambassadors.
If they do not like these regular channels of diplomacy, they can go to the United Nations and make proposals.
What we need is not propaganda meeting, but a change in Russian policy.
And if there is no such change, the so -called summit meeting will get nowhere anyhow.
But a change in Russian policy is not what we are likely to get.
Howdy, bro.
We cannot take much satisfaction in our current superiority because the Soviets are closing the gap more rapidly than we thought was possible.
The Russians do not use much of their steel for automobiles or refrigerators or washing machines as we do.
The bulk of their steel production goes into armaments and machinery and heavy equipment for war purposes.
I wonder just what a warmonger is in this day and age.
For make no mistake, this is a challenge we must meet.
Not only in the field of nuclear arms and rockets, but in the whole sphere of economic political influence around the world.
There are those who say that we need not meet the challenge, that the Russians only want us to unbalance our budget and drive us into bankruptcy.
And the way to outwit them is to keep our budget balance and to go along just as usual.
This is just plain nonsense.
I firmly believe that we can meet the Russian threat and keep our lead without destroying our free institutions, provided we understand our own economy and know how to make it work.
To meet the Russian challenge, we must have a steadily expanding economy.
We must have a full employment economy.
It must keep growing if it is to stay free and at the same time give us the margin we need for national defense without going bankrupt.
If the economy stops growing, our fails to grow as fast as it should, not only do we pile up troubles here at home, but we will also lose our predominant position in the world.
We need to get our whole economic system back on the track.
We can't expect to have a continually expanding economy if we strangle it with high interest rates.
Consumer income and consumer spending must rise as they did in the 40s and early 50s.
If they rise, production will rise and our yearly growth will be resumed.
Out of that growth, we can finance our defense and the investment needs of our economy and the needs of the free world for capital.
And into that growth, we can absorb the raw materials and the manufactured products of other countries that must sell to us if they and we are to be free.
The answer to the Russian threat is that we can meet it and keep our free economy if we handle our economic affairs properly.
If we return to the concepts of an expanding economy and full employment.
We are asked now to believe that a so -called summit conference will change all this.
If the Russian leaders can only talk with our leaders, they say, peace and quiet can be restored.
But if the Russians really want to relax tensions, they can do it without fanfare or propaganda.
They can agree to any one of a series of proposals for the inspection and control of arms.
They can stop stirring up people in Asia and Africa and South America.
They can drop their policy of attempting to intimidate our friends and allies.
We have a world power in existence today which is opposed to our own system of freedom.
We are watching that world power grow stronger and stronger as the years pass.
There is a real possibility that unless we take bold action, that world power may become stronger than we are.
If that should come to pass, we might lose our freedom and we might lose it not suddenly in a great war, but slowly by degrees over a long time without a shot being fired.
