C283-12, President Reagan getting a haircut from Milton Pitts in the West Wing Barber Shop. 1/23/81.

From Oct. 28, 1980 in Cleveland, here is part 6 of the Carter-Reagan Presidential Debate, as taped from WJKW-TV, CBS. Amazing how things have changed…and yet stayed the same…in almost 30 years!!!

Oct 21, 1984 Presidential Debate President Reagan v Walter Mondale

MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your rebuttal.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, my rebuttal is I’ve heard the national debt blamed for a lot of things, but not for illegal immigration across our border — [laughter] — and it has nothing to do with it.

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\1/2\ — the prime rate. It’s now 12\1/4\, and I predict it’ll be coming down a little more shortly. So, we’re trying to undo some of the things that your administration did. [Applause]

MR. NEWMAN: No applause, please.

Mr. Kalb, your question to President Reagan.
Armageddon

MR. KALB: Mr. President, I’d like to pick up this Armageddon theme. You’ve been quoted as saying that you do believe, deep down, that we are heading for some kind of biblical Armageddon. Your Pentagon and your Secretary of Defense have plans for the United States to fight and prevail in a nuclear war. Do you feel that we are now heading perhaps, for some kind of nuclear Armageddon? And do you feel that this country and the world could survive that kind of calamity?

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Kalb, I think what has been hailed as something I’m supposedly, as President, discussing as principle is the recall of just some philosophical discussions with people who are interested in the 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, and the fact that a number of theologians for the last decade or more have believed that this was true, that the prophecies are coming together that portend that. But no one knows whether Armageddon, those prophecies mean that Armageddon is a thousand years away or day after tomorrow. So, I have never seriously warned and said we must plan according to Armageddon.

Now, with regard to having to say whether we would try to survive in the event of a nuclear war, of course we would. But let me also point out that to several parliaments around the world, in Europe and in Asia, I have made a statement to each one of them, and I’ll repeat it here: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And that is why we are maintaining a deterrent and trying to achieve a deterrent capacity to where no one would believe that they could start such a war and escape with limited damage.

But the deterrent — and that’s what it is for — is also what led me to propose what is now being called the Star Wars concept, but propose that we research to see if there isn’t a defensive weapon that could defend against incoming missiles. And if such a defense could be found, wouldn’t it be far more humanitarian to say that now we can defend against a nuclear war by destroying missiles instead of slaughtering millions of people?
Strategic Defense Initiative

MR. KALB: Mr. President, when you made that proposal, the so-called Star Wars proposal, you said, if I’m not mistaken, that you would share this very super-sophisticated technology with the Soviet Union. After all of the distrust over the years, sir, that you have expressed towards the Soviet Union, do you really expect anyone to take seriously that offer that you would share the best of America’s technology in this weapons area with our principal adversary?

THE PRESIDENT: Why not? What if we did — and I hope we can; we’re still researching — what if we come up with a weapon that renders those missiles obsolete? There has never been a weapon invented in the history of man that has not led to a defensive, a counterweapon. But suppose we came up with that?

Now, some people have said, “Ah, that would make war imminent, because they would think that we could launch a first strike because we could defend against the enemy.” But why not do what I have offered to do and asked the Soviet Union to do? Say, “Look, here’s what we can do. We’ll even give it to you. Now, will you sit down with us and once and for all get rid, all of us, of these nuclear weapons and free mankind from that threat?” I think that would be the greatest use of a defensive weapon.

MR. KALB: Mr. Mondale, you’ve been very sharply critical of the President’s Strategic Defense Initiative. And yet, what is wrong with a major effort by this country to try to use its best technology to knock out as many incoming nuclear warheads as possible?

MR. MONDALE: First of all, let me sharply disagree with the President on sharing the most advanced, the most dangerous, the most important technology in America with the Soviet Union. We have had for many years, understandably, a system of restraints on high technology because the Soviets are behind us. And any research or development along the Star Wars schemes would inevitably involve our most advanced computers, our most advanced engineering. And the thought that we would share this with the Soviet Union is, in my opinion, a total non-STARTer. I would not let the Soviet Union get their hands on it at all.

Now, what’s wrong with Star Wars? There’s nothing wrong with the theory of it. If we could develop a principle that would say both sides could fire all their missiles and no one would get hurt, I suppose it’s a good idea. But the fact of it is we’re so far away from research that even comes close to that, that the Director of Engineering Research at the Defense Department said to get there we would have to solve eight problems, each of which are more difficult than the atomic bomb and the Manhattan project. It would cost something like a trillion dollars to test and deploy weapons.

The second thing is this all assumes that the Soviets wouldn’t respond in kind. And they always do. We don’t get behind. They won’t get behind. And that’s been the tragic story of the arms race. We have more at stake in space satellites than they do. If we could stop, right now, the testing and the deployment of these space weapons — and the President’s proposals go clear beyond research; if it was just research we wouldn’t have any argument, because maybe someday, somebody will think of something — but to commit this nation to a buildup of antisatellite and space weapons at this time, in their crude state, would bring about an arms race that’s very dangerous indeed.

One final point. The most dangerous aspect of this proposal is, for the first time, we would delegate to computers the decision as to whether to start a war. That’s dead wrong. There wouldn’t be time for a President to decide; it would be decided by these remote computers. It might be an oil fire, it might be a jet exhaust, the computer might decide it’s a missile — and off we go.

Why don’t we stop this madness now and draw a line and keep the heavens free from war? [Applause]

It has been 150 years since the beginning of the Civil War that started in April of 1861 at Ft Sumter.

Courtesy of Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, LC-B8171-7951 DLC

President Lincoln with General McClellan and other officers at Antietam.
October 3, 1862

________________________________________

Excerpts from Mary Lee Orsini transcript

The following is a series of excerpts from a July 17 interview between Mary Lee Orsini and Sgt. Jim Dixon and Major Jackie Goodson of the Pulaski County sheriff’s office. The transcript was edited only for basic spelling.

Goodson: Let me-let me ask you-again I wanna impress on you, if this comes out; which probably will, there maybe some people out there if you did tell anybody, I’m not saying you did, cause you’re saying you didn’t tell anybody except your mother and people from in here in the last year. But if there’s anyone that you can think of that you did tell and then they may come forward. I don’t know if they will, but if they don’t…
Orsini: No I never…
Goodson: I could cause them it be better for them to come forward. Uh, but now let’s get it, cause I’d hate for somebody to sit out there going I know about this, is she gone tell on me or what an so on. It’s best to them and for you, and all this that we get it all out so if there’s anybody out there that you-that you talked to either prior to…
Orsini: No I was never honest with my lawyers. I was never-the lawyers never knew it, from Mr. MacArthur, to Lesenberry, Carpenter, to Donalan, to Adam and so on.
. . .
Dixon: In the occurrence, did you do anything or is there any one little piece of evidence that maybe only the police would know about and you know about. In other words it didn’t come out in any of these books, newspaper articles or TV.
Orsini: Oh yeah there was lots of things, there were a lot, and I think that was always initially my basis of false hope uh, uh there was a lot of erroneous evidence. For instance uh…
Dixon: Well can you give me an example or two of what was true evidence that you knew about?
Orsini: I’m not-I’m not understanding what you mean; because even the true evidence came out, you know what i’m saying, the true evidence came out. It just had a slant to it. You know that was…
Dixon: You’re saying it was misrepresented or misread?
. . .
Orsini: Well for one thing I knew the exact time that it occurred. It occurred, if I’m not mistaken at 1:05 in the morning. Cause I remember seeing a clock in the house and thinking that came out in trial it was a neighbor that said he she heard a bump at 11 something. It was things like that I always wondered where did they get that, you know. And then Dr. Malak came up with this far fetched theory, you know he came out with stuff I went to him one time, he called me to his office and asked me questions and some how we got on the subject of poisoning and we started talking about poisoning and when he testified he said I asked how to kill with arsenic poison and they wouldn’t-I wouldn’t even know anything about that. He got on the subject about how to autopsy people with I mean, I use to wonder.