TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/010791/0107994.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 9.9 KB | 219 lines

                                                                                MEN OF THE YEAR, Page 32

INTERVIEW

Determined To Do What Is Right


The President says that in domestic policy, unlike foreign
affairs, little can be achieved without first beating down the
Democrats

By HENRY MULLER and JOHN STACKS and George Bush -- With Stanley
W. Cloud, Michael Duffy and Dan Goodgame


    Q. We are struck by your ability to lead an international
coalition for a common purpose in the gulf and your inability
to lead in the same way on domestic issues. Do you have an
explanation for this?

    A. There is a very simple one. We don't control either house
of Congress. Having said that, and in anticipation of the
question, I asked [my staff] if we'd summarize whether we've
made any accomplishments at home or not. I think they're rather
impressive on a wide array of issues.

    But the simplest answer to your question is that in domestic
affairs, to pass legislation, to accomplish your ends, you've
got to go to a Congress that has a different philosophical
approach to many issues -- most issues. In terms of achieving
objectives, certainly there's an unfulfilled agenda, but there
are some steps that have been taken that I think are very, very
important on the domestic side. Very important.


    Q. Your own chief of staff has said, when asked what he
wanted to do in the second half of your term, "Not that much."
Do you agree?

    A. Well, we've got a big agenda -- a tremendous agenda. I'm
very happy that we're making the progress we're making on the
antinarcotics fight. But there is a tremendous amount left to
be done. I'm very happy that we've passed the most historic
clean-air bill in history, but there's still plenty to do in the
whole environmental field. I'm glad we've made a start on our
anticrime proposal, but a lot of it is hung up in a hostile
Congress, and I hope we can jar it loose. And we can just go
right down the list. I'd like to see an antidiscrimination civil
rights bill, but what I've got to do first is beat back what I
think is a quota bill. So there's plenty left to do, and yet
we've done a lot.

    It is like the old Winston Churchill story. One of the
Women's Christian Temperance people came in to see him. She
said, "If all the whisky you have drunk was poured into this
room, it would come up to here [raising his hand to his neck]."
He said, "So much have I done, and so much have I left to do,"
as he looked at the ceiling. Well, it is true. We have made
remarkable progress given the fact that we have to fight back
a Congress that is committed to a different philosophical
course. But to accomplish things, you have first got to beat
down the Democrats. And that is not true in foreign affairs.


    Q. It looks as if we are entering a period of belt
tightening, to put it mildly. If you are prepared to ask
Americans to sacrifice in the gulf, are you willing as President
to ask them to make similar sacrifices at home?

    A. What is required is that we begin living within our means
more. That was one of the reasons I supported a budget-deficit
agreement. And that agreement confines the agenda to some
degree. I guess that would mean there has got to be some
discipline or -- if someone wants to interpret it as sacrifice
-- sacrifice. Because the budget agreement, controversial though
it may be, says a couple of things. It says the U.S. will be
into the investment markets for $492 billion less money. And it
has some discipline in it that says if you are going to go
forward with your big bold new programs, you have to come up
with some offsets.

    But I am confident that if we live within this budget
agreement, and I think we must, that is the best thing we can
do to enhance the recovery that I think will be coming up next
year.


    Q. If you could accomplish one thing on the domestic front
in the next half of your first term, what would it be?

    A. I would love to fulfill our education goals early. Or I
would like to think that the progress being made on narcotics
would be accelerated, although we have made some good steps
there. And I still think we need to get strong crime
legislation.

    We have the kinder, gentler approach. It is catching on.
They used to laugh about the thousand points of light. There are
plenty of areas of this nature that I would readily concede we
have got a long way to go [before we] fulfill what I would like
to see done in the next two years.


    Q. On the gulf, your aides have told us that you are very
calm now and that you are prepared to go to war if necessary,
that you've taken every last step you can think of. Have they
got it right?

    A. Well, I do not know that anyone has said I have taken all
the steps I can take. But I have certainly tried to go the extra
mile for peace. And we will continue to try to find ways to do
it. But if the question is, Am I at ease with this policy? Am
I convinced not only that the policy is correct but that it has
got to succeed? the answer is yes.


    Q. But you are at peace with yourself, having made the
decision that you are willing to sacrifice American lives in
this cause?

    A. No, I'm not willing to sacrifice American lives. I do not
like the question put that way. I do not like that formulation.
What I am willing to do is to see these United Nations
resolutions fully implemented.


    Q. But that could be part of the cost of implementing them.

    A. Well, that could be. But I do not like to have anybody
say, hey, he is willing to sacrifice lives. I do not want to see
one kid lose his life. Not one.


    Q. Are you sleeping well at night knowing that you may have
to make the decision to take this country to war?

    A. Yes. Yes. And I have concluded that it is the guy who
sits at that desk that makes the decision. Maybe that is why I
am -- I will not say relaxed, but -- determined. And I am not
churning about it. Because I know what has to be done. And I
know the promise of a new world order if it is done right. I
know the devastating effect on the world if it is done wrong,
if we fail, if the United States is unwilling to back the
newest, most hopeful peacekeeping mission of the United Nations
since 1948. For the U.S. to be the one that says we are not
going to fulfill this resolution is just not thinkable to me.
We will. We will do what we have got to do.


    Q. You mentioned the new world order. Isn't that just
another way of saying the U.S. will remain the world's
policeman?

    A. Clearly, the U.S. has a disproportionate responsibility
when it comes to helping secure the world. I would not call it
the world's policeman because there are certain areas where we
wouldn't be in a position to act or want to act. But we have a
disproportionate responsibility for the freedom and the security
of various countries. And a lot of what is at stake in the gulf
relates to that. Not that we have to do it just so the U.S.
preserves its position. People are looking to us for leadership.
They are looking to us to help effect a more stable and secure
gulf, for example. We have got the credibility where others
might not have as much. We are still respected, and we are still
looked to for this kind of leadership.


    Q. You've described yourself as a strict constructionist
where the Constitution is concerned. How do you construct
strictly the words "Congress shall have the power to declare
war"?

    A. They have got it right now. I have the powers of the
Commander in Chief. There are a lot of historical precedents
involved in all of this. You have the War Powers Resolution, you
have the fact of some 200 applications of force, five of which
were solemnified by a declaration of war. So we look at history,
and we talk to lawyers. We consult [with Congress].


    Q. Is it a political question? Do you think you would not
get a declaration or a resolution from this Congress to support
the use of force in the gulf?

    A. I am not sure. That was the question I asked a couple of
weeks ago. We have got to see the mood that Congress is in. And
if Congress wants to clearly endorse the policy of the United
States Government and wants to endorse what the United Nations
has done, that would be one good way to take a good step for
peace. Because that would remove one of the questions that is
in Saddam Hussein's mind. The question is, How divided is the
country? And if they saw a Congress united behind the President,
that would send a very powerful message to Saddam Hussein. But
if Congress did it like the school board that voted 3 to 2 to
name this elementary school in Midland, Texas, the George Bush
Elementary School, I do not think that would send an
overwhelming message to Saddam Hussein.


    Q. What does your gut say? Will there be a war?

    A. Oh, God [pause]. My gut says he will get out of there.
But that flies in the face of what some of the Arab leaders tell
me, which is that he cannot get out. He cannot do in Kuwait what
he did in Iran. He cannot do it and survive domestically. I do
not have that much of a feel. I just think that any person who
has fought a war, once he understands what he is up against in
terms of power, is going to have to find a way to see that he
does not fight another one. But I am determined that I will do,
and must do, what is called for under the U.N. resolutions, all
of them. That includes every inch of territory. No concessions.

    We have got to and will continue right down that path. And
I hope it is the path that leads to peace. But you asked the
toughest question of all. I had a Congressman in here today, and
he said to me, "You know, my brother was killed in Vietnam.
You've just got to wait." And I said, "You are looking at a guy
that had a squadron of 15, and nine of them were killed in one
way or another. I know exactly what you are talking about."