An Interview with the Vice President

Vice President George Bush has kept quiet since Election Day, four weeks ago, avoiding any public comment on the arms-hostages-contra flap. Last Friday he broke his silence in a 45-minute telephone interview from his vacation home in Kennebunkport, Me., with Washington Bureau Chief Strobe Talbott and White House Correspondent Barrett Seaman.

On his previous silence. I have read stories that Bush is hiding out. I'm not one of these people who like to go sallying forth to get their profile raised by being on these talk shows. I'm not out there commenting every single day because I don't think this whole process of getting it behind us through an investigation is helped by all of the key players having a word on everything. I had a little combat experience in a world war. When the flak gets heavy out there, the wingman doesn't go peeling off and pull away from the flight leader, especially when the flight leader is known to the wingman to have total ability and a good record.

So there's no hiding out on my part, and no pulling away from support for a President who has been so fantastically good to Barbara and to me and opened up a whole new dimension in our lives, and in whose word of honor I have total trust.

, I am totally convinced from my exposure to the meetings that I did attend -- without going into all that -- that the President is telling the full and total truth.

On the origins of the crisis. What we in this Administration have tried to do is reach out to moderate elements in Iran. Now the dilemma we're in is that in the hearts of the American people is a hatred and a detestation of everything that the Ayatullah Khomeini stands for. I feel that way myself. So in making any contact with Iran, there has been -- and perhaps for a long time to come will be -- a risk that the American people wouldn't understand. You have to know the President to know how strongly he feels about the release of hostages. The problem on all this, of course, is the perception that arms were traded for hostages. The President is absolutely, totally convinced in his mind that that isn't what happened. I know him, I know what his feeling is on this. I have heard what he said, and I accept it.

On whether the arms deals were designed as part of a larger scheme to fund the contras. I know nothing about that, and that is absolutely untrue as far as the origin of the President's operation -- totally untrue.

On allegations that he was involved with the private funding of the contras through contacts with a former CIA agent called Max Gomez. I feel pretty darn strongly about this because I've heard these rumors and I've been a victim of some of them. I've told the truth, and yet I continue to read these stories. So I can speak more viscerally than if I hadn't felt the sting of some of these false charges. There is this insidious suggestion that I was conducting an operation. It's untrue, unfair and totally wrong. I met Max Gomez three times and never discussed Nicaragua with him. What I did discuss was what he was doing in terms of the counterinsurgency in El Salvador, something that is of fundamental policy interest to the U.S. There was no linkage to any operation, yet it keeps coming up. There are all kinds of weirdos coming out of the woodwork on this thing.

On Lieut. Colonel Oliver North. I know and respect Ollie North. This fellow is an unusual individual, deeply patriotic, deeply convinced on our policy of trying to restore the revolutionary dream of democracy to Nicaragua. I know it's easy to kick a guy when he's down in life, but I never take joy in that. I think he will cooperate with whatever hearings are held and let history make the determination. But I have a certain respect for him. That hasn't changed.

On comparisons with Watergate. (Laughing) This may surprise you, but I would stress the dissimilarities. In this case, the President finds something out on Monday; he makes a full disclosure on Tuesday; he instructs the Attorney General to go forward with a full investigation of what has happened; and he appoints a committee on Wednesday to review all of this and make suggestions as to the future. That is quite different from what the country went through before.

On the implications for the 1988 elections. I understand that there's a lot of speculation. I think anybody is absolutely nutty who tries to make a judgment about how the weather is going to be two years from now when a hurricane is raging outside right now.

On how to proceed from here. You end this furor by full disclosure, by prompt, thorough investigation. One answer, I think, is to go back to the joint- intelligence-committee approach along the lines of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. I think if we had a joint committee with limited but thorough oversight, you could avoid some of the concerns now being registered in Congress. I'm convinced that if we do what the President has started out to do, then the President will go forward and make a very positive mark. I think the American people want to support the President, even though there are understandable questions about these events. The American people are also fair. They want their President to succeed. They want this President, particularly, to succeed, and I'm convinced he will.