ambassador rudolf v. perina - Association for Diplomatic Studies and ...

these tactics. But of course there was always some concern among all of us that he might
be tricked again in these one-on-one sessions. Reagan had good instincts but he clearly
did not have the grasp of substance that Gorbachev had. He was also vulnerable because
he was basically a nice guy who hated to say no. One of his strengths, however, was that
he knew his limitations. For the most part, he listened to and followed his advisors. It was
probably why he was misled in the Iran-Contra affair, but it also prevented him from
getting into trouble on many occasions. Reagan was a great person to work for because
he did use the talking points prepared for him. He used these 3 x 5 cards but those were
his lines and he read his lines. I mean, he was an actor. He was trained to deliver his
lines. It was a fascinating experience because I used to write these lines and, whereas
with many people you never knew if they were going to be used and probably nine times
out of ten they were not used, with President Reagan there was a very good chance that
what you put on that 3 x 5 card is exactly what he would say. I was in a lot of the Oval
Office meetings, and sometimes you could see that if there was something critical or
negative in Reagan’s talking points, he really hated to say it, but in the end he usually did.
He would say it because it was on his card and because he knew he was expected to say
it. In that respect he was a pleasure to work for, especially to a mid-level officer who was
writing the President’s lines.
This was, of course, very different from my experience working with most other senior
people. For example, I worked for the first Bush, for George Bush and he was quite the
opposite. You could write a briefing book for him and you would never know if he would
look at it or not because he felt he knew the issues, and he very rarely used the talking
points that were given to him. Reagan learned his lines because he knew his limitations
on substance and details. But Reagan, at least in my view, had pretty good instincts on
larger issues, like SDI or the Soviet Union. And these came from Reagan himself, not
from his advisors, who were often flustered by them.
Q: I interviewed somebody who was at the White House who talked about how nervous
some of his handlers would be when he was alone with either Brian Mulroney or
Margaret Thatcher. No one knew what he would be saying.
PERINA: That may be true with Margaret Thatcher because they were such friends. He
trusted her and did not feel obliged to stick to his lines. But in most instances I think
Reagan could be trusted more than a real expert on foreign policy like Henry Kissinger.
Kissinger felt he needed no one. With him, you never really knew what would be done or
agreed to behind closed doors. And you would probably never find out, unless you
trusted his memoirs.
Q: Advisors always tend to be nervous when principals get together. What are they
saying and what are they doing?
PERINA: They were certainly worried in Moscow at those on-on-one sessions. During
that Moscow summit there were two one-on-one sessions and then there were two
plenary sessions. The plenary sessions involved the whole delegation, including the
Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser, and so on. It was a dozen people or so.
48