Playing Santa Claus With the Law

Lawrence Walsh probably is an angry and vindictive man, as his critics charge. But I don't blame him. The Iran-contra independent prosecutor has spent six years trying to learn the truth about a scandal that dwarfs Watergate in seriousness and international implications. Yet there has been no Woodward-and-Bernstein glory for Walsh.

Instead, officials at the highest levels of our democracy (including President George Bush) have withheld relevant information from him, the courts have dismissed his most significant convictions because of technicalities, and many Republicans have consistently criticized him for daring to waste $35 million in taxpayer money on his brazen pursuit of justice.

My guess is Walsh knows more about the Iran-contra scandal than any other person on this planet, yet he has had to watch Oliver North, John Poindexter and numerous other criminals like them go free.

Bush's Christmas Eve pardons of former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger '38 and five other Iran-contra figures may have been the last straw. Now, Walsh is going after Bush himself.

Since last summer, more and more evidence has surfaced indicating that Bush was not, as he claimed, "out of the loop" when the decisions were made to sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages, and then to divert profits from those sales to aid the Nicaraguan rebel contras.

Bush has trivialized this scandal as the "criminalization of policy differences," suggesting that the problem merely stemmed from a disagreement between then-President Ronald Reagan and the Democratic Congress about whether to support the contras in their guerilla war against the Sandinista government.

But the Boland Amendment expressly prohibited government aid to the contras--by covertly funding the Nicaraguan "freedom fighters," Reagan's underlings (if not Reagan himself) acted illegally. This is more than a disagreement about policy; it is a violation of U.S. law.

The worst crime, though, was not the scandal itself, but--just as with Watergate--the cover-up that followed. Weinberger had notes indicating that Bush knew much more than he admitted about the arms-for-hostages deal, but the former Defense Secretary withheld these notes from Congress and later from Walsh. His testimony before Congress was therefore perjury, not merely a "policy difference." Weinberger's trial was scheduled to begin last Tuesday, but thanks to Bush that day passed uneventfully.

The other five people whom Bush pardoned included three who have already pleaded guilty to charges of withholding information from Congress: former national security advisor Robert McFarlane, former assistant secretary of state Elliott Abrams, and former head of the CIA's Central American Task Force Alan Fiers Jr. They have admitted their crimes, but Bush insists they were innocent victims of a dispute over policy.

Clair George, another CIA official whom Bush pardoned, was recently convicted on two counts of lying to Congress--that's lying, not disagreeing, and Bush claims it was just a "policy difference."

Bush's explanation of why he played Santa Claus with the law in the twilight of his presidency is a vivid demonstration of his mistaken confidence that the American people will believe anything he tells them. (Remember "no new taxes"?) To Bush, the gentleman preppie from Andover and Yale, honesty is not nearly as important as rhetoric. He could say with a straight face, "I am doing what I believe honor, decency and fairness require."

I don't believe honor, decency or fairness have anything to do with it. There is no honor in obstructing justice by withholding information from and lying to independent investigators, nor is there honor in condoning this obstruction by granting clemency to people who perpetrate it.

There is nothing remotely decent about ridiculing the constitutional separation of powers by asserting that when Congress exercises its power to appropriate funds the executive branch can circumvent congressional will and chalk it all up to "policy differences."

And it is anything but fairness when the president indicates that his friends are not accountable under the law. Bush's pardons were perhaps his final presidential act of elitism. After using Willie Horton to depict Michael Dukakis as soft on crime four years ago, Bush has released his buddies on a permanent furlough.

But if Bush thought this act of arrogance would silence Walsh, he is finding that he was wrong. I have no idea where Walsh gets the energy to persevere in his efforts when he has heard a constant stream of lies from the government that hired him to learn the truth.

Maybe it is anger--anger at the American people for failing to demand full accountability of their leaders, for allowing Reagan to ride off into the sunset instead of joining Richard Nixon in (at least temporary) disgrace. Anger at government officials like North and Poindexter for their arrogant--and undemocratic--belief that they know better than either the voters or their representatives what policy our country should pursue. Anger at everyone who believes these criminals are heroes. And anger at George Bush, whose disdain for the Constitution is matched only by his disrespect for the American people.

It's not enough that Bush signalled that shadow governments are acceptable and the separation of powers meaningless by cooperating in the Iran-contra cover-up. He didn't even exhibit a shred of courage by admitting that what Weinberger and the others did was wrong, but that he had chosen to pardon them anyway.

Instead, Bush fed the American people a diet of bullshit rhetoric that redefines the criteria for criminality. It doesn't matter that Weinberger et al violated the law, he said, because "the common denominator of their motivation--whether their actions were right or wrong--was patriotism."

Whether their actions were right or wrong! The will of the people, expressed through their elected leaders means nothing; the law means nothing; the very concept of right or wrong means nothing--because these criminals were motivated by patriotism.

"Each," the President said, "has a record of long and distinguished service to this country." This may be a legitimate factor to consider at sentencing, but past conduct does not excuse the criminal behavior of Weinberger and the others.

Of course, each of these criteria applies as well to Bush himself as it does to those he pardoned. In a way, then, his rationalization of the pardons is an argument of selfdefense. And he's going to need it, because his crimes are also similar to those of the people he pardoned. It turns out the President kept a journal of sorts starting in November 1986--the month the scandal became public--and withheld the transcripts of that journal from Walsh until last month.

With everyone else acquitted or pardoned, Walsh has made Bush the subject of his investigation. Chances are he has a pretty good case against the President. And the best part is that he can call Weinberger as a witness for the prosecution--the former Defense Secretary can't plead the Fifth Amendment because he has already been pardoned.

So, as Bush rushes to finish his presidency and define his legacy with a flurry of foreign policy activity--intervention in Somalia, the Start II treaty with Russia, a final standoff with Iraq--Walsh is unlikely to let either Bush or the American people forget the Iran-contra scandal and cover-up.

To me, his dogged persistence--and, yes, his anger and vindictiveness--make Lawrence Walsh the true hero of the Iran-contra affair.