Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, January 8, 1993 TAG: 9301080412
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: PAXTON DAVIS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
OF PIGS AND PARDONS
ALL PIGS are equal, as George Orwell wrote, but some pigs are more equal than others.It is a famous saying, indeed an immortal saying, and for the truth of it you need look no further than the pardons bestowed on Caspar Weinberger, one-time secretary of defense, and other defendants indicted for various offenses against democratic government during the Iran-Contra outrage.
For the further proof of Orwell's truthfulness you might also look, broadening the perspective, to the entire history of the combined administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush. The two, whatever their differences of background and personality, appear to have agreed that the true interest of the United States lay with the rich and powerful, and that no others need apply.
But the Weinberger pardon, which has aroused widespread condemnation as well as sanctimonious praise from Reagan-Bush loyalists, tightens the focus.
It raises numerous questions of motive and effect that Bush, with his customary obfuscation, has so far left unanswered - probably, for reasons of his own, prefers leaving unanswered.
The first is: Why did he do it?
Bush answers vaguely that the Iran-Contra investigation of special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, which has been protracted, has now stooped to indicting those guilty only of "policy differences"; that "policy differences" are inevitable, not criminal; and that Weinberger, who did indeed disagree with the sale of weapons to Iran, is innocent of complicity in that enterprise.
Bush's detractors, among whom I am proud to count myself, argue that Weinberger, though he disapproved of the sale, lied to Congress about the notes he made of a meeting at which Bush was present and is therefore guilty of perjury.
They argue also, though the contention can be neither proved nor disproved, that Bush's unadmitted motive was to avoid a trial at which his own knowledge of and involvement in Iran-Contra, which he denies, would be demonstrated. He did it, in short, to cover himself.
A second question is: What are the pardons' effects?
Bush supporters claim that Walsh is "out of control" and that it is time to reign him in and end his probe. In the same vein, they condemn Walsh as an egomaniac who is now simply fishing for gossip, rumor and innuendo that will validate his supposed "vendetta" against Bush.
Those of us who believe the pardon was wrong note that Walsh is a traditional Republican of impeccable standing and that, as a special prosecutor, he is obligated to follow an investigation wherever it leads. To do less would be to collude in a crime and the obvious cover-up that, in Iran-Contra, followed. No one has suggested that Weinberger should go to jail, but a trial, which might clear him, would further clarify an important constitutional offense.
The effects, in any event, are likely to be enduring:
Few will doubt that in pardoning Weinberger, an American president has clouded whatever integrity he can still claim.
The popular suspicion that the nation has one legal standard for the poor and powerless, and another for the wealthy and influential, will be confirmed.
The deepest questions about Iran-Contra will remain unanswered.
American presidents of the future will be encouraged to circumvent - i.e., break - the nation's laws when they find them inconvenient.
The Bush legacy, already of doubtful worth, is thus further devalued: It adds a profound suspicion of dishonesty to a widespread conviction that Bush was insensitive, unimaginative and, a handsome resume notwithstanding, hopelessly incompetent.
Paxton Davis is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.