Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, January 21, 1994 TAG: 9402250031
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
With predictably dismissive pronouncements of "overzealous," "out of control" and "a waste," Republicans and other critics have jeered the release of Iran-Contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh's final report.
Walsh's $37-million, seven-year probe of the scandal was indeed too expensive, too drawn-out. It was marred by mistakes in judgment, and by Walsh's eagerness to assert the criminality of public officials without sufficient evidence to prove his case.
Let's not forget, though, what we're talking about here.
Granted, Walsh, a long-time Republican and former federal judge, did grow impatient and angry. He did overreach. But you want to talk about overzealous and out of control? What about the Iran-Contra perpetrators?
They hatched a secret plot to trade arms for hostages with Iran and to use the profits to supply rebels in Nicaragua. Whether or not this enterprise was inept and absurd (it was both), it clearly violated the law. In particular: the so-called Boland amendments, the Arms Export Control Act, and rules governing congressional notification of covert actions.
No mere dispute over foreign policy, this was a renegade White House operation above the law and without checks or balances - a more serious affront to constitutional government than Watergate. On top of which, as in Watergate, high officials tried to hide the traces of their conspiracy.
President Reagan, according to Walsh's report, wasn't entirely disengaged. He "created the conditions which made possible the crimes committed by others of his Administration." He also "permitted the creation of a false account of the Iran arms sales to be disseminated to members of Congress and the American people."
Granted, Walsh's prosecution took too long to achieve too little, at too great an expense. But you want to talk about wasted effort? What about some of the reasons for Walsh's frustration?
Reagan's lapses in memory (convenient, but in his case credible) hampered the search for accountability. So did George Bush's claim that as vice president he was out of the loop - despite diaries that he kept, and withheld until late in 1992, which showed the opposite.
President Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five others. Other officials engaged in a sustained effort to block or delay release of evidence, to classify documents as national-security matters so they couldn't be used in court, and to try in other ways to impede and obstruct Walsh's investigation. Their stonewalling largely succeeded.
Yet, despite such resistance, and despite flagging public interest in the case, the special prosecutor succeeded in securing four major convictions and seven guilty pleas. The convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter were overturned because Congress had granted the aides immunity for their congressional testimony - testimony in which they admitted to lies, crimes and cover-ups, not to mention subversion of the Constitution.
Granted, Walsh should have wound up his inquiry years ago. He has finished with not enough to show for his labors and expense. But keep in mind: Who shredded documents, hid evidence, lied under oath, fabricated chronologies, pardoned key witnesses? Not Walsh.
Today, while the weary prosecutor is vilified for his efforts, a much-in-demand and now-millionaire Ollie North prepares to run for the U.S. Senate. Do citizens notice the stink? Do they care anymore about Iran-Contra?
They should.
by CNB