From: Rick Francis <C45807EC%WUVMD.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject:      Bush & Iran-contra (Lewis, NYT op-ed text)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Resent-From: "Rich Winkel" <MATHRICH@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:39:30 GMT

Who do you trust?  In this editorial, Anthony Lewis neatly puts together
those pesky inconsistencies nagging our national leader.  A nice, succinct
account of the evidence that George is lying, and that journalists
should start asking questions.
_______________________________

From the _New York Times_, Sept. 11, 1992, p. A15 (Op-Ed).

LOOP THE LOOP
by  Anthony Lewis

When Bill Clinton snapped at reporters this week that instead of going
on and on about his Vietnam draft status they should press George
Bush about his role in the Iran-contra affair, Clinton supporters should
have been uneasy.  It is not a good sign when a candidate starts
attacking the press.
        But on Iran-contra, Governor Clinton had a point.  We in the press
have been dismally negligent in failing to pin Mr. Bush down on what
he knew and did -- negligent for the last six years.
        Mr. Bush's consistent position has been that he was uninformed
and uninvolved as Vice President when the decisions were made in
1985 and 1986 to trade arms to Iran to American hostages.  He said he
was not aware then that Secretary of State George Shultz and Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger were opposed to the plan.
        He was "not in the loop," Mr. Bush told David Broder of _The
Washington Post_ in August 1987.  He said:
        "If I had sat there and heard George Shutz and Cap [Weinberger]
expres it [opposition] strongly, maybe I would have had a stronger
view.  But when you don't know something, it's hard to react."
        In a television interview in December 1987, the then Vice
President put even more flatly:  "If I had a lot more knowledge of
what was going on, I would have said, 'Don't do this.'"
        But in fact Mr. Bush was not uninformed.  He did sit there and
hear Mr. Shultz and Mr. Weinberger express their strong opposition.
Or so many official sources say.
        A crucial meeting with President Reagan on the Iran arms sales
took place on Jan. 7, 1986.  A State Department chronology presented
to the Congressional Iran-contra hearings said:
        "Jan. 7, 1986.  Meeting at the White House among President, Vice
President, Weinberger, [Attorney General Edwin] Meese, [C.I.A. Director
William] Casey, [White House staff chief Donald] Regan, [national
security aide John] Poindexter and Shultz.  Shultz and Weinberger
argue strongly against the Iran proposal, but everyone else favors
going forward."
        Secretary Shultz testified that at that Jan. 7 meeting "I expressed
myself as forcefully as I could.  That is, I didn't just sort of rattle these
arguments off.  I was intense."  But at the end, he said, "It was clear to
me . . . that the President, the Vice President" and others still favored
the operation.
        Inside the White House at that time, Mr. Bush was described as
not only knowing about the Iran deal but advocating it.  In a computer
note on Feb. 1, 1986, Mr. Poindexter told a colleague:  "Most
importantly President and Vice President are solid in taking the
position that we have to try."
        Two weeks ago we learned of a note dictated by Secretary Shultz
the day after the 1987 Broder interview with Vice President Bush.  It
said:  "VP in papers yesterday said he was not exposed to Cap or my
arguments on Iran arms.  Cap called me [and said] that's terrible.  He
was on the other side.  It's on the record.  Why did he say that."
        The newly published note raised fresh questions about Mr. Bush
and Iran-contra.  But we did not need the note to doubt Mr. Bush's
truthfulness.  His claim that he was "not in the loop" has long since lost
any shred of credibility with those who know the record.
        The real question is why the press has been so reluctant to
challenge Mr. Bush's story.  I think one reason is fear.
        In 1988, when Mr. Bush was running for President, Dan Rather of
CBS tried to pin him down on what he did in Iran-contra.  Mr. Bush
blustered, said it was old stuff, accused Mr. Rather of unfairness.  Even
before the interview ended, Bush telephone banks made complaining
calls to CBS-affiliated stations.
        It was a carefully prepared gambit, and it worked.  Through the
rest of the 1988 campaign reporters hardly raised the Iran question.
It is still working.  President Bush brushes off questions on the subject
as dated, unfair, silly.  He makes the press uncomfortable for asking.
        But this was the worst government scandal in years, a crude
violation of the Constitution that damaged the national interest.  It
matters whether Mr. Bush is telling the truth about his part in it.

___________________end________________________
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive