FACE THE NATION - 1-18-87

1

MS. STAHL: Welcome to FACE THE NATION. I'm Lesley Stahl. There were new revelations this week in the Iran/contra scandal as the pressure built on President Reagan to face the public with an apology, an idea he immediately rejected.

This week we learned that the United States provided intelligence data to both Iran and Iraq in their war against each other. A news report that the data were distorted was denied by the CIA. Former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane testified that the Reagan Administration had no independent intelligence information to support its Iran policy, relying on Israel's analysis of the Iranian political situation.

SENATOR McCONNELL (at Senate hearing): So we relied exclusively on the advice of others as to what individuals in those various groups might have comprised this moderate element.

MR. McFARLANE: That's correct. We really had no alternative.

MS. STAHL: Israelis said to have relied for its information on Iranian arms dealer Ghorbanifar, who the CIA deemed untrustworthy.

Also this week the president sent assurances to Jerusalem that his release of a memo suggesting Israel had initiated the whole Iran arms deal was not an attempt to blame Israel.

SHINON PERES (Israeli Foreign Minister): We were approached and we did what we think is right, and we don't have any regret.

MS. STAHL: But while the president apologized to Israel, his staff says he has no intention of appealing to the American people for forgiveness over the Iran arms sale or the diversion of funds to the contras. Some Republicans say the President should take the blame.

SENATOR WILLIAM COHEN (R.-Maine): The president must assume responsibility for those actions that were excesses, even though he was unaware of them.

MS. STAHL: Is an apology by the president in order? Would it help? We'll ask former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, and Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois. And we'll hear about the

FACE THE NATION - 1-18-87

2

Israeli role from a leader of the Israeli Labor Party, Abba Eban.

Iran decision-making under fire, an issue facing the nation.

ANNOUNCER: From CBS News, Washington, FACE THE NATION, with CBS News National Affairs Correspondent Lesley Stahl.

This portion of FACE THE NATION is sponsored by the
financial professionals at Paine Webber.

(Announcements)

MS. STAHL: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has had phone conversations with the president about the Iran situation. We asked him earlier if he thought the president should apologize to the American people.

DR. KISSINGER: Any president is entitled to make a mistake, and I don't see why an apology is called for. And I would think that what needs to be done now is to get the facts out, to prevent a repetition of that occurrence which resulted from bad procedures and some appalling advice, and to fix that. And at some appropriate moment the president might say what he's done to fix it. But I don't see that a breast beating is indicated.

MS. STAHL: Let me ask you about a Barbara Walters report on ABC the other night. She said that when McFarlane went to Tehran, the Iranians urged him to accept the release of two hostages right then and there and then wait awhile and then two more would be released, but Mr. McFarlane said I want all four American hostages out right now or no deal at all. Do you think he made a mistake in not accepting the two hostages right then and there?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, it's awfully hard to second-guess a tactical decision made by somebody on the ground who knew all of the positions. I am fundamentally opposed to any negotiation about hostages. The minute you begin a negotiation about hostages you create two situations. One, you set yourself up for precisely this sort of retail business that happened in Tehran where you ask for four, you get two, and then, when you accept two, maybe they give you only one. You get into the undignified and outrageous retail business like this. And, secondly, at any one moment there are tens of thousands of Americans all over the world, and they

FACE THE NATION - 1-18-87

can always replenish their stock of hostages. The fundamental mistake was to have any negotiation about hostages at all, and equally to bring it into the context of arms. So was that a mistake? Oh, I suppose, having gone this far, they should have accepted two. But I have no strong conviction on that subject.

MS. STAHL: You know, somebody told us at CBS News that all the documents and computer discs that the congressional committees are reviewing show absolutely no discussion of options, costs of failure, what to do if this becomes public and is disclosed.

DR. KISSINGER: From this point of view, from the point of view of procedure, I do not understand why nobody went to the president and said to him: Mr. President, you cannot do this, the risks are totally out of proportion to anything you can gain. I don't know if the president might have thought this was a normal policy discussion in which he could overrule some people without consequence, like the numbers on arms control negotiations. But somebody should have gone to the president and said: now, Mr. President, this is so risky, this is so contrary to everything you've ever said, that here are the ten consequences that are going to flow from it. And I just, from my limited knowledge of the president, I don't think he's a big gambler.

MS. STAHL: Well, let me ask you specifically about the Middle East. We now know that we gave intelligence data to both Iran and Iraq, possibly even disinformation--we are not sure about that--but possibly; we seem to be developing strains with Israel over whether they initiated this whole Iran arms business or not. How do we begin to repair and re-establish our foreign policy in the Middle East?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, I think to give intelligence data to both sides in a war is a big mistake. I think that is the sort of Machiavellianism that loses you credit all over. When I read this memorandum to the president that was published, released by the White House, here the Security Council staff is saying Iraq is winning the war against Iran. Well, they must be the only people

FACE THE NATION - 1-18-87

in the world who are believing this. And when you are giving the president wrong factual information, you are likely to get a wrong decision.

MS. STAHL: Why don't you, and why doesn't anybody else, just blame the president? It's his presidency, it's his White House.

DR. KISSINGER: Well, I think he is in a way to blame for the organization that was set up. He had the misfortune that for six years everything went so well that the weaknesses of the organization didn't become apparent, and so he had to pay a big price when it suddenly did become apparent. But I think one has to understand that the weaknesses that showed up were the reverse side of great strengths, and now these weaknesses have to be fixed. I don't in my heart blame the president as much as I do most of his associates.

MS. STAHL: Why not? It's his presidency, it's his
responsibility.

DR. KISSINGER: In an ultimate sense he's of course responsible, but in an ultimate sense we are also not in a bad foreign policy--we are in a good foreign policy position, with one big mistake having been made. If he doesn't fix it, if he continues operating the way he has, then I would blame him. But I have every hope that he doesn't.

MS. STAHL: Henry Kissinger. We'll be right back.

(Announcements)

MS. STAHL: Joining us now from Salt Lake City, Senator John Kerry, Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Congressman Henry Hyde, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, coming to us from Chicago.

Let me go to Congressman Hyde first. There is a group of Republicans who are now urging the president to go to the American people and apologize for the Iran/contra situation. And I understand that you are one of them. What do you think the president should say to the American people?

REPRESENTATIVE HYDE: Well, first of all, Lesley, I want

FACE THE NATION - 1-18-87

5

to make it clear I am not anyone who thinks the president needs to
apologize; he has nothing to apologize for. What I think is
needed is an explanation of the initiative towards Iran, the
opening there, the reasons for it. And I think the president,
better than anyone else, can make a very good case for that. And
I would like the president to make that case, and I think assume
personal responsibility, so that he does not appear to be as
disengaged or detached. But he can tell the American people you
either sit in the Oval Office and do nothing and let events control
you, or you try to assume initiatives to control events, and that
it was high risk and he took it, it hasn't worked out yet--but it
was his initiative. And I think the people would accept that.

MS. STAHL: Congressman, but he did give a speech to the
nation in which he explained his initiative and why he thought it
was a good idea. He's already done that, hasn't he?

REPRESENTATIVE HYDE: Well, I think it needs to be told
again. I think the nuances of the different forces within Iran--I
think he said mistakes were made, but I don't think that's enough;
he has to assume responsibility for the judgments that were made.
But I think a good case can be made for this, and he's the person
to make it. I don't think the media is convinced yet, and perhaps
not the American people.

MS. STAHL: Well, let's go to Senator Kerry. Do you
think that if the president gives another speech to the American
people and says he's responsible, that that will begin to solve a
lot of his problems?

SENATOR KERRY: No, I don't, Lesley. I think the president
has a fundamental credibility problem at this point, and I think
that, while it might be nice to have him apologize--and I think
more than an apology is necessary--he would indeed have to engage
himself in this and accept responsibility, above all. But I don't
think that will solve the problem, because the American people
already don't believe what is coming out of the White House with
respect to this matter.

FACE THE NATION - 1-18-87

MS. STAHL: Well, let me go back to Congressman Hyde, because you said something interesting, sir, about the impression that the president doesn't know, wasn't engaged, isn't involved. I gather you think that that is becoming more of a problem for him than the details of the scandal itself, the impression that he's not doing his job.

REPRESENTATIVE HYDE: Well, I think it's part of the problem that things have been happening in the White House that he wasn't aware of. And I think that is a problem, and I think it has to be dealt with, along with explaining the importance of the post-Khomeini Iran and us having access and influence. There are many things to be said. Our Middle East allies would be very interested in a more moderate Iran. And I think there is much to be said, and the president can say it without any apology.

MS. STAHL: Well, Senator Kerry, let's just stand back for a minute, and tell us, if you will, where you think we stand right now on this whole situation, what are the implications, where are we. Is the president in deep trouble in Congress, or is he getting it behind him? Where do we stand?

SENATOR KERRY: Well, I think clearly the national political landscape has been changed by this. The president's bargaining power with the Congress is very different. Whereas for the last six years I think he's been able to move programs almost at will, now he is going to have to bargain. And I think with the absence of bargaining, those programs, many of them, will not move as easily. I think certainly Democrats and Republicans alike internationally want the president to be able to succeed, don't want to see a president handicapped in foreign policy. But there I think the president has handicapped himself, because our allies and others around the world with whom we might like to deal clearly have skepticism about American policy, about who's making it, about how it's made, and about, once a decision has been made, whether or not that decision will be kept. So I think we clearly have been harmed there. Irreparably? No, there are too many

FACE THE NATION - 1-18-87

7

important issues to be worked on, too many major decisions to be made, and I think the president can obviously continue to operate, but it's going to take time to rebuild confidence in our policy.

MS. STAHL: Okay, Congressman Hyde, you are known as a supporter of the president's. Have you been finding it difficult to defend him on this policy, a policy where he didn't notify Congress and where apparently, at least we've been told, he didn't even tell his own Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense on the arms sales?

REPRESENTATIVE HYDE: Yes, that's difficult to explain, because the law requires Congress to be notified. But I can understand the justifiable paranoia of the White House, because Congress can't keep a secret, the State Department has difficulty keeping a secret, and if you are dealing with people's lives in an operation of great sensitivity, I can understand why they would want to keep it close to the vest. But, on balance, I do think at least the leaders in Congress have to be notified rather quickly, because you are going to need congressional support somewhere along the line, and their nose gets out of joint if you ---

SENATOR KERRY: Lesley, can I ---

MS. STAHL: Sure.

SENATOR KERRY: Can I interject there? I think that that underscores one of the reasons why the president has such a significant problem, and why a mere apology or even acceptance of responsibility will not resolve it. What you have here is more than merely a policy where the president made a mistake. What you have is a fundamental abuse of process, an abuse, if you will, of the structure of our government and the way in which we make decisions. And you don't simply have a bad policy decision about trading arms for hostages; you have a whole private aid network, with various generals and other personalities involved in trying to siphon off money from that decision to aid a separate foreign policy decision, and all of that being done in a way that specifically said we will not tell the Congress, specifically avoided the

FACE THE NATION - 1-18-87

8

Secretary of State, and specifically set out to do what the United
States Congress had said we don't want to do as a nation.

MS. STAHL: Congressman?

REPRESENTATIVE HYDE: Lesley, there was no abuse of
foreign policy process; there was some innovation. But the National
Security Council in previous Administrations has been used for
initiatives that weren't appropriate for the State Department.
And I might add, because the Senator keeps using the word "apologize,"
nobody ever asked Jimmy Carter to apologize for some egregious
errors in our policy towards Iran during his Administration; I
don't think "apology" is an appropriate word at all--"explanation,"
"assumption of responsibility," but no "apology."

MS. STAHL: What about the diversion of money to the
contras which ---

REPRESENTATIVE HYDE: Well, nobody knows about that
yet. Senator Kerry is making that a big issue, and it is an
issue, but I don't think we know yet what money was diverted, if
any, who got the money, how much was involved. And I think that's
something we all have to know, and hopefully the Senate committee
and the House committee, if not the independent counsel, can get
to the bottom of that.

SENATOR KERRY: Let me add that that is precisely why an
apology or a mere acceptance of responsibility, if people are
happier with that, is no enough--because we have the Attorney
General of the United States of America introduced by the president
of the United States, who stood up and said $15 to $30 million has
been transferred to the contras. Now, while we don't know the
details, we do know that it in fact happened, and an individual,
Colonel North, has been fired because of it.

So I think that it's clear that we need to uncover these
facts. And I suspect that one of the reasons the president can't
accept responsibility at this point is that not all of the facts
are known, and it might be dangerous at this point to accept
responsibility for things that are yet to be discovered.

FACE THE NATION - 1-18-87

MS. STHAŁ: Congressman Hyde, the president had said
that he would get the facts out as soon as possible and, as they
became known, he would put them out. But apparently they have
changed their minds at the White House and they're saying that
they are not going to put facts out until the entire investigation
is over. And they also say that David Abshire, the man in the
White House doing this investigation, hasn't been allowed to
question the president yet.

REPRESENTATIVE HYDE: Well, Lesley, it was the Democratic
majority on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that voted
not to release their report. That was a report that the president,
the White House, wanted released because it did contain a lot of
information. This is like a jigsaw puzzle, and it seems to me
that there is some merit in an orderly disclosure of what has gone
on. But I don't think the White House has been covering up. I
think without Colonel North's and Admiral Poindexter's testimony ---

MS. STHAŁ: What about the deletions from that memo,
though--they tried to delete portions of it, remember?

REPRESENTATIVE HYDE: Well, I understand that, and I
don't know ---

MS. STHAŁ: Report, rather.

REPRESENTATIVE HYDE: Yes, I don't know what they deleted
or why it was deleted. We are still dealing in some very classified
areas, but I think the story will come out, it has to come out.
And I'm sure the White House wants it to come out.

MS. STHAŁ: All right, we'll have to end our interview
on that note. I thank you both, Senator Kerry, Congressman Hyde,
for being with us. We will be right back with Abba Eban of Israel.

FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE CYRUS VANCE (in congressional
testimony): The sale of arms to Iran for hostages was naive,
wrong, and severely damaging to our national interests and credibility.

(Announcements)

MS. STHAŁ: Earlier this morning we spoke with Abba Eban
in Tel Aviv, who is now chairman of the foreign relations and

FACE THE NATION - 1-18-87

10

defense committee in the Israeli Knesset. We asked him about
reports that Israel initiated the idea of diverting the Iran arms
sale money to the contras.

MR. EBAN: It is absolutely established in my mind that at no point has Israel had anything to do with that aspect of the matter which deals with the contras. It's not in Israeli interests to involve itself in Central America; we have not been involved in that at any stage at all.

MS. STAHL: You are flatly, unequivocally denying that Israel ever sent any weapons, any money, any help whatsoever to the contras?

MR. EBAN: That is the evidence that has been brought
before me. Everything supports it and nothing contravenes it.

MS. STAHL: Apparently we have some evidence in this
country that you were using a third party to ship weapons and
other help to the contras. What about Israel using a third party
to do that?

MR. EBAN: We are not involved in anything to do with the contras at any stage or in any way. First of all, if we wanted to, we wouldn't have to answer to anybody, because we have no law against it. But it isn't our policy, we have not done so; we are not intervening in Central America, either on our own behalf or on behalf of anybody else.

MS. STAHL: Okay, you are denying that report. Now, what about the other report that the aid to Mr. Peres, Mr. Nir, brought the idea to the Americans of using the arms sales money, diverting it to the contras? Was that an Israeli idea in the first place?

MR. EBAN: Well, I don't want to break your camera, but when Mr. Kimche said that anybody who said that would be a blatant liar, that is the truth.

MS. STAHL: Okay, let's move on then, as you suggest, to the whole Iranian question, which has been described in a John Poinexter memo as "the Israeli plan," that the Israelis, according

FACE THE NATION - 1-18-87

11

to what we've been told so far came to the Americans and suggested we send arms to Iran to help get the hostages out, to open up avenues to the moderates. Was that an Israeli plan?

MR. EBAN: First of all, if it were, I would say so what. It is certainly not an Israeli initiative; it's certainly an American initiative and responsibility at every stage. I would simply like to take the opportunity of endorsing what your president and what your secretary of state and what your former national security adviser have said, that the responsibility is American and the implementation is American, and the fact that these were discussed with our people doesn't change that basic reality.

MS. STAHL: But you do understand the great interest in finding out how it originated, and the question is was it originally an Israeli idea that was brought to the United States?

MR. EBAN: I don't know why this great interest, because if there was a discussion between people of innocent intention it would be reasonable to put such an idea into the air--and, of course, the participants in these conversations might have different impressions. But the fact is it is the acceptance of advice or of an idea that creates responsibility; the projection of various options into the atmosphere does not carry responsibility at all.

MS. STAHL: There are now indications that maybe arms merchants who wanted to sell to Iran manipulated Israel in the first place, which then in turn brought the idea to the United States.

MR. EBAN: I really think you are working yourself into a conspiratorial obsession that goes far beyond anything that is either accurate or in anybody's interest. We in this country have a definite conviction of total innocence, if you like to use that word. Responding to American needs and to American influences, we did what we thought would be helpful in terms of assisting our ally. Beyond that we have no interest in this question at all.

MS. STAHL: But isn't it true that there is considerable opposition in your country to the whole idea that your government sold arms to Iran, which after all is very anti-Israeli, and that

FACE THE NATION - 1-18-87

12

the whole idea of swapping hostages for weapons does not go very well with the Israeli public just as much as it doesn't go very well with the American public?

MR. EBAN: It's a question of judgment whether it was reasonable to believe that this action would have the desired effects of liberating American hostages, which is after all a very generous purpose, or of modifying Iranian policy. Some Israelis believed that it would, others, including myself, believed that it would not. But that's a very typical foreign policy judgment that does not have any what you would call scandalous repercussions.

And since the context was of assistance to the United States, as your own national security advisor has said, this of course was the determinant factor.

MS. STAHL: How worried are you that Israel is going to take the blame for all of this in the United States?

MR. EBAN: I'm not worried at all because if Americans will not accept the judgment of their president and their Department of State and those involved, that there is no desire or implication in the American attitude that would involve Israel in any censure or in any charge of being hostile, however inadvertently, to American interests, we don't have to go anywhere beyond that. And, frankly, all that we face, with all due respect, if I may use your phrase, is a media obsession with that question.

MS. STAHL: Abba Eban. Our cartoon is from Jim Borgman of the Cincinnati Inquirer. The president ponders his State of the Union address: Oh, let's keep it light, kind of upbeat.

I'm Lesley Stahl, have a good week.

ANNOUNCER: This portion of FACE THE NATION was sponsored by the financial professionals at Paine Webber and by Apple Computer, personal computers that give you the power to be your best.

This is CBS.