THE IRAN--CONTRA HEARINGS : Excerpts: Stokes Dismayed by Officials’ ‘Plots and Lies’

\o7 WASHINGTON\f7 —  Following are excerpts from testimony Tuesday by Lt. Col. Oliver L. North and former National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, and remarks by members of the Senate and House committees investigating the Iran-contra affair:

‘Chilling . . . Frightening’

(Rep. Louis Stokes (D-Ohio), in a final statement, laments the lies told during the course of the Iran-contra operations and says they undermined the principles important to him and other members of minority groups.)

STOKES: . . . I suppose that what has been most disturbing to me about your testimony is the ugly part. In fact, it has been more than ugly. It has been chilling, and, in fact, frightening. I’m not just talking about your part in this, but the entire scenario, about government officials who plotted and conspired, who set up a straw man, a fall guy. Officials who lied, misrepresented and deceived. Officials who planned to superimpose upon our government a layer outside of our government, shrouded in secrecy and only accountable to the conspirators.

. . . Colonel, as I sit here this morning looking at you in your uniform, I cannot help but remember that I wore the uniform of this country in World War II in a segregated Army. I wore it as proudly as you do, even though our government required black and white soldiers in the same Army to live, sleep, eat and travel separate and apart, while fighting and dying for our country. But because of the rule of law, today’s servicemen in America suffer no such indignity.

. . . My mother, a widow, raised two boys. She had an eighth-grade education. She was a domestic worker who scrubbed floors. One son became the first black mayor of a major American city. The other sits today as chairman of a House intelligence committee. Only in America, Col. North. Only in America. And while I admire your love for America, I hope that you will never forget that others too love America just as much as you do and that others will die for America, just as quick as you will.

$1-Million Bribe

(Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) asks North about a bribe North says he was offered by Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar as an inducement for North to push for a resumption of U.S. arms sales to Iran. The reported bribe offer occurred during the same conversation in January, 1986 , in which Ghorbanifar brought up the idea of diverting the proceeds of Iran arms sales to the contras.)

NORTH: . . . Mr. Ghorbanifar offered me $1 million if we could make this (renewed arms transactions) prosper.

Question: To you personally?

Answer: Yes, sir.

Q: So, he offered a bribe to you right there on the spot?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And tell us what you said in response to that.

A: It’s out of the question.

Q: You told him you would not accept any financial favors at that point?

A: Could not. Would not. And if those kinds of discussions pursued, that he would be out of the picture very quickly. . . .

Congressional Leaks

Rep. Jim Courter (R-N.J.) asks North whether congressional leaks have jeopardized military operations in the past, and Senate committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) later sternly disputes North’s contention that such leaks tipped off Libyan officials to the April 15, 1986, U.S. bombing raid.

NORTH: There were revelations immediately after the Achille Lauro capture of the terrorists that very seriously compromised our intelligence activities which allowed us to conduct the activity itself. The operation could not have been done without the availability of certain intelligence, and the statements made by a number of members of Congress thereafter seriously jeopardized that effort and compromised those intelligence-gathering means. . . . In the case of the Libya raid, there was a detailed briefing provided at the White House, in the old Executive Office Building, which was hosted by the President. . . . The President several times in the course of that briefing on what we were planning to do that evening noted the sensitivity and the fact that the lives of Americans were at risk. Nonetheless, when the briefing was concluded at about 5 or 5:30, two members of Congress proceeded immediately to waiting microphones and noted that the President was going to make a heretofore unannounced address to the nation on Libya. . . .

INOUYE: . . . When the briefing concluded these two members did not step to the bank of microphones near the White House. They immediately left and returned to the Senate. There, they were confronted by members of the press. One leader responded: “No comment.” The other said: “You should ask the President the question. He might have something to say tonight at 9.” . . .

A week before the bombing, CBS Evening News had this to say: “Top U.S. officials acknowledge that detailed military contingency plans for retaliation already exist. Said one source: They involve five targets in Libya.” . . . Saturday, April 12th, New York Times: “Administration officials . . . declined to rule out a raid in the next 48 hours.”

Associated Press: “The British Mail on Sunday said (British Prime Minister Margaret) Thatcher had quote ‘cleared the way for President Reagan to use British bases to launch a massive new air attack on Libya.’ ” . . . And the day before the bombing, NBC Nightly News: “Administration officials say the President is moving towards a decision about whether to make a retaliatory strike against Libya. . . .”

I think it is grossly unfair (to suggest) that two American lives were lost because one leader said: “No comment,” and the other said: “I believe you should ask the President. He may have something to say tonight at 9.”

Final Thoughts on North

(Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) and Inouye offer their final thoughts on North’s testimony.)

HAMILTON: . . . What strikes me is that despite your very good intentions, you participated in actions which catapulted a President into the most serious crisis of his presidency, drove the Congress of the United States to launch an unprecedented investigation, and I think probably damaged the cause, or the causes that you sought to promote. . . .

Now, let me tell you what bothers me. I want to talk about two things, first policy and then process. . . .

The President has acknowledged that his policy, as implemented, was an arms-for-hostage policy. And selling arms to Iran in secret, was, to put it mildly, bad policy. . . . It repudiated U.S. policy to make no concessions to terrorists, to remain (uninvolved) in the Gulf war, and to stop arms sales to Iran. We sold arms to a nation officially designated by our government as a terrorist state. This secret policy of selling arms to Iran damaged U.S. credibility.

. . . The policy achieved none of the goals it sought. The Ayatollah (Ruhollah Khomeini) got his arms; more Americans are held hostage today than when this policy began; subversion of U.S. interests throughout the region by Iran continues. Moderates in Iran, if any there were, did not come forward.

. . . Now, let me comment on process as well. We’ve established a lawful procedure to handle covert actions. It’s not perfect by any means, but it works reasonably well. In this instance, those procedures were ignored.

. . . Foreign policy was created and carried out by a tiny circle of persons, apparently without the involvement of even some of the highest officials of our government. The Administration tried to do secretly what the Congress sought to prevent it from doing. The Administration did secretly what it claimed to all the world it was not doing. Covert action should always be used to supplement, not to contradict, our foreign policy. It should be consistent with our public policies. It should not be used to impose a foreign policy on the American people which they do not support.

. . . I am impressed that policy was driven by a series of lies--lies to the Iranians, lies to the Central Intelligence Agency, lies to the attorney general, lies to our friends and allies, lies to the Congress and lies to the American people. So often during these hearings, not just during your testimony, but others as well, I have been reminded of President Thomas Jefferson’s statement: “The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.”

. . . As I understand your testimony, you did what you did because those were your orders and because you believed it was for a good cause. I cannot agree that the end justified these means, that the threat in Central America was so great that we had to do something, even if it meant disregarding constitutional processes, deceiving the Congress and the American people.

The means employed were a profound threat to the democratic process. . . . (If) we subvert our democratic process to bring about a desired end, no matter how strongly we may believe in that end . . . we’ve weakened our country. . . .

A few do not know what is better for Americans than Americans know themselves. If I understand our government correctly, no small group of people, no matter how important, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, should be trusted to determine policy. As President (James) Madison said: ‘Trust should be placed not in a few, but in a number of hands.’

INOUYE: Col. North, I’m sure it must have been painful for you, as you stated, to testify that you lied to senior officials of our government, that you lied and misled our Congress. And believe me, it was painful for all of us to sit here and listen to that testimony. . . . It was equally painful to learn from your testimony that you lied and misled because of what you believed to be a just cause--the contras.

You have eloquently articulated your opposition to Marxism and communism and I believe that all of us, I am certain that all of us on this panel, are equally opposed to Marxism and communism.

But . . . unlike communism, in a democracy such as ours, we are not afraid to wash our dirty linen in public. We’re not afraid to let the world know that we have failures and we do have shortcomings. . . . We don’t, after the fact, let the world know only of our successes. And I think we should recall that we did not prohibit any member of the world press to film and record one of the bloodiest chapters of our domestic history, the demonstrations and riots in the civil rights period. . . . I’ve always felt that as long as we daily reaffirm our belief in and support of our Constitution and the great principles of freedom that was long ago enunciated by our founding fathers, we’ll continue to prevail and flourish.

Reagan’s Role

McFarlane was asked about President Reagan’s role and about some discrepancies between McFarlane’s previous testimony and North’s.

Q: Did you or any officer or employee of the U.S. government receive instructions from the President . . . not to inform Congress or congressional committees of the secret Iran initiatives or related activities?

A: . . . At the July and August meetings in 1985, with the President and his Cabinet officers . . . Mr. Casey expressed the view that Congress should not be advised and the President agreed with him.

Q: . . I’d like to know, in retrospect, do you think your differences of recollection on several key factors with Col. North is a matter of intentional misstatements on the part of Col. North, or an honest difference of opinion?

A: I don’t think Col. North would ever make a deliberate misstatement or a lie. ... That leaves only the possibilities of differing interpretations . . . If he failed to inform me of something he was doing which he thought might be questionable, he probably did it to protect me.