THE IRAN-CONTRA HEARINGS : GOP Statements: President Moved . . . Decisively to Make Corrections

Here are the closing statements by the ranking Republican members of the investigating committees:

Sen. Warren B. Rudman

. . . The purpose of these hearings has not been to cast blame or point fingers. It has been to learn from our mistakes by examining them in the open daylight, to hold them under the magnifying eye of television so that we can see where the Executive branch and the Congress went wrong and can make such recommendations for change, if any, in federal law or the foreign policy process to ensure that we never face an episode like this again. . . .

Neither I nor any of my colleagues are ready at this point to definitively state all of our factual conclusions, much less our policy recommendations. Speaking for myself, I am going to need the month of August to review, digest and reflect on the massive information we have collected. However, there are some things that stand out after these weeks of testimony.

The policy of selling arms to Iran was duly authorized by President Reagan, and, in the main, legally implemented. Whether it was in reality arms for hostages or whether that is just the common perception, will never be conclusively determined, but I suspect there is unanimous agreement on the Senate committee that it was an act of folly as a means of re-establishing relations with Iran. . . .

The diversion of funds to the contras would not have been possible but for the mechanism chosen to conduct the Iranian arms sales. According to the direct evidence, the diversion of funds was not authorized by or known to President Reagan. I am firmly convinced that statement is unequivocally correct, having reviewed the entire documentary record, including the President’s own personal diaries, to which we were given access in an extraordinary and unprecedented decision. The only United States officials who knew of the diversion were (Rear) Adm. (John M.) Poindexter, (Lt.) Col. (Oliver L.) North, (Lt.) Col. (Robert) Earle and possibly (the late CIA) Director (William J.) Casey. . . .

The allegation that the attorney general was . . . involved in the cover-up (of the diversion) is unfair and, in my view, false. Although some of us have been strongly critical of some of the attorney general’s actions during the course of his inquiry, it was the attorney general and his staff who initially uncovered some of the facts of the wrongdoing and exposed them. . . .

(North and Poindexter) flouted virtually every standard operating procedure that exists within the national security establishment for the development of government policy. These actions and the attitudes they represent are antithetical to our democratic system of government. They cannot be justified by passion, patriotism, appropriate concern over the expansion of communism in Central America or for a legitimate dismay over the policies enacted by Congress. . . .

Rep. Dick Cheney

. . . Questions have been raised about why we had these committees established. I think it was preordained that there would be such an investigation once it became clear the Administration was trading arms to Iran. Congress clearly has a legitimate role of oversight in reviewing the conduct of foreign policy by the Administration, and the President himself supported these activities and encouraged us to form these select committees. I also think it’s important that credit be given to the President. He’s given his complete cooperation and support to our investigation throughout. . . .

I think it’s also important to point out that once President Reagan understood the serious nature of the problems associated with these events he moved boldly and decisively to make corrections. He reassigned the responsible individuals, created the new (National Security Council) staff under the able leadership of Frank Carlucci and (Lt.) Gen. (Colin L.) Powell, brought in a new White House chief of staff, a new director of the CIA, appointed the Tower Commission, cooperated with the commission’s investigation and took their criticisms to heart, supported the call for an independent counsel, and, of course, gave his complete cooperation to these committees.

. . . What does it all mean? What does it signify? These events have been characterized by some pretty strong statements by my colleagues on the committees and by some of the press over the past eight months.

. . . My own personal view is that there has been far too much apocalyptic rhetoric about these events, most of it unjustified. If there ever was a crisis, which I doubt, it ended before these committees were established. And to the extent that corrective action was required, the President took it unilaterally before our committees had taken a single word of public testimony. Saying that the investigators have sometimes gotten carried away in an effort to outdo one another’s colorful phrase-making in no way justifies the mistakes that were made. But what’s required here, it seems to me, is a little calm dispassionate analysis if we’re going to learn from our study of these events. . . .