Excerpts From Meese Briefing: ‘Aberration From Policy’

The following are excerpts of the briefing , conducted Tuesday by Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III at the White House, on the Iran arms sale .

Meese (opening statement): What is involved is . . . the United States providing the arms to Israel and Israel in turn transferring the arms, in effect selling the arms, to representatives of Iran. Certain monies which were received in the transaction between representatives of Israel and representatives of Iran were taken and made available to the forces in Central America, which are opposing the Sandinista government there.

In essence, the way in which the transactions occurred was that a certain amount of money was negotiated by representatives outside of the United States with Iran for arms. This amount of money was then transferred to representatives as best we know that can be described as representatives of Israel.

Funds Transferred to CIA

They, in turn, transferred to the CIA, which was the agent for the United States government under a finding prepared by the President, signed by the President in January of 1986--and, incidentally, all of these transactions that I’m referring to took place between January, 1986, and the present time.

They transferred to the CIA the exact amount of the money that was owed to the United States government for the weapons that were involved plus any costs of transportation that might be involved.

This money was then repaid by the CIA to the Department of Defense under the normal procedures, and all governmental funds and all governmental property was accounted for and statements of that have been verified by us up to the present time.

The money, the difference, between the money owed to the United States government and the money received from representatives of Iran was then deposited in bank accounts which were under the control of representatives of the forces in Central America.

Question: How much money was involved?

Answer: We don’t know the exact amount yet. Our estimate is that it is somewhere between $10 (million) and $30 million. . . .

Q: Why wasn’t the President told?

A: The President was told as soon as we found out about it. . . .

Q: Can you tell us who is running national security policy? Can you clear up for the American people is Secretary (of State George P.) Shultz staying? Who is the new national security adviser, and what are you recommending in terms of possibly restructuring the White House staff?

A: In answer to your questions, in order: At the present time, upon Adm. (John M.) Poindexter actually leaving his post, Al (Alton G.) Keel Jr., his deputy, will be the acting assistant to the President for national security affairs. The President has not yet selected a replacement, but he will do so as soon as possible.

Secretary Shultz is remaining in his position as secretary of state. . . . The President will be appointing a small commission which will look into the procedures and role of the NSC staff and will make specific recommendations to him as far as the process for the future. . . .

Q: Who in the NSC was aware that this extra amount of money was being transferred to the so-called contras , or under their control? Did Adm. Poindexter specifically know who else knew, and did the CIA know? Was CIA Director (William J.) Casey aware of this?

A: The only person in the United States government that knew precisely about this, the only person, was Lt. Col. (Oliver L.) North. Adm. Poindexter did know that something of this nature was occurring, but he did not look into it further.

Q: What about CIA Director Casey?

A: CIA Director Casey, Secretary of State Shultz, Secretary of Defense (Caspar W.) Weinberger, myself, the other members of the NSC, none of us knew.

Q: You said Poindexter knew. Do you mean he approved of it?

A: No. Adm. Poindexter knew generally that something of this nature was happening. He did not know the details. . . .

Q: Did he try to stop it, sir?

A: He did not try to stop it.

Q: Let me ask you this: In the course of your investigation, did you satisfy yourself that you know exactly how many shipments of arms went from the United States or Israel to Iran, and exactly what they contained? There is quite a bit of controversy over that.

A: We are fairly sure that we know of the shipments of arms because we have some control. We know what was shipped out of DOD (Department of Defense) stocks. We only know at this time what the United States participated in. We don’t know of any other arms sales that may have been made, but we do know those the United States participated in.

Q: Have you established in your investigation whether anyone in the United States government gave a wink, a nod, an accord, or any kind of approval for shipments which Israel or any other third country may have made?

A: Well, all of the shipments in which the United States equipment was involved were made by, to Israel. . . .

Q: . . . Did what Col. North do, is that a crime? Will he be prosecuted?

A: We are presently looking into the legal aspects of it as to whether there is any criminality involved. We’re also looking precisely at his involvement and what he did so that the conclusions as to whether there was any criminal acts involved is still under inquiry by us.

Q: Isn’t it at this time likely and preferable from your point of view that a special prosecutor be appointed to examine these questions? You’re talking not only about the law about the Iranian transactions but the congressional strictures against the military aid to the contras. Isn’t it now time for a special prosecutor?

A: No. If we find that there is any criminality, which as yet there have been no conclusions, and if we find that anyone who is a covered person under the independent counsel act is involved, then that would be the time to request an independent counsel, as we would in any other matter.

Q: Is a grand jury to follow up--is a grand jury taking evidence on this?

A: No, there is no grand jury at the present time.

Q: The way it (the Iran policy) was carried out led to this diversion of funds by not including the other agencies?

A: It didn’t lead to the diversion of funds. The funds were transferred, and that’s one of the things that has disturbed me and disturbed the President. That was not an inherent part of anything to do with the policy itself. Instead, it was actually an aberration from the policy and from everything that had been described to the President and to the other members of the National Security Council. . . .

Q: . . . If Congress had been notified, don’t you think it would have been unlikely for this to happen?

A: No. I think exactly the same thing could well have happened because this was something that was unknown to any of the officials that gave authorization for this in the first place.

Q: Could you tell me what these funds were used for?

A: I don’t know. I don’t know that anyone does. They were just provided to the contras through this bank account and that was the end, so far as we know, of anyone in the United States government knowing anything about what happened to them.

Q: How did you discover it, Mr. Attorney General?

A: . . . In the course of a review of documents, we came across a reference to the possibility of differences in amount between the funds being paid by Iran and the amount of the actual weapons--that was one thing.

And, secondly, there were some references to this in one particular document that we found. While it didn’t reveal the whole situation, we then used that as the basis for proceeding further and discussing with one of the participants what this all meant, and that’s how this was discovered. . . .

Q: . . . The public reports and what the White House has suggested that only $12 million total was spent for these (arms). What’s the total cost of these arms?

A: The difference is--it was $12-million worth--approximately--worth of arms that was transferred from DOD (Department of Defense) stocks.

Q: Is that how the Israelis sold them for $10 million to $30 million more than that?

A: That’s the best of our understanding at the present time.

Q: Did you know they were selling them at a premium?

A: No one at a command level in the United States government did. No.

Q: . . . Given the funding that’s been approved, why was it that someone in the White House felt it necessary to funnel this extra money to the contras?

A: Well, I don’t know precisely--except that this was all done during a period when the funding was not being provided by the Congress. This was all done prior to the first of this fiscal year, when funding was resumed. So, it was at a time when no funds were being provided by the United States government.

Q: Is this definitely in violation of the law, then?

A: That’s something we’re looking at at the present time because it depends on two things: precisely what was done and precisely who did it, in terms of what people who are United States officials or United States citizens actually participated, and what their conduct was. That’s what we’re still looking at. . . .

Q: Did he (Poindexter) quit, or was he fired?

A: Adm. Poindexter resigned--or actually requested reassignment to the Navy of his own accord before anyone ever raised any question about this. . . . He discussed it with me, yesterday. . . .

Q: That was after the information had come out about this diversion of funds to the contras, yes?

A: . . . It had not become public at that time.

Q: But you knew about it, correct?

A: This is correct. However, I was led to believe that he had already planned to resign prior to his conversation with me, and he actually told the President this morning. . . .

Q: Would you please clarify the whole question of the President condoning a third-party shipment prior to signing this order--this intelligence finding in January. Exactly what did the President know, and when did he know it? Who told him (what) the details were, in terms of Israel shipping arms to Iran, apart from this additional question of shipping arms to the contras?

A: This still being looked into. The President did not have full details of all of the aspects of transactions that took place prior to the finding. There were--there was at least one transaction that we know about in which Israel shipped weapons without any authorization from the United States. There was another transaction of a similar nature, although there was probably knowledge on the part of people in the United States about it. . . .

Q: When was that?

A: . . . There was a transaction, one transaction in late August or September, and there was another transaction in November (of 1985). . . . Both of those transactions took place between Israel and Iran, (and) did not involve, at the time, the United States. . . .

Q: What details did he (the President) have about those transactions, and when did he have them?

A: This is one of the things we’re recollecting now. The President was informed generally that there had been an Israeli shipment of weapons to Iran sometime during the late summer, early fall of 1985, and then he later learned, in February of 1986, details about another shipment that had taken place in November of ‘85, which had actually been returned to Israel in February of ’86.

Q: If he really didn’t know, why did he call (then-Israeli Prime Minister) Shimon Peres to thank him right after (hostage Rev.) Benjamin Weir’s release (in September, 1985)? Why did he call the then Israeli prime minister to thank him for Israel’s help in sending that shipment of arms?

A: . . . I don’t know, because that’s something I have not discussed with the President specifically . . . but I think there was no question that the Israelis had been helpful in terms of their contacts with people in regard to Weir.

Q: Attorney General, Adm. Poindexter has told reporters that the President verbally authorized that shipment in September of 1985 from Israel to Iran. Does your information dispute that?

A: Our information is that the President knew about it probably after the fact and agreed with the general concept of continuing our discussions with the Israelis concerning these matters. That’s the information I have.

Q: But who had the authorization ability, if not the President?

A: To my knowledge, nobody authorized that particular shipment specifically.

Q: The Israelis did it on their own?

A: That’s my understanding, yes.

Q: Do you know the Israelis claim that they never did anything without the full knowledge, understanding and consent of the United States government?

A: That’s what (Defense Minister Yitzak) Rabin says. . . . (The August or September shipment) was, however, after the fact, at least, was condoned by the United States government. . . .

Q: Mr. Meese, how high did this go? In other words, do you believe, and are we being asked to believe, that a lieutenant colonel took this initiative and had these funds transferred, and that only Adm. Poindexter knew about it? How high did it go?

A: Well, what you have just said is an accurate picture of what we know at this time, and to the best of our knowledge, and we have checked this rather extensively. It did not go any higher than that.

Q: Mr. Meese, was Gen. (John K.) Singlaub or Gen. (Richard) Secord or anybody in that network--providing aid to the contras--were they involved in this?

A: Well, I can’t tell you because we have not completed our inquiry. . . .

Q: You’ve talked about giving us this information about the funds to Nicaragua. Congress specifically forbade you in the Boland Amendment from directing or providing support to the contras. Haven’t you, based strictly on the information you’ve given us today, violated the Boland Amendment, and hasn’t one of the President’s staff members overseen that?

A: This is something that we are looking into at the present time. . . .

Q: Mr. Meese, you say Adm. Poindexter is being reassigned. Should he be reassigned without any determination being made as to whether or not there has been any criminality involved here?

A: Well, he is a naval officer, a very distinguished naval officer. He has asked to be returned to the Navy, and the President has agreed to allow him to do that. . . .

Q: You’ve spoken of several instances where the President did not have information. Do you believe, or has the President expressed to you some concern that perhaps he needs to change some of his staff operations in order for him to receive more information and have more of a hands-on presidency?

A: It’s not a matter of having a hands-on presidency--it’s making sure that those people who are working for him are following the procedures. . . .

As far as what the President didn’t know, I mentioned only two times--one time where he knew nothing, which was the transfer of funds to the forces in Nicaragua. The other thing was where he didn’t have complete information at the time regarding the November transaction. And in the summer, the August situation in which he was informed of that, but after the fact. . . .

Q: What does this do to your credibility with Congress? I mean, how can your people now go down to Congress and look them in the eye when they passed a law opposing funds for the contras and your Administration, however it happened, wound up sending that money?

A: I think the same way you do when anybody in the Administration does something that is not correct. And that is you go down to Congress, and you tell them exactly what happened, which is what the President and what I did today. . . .

Q: Congress will undoubtedly require its own investigation on the theory that the Administration cannot properly investigate itself in this matter. Will you cooperate with a congressional investigation?

A: I don’t accept your premise that Congress will feel that we can’t investigate ourselves. We’re not investigating ourselves. We’re investigating certain people within the Administration. There’s no question whatsoever or no implication that anything that was done was Administration policy or directly by top Administration officials. However, the President has already directed . . . that he wanted all members of the government to cooperate fully with the Congress. . . .

Q: Sir . . . what did Col. North actually tell you? Why did he do it and where was the money deposited? Was it in one bank or several banks?

A: . . . The information we have at the present time is that it was done because this was during a period when Congress had not provided money to the contras; it was done during a time in which, it is my understanding, that provisions had been made by Congress to permit the United States to seek funding of the forces in Nicaragua from third countries. . . .

My understanding is that the bank accounts were in Switzerland . . . where normal deposits (were) made into accounts, into numbered accounts, and then this was withdrawn by the representatives of the forces in Nicaragua. . . .

Q: I would like to know what’s going to become of Lt. Col. North and if he’s going back to the Marine Corps.

A: Lt. Col. North has requested to return to the Marine Corps, and that has been accomplished. As a matter of fact, I think--my understanding is--I believe--that he has already indicated that he is retiring from the Marine Corps. . . .

Q: Are you going to require that that additional money that went to the contras go back to the U.S. government?

A: We have no control over that money. It was never United States funds, it was never the property of United States officials, so we have no control over that whatsoever. . . .

Q: Robert C. McFarlane, the former national security adviser who was deeply involved in this whole project, did he know about this diversion of funds to the contras?

A: Bud McFarlane knew about it. He was told about it in the middle of the year--April or May of 1986--at a time when he was no longer in government.

Q: So he was aware of this while it was going on?

A: That’s my understanding, yes.

Q: And possibly an illegal act, an illegal diversion of funds?

A: You’re coming to conclusions that we haven’t made yet.

Q: Do you expect further resignations or some other way for this Administration to establish its credibility and to show its Cabinet is functioning?

A: I think that the Administration has already demonstrated its credibility by the full disclosure of the facts. I think there’s no question the Cabinet is functioning right now . . . and I know of no other resignations that are either contemplated or requested. . . .

Q: In your inquiry, did you determine how much information the State Department has gotten--not in reference to contra money, but in the whole respect of this Iran connection, did--were they informed, or weren’t they?

A: Well, I think Mr. Shultz has said that he participated in certain meetings, and did get certain information, that he had opposed the concept of any transfer of arms, and that he was not involved nor was he informed about any of the implementing steps. And everything that I have found, including my discussions with Mr. Shultz himself, verify that that is essentially correct. . . .

Q: Can you explain a little more about how the pricing of these weapons took place? I mean, who it was who set the price for the Iranians, and how that occurred? Was it North? Was it the Israelis?

A: My understanding is that all of that took place in negotiations between people which we might call “loosely” representing Israel and people representing Iran. And so--that this was not done in the presence of, or with the participation of any American persons, to the best of our knowledge at this time. That’s one of the things that we’ll be looking into. . . .

Q: Was this Col. North’s idea? . . . If we bid up the amount of money the Iranians are paying, we can take that extra money and divert it to the contras? Did he come up with the original idea? Was it an Israeli idea? And a second question, sir--there have been allegations that Vice President (George) Bush was involved in supplying money or aiding the supply of money to the contras. Do you know whether or not he was aware of this project at all?

A: First, I don’t know precisely what the conversations were --who said what to who--when this thing first got started. Again, it’s a matter that is still under investigation. I do know that the President--that the vice president did not know about any of this until yesterday, when I informed him of essentially the same information I had given the President.

Q: How is it that so much of this can go on and the President not know it? He is the President of the United States. Why doesn’t he know?

A: Because somebody didn’t tell him, that’s why. And remember, we’re talking about three situations over a period of some six to eight months, and the people who were involved in the situation didn’t tell anybody, including the President. So, it’s common understanding why the President wouldn’t know, because no one in the chain of command was informed.