Reagan Issue Divides GOP at Iran Hearings : Conservatives, Moderates Split on Party Action if Possible New Evidence Ties President to Affair

As the Iran- contra hearings enter a new phase Tuesday, Republicans on the Senate and House investigating committees are deeply divided over how their party should react to any possible new evidence of President Reagan’s role in the scandal.

Conservatives, led by Illinois Rep. Henry J. Hyde, believe that Republicans must remain loyal to the President and his policies. In Hyde’s view, whatever wrongdoing occurred in Reagan’s name was the result of a well-intentioned policy to combat communism in Central America.

But moderates, such as Maine Sen. William S. Cohen, argue that the GOP should not appear to be condoning wrongdoing--even if it was motivated by good intentions.

“I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to defend the President,” Cohen said. “The worst consequence of these hearings would be if the Republicans were perceived as defending what happened.”

Republicans are particularly edgy about their position at this point in the inquiry because former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter is expected to provide the committees with new details of Reagan’s role in the scandal when he testifies in early July. Poindexter already has told his story to the committee staff in private.

Political Tensions Rise

Political tensions on the committees intensified last week after Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), chairman of the House panel, suggested that investigators still might uncover some new evidence that would lead to impeachment proceedings against Reagan. He was the first committee member to mention impeachment, which most members still view as a remote possibility.

Republicans were furious about Hamilton’s statement. “I’ve not seen anything that would contradict the President’s basic story,” insisted Rep. Dick Cheney (R-Wyo.).

But even before the Republicans on the committees could respond publicly to Hamilton, the President himself jumped into the fray--telling reporters that there “ain’t no smoking gun.” Reagan also criticized the committees for relying too heavily on hearsay.

Surprisingly, the President’s remarks did not sit well with his GOP supporters, who believe that Reagan should continue to express support for the investigation and leave it to his defenders in Congress to answer the daily charges. As Cheney put it: “The President ought to keep his cool, govern the country and let us conduct the investigation.”

From the outset of the hearings, however, Republicans have been unable to agree on a common strategy. House Republicans, along with Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), have faithfully defended the President, while most GOP senators--Cohen as well as Sens. Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire and Paul S. Trible Jr. of Virginia--have made a point of asking tough questions.

Seek to Involve Congress

The strategy of the President’s defenders has been to demonstrate how Congress contributed to the Iran-contra affair by cutting off direct U.S. military assistance to the Nicaraguan rebels.

“I view my role as bringing perspective into these proceedings,” said Hyde, the white-maned conservative whose witty pro-Reagan speeches have become a hallmark of the hearings. “If we are to understand what happened, we ought to understand why it happened.”

But moderate Republicans are not amused by Hyde’s speeches, and tempers have flared between the two GOP factions with increasing regularity. After a particularly bitter exchange recently, the normally mild-mannered Trible was so angry that he accused GOP conservatives of acting as “apologists” for the President.

“I think you can be a good Republican, a Reagan partisan and a supporter of the contra cause and still be offended by what you see here,” Trible said. “How could any friend of Ronald Reagan not be outraged by this?”

Sensitive to Impact

Trible is perhaps more sensitive than any other GOP committee member to the political impact of these hearings. While other Republicans are firmly entrenched, Trible is expected to stand for reelection against a formidable opponent, former Virginia Gov. Charles Robb.

Even Reagan’s staunchest supporters have become dispirited at times during the hearings, particularly when they hear evidence that top Reagan Administration officials frequently disregarded the expressed will of Congress.

“I deplore the entire scenario,” Hyde confessed in a recent interview. “I deplore the back-alley, back-channel privatization of foreign policy. It has, in effect, thrown raw meat to our adversaries, and it’s nothing short of a disaster.”

Conservatives were particularly disappointed last week when former White House aide Lt. Col. Oliver L. North appeared to be resisting a subpoena to testify before the committees under a limited grant of immunity. Hyde and other Republicans had previously extolled North as a true patriot.

Cheney publicly warned North that he must testify if he wants to maintain his image as a “pillar of patriotism.”

‘Unique Opportunity’

But conservatives still intend to persist in their defense of Reagan, even if damaging evidence develops over the next two months, because they see the hearings--in Hyde’s words--as “a unique opportunity to explain to the American people why the United States should be supporting the contras.”

Reagan supporters have been encouraged by the findings of Ben Wattenberg, a conservative analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, who contends that there has been a “small but measurable” shift in public opinion for the contras since the hearings began.

Democrats as well as Republicans acknowledge that many of the witnesses have been persuasive in their support of the rebels. Sen. Howell Heflin (D-Ala.), a supporter of contra aid, said that one of the most convincing witnesses was contra leader Adolfo Calero, who argued that his troops can succeed with some assistance from the United States.

‘Very Decent People’

Likewise, Cohen said that the witnesses have helped the contra cause because they have come across as “very decent people who seemed very high-minded in their cause.”

Nevertheless, there is no indication that the hearings have improved the chances for contra aid to be reauthorized by Congress later this year. On the contrary, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Senate panel, said in an interview that the hearings have had a “very significant negative impact” on congressional support for the Nicaraguan resistance.