THE IRAN-CONTRA HEARINGS : Democratic Statements: A Policy Kept Alive by a Junta

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

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye

. . . The story has now been told. Speaking for myself, I see it as a chilling story, a story of deceit and duplicity and the arrogant disregard of the rule of law. It is a story of withholding vital information from the American people, from the Congress, from the secretary of state, from the secretary of defense and, according to Adm. (John M.) Poindexter’s testimony, from the President himself.

It is also a story of a flawed policy kept alive by a secret White House junta, despite repeated warnings and signs of failure. . . . It is a story of the National Security Council staff becoming a dominant organ of foreign policy and shutting out those who disagreed with its views. It is a story of how a great nation betrayed the principles which have made it great and thereby became hostage to hostage takers. And sadly, once the unsound policies began to unravel, it became a story of a cover-up, of shredding and altering of the historical record, and of a “fall-guy” plan suitable for a grade B movie, not a great power. . . .

I believe these hearings will be remembered longest not for the facts they elicited but for the extraordinary and extraordinarily frightening views of government they exposed. Fortunately, our hearings were able to present another vision of government, one that is accountable to the people, a legitimate, not secret, government in which “trust is the coin of the realm,” as Secretary of State George Shultz said. This is the balanced government that our Founding Fathers contemplated in our Constitution.

In describing their motive for riding roughshod over the constitutional restraints built into our form of government, Adm. Poindexter (and) Lt. Col. (Oliver L.) North used almost the identical words. “This is a dangerous world,” they said. That, my fellow citizens, is an excuse for autocracy, not for policy because no times were more dangerous than when our country was born, when revolution was our midwife. . . .

History records that almost 200 years ago in September of 1787, as the Constitutional Convention was finishing its business, a bystander asked Benjamin Franklin: “Well, doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” And Dr. Franklin replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

By allowing the sunlight on this unseemly affair, and by showing what happens when foreign policy is conceived and executed by cabal and not by lawful consensus, we have tried to make our contribution by keeping it.

Rep. Lee H. Hamilton

. . . What we have heard, as many have suggested, has been depressing. But for me, at least, the process has been refreshing, and it’s been refreshing in two respects. First, I view these hearings and other investigations of these events, as an essential part of the self-cleansing process of our system of government. Because of them, we know better what happened and what mistakes were made. We can see more clearly what needs to be done to make our system work better. And as a result of these inquiries, the process of restoring our institutions is already well advanced.

Second, I believe these hearings have contributed not only to the public’s understanding of these events but also the public’s education on our Constitution and system of government. And this, too, strengthens government. . . .

These hearings have been about how the United States governs itself and particularly how it runs its foreign policy. For this inquiry, the key question now is how we make our system of government work better. . . .

Some believe that a decision-making process that calls for shared powers and public debate just will not work in a dangerous world. They argue that sometimes bypassing normal checks and balances . . . (is) necessary to protect our freedoms. They argue that the President and those who work for him must be given near-total power. Their views have been stated here with great force and eloquence. But these hearings make another point: Shortcuts in the democratic process and excessive secrecy in the conduct of government are a sure road to policy failure. These hearings show us that policies formed under democratic scrutiny are better and wiser than policies formed without it. . . .

In its joint report, the committee should focus on several areas. First, accountability. Greater accountability to elected officials and, ultimately, to the American people will require rigorous oversight by the Congress, more openness and less secrecy . . . use of appropriated funds rather than private or third-country donations to carry out policy, supervision and acceptance of responsibility up the chain of command and decision-making by elected officials rather than staff.

Second, intelligence analysis should be separated from policy formulation. Substantial testimony before these committees showed great confusion between intelligence and policy functions. . . . Intelligence should drive policy, not vice versa. . . . Third, the President and the Congress need to exhibit a greater sensitivity to their respective roles. The President is the pre-eminent foreign policy maker. Only he can make the hard decisions. The buck does not stop anywhere else. . . .

The Congress also needs to get its house in order. It must strengthen its ability to protect secrets. It must show a willingness to engage in consultation, avoid interference in day-to-day policy implementation and take its share of responsibility for shared decisions on tough issues. . . . Fourth, the Constitution and the rule of law work if we make them work. They are not self-executing. We must strengthen our allegiance to the concept that this is a nation of laws and of checks and balances. . . .