Parties Clash on Iran Probe Report : Republicans Oppose ‘Opinions’ on What Testimony Revealed

The writing of the official record of Congress’ Iran- contra investigation is producing as much partisan confrontation as the hearings themselves, members of the House and Senate investigating committees said Tuesday.

Members of both panels have had an opportunity in the last few days to submit their opinions of the initial drafts of the report, which is being written by committee staff in great secrecy and ultimately is expected to exceed 1,000 pages.

The Administration’s staunchest allies on the committees have angrily taken issue with the report’s analysis of the testimony presented during three months of hearings.

“Some people would say they are facts,” Sen. James A. McClure (R-Ida.) said. “Others would say they’re opinions.”

‘Moving Along’

Senate Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) said the arduous process of assembling the report is “moving along as we anticipated” and predicted that the committees would be able to publish it in late October.

Nevertheless, Inouye acknowledged that “it’s going to be controversial.”

The most crucial chapter--the summary of what the committees discovered during their seven-month investigation--already has been rewritten five times in the face of “complaints and suggestions about conclusions (reached in) earlier drafts,” he said.

Some of the harshest criticism is coming from House Republicans, who have indicated that they will put out their own dissenting version of the investigation’s results.

Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) complained that the draft that has been written by the Democrat-controlled staff looks like “a combination of an indictment and an op-ed (editorial) piece.”

“The House Republicans have about 200 pages of commentary on the report--those portions of it we have seen--that render it probably unacceptable in its present form,” Hyde said.

Sen. Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.), vice chairman of the Senate panel, predicted that the report would easily win approval from “a clear majority” of his committee. However, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) disagreed: “I think it is safe to say that there are major disagreements.”

Hatch and other members of the panels said agreeing on a set of recommendations is likely to present less of a problem than figuring out how to analyze and draw conclusions from the evidence that was collected.

One of the trickiest jobs the committees must confront is sorting out the many contradictions in the testimony they received from scores of witnesses.

“You can’t base your conclusions on just rumors and allegations,” Inouye said.

Complicating the task of finding the truth is the fact that hundreds of possibly crucial documents were destroyed shortly before the scandal exploded last November, he said.

Another important gap in the committee’s knowledge--and one that is never likely to be filled--is the role played by former CIA Director William J. Casey, a confidant of President Reagan who died in May of pneumonia after surgery for brain cancer.

Lt. Col. Oliver L. North, who was fired from the National Security Council staff for his role in the scandal, testified that Casey knew of and even directed many of his possibly illegal activities.

North said Casey had encouraged him to divert profits from the Iran arms sales to the Nicaraguan rebels at a time when U.S. aid to the insurgents was illegal. But others who testified said they believed that Casey was unaware of the diversion.

Hyde complained that the report, in its current form, tends to cast those mysteries and contradictions “in their darkest light all the way through.”

“Any benefits of the doubt go against the Administration,” he said. “The style is polemic.”