Timely Reminder of Iran-Contra Affair

It is February, 1987. Snow blankets the East Coast. The stock market boom continues. Richard Gephardt becomes the first Democrat to formally seek the presidency and Mario Cuomo becomes the first to announce he will not run.

And in the capital, a lone congressman tries to interest his colleagues in an intriguing proposition: George Bush should be investigated for his role in the Iran-Contra affair with an eye toward possible impeachment.

I interview the congressman, U.S. Rep. Bruce Morrison, a Democrat from Connecticut, who serves on the House Judiciary Committee. Morrison says he is going to write Committee Chairman Peter Rodino asking that an investigation be launched.

This is a full year before Bush’s role will become widely discussed in the 1988 presidential campaign. My column is printed and the reaction of the American public is incredible.

“As I recall there was no reaction,” Morrison said recently. “I believe it was like a tree falling in a forest with no one around.”

Well, yes, I admit that’s technically true. But now, all of us involved in that episode get to say the four most satisfying words in the English language:

We told you so.

Back in 1987, Morrison said: “The impeachment of George Bush must be explored. . . . The most recent period, in which the facts are still to be revealed, clearly implicates individuals in our government in continuing to assist, maintain and monitor a military supply operation for the Contras, when that was expressly forbidden by U.S. law.”

Yet, at Ollie North’s trial in April of this year, the defense submitted a 42-page “admission of facts” that revealed that George Bush flew to Honduras on March 16, 1985, and told the president of that country that the United States would increase military and economic aid if Honduras would continue to harbor and funnel military supplies to the Contras.

Bush recently said there was no “quid pro quo” in this deal and it was all perfectly legal.

But as Time magazine characterized the impact of the disclosure: “If the revelations had come during the campaign or earlier, his (Bush’s) candidacy might have been hurt. But now Administration officials believe that the public is weary of the Iran-Contra question and he can easily weather the storm.”

To which I say: Bruce Morrison tried to tell you guys, but you just didn’t want to listen.

When, a month after my column appeared, Morrison wrote a formal letter to Rodino asking for an impeachment investigation, it was not met with delight. Morrison was told such a letter should never have been written, such words should not have been put on paper and he should forget the whole thing.

No investigation of Bush was ever launched by the Judiciary Committee. “There was an explicit understanding that they wouldn’t go after Bush,” Morrison said. “Nobody wanted to take it seriously. My letter to the Judiciary Committee was just too hot to handle. But it’s never a good idea to shy away from the obvious questions that ought to be asked and answered.

“Now, we’re right back into it and this time these questions touch on a man who is not the vice president, but the President. We should have been able to know the answers before last November. Bush’s assigned role appears to be one of many attempts to evade the Boland Amendment. But who’s going to get him now?”

Just why Morrison couldn’t get any support in 1987 is instructive. First, his actions looked partisan (as if that were a dirty word in Washington) because Bush was the leading GOP contender for the presidency.

But, second, the Democrats wanted to keep Bush’s career alive and healthy. “I was told at the time that we don’t want to knock off George Bush because we’re going to beat him,” Morrison said.

And that’s what the Democrats thought in 1987. Beating Bush was going to be easy. George was the guy who had left no footprints. Mr. Resume. The Wimp. Gary Hart would make mincemeat out of the guy and even a stiff like Mike What’s-His-Name from Massachusetts couldn’t possibly lose to him.

Yuk-yuk.

Now, gingerly steps are being taken to more fully explore Bush’s role in the fiasco. Some lawmakers who served on the congressional Iran-Contra probe have asked Bush why the documents brought out at the North trial never surfaced during their investigation.

Which is still, of course, a long way from impeachment inquiries. But is there really something to impeach Bush for?

“The answer is: I’m not sure,” Morrison said.

Which is why you have inquiries. But is the impeachment of Bush a realistic possibility?

“Well,” Morrison said, “it would make Dan Quayle President.”

On second thought, let’s forget the whole thing.