Neither Statesmanship Nor Partisanship Seems To Trump A Beguiling Smile

By Sara Fritz, Managing Editor

(CQ, May 23) -- As former Republican Sen. Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire recalls in his memoir, titled "Combat," Congress reacted in predictably partisan fashion at the outset of the Iran-contra scandal in 1986.

Along with most members of his party, Rudman was overcome with "anger and disbelief" that a Republican president could have violated the law by selling arms to Iran and diverting the profits to the Nicaraguan rebels. At the same time, he says, "it was equally clear that the Democrats . . . would try to make the most of the scandal."

Twelve years later, the shoe is on the other foot. A Republican-led Congress is preparing to probe allegations that a Democratic president may have jeopardized national security by allowing sensitive high-technology exports to China in exchange for campaign contributions from Beijing and executives of its American partner in the development of a satellite program, Loral Space & Communications.

Of course, this case differs in many ways from Iran-contra, except that the charges involve a possible breach of the president's sworn duty to protect the security of the United States. The charges also have a ring of truth to them, if for no other reason than that they were uncovered by President Clinton's own Justice Department.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., already on the attack against Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky controversy, has responded to these new allegations as one might expect. While condemning Clinton for putting the nation at risk, he appointed a heavily partisan committee (five Republicans, three Democrats), headed by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., to investigate. In the Senate, Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., referred the matter to the Intelligence Committee, headed by Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala.

While Republicans are comparing this case to Iran-contra, the way they are approaching it bears no resemblance to the Iran-contra probe.

In 1986, the Democratic leadership created parallel select committees --one in the House, one in the Senate. Hawaii Democrat Daniel K. Inouye was chosen to head the Senate probe, and he named Rudman vice chairman -- giving him more sway than a ranking member would have. Rudman saw this as "a statesmanlike act" by Inouye.

"The Democrats, as the majority party, would have six members to the Republicans' five and would be free to dominate the hearing and set the agenda without us," Rudman later wrote. "But Inouye's goal was a bipartisanship that would lend credibility to our findings."

Indeed, when the Iran-contra hearings commenced in May 1987, a feeling of historical seriousness reverberated inside the marble walls of the Russell Building caucus room. Partisanship was muted in opening statements. The panel's counsel, Arthur Liman, a wire-haired New York Democrat whose legal expertise was admired on both sides of the aisle, kept his feet dry by tiptoeing carefully around puddles of partisan spillover. Most of the committee lawyers reported to Liman, not to the committee members.

In retrospect, some Democrats now feel their approach to the Iran-contra investigation was hopelessly naive. In no time, the notoriously gruff Rudman had eclipsed the low-key Inouye. And the designated villain, Lt. Col. Oliver L. North, the mastermind of U.S. support for the contras, was given just enough latitude to seduce the television audience with his gap-toothed grin and tales of patriotic derring-do.

Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh recalls in his memoir, "Firewall," that the nation was so overcome by Olliemania at that moment that tourists visiting Washington were posing for pictures next to a life-sized a cardboard cutout of the uniformed Marine. "Overnight," Walsh noted, "he became what Ronald Reagan had called him eight months before: a national hero."

This unexpected result of the Iran-contra hearings altered the conduct of congressional investigations, perhaps forever. Certainly, it was the last time a major congressional investigating committee tried so hard to rise above partisan politics. Under the GOP, the Whitewater committee led by Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato, R-N.Y., and the campaign fundraising investigation committees under Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., were torn apart by partisan hostility.

The rancor generated by these more recent Republican-led proceedings has so thoroughly poisoned the air between Congress and the White House that there is now no chance the Clinton-China investigation can recapture the bipartisan spirit that kept Democrats in check during the Iran-contra affair.

In fact, some Republicans privately see it as an opportunity for them finally to get revenge against the Democrats for their role in exposing Iran-contra. Cox, after all, worked as counsel to Reagan during that period.

Still, it is important to recognize that the Republicans' heavy-handed approach toward Clinton's alleged misdeeds so far has been no more successful in nailing the president than Inouye's weak-kneed "statesmanship." Bill Clinton's smile has proved every bit as appealing as Ollie's.

May 27, 1998

• Supporters Of Campaign Finance Overhaul Grow Wary As House GOP Leaders Signal A Summer Of Protracted Debate
• Gingrich To GOP Task Force: Better Managed Care Without Over-Regulation
• Opportunity For Democrats To Regain Majority Begins With New Mexico Election
• North Carolina Redistricting Plan Advances
• Neither Statesmanship Nor Partisanship Seems To Trump A Beguiling Smile