Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion 20140921

Has a new book, irancontra, which is based on an extraordinary amounts of research and documents and diaries and interviews with individuals with a truly a mountain of material and documents the tunnel think anyone else has ever systematically and seriously looked at a lesser prosecutor. In the end user butchers would not look as well as they should have permitted the picture that emerges out of changes are damaged artery in. I think it changes in a somewhat disturbing point too often the president and his aides to a correction first and worried whether it was proper later. Proper and legal later. At the heart of the scandal were to secret intelligence operations which is what the intelligence wants to focus on the spirit to one in Central America and one in the run. Shes to intelligence operations were never properly notified to the congress of the United States. Theyre for almost by definition they were in the door from the start, particularly the operations in nicaragua. The irancontra scandal had immense consequences. I think that it is safe to say that the march of folly and led to the air or in 2003 can be traced back in many ways worse the most disturbing part of this book is that the oversight system to which has already been alluded failed us. We did not cover site. Rihanna lot of hearings and articles in the press, but there was no real systematic effort to prevent future president s in the future or a house said from abusing power. Last but not least sadly all of this has haunting reminders today. The United States once again has hostages being held in the middle east by extreme islamists organizations which have demonstrated that theyre prepared to carry of horrific acts of brutality. Two presidencies were in many ways concerned by hostage issues. Unfortunately barack obama the psyche as one today. Ask you to turn off your cell phones now. The format will be simple. I will interview malcolm for about 40 minutes or so about the book using the product of a chair, and then i will open it up to you to ask any questions that i was not smart enough to think of. Let me start asking about where you place in in this order of the irancontra scandal . Thank you for having me. It is an honor to be your. Im so happy to be will talk about this book. Youre right. This picture of reagan is emblematic of our i think how he comes out of this affair. I see him fitting end up at the top. It is a complicated story which a lot of you will remember. There is not a lot of 20 somethings in the room. All of you will remember that the hearings were a long, drawnout process. Complicated because it affected two Different Countries three if you include israel. It involved a lot of policy issues and go lot of crazy, del well matters as the affair wound down and drank it down for years and years. Keeping on top of the issues is a challenge. And judging where reagan sets you have to sort of decide what exactly youre talking about in terms of irancontra, what the new, what he believed, what people told him, with things happened that were under his right or. It is a multilayer kind of story. But to put it as briefly as i can, i see reagan as being the driving force behind the scandal both elements of the scandal he was guided primarily by his concern for the hostages. He was awarded the knowledge to have been emotional and very moved by his meetings with the hostage family in 1985. This really drove him. For personal and political reasons, one of the great politicians of the 20th century touting the have political motivations. He was intent on finding a solution to the hostage crisis. On the contra side of things he was less aware of what was happening on the part of his staff and its from other agencies that there seems in my view there is no doubt that he provided the guidance and created the atmosphere in which people like norman macfarlane, nationalsecurity adviser in all the others took their inspiration and took their instruction. You remember the famous race back in the congressional hearings where mcfarlane said that in 1984 president reagan took him aside and said it is up to you to keep the contras together body and soul. In anticipation of very stringent restrictions on government aid to the contras that were about to take place, the infamous boland amendment it was as you look back at the record it was clear to everybody including reagan will was about to happen. This was seen as virtually complete shutdown official u. S. Assistance. Reagan was not about to let them go. He was emotional about the Freedom Fighters as he was about the hostages, and he was intent on finding ways to get around congressional prohibitions. Whether he understood everything that was to happen was legal or illegal, we can get into those details will but the basic point is that he was at the top of the pyramid and without him i dont think any of this would have happened. The heart of the affair was trading arms for hostages. Now, america has a long policy how do we end up negotiating with terrorists . And even worse, giving the weapons . This is part of a complex story within a story prefer estival, i just want to say that i was really surprised that a few days ago i did what i often do which is a scanned at times website and look at the minutes that they have, videos that they put together that are helpful to encapsulate particular issues. There was one of few days ago on hostage matters. And it advertised itself has showing some of the very rare instances where the u. S. Has broken with policy and is not negotiating for hostages. Nowhere did the phrase irancontra, and to play. For me not just because i have been buried in the subject, but that seems to me to have been the most egregious example of a violation of policy. A little reflection of our four many different aspects. As we well know it is not a simple thing. There are many causes in most cases. So several things have to come into play. One was as we already talked about, his emotional attachment. But early on in the administration which may come as a surprise, this question had come out about how to deal with it, and i can get into that in more detail, but the point right now is that mcfarlane did not come up with this idea by himself. He was not the first one to come up with the. There were others to come up with him. But Nothing Happened until mcfarlane was hit by an Israeli Foreign Ministry Official who was the director general of the foreign ministry. I remember his name. He approached mcfarland in the late spring of 1985 with a message from the Prime Minister to the effect that the israelis were willing to help the americans out in an area where they knew they wanted assistance, which was an understanding the new Islamic Republic of iraq. He wanted his early assistance. They have ideas about how to go about a. Nor, prius said that he got this idea from a couple of different coincidences. One was the appearance in his room of michael d. Michael levine who at the time was a consultant to the National Security council on terrorism issues, leftist socialist politics in europe. But dean had according to his account been told by an associate of his he does not name that the israelis had some ideas about how to approach a run. If so with his approval he went to israel and talked to prison a few others to get their sense of things, are there ways to get into too far behind the veil so this week. Some a was one part of what part his years of. The other part was coincidently before that two of the more dark and gloomy figures of this affair appeared on the scene through a couple of longtime friends and shimmer and and not eat. Everyone knows the billionaire, quite the flamboyant figure. This scoundrel of the affair, an arms dealer, a shady middleman with ties to his nose to it a lot of people thought it was the israelis. The israelis say no way. The people assumed it was not in intelligence. He clearly had ties with ronnie and people in the power structure. So they come, the father of the israeli aircraft industry. An arms dealer but someone who had been stationed under the shaw. Some threw that connection they raised this idea of maybe we can make some money because piranhas in the throes of its war which started september of 1980. If that war had not been going on and there would not have been this opening. So through this coincidence of events, the work with the appearance of these figures in one place and an external spark in the form of kimchi meeting mcfarlane and telling him that there may be possibilities. During the course of different conversations the subject comes up. No, by the way, maybe the best approach to showing your goodwill would be if you had were willing to offer some of your weapons that they need. Of course, we all remember that the military was based on america. They still had a lot of missiles, antiaircraft missiles, all kinds of high level equipment that have been managed to get out of different president s. This is the spark that he needs because he has been after this as an idea for a long time, not because he is interested in hostages. I believe he really did think that there was a strategic opening a and. In fact, he and wrote about the comparison between the possibility of with Henry Kissingers opening to china and everyone suggested that he thinks he is henry kissinger. I think he did think that there was a good possibility. Of course the robber was the most important country in the persian gulf for a lot of reasons. A lot of good reasons to try to see what was possible to achieve how it got into trading arms for hostages is, again, it comes down to reagan. He may have been told that this is a strategic possibility and that we should explore it will be in fact, he got support and an idea from another then secretary of state and secretary of defense who years afterwards and to this day will deny that they have a thought that this was any kind of a good idea. In fairness as a possible opening those two senior cabinet officers he essentially said it is okay by us. Go ahead and pursue this. In certain accounts. So when the summer of 85 reagan was in the house will of this point having surgery done and meets with mcfarlane and then discuss this ideal of a course of a couple of weeks ago. The discussion continues. It is unclear what he thinks that it eventually comes back. So then it is another story. How it goes from there. There is one other figure of this that has not been mentioned , the director of central intelligence, bill casey. His own agency is saying that we cannot trust these people. Very polygraph, not that polygraphs are the perfect instrument, but in this case he is polygraph repeatedly in the style is a catastrophic. A catastrophic fire. And yet despite his own professional advice he keeps pushing this is about. How do you explain his role in all of this given his unique relationships, it was reagans Campaign Manager of the 1980 campaign. The critical figure who helped it reagan elected. They are old friends. He wants him to be secretary of state. He was not given that job but took the cia directorship after he was promised that it would be a cabinet level posted he would have an influence in policy. No exaggeration to say that reagan came into office and casey hit the ground running and within a month or two he had a draft president ial finding authorizing covert action on reagans desk in the case of a jen and nicaragua and el salvador. Those in their way formed the groundwork for was to come. So if you remember what a wrong policy was in the Reagan Administration back in command if you do will give your goldstar because the short answer is there were lots of competing ideas. In fact, the Reagan Administration which is a little bit of a surprise to some people who remember how reagan swept into office and the Unifying Force that he seemed to be in terms of presenting a new ideology and a new approach to the u. S. Will of the war. Behind closed doors in the corridors of the white house and elsewhere from the testimony of people who experienced it, it was almost pandemonium. And both of these areas in particular. It was basically not to simplify it too much, three basic approaches. One was essentially to overthrow kalemie. And one cia official who has spoken about this said that theyre growing gap between 30 and 40 offers per year from various groups saying we can do this, get rid of these guys pantages give us the weapons, the wherewithal and we will do with. Taken with the particular idea and involved some relatives and an old style clandestine activity like setting of the Radio Station broadcasting and other kinds of activities that they could do to create, you know, uncertainty and hopefully dislodge the ayatollah. So from the ghetto he was pretty aggressive in terms of how he wanted to approach. Very quickly cover the other two in terms of the policy ideas, the second approach was essentially to contain heroin which gives you into a very scary issue, the u. S. Role in supporting Saddam Hussein and the air on a rock war. Their is a whole book about that that we have both been a part of a third approach was another kind of Old School Idea which sounds antiquated now but was critical at the time. As you remember, the antisoviet approach collectors of officials including the white house who believe that as reagan used a famously say, the source of all evil and its time to go to the source and mini to eradicate influence around the world. There were great fears at the time. Just invaded afghanistan. Was firmly believed by lot of people in washington and in europe as well as elsewhere that next on the list was drawn. We now know from soviet records that the invasion of afghanistan was essentially a defensive desperate gamble on the assumption that it was the United States about to go into afghanistan. We can talk about perceptions and misperceptions also. This notion of the soviet threat was critical. It was critical in caseys thinking and his ability to block their right chords. We have extraordinary National Security advisers to the United States going. I remember he is home for the bible. One of the big myths. As red. There was no viable. It is extraordinary to conceive the notion of baking a cake with you. I cannot recall another Diplomatic Mission with cake. Anyway, it turns out that the iranians think theyre going to meet, do not need, and it all comes out and we now have the investigations. How would you characterize how the rate administration approached the business of the investigation and particularly important issue of how to deflect the president from being at the center of this . Well, i hope we can go back and talk about some of those details of the chair. As for how they treated the investigation, that takes up a big chunk of this book and is a crucial part of leading me to the conclusion that i started out with about the role of the president but also of his top advisers and everyone else involved. There are virtually no heroes in this story unfortunately. It is not a happy story. Even somebody like George Shultz who was one of the few who repeatedly spoke out against this. There are a couple of documents that i will read from. Pretty dramatic. But even he fell prey to the Old Washington scandal have been of retreating into a shell and figuring out a way to try to minimize his exposure in a way that did not do him justice. I will just throw out the thought that this was another thing that was laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan. In his unwillingness or inability and it is probably of to consider their Collateral Damage and of the decisions that he made, one of those bits of damage was the effect that this had on all of the advisers and everyone who worked for him candid repeatedly say this is a dumb idea and an illegal and you have to stop it. Reagan refused. Hendon by a nefarious neerdowells. In the handwriting of people like warren burger, is very clear on that. What happens to them my belief was that at some point during the investigative process after the natural reaction of tightening your defenses and circling the wagons and so on there was a sense that they not only had to protect the president put themselves, especially the independent counsel. But in the course of doing both of those people like shultz and weinberger and mcclellan and cia folks and other people involved basically got the short end of the stick to put it mildly. Why . There were protecting their president s and policies and party and themselves. But there were basically thrown under the boss as a result. Not not really answering a question here, but there was a process that took place. Remember that scandal basically was exposed in three steps. First and early october 1986. Allegedly cutting off all military aid to wrigley or indirectly. One of the aircraft that have been organized with the general and some of the other folks from one of the supply aircraft crashed in a jungle of nicaragua who was shot down by 90 yearold kid he was stunned that he actually hit it. Raised his target. It crashed. One survivor. Drayman from an International Tv he bared his soul and said in been hired by the cia. Was an american operation. That led to an immediate scramble by those people involved, not just appalling north in the middle of a negotiation with the iranians, abrams of the state department, says the counterpart at the cia and others often immediately got to get it to try to minimize the effects. And the record now shares despite the testimony to the contrary that they all knew about the connections to that flight and to that resupply operation. And they did their best ticket the contras to take credit for it to get the general to tax our responsibility. He refused and had nothing to do with it. A real uproar, a quiet uproar if you well behind closed doors. The next event is well remembered, the lebanese news magazine gets a hold of the story that undoubtedly comes out of tehran in domestic politics. Somebody thought that the leaders are losing their taste for the war or dealing with americans, circulated a bunch of pamphlets advising the population of this. The story gets picked up and printed in a couple of different places, and that kids picked up right away. Of course that exposes an arms for hostages deal with reagan denied a first. It was to protect hostages lives. But what did not come out until long into the investigation was the fact that reagans close advisers were terrified of this was going to lead to his impeachment because the first stage of these shipments of which the public was only gradually learning bit by bit and little pieces, the first stage of the shipments were undoubtedly illegal. I hesitate because he can quickly get into the act gray area of the law which i am happy to do if you want. Of think you want to, but it gets into how one lawyer in the room. And i will probably learn something from them. But it was part of the motivating force that led the administration as a whole town this dark road to lying about what they did, covering of been doing all these things. So it is a sad tale with several different chapters to it. Were going to have to come time to come back to the details. Washington that we have today. If you remember Ronald Reagan had many aspects and on the one side was this jovial image of the kind of this chap that wants to bring america together and so on but remember he was a highly polarized figure as governor of california and as part of his campaign he wanted to draw a line between his type of thinking and those of the postvietnam watergate liberal who not only did he disagree with him virtually everything but who in a sense was responsible for the surge of congressional power grab and that is critical to understand what happened in the contra. For all of the feeling that congress and the branch were at war and the state made famously at one point he said that we were at war with congress on the contra policy. But for all of that, i think what was left unnoticed but some sense of come artery in the need of collaboration among moderate democrats there for more who were out for blood and assault this as their chance. Finally hes done something thats going to stick with them. But in addition to that, there was a never ending sense of self protection on capitol hill as well in the executive branch. The democratic leadership was held back on at least twopoint. It was 21 points, the worst drop in president ial history worse than nixon. He was a very popular guy and they were afraid to confront him too much. They also were very afraid of being seen as soft on communism. This is one of the most successful that reagan used when it came time for any kind of vote on the health there was always heightened rhetoric about who bowen stand with us or against us and our youth useful as buchanan used to say or are you going to stand up for American Values and the Freedom Fighters in the mold of the Founding Fathers had that kind of thing. There was no doubt about it. And the investigative phase when you look at how both parties chose was going to be part of the investigating teams, the democratic side is mostly moderate. Look at one or two people who could be considered not so moderate and several of them voted for the contra aid in the past. On the republican side it was basically attack dogs. There were even three republicans who basically sided with the majority. More enough New Hampshire and paul of virginia. They were treated as traitors by dick cheney, henry hyde, bill mccollum, orrin hatch and all of the other republicans because the republicans clearly come and they will acknowledge it they saw their job to defend president reagan. Someone like me who is pretty young at that stage watching these hearings i had to be schooled in the notion of the congressional investigation is about something of an other what actually happened. Well, guess what . I happen to believe the democrats by and large were trying to find out what happened. Things that dont make the opposition look good. But on the other hand if you go back and listen to those hearings, maybe not this day in age but back then it was stunning to see how much of the precious airtime was used up in undermining witnesses who are against reagan and supporting his policies. The attitudes really put them in the doghouse as far back it was a shocking even at the time to go back and look at it again maybe even more so to see in the lead up to the north testimony on capitol hill in july of 87 after two months of hearings, the democrats actually did a decent job of constructing an image of how the administration had behaved and the proof of that was in the statement that several republicans included, several members of congress made in the lead up to the presentation both to the media and at the hearings themselves. Calling him a responsible, road and just how did he get his job. In comes north and in the course of a week, completely spends the entire room around the Senate Caucus room and the house room and wins over millions of fans among the american viewers. The fan clubs get started, haircuts are given, the chief counsel for the senate is distraught when he comes in at one time to see during a break in the proceedings that members of the capitol hill use force are having their picture taken and it is just a shambles and the same congressman afterwards turn around and its like night and day and its shameful. So much of this figure is typical of what you see under ordinary circumstances. One of the points of this is that its not an aberration that a lot of people think it is. And why . Because of the same institutions that have been in place for all of these years and at the same principles apply and how they conduct themselves and congress as a Political Animal and they are always going to act this way. It is a part of that injury and part of the warming. Im going to go to the audience after one more question but i just want to state i think thats what you just heard is one of the great things in reading this book. It looks like its not beach reading that it is because it is the mystery and puzzle and malcolm does a very fantastic job of walking you through this mystery and puzzle. You mentioned dick cheney is a small figure in this that he will draw important lessons from this. Can you elaborate a little bit on what his role is and more importantly, what dick cheney took as the take away from the iran contra scandal. I have. I have many documents i could show visual aid that one of them i will show you right now is right on point. Its a document actually from the beginning of the Reagan Administration in fact before the administration. Its november, 1980 just before the inoculation that after the election. These are a set of notes by james baker who became treasury secretary leader. Its the notes of his meeting with dick cheney. Why . Because baker is going to be chief of staff. Cheney was the chief of staff to gerald ford said he wants to get some pointers from this kind and one of the things that cheney says lets see, i cant read his writing anymore. Presidency, basically the point is the president standing has been weakened in recent years. Restore power and authority to the executive branch needs strong leadership. That is a quote from cheney. Then in the margins, baker has six stars next to that and says the central theme in the presidency. So, we see that cheney has had certain pieces of that for quite a long time. He carries the use views into the iran contra. Hes a member of the House Republican investigating committee. He feels a little bit insulted by the way because of the senator in a way on the senate side has seen fit to name warren as the vicechairman of the caddy. Vice chairman of the committee. Lee hamilton by all accounts offer it refuses to name him the vice chair. It sets off a kind of running conflict. Throughout the conflicts, he makes the point repeatedly that the problem is not the president , the problem is congress. Congress overstepped its bounds in the 1970s, tried to take over the president ial power and it was unconscionable and unconstitutional. It is the cause of a whole lot of Serious Problems for the american way of doing politics. He repeats this in the minority report at the end of the congressional hearings and that report gains new life years later when cheney reminds people who are just was i think in 2005, said he has been in office as the Vice President at this point for four years and people are still trying to figure out where does this guy come from and what does he think about all this stuff and he points out to the press on i think air force one at this point he says if you want to know what i think and what the issues are about president ial power, go back to the little known manuscript that we put together back in the 80s and that will give you a roadmap, and it does. Its a very powerful message about how the real problems are not excesses in the president ial power, abuses of power. Its abuses by congress. He and i think that explains a lot about the actions he and president bush took. Please identify yourself and please give a question, not a lecture. Thats my job. [laughter] thanks very much. Barbara from the atlantic council. I wanted to focus on the iran policy aspect of this which i did in the review that i wrote a week or so ago and still i find it stunning how people in the government can take x. And y. And put them together and get see, im not sure. You have documents that show people are giving that selling arms to iran also help promote people in the government who want to overthrow the government and at the same time the same people are expected to get american hostages free. How in gods name can you reconcile these two things and how ignorant were officials in the u. S. Government about iran . And they were very ignorant, as you know, and one expression of that was they acknowledged it, too. Its why the dean went to paris and why the idea had some traction with a lot of people who thought about these issues and people at the cia and other people. They were not after the hostages alone. There were people who seriously wanted to see improvement. As i mentioned earlier in the early part of the administration this idea surfaced more than once about getting back into better relations with iran and even using weapons to do that. This came up in 1982 and in 1983 again there and there are materials that relate to that. So there was a wide recognition that we didnt really know what was going on and a reflection of that is the weight was given to that was given to the document that was put together by none other than [inaudible] about the internal power structures inside of iran. I will say as somebody who has had something to do with iran as a subject of study in the last ten, 15 years. When you look at the document it is and that is completely off the mark. There is interesting stuff in there. But where is right and where its from may seem subtle to someone who doesnt know a lot about the subject which very few of these guys did back then, but those differences make a huge difference overall. So they understood their ignorance when they saw this kind of analysis they thought wow this is fantastic. And the dean is quoted as saying this is the real deal. This is a breakthrough. Given where they were, you have to say its kind of a breakthrough in that they found somebody as distasteful as bruce said he failed a polygraphs constantly. They wanted nothing to do with him at one point. They said that out of the 15 questions he failed 13 of them and one of them was his name. [laughter] but the fact was he was able to establish contacts with no less than an assistant to the minister of iran at the time who we all know this kind of changed his stripes and came out as one of the moderate candidates in the 2009 elections. Back then he was one of the hardliners and was very hardliners and was very interested in getting weapons for the war. You have to kind of disconnect that we were talking about. How is it that you dont know that even though they are telling you you are going to be dealing with moderates and they will help you unseat this regime very soon after they see that they are dealing with somebody like this and people who are selfprofessed members of the revolutionary guards and so on and they are told repeatedly over the course of the year and a half of the people that they are meeting with include some of the hardline factions of moderate and hardline and so on. Pretty simplistic. Too simplistic to be really helpful alternately. Yet they refuse to see what was right in front of them. And there was even the point after they finally got tired of him and of the failure of the initiative in tehran in may of 86, they decide lets ditch this guy and they look for the second channel. And it leads them to the nephew. He turns out to be the secret moderate, if you will, at least a guy that has demonstrated an interest in trying to have a better relationship with the United States. For what reasons . Im sure plenty of reasons that he had given signals as early as june when there hijacking took place wednesday and was executed and thrown onto the tarmac in a very ugly scene. He personally interceded it helped resolve the crisis. And that i was able to establish registered with people like George Schultz and others and mcfarlane that this was something that probably helped them think maybe Something Like this could pan out. But even when they got to his nephew as it happens, and they felt that they were reaching finally the centers of power really responsible officials in iran, what is a vital way as the commander of the air Defense Forces in iran they never met with him but he was evidently part of it and he was named. They felt okay we have a breakthrough and we are getting to the right people. While it doesnt take long before the nephew tells them good news. This has reached the point that our side is going to form a commission to deal with this site and the americans on the longer term. They said great. Whos on the commission . Half of them are the same people they dont before. Its the same revolutionary guards that were the head of intelligence that were still around by the way. He was considered so, such a negative force that the name they gave him was the monster. The engine because he was driving things at such a bad guy. He was named to the commission that is going to deal with these situations. Time and again, they are hit in the face with the fact of who they are dealing with, that they had ever stopped them from this misguided adventure. How could they believe they could get the hostages [inaudible] they probably would see the proof is in the pudding. They did get three hostages out. There was a long and arduous and frustrating episode, but they did get three hostages out. So they clearly have some kind of contact with people who had influence. Now, there was constant frustration on the american side because they were always being told you will get all of the hostages out. The next shipment, promise. But it never happened. And thats part of why the trip was a bust because they finally said no we are not going to take this anymore. But there was enough of the teams that they were willing to go along with it. And nevermind that three more house just for taken in the operation but its a mystery to some extent. Do you think that these u. S. Arms to iran have tangible or measurable effects . That is a good question and i know you are an expert on that war. The official word from the administration was that this was a miniscule amount. One of the speeches that could easily fit into the cargo bay of the single aircraft. Ollie north acknowledges that he was tasked to go find a plain big enough to make real and of course it could fit in Northern Virginia and thats okay. So there line is these really have no effect whatsoever. When you go back and talk to the iranians and even some american officials, the acknowledged the belief that in fact it did have some effect. And ive talked to several iranians who were in the war at some of these battles in early 1987 and he had done his own interviews with revolutionary guard commanders and so on into their belief is that it did have an effect. That it helped against the tank counterattacks at that operation and there is the view of the highlevel official that said he was pretty sure that what they were getting not just from other countries as well, but those kind of weapons did have an effect on the iraqi attacks or their willingness or readiness to attack the iranian cities. I dont know how you nailed that down to be sure was that those missiles that actually had the effect or was it Something Else . But there is evidence to that effect and of course the iraqis do not know and believe the same thing because Saddam Hussein and some of his officials, their papers were taken by American Forces when they occupied the place in 2003 and some of them are now available and theyve been studied and produced. Youve probably been there to the place ive listened to some of the tapes of Saddam Hussein talking to the advisers and read some of the transcripts. And of course there is a whole other chapter of the story what was their reaction when the affair became public . Of course they were shocked. To some degree, they were shocked. Saddam hussein claims he wasnt really shocked and he knew data they were untrustworthy they did they were untrustworthy americans. Not surprisingly, they also believed that the weapons had an effect. We will take one from further in the back, all the way back there. Thank you. [inaudible] i was in the state department at the time this was all happening. I wonder if you could kind of set the scene for what led to this. Im glad that an earlier speaker mentioned the hostages in lebanon. You know, we have the history of the civil war in lebanon and the hostages. I wonder if you can set the scene to kind of the pressure this was putting on the white house with the number of hostages and executions of hostages. Help us understand what was the essential driver on all of this. They were absolutely at the heart of this as you know and there was great pressure. As i said earlier, there was personal and political pressure. I dont doubt for a second that Ronald Reagans genuine desire to see them come home. As bruce would be able to tell you much better than i did from the readings and interviews that ive done, well i mean its clear to everybody that counterterrorism and prevention of hostagetaking was a huge focus for the Reagan Administration and a builtup infrastructure to an extraordinary degree and they had a lot of successes. Charles allen will tell you that other than this kind of clip, there was a lot to be proud of and in his work and in the Reagan Administration. So, hostages were central as one cia guy decided in addition to the personal side Ronald Reagan was acutely aware of the Yellow Ribbon phenomenon. We all rendered during the iran hostage takeover of the embassy of 1979 and produced tens of thousands of Yellow Ribbons over the United States. There is no question that reagan was determined not to see that phenomenon happen again. There was also a particular concern in a few personal instances, and the main one being the face of the cia officer buckland who was tragically reassigned to beirut very shortly after he had left, and apparently this had violated the trade craft by putting them in danger every locating him there so soon after he had departed and sure enough he was off early in 1984. When this started there was one hostage and 82 and another one i think in 83 that an 84 is really where the next phase starts and he was of most concern to bill casey and others and of course we know that he was tortured and he died and reportedly produced some of a 400 page transcript of his agonized discussions with these people who took them. That created huge pressure for the Intelligence Committee as well as for the president. And in fact, the hope is that buckley would be the first released. Thats what mcfarland wanted from the first of august, 1985 shipment of the missiles. Nobody came out and buckley of course never did. Since kc since buckley to beirut, he felt personal as well as personal responsibility. I write the mitchell report and i also want to say that i did get the memo does my art files were at the laundry. [laughter] we would we would have to appear otherwise. [laughter] there is one name that hasnt come out yet and im interested to know where is george h. W. Bush and all of this and what does that tell us about the pardons . Excellent question. George h. W. Bush and my reading of it was making sure that he left no footprints in the sand wherever he went. If i can find the document here. He, as you remember, came under a lot of scrutiny when he was running for president to succeed Ronald Reagan in 1988 and his whole story was i didnt know anything. I was out of the loop. I wasnt in the cockpit, it was a difficult line for him to trade because he was trying to show himself simultaneously and conveniently offstage when trouble hit. It turns out that bush left a diary of sorts that wasnt known until late in the investigation. This was the whole other aspect indigos to answer the question about what was the reaction to the investigation . Sad to say for the reaction of several key officials was to take the personal notes and hide them and withhold them from the independent counsel who was treated as the double play a lot of them. There is controversy over whether the material is available at the library of congress and so on but the point is that its very clear at least to me that you guys knew exactly what they were doing and they withheld at this stuff deliberately this stuff deliberately in order to protect themselves. But bush was no example. Not example. And this is a page from his its called the bush by erie. He started kicking at november 41986. The day after the deal became known. But he did allegedly for his own purposes to record his upcoming campaign. And he would dictate onto a tape and a secretary would transcribe it. So, the very second day of his new bees came through the independent counsel who eventually recovered the notes and diaries of weinberger and Donald Reagan and one or two others who never kept notes and didnt have anything of the sort. It is in just shelled san bush but talking old my god what is happening here . Late november 86 when trouble hits the fan and then he comes back to say this is another watergate they are lying. Who does he think he is kidding . He was there in the room. And to his credit he confronts them. That you have to watch out we were doing because you tread of 59 and you know, you have to be careful what you said. Bush said i am very careful. Then shultz says you may thank you are right but technically you cannot be right to. Very strong stuff also on the contra side not just the arians i. Iran side. With the attempt with those who were busy but of the higher ups with the it tends to get foreign governments without whole legal questions about this as the quid pro quo waucm3c the question whether or not it is legal. But you can have a conversation with the head of state like they did before he and end the conversation with the leader who said we can help you out that is o. K. But what happened is officials going to the guys in honduras and say to them buoyantly we need your help. Get the weapons shipment through whenever the situation is. Bushes on the record to having made that approach and in each case the head of state or the official is on paper saying but even the king found the gesture but just recently found a document with the National Security planning group. Discuss saying of the escalation of conflict in the persian gulf. But is in 84 and 85 that they will give a lot of money to the contras. And mr. Mcfarlane and i tell him but then he says i will double it. Shortly after that happens there is a meeting of its starts off with John Poindexter saying we have an urgent request to help in these various ways it is time to step up to do something. With that genius to add to and jews together. That was the case even more explicitly in where bush is committed to cut the same deal. You also described in the book pitcher in the Vice President and is raising and you alluded to this before but as i read the scandal the idea of arms to hostages. But never would have stood in washington without the israelis this book is now really Foreign Policy but i would do characterize to move the United States in this direction . One of the most respected figures that they had. No question they play the key role. Not only as a said earlier but doing courage it. It was not just completely one side because there were others that were uncomfortable and george bush was another who were skittish about too much of the israeli role and one of schulzs criticisms with his discussions with charlie hill was when we do this kind of thing and opens the door for israel and the past history that immediately after the revolution of israel to iran to fight disapproval. I talk about this to some extent and even those early on with the same argument that you end with some of those moderates. But has you have a shred of legitimacy to the notion with the arguments that one of the best kept relationships with the old regime they claim we still have friends we think that they could be helpful. One of the interesting things to me is the personal side. For the one government to hone in on the also the interplay of the personality he is reagans twin in a sense. As the creasy out of the box by of a guy who has the the it is your grant he is willing to go out of the box he has an arrangement with the leaders although they dont necessarily like each other. But their chance will come so they allow some things to go forward and arm the operational level there is said counterterrorism advisory with a timely death activist event. He was the maverick no real experience lifelong friends hated by that aside reportedly inez people cozy up and have a lot. Then they were done all kinds of secrets operations but all kinds of whack gauges. Since you spent so much time i would be interested to know not just america but the human population . Way into the history with the spanish to take a vintage of. Advantage of or how we move forward as a human culture. Inevitably if the money is misspent and the local populations into you have any thoughts about that . Mitt is not a policy or a psychology book but you cannot help such to be an expert all i can do is throw out some general reactions. But those are you need to have people in office who take their responsibilities seriously. We need to do more to hold themoc accountable with their arguments that we face in a crisis because there is always a crisis. And to be how where how this happens. And up to the officials themselves in the deep regrets with this whole scandal of letting these guys get away with it. And the ones who work so hard to minimize the responsibility to justify the actions with the evidence seems so start in the other direction talking about those travelers checks and took liberties but also i believe it could not have any other effect other than their does not need to be a higher standard. This is why with thev[ trial the jury can amount. Just the regular guy at work. We dont why every opportunity to the counterparts or to congress but i just got the sense that the time with the ethical responsibility after this episode. I am from Foreign Policy magazine i wrote a book which was great but i have two questions. I dont think i heard you say maybe you do in the book where you come down whether reagan knew about the diversion that links the iran and contra together . And the obama mitt administration now grappling with the issue has a lot of gray area for ransom is being paid. What lists lessons should they be drawing and what to avoid . n so the watergate question of their ran irancontra scandal with that essentials question. Several of us agree it was of a clever idea of ed meese to go down the wrong pratt the wrong path because in the course of the investigation said damage control operation to find out what this diversion was all about. When north says devil take 12 million. I will take 12 million. His first question is will it cover that . Why . No reason. The cover letter said the president has seen its. It is an important question because it identifies virtually everybody that has the bully in the illegal act. It does deflect from the other key issues that were in play. When neece was able to figure out the president could tonight that it was safe to go in front of the public to say these diversion what a terrible thing were on top of it we fired the guy. We will look into this some more but it was the realization that he could send shipments to tehran without any of that legal groundwork that was necessary. And he says himself it is a violation. He says the president knew about it but schulz in the same conversation says no. I just talked to the president. It is a blatant coverup they have the couple of meetings with a high level people. Ok. Here is what happens. And here they go. And as far as what reagan did know , than with those investigators have cannot believe that reagan did not know about it. With important subjects for him. But did nothing thanx to try to get hostages at every meeting that you had. To talk about where the hostages are the same with the contras. Reagan just opt asking questions. The other half says poindexter that he was so arrogant that he saw that fully within his responsibility what he said during the hearing. But i found him completely fascinating and i started to lean in the direction maybe he is telling the truth. But i never told the president on the other hand, and he knew what oliver north was doing. Stood to be conducting covert operations. If reagan knew about that it is the law of the land. Imagine obama in that situation. L÷ how long would that last . If poindexter is willing to it mitt to all that. Then it is not true in poindexters much more loyal they used the hearings a smart lawyer said you were going on trial so we will give you immunity for anything that you say. Poindexter did not go that way. But poindexter was in that position. Said that give some credibility. We tavis reached the witching hour. Maybe i can deflected a little better. But my sense over the years in slowly slowly learning a lesson and is not 100 percent clear by people like their retiree from thehh h cia and others that firmly believe some iranians wanted more than weapons. And the scandal from this. And they had outcomes of this. In the h decided they each decided but lets do this directly. They cannot be trusted so what was made possible to theql iranians directly it blows up in the face because of who they address it to. As a Supreme Leader why obama has not figured that out . There are these pieces of evidence that are gradually picking up. So with hostages by pity the people who tries to work this stuff out because digging through these weird operations there is a lot of material of those going to the length to create these organizations. So there is the huge amount of effort how to get these guys out. It all came down to these people right now. And i think now isis is evolving its even though reagan was terrified with those hostages would be executed but that creates another memo from one of the meetings of the isis side people would be surprised. editor of Scientific American magazine. This week caleb and his latest book the copernicus complex. The director of Columbia University explores centuries of research about life on earth. The current debate about how it began and the question of whether humanity truly is unique in the universe. This program is about one hour. Host hello. Its wonderful to have you here today. I found your book fascinating. One of the great things is i get to ask you about some big question that most people wouldnt dare to answer and that is the fun of the book. So the book is called the copernicus complex. Maybe you can tell us what that is. Guest the copernicus complex is trying to capture one of the aspects about the biggest question that we as a species can ask and sometimes we ask it bonsai into the clear that the book is about the scientific question of whether or not we are alone in the universe. It refers to a complex how we feel about ourselves and the complex that we