The Negotiator Page 13

  By the time it was my turn to question him he was a national sensation. Acting on advice from my good friend Harold Pachios, a skillful Maine lawyer, I decided not to engage North on his false statements but to concentrate on an important principle. As Harold put it, “North said today that you guys should vote aid for the Contras for the love of God and country. That’s outrageous. It’s insulting. You can take that and turn it around. Not only can you do it, you have to do it.” That’s what I did. Other than my announcement eleven years later that a peace agreement had been reached in Northern Ireland, it was perhaps the most widely watched and publicized statement I ever made.

  You have talked here often eloquently about the need for a democratic outcome in Nicaragua. There’s no disagreement on that. There is disagreement over how best to achieve that objective. Many Americans agree with the President’s policy; many do not. Many patriotic Americans, strongly anti-communist, believe there’s a better way to contain the Sandinistas, to bring about a democratic outcome in Nicaragua and to bring peace to Central America.

  Many patriotic Americans are concerned that in the pursuit of democracy abroad we not compromise it in any way here at home. You and others have urged consistency in our policies, you have said repeatedly that if we are not consistent our allies and other nations will question our reliability. That is a real concern. But if it’s bad to change policies, it’s worse to have two different policies at the same time; one public policy and an opposite policy in private. It’s difficult to conceive of a greater inconsistency than that. It’s hard to imagine anything that would give our allies more cause to consider us unreliable than that we say one thing in public and secretly do the opposite. And that’s exactly what was done when arms were sold to Iran and arms were swapped for hostages.

  Now, you have talked a lot about patriotism and the love of our country. Most nations derive from a single tribe, a single race; they practice a single religion. Common racial, ethnic, and religious heritages are the glue of nationhood for many. The United States is different; we have all races, all religions, we have a limited common heritage. The glue of nationhood for us is the American ideal of individual liberty and equal justice. The rule of law is critical in our society. It’s the great equalizer, because in America everybody is equal before the law. We must never allow the end to justify the means where the law is concerned. However important and noble an objective, and surely democracy abroad is important and is noble, it cannot be achieved at the expense of the rule of law of our country. . . .

  Now, you have addressed several pleas to this committee, very eloquently. None more eloquent than last Friday when in response to a question by Representative Cheney you asked that Congress not cut off aid to the contras for the love of God and for the love of country. I now address a plea to you. Of all the qualities which the American people find compelling about you, none is more impressive than your obvious deep devotion to this country. Please remember that others share that devotion and recognize that it is possible for an American to disagree with you on aid to the contras and still love God and still love this country just as much as you do.

  Although He’s regularly asked to do so, God does not take sides in American politics. And in America, disagreement with the policies of the government is not evidence of lack of patriotism.

  I want to repeat that: In America, disagreement with the policies of the government is not evidence of lack of patriotism.

  Indeed, it is the very fact that Americans can criticize their government openly and without fear of reprisal that is the essence of our freedom, and that will keep us free.

  I have one final plea. Debate this issue forcefully and vigorously as you have and as you surely will, but, please, do it in a way that respects the patriotism and the motives of those who disagree with you, as you would have them respect yours.4

  The response was immediate and overwhelming. Before I finished speaking, every line in every one of my offices was busy. By the thousands they came in, first the telephone calls, then the telegrams, then the letters. Most were favorable. The unfavorable, although few in number, were intense in their hostility.

  I felt at ease. I don’t think I dented Ollie North’s image one bit. I’m sure the supportive comments to him far outnumbered those I received. But at least I got across a different point of view, one worth restating: although He is regularly asked to do so, God does not take sides in American politics, and in America disagreement with the policies of the government is not evidence of lack of patriotism.

  Lawrence Walsh, a former federal judge, was appointed independent counsel to investigate the Iran-Contra affair to determine whether any criminal action had occurred. Ultimately he brought criminal charges against fourteen participants.5 Eleven were convicted, either after trial or on pleas of guilty.6 On December 24, 1992, five years after the Committee had concluded its hearings, George H. W. Bush, now president, granted pardons to six defendants; four of them had previously been convicted,7 while two more were awaiting trial.8 In defense of these six pardons, Bush stated, “[The] common denominator of their motivation—whether their actions were right or wrong—was patriotism.” He criticized the years-long investigation run by Walsh as reflective of “what I believe is a profoundly troubling development in the political and legal climate of our country: the criminalization of policy differences.”9

  Walsh released a response: “[The] pardon[s] . . . undermine the principle that no man is above the law. It demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office—deliberately abusing the public trust without consequence.” He concluded, “The Iran-Contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed.”10

  Although Democrats were in the majority in both the Senate and the House, the Select Committee inquiry was conducted in a largely nonpartisan manner. Inouye insisted that the ranking Republican senator on the Committee, Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, be named and function as vice chairman instead of simply ranking minority member. This had significant implications: in Inouye’s absence, Rudman, not the Democratic senator next in seniority to Inouye, would chair the Committee. Senator Inouye and Representative Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who was the House chairman of the Committee, treated the Office of the President, and President Reagan personally, with careful consideration, even deference.11

  On March 4, 1987, in a nationally televised address, President Reagan said, “A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.”12 In the immediate aftermath of the Iran-Contra disclosures his approval rating fell sharply, from 67 to 46 percent. However, by the time he left office two years later, his rating had recovered to 64 percent.

  The Iran-Contra affair was complex and involved several strands, each in its own way dramatic, especially, in light of current events, the secret sale of missiles to Iran by the Reagan administration. Even as the president was saying publicly that he would not negotiate with terrorists to obtain the release of hostages, his aides were doing precisely that, in the end secretly sending missiles to Iran.

  But looking back twenty-five years later, my dominant impression of the affair is how thoroughly the process was permeated by false testimony. As a former U.S. attorney and federal district court judge, I am sadly familiar with the reality that the oath to tell the truth is not always honored. But the massive scale of false testimony in the Iran-Contra hearings exceeded anything of which I was previously aware. To his credit, Oliver North at least admitted that he lied. Many of the other participants made statements that in retrospect can only be described as deliberately false and misleading. There were many victims of Iran-Contra, but none more so than the Truth.

  DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

  In March 1987 Sally and I were divorced. It was uncontested, by mutual agreement. During the seven years of my service in the Senate we had drifted f
urther and further apart. In a sense, as I became more public she became more private, increasingly reluctant to participate in public events. We also had other differences that had nothing to do with politics. The concern we shared about the effect of divorce on Andrea no longer seemed relevant, as she was on the verge of graduating from college. Following the divorce Sally and I remained friendly and in regular communication. For several years thereafter we spent the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays together with Andrea, and I regularly visited her when in Maine. Her health gradually declined, and she passed away in October 2003.

  In July 1993 I received a telephone call from Andy Garcia Jr., an uncle of the prominent actor of the same name. We had met twenty years earlier in Key Biscayne, a beautiful island just outside of Miami. Andy was born in Tampa to immigrants from Cuba. When he was still a boy his family returned to Cuba, where he lived for several years before coming back to Florida for good. He became a lawyer and a professional tennis player. After he retired from active competition he became a tennis coach and teacher on Key Biscayne, and he ran a family produce business that operated throughout southern and central Florida. We met when I visited my sister and her husband, Eddie Atkins, at the home they bought on Key Biscayne in the early 1970s. I was in my forties and had just taken up tennis. Andy taught me the game and encouraged me to continue. I’ve been playing ever since.

  On the day he called I was at my desk in the majority leader’s office. After brief pleasantries he got to the point of his call: he asked that I meet with a delegation of Romanian officials, led by Ion Tiriac, a former professional tennis player, now a successful businessman in Bucharest. Tiriac had been trying for some time to get an appointment with me. Frustrated, he had called his friend Andy because he heard that Andy and I were friends. I asked why Tiriac wanted to see me. Andy wasn’t sure. “But,” he said, “Ion’s a good guy. I’m sure it’s important, so please give him a few minutes.” I agreed, and within a few days Tiriac brought a delegation of Romanian businessmen and officials to my office.

  After the death of the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and the overthrow of his communist government, the people of Romania were trying to create democratic institutions. Their economy, which had functioned poorly under Ceausescu, had declined further in the turbulence of revolutionary change. They wanted and needed better relations and increased trade with the United States and other Western countries. The first critical step was to gain Most Favored Nation trading status with us. The designation, which suggests preference, is a misnomer. As a member of the Soviet bloc Romania had been subject to trade restrictions. Most Favored Nation status meant only the removal of those restrictions and the establishment of normal commercial relations with the United States. But to achieve that status legislation had to be enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president. The Romanians told me that the president and the State Department supported the legislation, but it was tied up in the Senate, for reasons they could not determine. Could I help to move the legislation forward? I asked a member of my staff who had attended the meeting to look into the matter and report to me. She did so the next day. There was no problem with the legislation; it was supported by the administration and was unopposed in the Senate. It had been delayed simply because the Foreign Relations Committee staff was overloaded with this and other matters and had not yet had a chance to schedule and act on it. In view of my staff member’s inquiry the committee would move the bill; it wouldn’t take much time or effort.

  A few days later the bill was included in a long list of routine and noncontroversial matters that was approved by the Senate late in the evening, after most senators had gone home. Typically the majority and minority leaders (or occasionally their designees) stand in the well of the Senate and go through the approval process for such matters, all of which have been cleared by every member of the Senate. Then the leaders shut down the Senate and go home. It was very late when I left the Capitol building and stepped into a muggy Washington night. As I reached for the door handle of my waiting car I heard someone say my name. Surprised, I turned to see a group of the Romanians walking toward me. They had waited outside the Capitol to thank me. I was touched by the gesture and told them candidly that I really hadn’t done much, that it eventually would have been approved anyway. They didn’t believe me, or at least they pretended not to believe me, and the expressions of gratitude grew longer, louder, and more fulsome. Finally I told them I really had to go to bed, jumped into the backseat of the car, and sped off.

  The next day I received a phone call from Tiriac in which he again thanked me. He then said that Andy had told him that I played tennis. He offered to set up a match for me with Ilie Nastase, who was going to be in Washington the next week. Those who follow tennis know Nastase as a former professional tennis player from Romania, a colorful figure who was one of the most talented men ever to play the game. A doubles match was set up, and we played late in the evening, under lights. For a beginner like me it was a lot of fun to play with Nastase and others whose talents were far superior to mine. Ilie and I subsequently became friends. Afterward Tiriac, who watched but didn’t play in the match, asked if I would be interested in tickets to the U.S. Open tournament, which was scheduled to start in New York in a few weeks. I thanked him but declined his offer. He then gave me the phone number for the U.S. office of his company, which was based in Europe. The company served as a manager and business agent for professional players and also owned and operated tournaments in Europe.

  I had already arranged to go to the semifinals and finals of the Open and a few weeks later did so with a group of friends, one of whom was my brother Paul. After the semifinals on Saturday, as we were having dinner, one of my friends said that he’d gotten a phone call from an associate of his who, along with a companion, was in New York for the weekend and would like to go to the finals the next day. Did I know how they could get tickets? I told him I didn’t, this was my first Open and I didn’t know anyone here. The conversation moved on to other subjects. We were staying at different hotels, and as we parted after dinner, we agreed to meet the next morning for breakfast at my hotel.

  On the way down to breakfast I suddenly remembered my conversation with Tiriac. I had written the number he gave me in a small notebook I carried with me. I told my friend about it at breakfast. We agreed that the chances of getting tickets were slim since it was nine o’clock on a Sunday morning and the final match was just a few hours away, but he asked me to try anyway.

  I went back to my room and dialed the number. A woman answered. I explained why I was calling, and she said simply that she would see what could be done. Thirty minutes later there was a knock on the door, and a hotel clerk handed me an envelope with my name on it; inside were two tickets to that day’s final match. Attached to the tickets was the business card of Heather MacLachlan. I was amazed and impressed. My friend picked up the tickets and gave them to his friends. I never met them; to this day I don’t know who used those tickets. We then headed to the tournament to root for Pete Sampras, the young American who was playing in the finals.

  We arrived early at the stadium, where we met and had a pleasant chat with Nastase. He invited us to join him for lunch at one of the many private lounges that operate at major tennis tournaments. As we entered the lounge and walked toward a table, we encountered a tall, very attractive woman with long black hair. Ilie spoke to her in French, then turned to me and said, “This is Heather MacLachlan.” For the second time that day I was amazed and impressed. As we shook hands I thanked her for the speed and efficiency with which she’d arranged delivery of the tickets. She modestly said it was nothing, she was glad to be helpful. The lunch was pleasant, and Sampras easily defeated Cedric Pioline to win the Open for the second time. On the trip back to Washington my thoughts were not of Pete Sampras or tennis, or of the next day’s business at the Senate. I made a few phone calls and learned that Heather is a Canadian whose ancestors had emigrated from Scotland to Montreal. She was in her midt
hirties and had worked in professional tennis for several years, most of them in Paris and London. Now she was in New York, running the U.S. office of a European company. She was highly regarded, having been the first woman to represent a male professional player, and she directed several tournaments in Europe. The next day I sent her a thank-you note. We had dinner a week later. Within a month we were seeing each other regularly. A year and a half later we were married. We now have two teenage children. All thanks to Andy Garcia, Ion Tiriac, and Ilie Nastase, a Cuban American and two Romanians who introduced an American of Lebanese and Irish heritage to a Canadian of Scottish heritage. Life is both a mystery and a surprise. So much that we do, or don’t do, is the result of chance, the fickle dictator who rules and roils our lives.

  FRANK SINATRA’S THROAT

  Shortly after the election of 1984, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the majority leader, appointed me to serve as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. I served for two years, through the midterm elections of 1986. The purpose of the committee (both parties have such committees in both houses of Congress) is to help members of their party to get elected. Over my two years of service I recruited candidates, raised money for them, and campaigned across the country in their behalf. One of my earliest and best decisions was to appoint Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco as chair of our fundraising efforts, a task at which she excelled. She was so impressive that I urged her to consider a run for governor of California. She decided to run for the House of Representatives instead and eventually became the first female speaker of the House. Despite President Reagan’s popularity, the election went well for us. Eleven new Democratic senators were elected and we regained the majority. In gratitude Byrd appointed me to serve as deputy president pro tempore of the Senate, an entirely honorary position.