Questions about what role, if any, Robert Gates had in the Iran-contra affair aborted his nomination as CIA chief in 1987. Now he is up again for director of central intelligence, President Bush`s choice this time, and again the Iran-contra cloud hangs overhead.
In fact, the cloud just grew darker.
As a result, the Senate Intelligence Committee postponed Gates`
confirmation hearings, which were to have begun Monday. Committee members understandably want to explore relevant new developments in special prosecutor Lawrence E. Walsh`s long-running investigation of the scandal.
Gates was deputy head of the CIA in 1986 when it was revealed that funds from the illegal sale of arms to Iran were being funneled to the contras in Nicaragua. He has said he knew little about the operation run by National Security Council aide Oliver North.
Although Bush is irked by Gates` being left ”twisting out there,” as he told reporters Friday, the Intelligence Committee could not ignore fresh reasons to wonder whether Gates, now deputy national security adviser, was as ignorant of Iran-contra as he professes.
Chief among the reasons is the plea of Alan D. Fiers, who was in charge of CIA activities in Central America five years ago. He pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress and is cooperating with Walsh`s office. Fiers owned up to having told CIA superiors of the secret operation months before it became public. One of those superiors was Clair E. George, the deputy director of operations and Robert Gates` immediate subordinate at the time.
George is said to have been the official who ordered a taping system installed in CIA headquarters to keep a record of conversations with agents in the field. Prosecutor Walsh gained access to the taped conversations and used them to obtain the Fiers breakthrough.
The tapes are helping the special prosecutor delve into the question of a CIA coverup. This is a more promising course of action than Walsh`s attempts to save the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter, which court decisions have all but overturned.
Walsh ought to let go that futile endeavor and concentrate on this one, which is exceedingly worrisome. It raises ghosts of the 1970s, when ugly intelligence agency abuses came to light. Did the CIA abandon the lessons of those days and revert to old bad tricks?
Robert Gates, meanwhile, continues to enjoy the ”total confidence” of his patron, George Bush. Both men can afford to wait a while longer for the confirmation of a CIA chief.
It is conceivable that, as No. 2 to a close-to-the-vest player like the late CIA chief William Casey, Gates was kept in the dark about Iran-contra. But because he has been implicated anew, the prudent course is to dig further for answers.
