Hearken to the delighted squawks of the Republicans about the Rich pardon
and about the vindication of their charge that Clinton is morally beyond the
pale, the worst of the worst. Who do they think they're kidding? Corruption
of the presidential power to pardon? Let's just take another look at those
pardons issued by George Bush Sr. at the onset and conclusion of his
presidential term.
In 1989, President Bush used his power to pardon a longtime Soviet spy who
had been prudent enough to offer $1.3 million to Ronald Reagan's
presidential library, plus a $110,000 disbursement to the Republican
National Committee (RNC), this latter bribe being made in the week of Bush's
inauguration. The pardon duly came a few months later, on Aug. 14, 1989.
The spy was Armand Hammer, whose successful maneuvers for his pardon are
hilariously described in Edward Jay Epstein's brilliant 1996 book on Hammer,
"Dossier." Epstein describes how Hammer had bizarrely hoped he would be in
line for a Nobel Peace prize for his efforts to foster U.S.-Soviet
understanding. To this end he lobbied both Prince Charles and the then
Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, who duly nominated him for the Peace
prize. But Hammer discovered that no one with a criminal conviction had ever
won the Nobel award. On his record there was the embarrassment (a trifling
one, given his amazing career as a spy and oil bandit, eliciting no less
than six federal investigations dating back to 1938) of A federal
misdemeanor conviction in 1976 for his illegal campaign contributions to
Nixon's campaign in 1972. So he needed a pardon.
Hammer made his $1.3 million pledge to the Reagan library and began to
agitate for a pardon. The FBI alerted the Reagan White House to ongoing
investigations of Hammer for attempting to bribe members of the Los Angeles
City Council to the tune of $120,00 to give a green light to Hammer's
company, Occidental, to drill off the California coast. Nonetheless, it
seemed that the pardon would come through in Reagan's parting hours. Then a
hitch arose. Hammer had asked Reagan for a pardon based on innocence. As he
had pleaded guilty to the misdemeanors, even the compliant Reagan White
House couldn't oblige.
Hammer shifted gears and greeted the incoming President Bush with the
request for a pardon based on compassion, which Bush gave him. Ever the
businessman, Hammer felt that since Reagan hadn't come through, he had no
obligation to pony up the $1.3 million he'd promised to the library. He did
make the $110,000 br... , uh, contribution, to the RNC. So he got his
pardon, though, alas, not his Peace prize, which, in 1989, went to the Dalai
Lama.
Now let's go to the other end of Bush time. As he left town, Bush pardoned,
among others, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, former assistant
Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, former National Security Council Director
Robert McFarlane and three former CIA men, Duane "Dewey" Clarridge, Alan
Fiers and Clair George. Abrams, McFarlane, Fiers and George had all been
convicted of withholding information from Congress in connection with the
investigation of the Iran-contra scandal. Clarridge was facing trial.
Weinberger had been indicted by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh on the eve
of the 1992 election.
At the time of the pardons, Walsh said bitterly, "It demonstrates that
powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high
office -- deliberately abusing the public trust -- without consequence." But
there was more to this pardon than just getting some former criminal
associates off the hook. Walsh said that new evidence had come to light in
the form of notes taken by Weinberger, suggesting that as vice president,
Bush had been in the loop on the Iran-contra deals. Said Walsh, "In light of
President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned by his decision to
pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations."
In other words, Walsh was suggesting that outgoing president Bush had
pardoned Weinberger to ensure the silence of a man who could testify about
his own criminal complicity in the Iran-contra scandal.
These days, Republicans are shouting that it's unprecedented to pardon a
man who has not faced trial, as was the case with Marc Rich. Walsh made the
same point in 1993. Ford pardoned Nixon before the latter was indicted; and
Bush pardoned Weinberger and Claridge, post indictment but before trial.
One final point: Clinton is savagely denounced for using military
adventures to distract attention from his own predicaments. Look at the
timing of Bush's sudden decision to commit U.S. forces to Somalia. The
concern with Somalia was always somewhat bizarre, but it sure did take those
Bush pardons out of the headlines.
And now? Well, all this fuss about Clinton's pardon of Rich sure distracts
attention from the mountain of evidence that George W. Bush is the
beneficiary of a fixed election. What offense is greater: pardoning Marc
Rich or stealing the White House?
Alexander Cockburn is coeditor with Jeffrey St Clair of the muckraking
newsletter CounterPunch. To find out more about Alexander Cockburn and read
features by other columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate
Web page at www.creators.com.
