cannot conceive of the incumbent doing that sort of thing. But if I were put into that kind
of position where you had a clear moral issue, I would simply say "no," because you see I
think, and maybe-- I have the advantages as everyone on this committee of 20-20
hindsight, that this agency must stay in the foreign intelligence business and must not
harass American citizens, like in Operation Chaos, and that these kinds of things have no
business in the foreign intelligence business." This was the same Bush whose 1980
campaign was heavily staffed by CIA veterans, some retired, some on active service and
in flagrant violation of the Hatch Act. This is the vice-president who ran Iran-contra out
of his own private office, and so forth.
Gary Hart also had a few questions. How did Bush feel about assassinations? Bush
"found them morally offensive and I am pleased the President has made that position
very, very clear to the Intelligence Committee..." How about "coups d'etat in various
countries around the world," Hart wanted to know?
"You mean in the covert field," replied Bush. "Yes." "I would want to have full benefit of
all the intelligence. I would want to have full benefit of how these matters were taking
place but I cannot tell you, and I do not think I should, that there would never be any
support for a coup d'etat; in other words, I cannot tell you I cannot conceive of a situation
where I would not support such action." In retrospect, this was a moment of refreshing
candor.
Gary Hart knew where at least one of Bush's bodies was buried:
Senator Hart: You raised the question of getting the CIA out of domestic areas totally. Let us
hypthesize a situation where a President has stepped over the bounds. Let us say the FBI is
investigating some people who are involved, and they go right to the White House. There is some
possible CIA interest. The President calls you and says, I want you as Director of the CIA to call
the Director of the FBI to tell him to call off this operation because it may jeopardize some CIA
activities.Mr. Bush. Well, generally speaking, and I think you are hypothecating a case without spelling it
out in enough detail to know if there is any real legitimate foreign intelligence aspect... [...]^There it was: the smoking gun tape again, the notorious Bush-Lietdtke-Mosbacher-
Pennzoil contribution to the CREEP again, the money that had been found in the pockets
of Bernard Barker and the Plumbers after the Watergate break-in. But Hart did not
mention it overtly, only in this oblique, Byzantine manner. Hart went on: "I am
hypothesizing a case that actually happened in June, 1972. There might have been some
tangential CIA interest in something in Mexico. Funds were laundered and so forth."
Mr. Bush. Using a 50-50 hindsight on that case, I hope I would have said the CIA is not going to
get involved in that if we are talking about the same one.Senator Hart. We are.Senator Leahy. Are there others?