NICARAGUAN ARMS (CONT'D)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00587R000200740020-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 25, 2010
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: January 18, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/29: CIA-RDP91-00587R000200740020-9
w ? ~A~
`' WASHINGTON POST
18 January 1986
Nicaraguan Arms (Cont'd.)
o
the lack of credible evidence of a flow of arms from N ara-
gua to El Salvador, CIA Public Affairs Director George V.
Lauder insists that "intelligence analysts in the CIA and in
the rest of the intelligence community disagree with MacMi-
chael" [Free for All, Jan. 111.
Some analysts probably do disagree with MacMichael, but
others disagree with Lauder. It would be surprising if that were
not the case, for all along the evidence has been, at best, ambig-
uous. Many intelligence reports in 1981 and 1982, for example,
indicated a drastic reduction in the arms flow. I do not have
copies of those reports, needless to say, and it would be inap-
propriate to discuss them in public, but if Lauder doubts their
existence, I would be happy to provide him the identifying num-
bers. He can look them up for himself.
Despite these reports of a reduction, the arms flow was in-
creasing! During the summer of 1982, just as I was leaving
the Foreign Service, I discussed this discrepancy with a num-
ber of old friends who were analysts in the various agencies
that make up the intelligence community. Their response
was unanimous: they did not believe the administration's
statements were supported by the evidence, and they re-
sented the way in which intelligence was being distorted and
misused by the administration for its own purposes.
Lauder would also have us believe that Congress (as a
whole) has accepted the validity of the administration's case
on the arms flow. But this too is an overstatement. Some
congressmen have bought the administration's line; others
remain totally unconvinced.
Which brings us to the bottom line of MacMichael's argu-
ment-an argument Lauder does not even address: rather
than continuing this sterile debate over what "sensitive
sources" may have said, why, if it has the irrefutable evi-
dence it claims to have, does the administration not take that
evidence to the World Court, present it to the OAS and, most
important, to the American people?
In his reply to Dwid MtcMld's asserti
-Wayne S. Smith
The writer was chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana
from 1979 until 1982.
STAT
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/29: CIA-RDP91-00587R000200740020-9