*«« PAGE 1 K — 3"nAv.. , • SECTION b WARREN BROOKES How to nurture a 'scandal' ast week, The Washington I Post and The New York Times finally reported ^ what the readers of TheDe- p-oit News first found out nearly a month ago: the so-called "Boland Amendment" hasn't really existed as a serious issue since November 1985. Ergo, most of the basis for a "scandal" involving illegal military aid to the "contras" doesn't exist. On Dec. 28, in a lengthy editorial under the heading "What Boland Amendment?" The Detroit News re ported the apparently little-known fact that on Nov. 14,1985,long before any alleged diversion of Iran arm sales funds to the "contras," the Con gress substantially removed most of that amendment's tough restraints on military aid to the "contras" fighting in Nicaragua. On that date, in a move apparently not ail that well understood by most members, Congress used the fiscal year 1986 InteUigence Authorization Act (H.R.2419), Section 105, to put the CIA officially back in the busi ness of supplying small but serious amounts of direct military (but nonlethal) aid to the "contras.^' This se cret direct aid, all of it itemized in the fully "classified" CIA budget, in volves "infrastructure expenditures and communications equipment.. and "intelligence reprogrammings." The effect of this new law was not only to permit and broaden the range of potential CIA aid to the "contras," buttoput Congress, itself, squarely into the audit and oversight process. iimce January 1986, House and SenateIntelligence Committee staff have notonly participated inseveral extensive top-secret CIA briefings on the nature of this new regime of aid to the "contras," but have been frequentvisitors for"auditandover sight" to the much-scandaJized Ilo Pango Air Base in Ef Salvador, through wluch most ofthe tranship ments of aid (publicand private) to tfie "contras" have passed, includmcidentally, theallegedly illegal • flight of Eugene Hasenfus. According to administration sources, since January 1986 41 members and staff ofthe Congress including House Foreign Affairs Chmrman Dante Fascell, have been tt) Ilo P^go compared with only 30 such visits by administration oersonnel. ^ As one former Senate Intelligence Committee staffattorney, David Ad- ' ^gton, an expert on the Boland Amendment's evolution, (now an : aide to Foreign Affairs rankin" mi nority member Congressman°WilRepublican of Michigan) told T/jeiVewsr "Last was a watershed of change foryear the :• Boland Amendment, reflecting a considerable evolution of views ' BROOKES FnmfastlE^ • high •dminiiirtfioa foaice tigo -•ipeeksaea. r t' :' After aewenl days of iowesti^' vckm, JPosi star itp(^ct«r Pob .Wc^t > <ward confirmedit9.9ss»ti4 lAaio^. t)ieJegality of.some,diif^ 'i the PosfoLlead story-'oiu(^nu 14.. •• : • But instead of featuring this vital fimdingi The Post decid^ to trea( this as yet another revelation in the ongoing scandal In its lead,ThePost reported almost breathlessly: '♦On Jan. 9, 1986, President Rea^ai} ; si^ed a top secret intelligence or der authorizing the CIA to provide . intelligence advice, training, and communications equipment to the 'contras' fighting the government .of Nicaragua, according toadmini^^a' ^ and congressionalsources.!;^ • ! The article went on to say, The CIA moved quickly toci^'Out^ the finding because it proyid^ an op portunity to help the 'contras' wit^i critical aid at a time Congress h^d prohibited milita^ assistance tqthe rebds in their fight against Nic aragua's Sandinista regime." By thip time the average reader is 'cqn- vinced.that Mr. Reagan has bj^h caught red-handed doing something illegal-But in the next paragrapl^ the Post revealed that "intelligence and communications aid... wa^expUcitly permitted by Congress in legislative compromises made io late 1985." That's a reversal of'the prior pararaph's mislea^^ng statement about "military aid."^;' / .In spite of this, Hrst The Post,imd then NBC's James Polk who followed up on the story that evening, and fi nally The New York Times on the ISth, continued to try to pr^ent this story as if it were evidence of .thb administration's alleged culpabiUty. . In fairness to The Times, itiwais badly misled by the State Depart ment which had also appare;ntly failed to comprehend the signifi cance of the Nov. 14, 1985 Bo^d revision. In a StateDepartment in ternal memo to Eliott Abramsf, acquired by The Times: the staff writer incorrectly quotes Section 105 of the FY 1986 Defense Intel ligence Act as saying "No funds availableto the Central Intelligence Agency... may be obligated and-ex- pend^ ..when, in fact the xeal wording does not include the word "No." . •.•• i:-;; As a result, The Times'stitl m^- aged to massage this storyof a per fectlylegalactionbythe CIAintothe appearance of illegality ~ som^ th^ which NBC's James Polk Msb triedtodoontheevening ofthe14tl), even going to the ludicrous extent ofasking Sand^ta apok)gist,-for mer Democratic Congressman'^i- chael..B^es of Maryland, to 'give his opinion that"Congress never ii)tend^ thisact toallow theadminis tration to do what itdid.'' ij,' ' Mn Polk failed to point out that Barnes was not even a'member >f the House Select Committee on Atelligence that wrote the 1^8^ k)land revisions, and heis unlil^ly 0 have known what was "intended;* "This*whole episode is yet a'.aitither reminder that too often the naional press is so determined to make ts "scandal" stick, it is prepared tb