LESS LEWINSKY, MORE BARRY SEAL

I consider the trial unfolding in Washington little more than a tawdry
spectacle -- bread and circuses, if you will -- distracting us not only from
crucial affairs of state, but from a far nastier scandal that could tarnish
Democrats and Republicans alike.

The bipartisan nature of this ugliness, I suspect, is why no one has made
much of a stink of it. To me, what's being avoided while we engage in this
silliness is no less than a question of aid for the enemy at a time when we
are at war.

I would go so far as to use the word treason if this were a formal, military
conflict, but the war I speak of is the War on Drugs, so betrayal may have a
different meaning. What we do know is that while our nation has been
conducting this costly War on Drugs, parts of our own government have
seriously obstructed that very effort, helping major, international drug
smugglers -- identified by our leaders as the enemy -- by turning a
deliberate, blind eye to their activities and allowing them to continue to
bring cocaine into the U.S.

While we taxpayers have funded the creation of countless, state and federal
drug task forces, witnessed the relentless expansion of prisons, and seen
thousands doomed to life behind bars through the imposition of mandatory
sentences, we also have had to face the reality that these Draconian
measures are failing.

In November, 1996, the San Jose Mercury-News published a remarkable series
of articles by reporter Gary Webb that offered a grim look at this war's
history. The gist was that, beginning in 1979, certain elements of the CIA,
seeking to help Nicaragua's Contra rebels, developed questionable
associations with drug smugglers, some of whom went on to supply the crack
epidemic that swept Los Angeles and other cities across America.

The CIA issued denials, and the Mercury-News fired Wills, saying he had
overstated his case. But many Californians found the allegations credible,
and in response to the resulting clamor, the CIA appointed an inspector
general to investigate the series' contentions. Months later, the CIA's
inspector general reported that, yes, the agency had maintained ties with
suspected drug traffickers during the 1980s, though he insisted there was
"no information" that the CIA had actively participated in the trafficking
of drugs.

The release of a second, more detailed report has been repeatedly delayed.
Another disturbing bit of history has also come to light. Letters that have
recently surfaced between former CIA Director William Casey and William
French Smith, a former U.S. attorney general, reveal that in early 1982, the
Justice Department released the CIA from its obligation to report suspected
violations of U.S. narcotics laws, when the alleged violators were not CIA
employees.

In other words, while parts of the U.S. government were spending billions on
eradication, interdiction and incarceration as tactics in the War on Drugs,
the Justice Department secretly arranged for the country's main intelligence
arm to legally protect drug smugglers when it chose to.

This information is of particular interest here in Arkansas, where many of
us have wondered for years how Barry Seal was able to operate his
well-documented cocaine-smuggling business, importing, by his own account,
millions of dollars worth of cocaine, without any official interference.
Seal, who claimed he was working for the CIA, moved his operation to Mena in
the spring of 1982 -- apparently, as the ink was drying on the Casey-Smith
agreement. All that put him out of business four years later was his murder
in Louisiana.

The question ever since has been: who was protecting Seal? Two years ago,
the CIA acknowledged that it had conducted "training exercises" at Mena
while Seal had his headquarters there, and that Seal had indeed worked for
the agency, in a "limited" capacity. It took a decade to extract those
admissions. We can assume they're but the tip of an iceberg.

Republicans will have a lot of explaining to do if questions about the CIA's
connections to cocaine ever get the attention they deserve, since much of
the questionable activity took place on the Reagan/Bush watch.

But Democrats are on the hook too, especially President Clinton, who has yet
to offer the least explanation for why Seal was allowed to operate unimpeded
in Arkansas for years, even though the nature and scope of Seal's activities
were known to the DEA, the FBI, the IRS, the Louisiana State Police, and the
Arkansas State Police before Seal landed his first aircraft at Mena.

There may be a good explanation for why our prisons were filled with petty
drug dealers while people like Seal stayed in business. If so, it's time for
us to hear it. If not, then this spectacle known as Monicagate is diverting
attention from crimes that truly deserve the adjective "high."