The information contained in this report – that cocaine was funding the Contras – is credible and explains why I didn't see (and apparently none of my associates at LAPD and Narcotics Division) a connection between Ross and the CIA during the 1980s. At the time, I gave them too much credit and believed that the Ross task force would have followed the evidence wherever it led them. But now as I reconsider, I suspect that the CIA connection was suppressed because detectives were focused [tunnel vision] on Ross. I now understand how a politically-controlled DEA task force could have been ordered to spike leads that got too close to active CIA operations.
I suspect too that the LA Times pro-left bias would have been influenced politically (bribed or coerced) to silence CIA-Contra connections. Katz describes his personal guilt, but it does not explain why The Times would assign 17 reporters to spike a story that, if true, threatened arch-nemesis Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party. Having served in the LAPD between 1980-2000, it's hard to fathom how and why 17 demonstrably pro-left reporters were assigned to spin Webb's report without acquiescing to significant political pressure or pay-offs. I’d like to know who got rich or how The Times was compensated for killing a story that only helped The Left.