I received this in my email the other day and was wondering if it was true or not?

would be very cool if someone could find a link to this transcript!

I love Ollie North, but this is fast becoming an urban legend. In US News & World Report's [i]Washington Whispers[/i] column, the following appears:

11/14/01
In Oliver North's dreams
To all you Oliver North fans, we have bad news to report. That E-mail report floating around the Internet, in which the Iran-contra figure cites Osama bin Laden nearly 15 years ago for why he beefed up security at his house, is a fake. The only terrorist North cited was Abu Nidal. Our library genius Lee Neville searched every database he could to verify the E-mail, but nothing turned up. So we called North, and his aides confirmed the fake. North, in fact, suggests that at the time of the Reagan-era Senate hearings into the scandal, rebels like bin Laden were U.S. friends lined up against Soviet invaders.

Read the E-mail:

To our former Marines - Happy Birthday - Semper Fi!

I was at a UNC lecture the other day where they played a video of Oliver North during the Iran-Contra deals during the Reagan Administration. I was only 14 back then but was surprised by this particular clip.

There was Ollie in front of God and Country getting the third degree. But what he said stunned me. He was being grilled by some senator I didn't recognize who asked him, "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"

Oliver replied, "Yes I did, Sir."

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't this just a little excessive?"

"No sir," continued Oliver.

"No. And why not?"

"Because the life of my family and I were threatened."

"Threatened? By who."

"By a terrorist, sir."

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"

"His name is Osama bin Laden."

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued.

"Why are you so afraid of this man?"

"Because sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of."

"And what do you recommend we do about him?"

"If it were me I would recommend an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach and that was all they showed of the clip.

It's scary when you think 15 years ago the government was aware of bin Laden and his potential threat to the security of the world. I guess like all great tyrants they start small but if left untended spread like the virus they truly are.

Eric The(IWish!)Hun[>]:)]

Thanks for the quick help!
I also thought it would be interesting if it were true but had some doubts.
I wanted to authenticate it before I forwarded it on my email lists.

Thanks Again.

The reason North was at those hearings in the first place was he had been disgracing his uniform by covertly trading arms for hostages. On orders of our illustrious president "well, I don't remember" reagan. How could such a good Marine and patriot do such a subversive act while in uniform?

Flame away all you Ollie and Ronnie lovers.

I would flame you [b]rainman[/b], but what possible good would it do?

I guess you're right, the country would have been a great deal better off if Carter had had his second term and Mondale followed him for two terms.

You must seriously know something I, and the rest of the American people, don't know!

Eric The(Gee,DoYouThinkRussianIsHardToLearn?OrWillTheyAtLeastLetUsKeepOurLanguage?)Hun[>]:)]

In 1982 Ronald Reagan issued National Security Directive 58 which allowed Robert McFarland and Ollie North to use the NSA to draw up REX84, a plan to suspend the Constitution.

North is not a hero as some people put him out to be.

"The truth is yes - you do have these stand by provisions, and the plans are here...whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism...evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps." - Representative Henry Gonzalez (Texas)

i was kind of young when the iran-contra hearings went down but i know this. Ollie is NOT well thought of in the Marine Corps. he is used instructionally as an example of a Marine gone bad. personally im rather neutral on the whole thing but as a whole Marines are conservative, right-leaning, gun loving patriots. so take that as you will.

Look here also - [url]urbanlegends.about.com[/url]
WSmac

Try to understand what i'm saying. Reagan , alone did not bring the USSR to its knees. I really don't think he could have done it without the [oh shit, here goes] Pope. Reagan was an idiot who didn't even know what the word "parity" meant. He lived according to a script. Had know ideas of his own. He said "we will not negotiate with terrorists" all the while behind our backs he was NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS. It was our official policy not to do this. And how he ever sucked Ollie North into doing what he did is beyond me. Then when caught like clinton he denied he was involved.

At least Carter TRIED to rescue the hostages and didn't negotiate with them. But to answer your question, no we might not have been better off with 8 years of carter then 8 years of mondale.

But I do think reagans nick name of the "teflon" president is appropiate.

I surely don't think he deserves all the accolades hes been recieving. He should have been impeached and removed from office for what he did.

Eric The[StarsInMyEyes]Hun, heres an analogy. I could be a perfect employee at the company I work at for years. Everybody loves me. Then I make one giant f*ck up and I GET FIRED! Not a slap on the wrist, not a demotion, but fired. I lose my job. For just one big mistake. I was disgusted to hear what our government had been doing with reagan at the helm.

What do you think people would say if, today, reagan, as president was negotiating with the taliban for the release of those aid workers?  

There was one good thing that came out of the hearings, remember what it was?
"send Fawn"
anybody got a pic?

They would be saying: "At least it isn't Al Gore doing the negotiating."

ra·tion·al·ize- To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior.

DvlDog

Don't know what part of the Corps your in, but most of the Marines I know think highly of him.

i always like ollie. when i lived in MD i listened to his radio show. it shocked me to hear such negative opinions of him in the Corps. i was west coast gunt BTW now im swingin with the wing in the reserves in ATL.

North did not get in trouble over the "Arms for Hostages" part of the deal, which was a brilliantly executed intelligence operation (we screwed the Iranians by getting them to pay for defective, obsolete TOW missiles, and made a profit). The trouble was over the fact that the profit was used to buy weapons for the Contras, which at the time, was illegal (the Boland Amendment). Ironically, at the time this came out, it was legal to send weapons to the Contras. This is more an example of the Executive Branch of Government exercising power over the objections of the Legislative Branch. Of course Reagan knew, but he had plausible deniability.

I read all the way down through this thread
hoping that [i]somebody[/i] had gotten their
information from a source other than the 6:00
news.

Thank you, [b]You[/b] are correct.

[b]rainman[/b], where in the hell did you get your tripe on President Reagan? From the NY Times, the Washington Post, or The Nation?

That's the biggest load of b.s. I've heard from any liberal outlet I've ever had the misfortune of listening to, in a very long time.

I avoid the liberal press like the plague, and yet, here on this Board, you bring up the same tired, worn out crap.

Why don't you read Peggy Noonan's new book, 'When Character Was King', and see what she has to say about Reagan's tenure as President? You do think basically the same way as Peggy Noonan, don't you? I know I do!

You're not waiting for Geraldo Rivera or Noam Chomsky to write a book on Reagan, are you? [:D]

And whoever said that President Reagan won the Cold War singlehandedly? He needed the help of Margaret Thatcher to assist in bringing down the Evil Empire and its Iron Curtain.

Don't believe me? Go ask anyone in the former Soviet bloc who they think gave them their freedom, and I know that at least I will be pleased to hear their responses.

In Tirana, Albania, probably the most brutally authoritarian of all member nations of the Communist bloc, the people have erected outside their National Assembly building, a statue of President Reagan and Lady Thatcher, arm in arm, and underneath is the inscription 'The Liberators.'

I think we should let them decide who it was they believe liberated them from a nightmare!

Eric The(Don'tYou,OrDoYouKnowSomethingThatNationDoesn't?)Hun[>]:)]

It has always been my understanding about the president that he is only as competent as the people he surrounds himself with.  

If you look at our most recent EX-President, when he first arrived in DC and brought his entourage with him (first mistake), their biggest qualification was personal loyalty.  Unfortunately for the country, it was just about their only qualification.  I recall reading that until he had Lloyd Bensen (sp?) join his administration he had NO ONE with any experience in federal government work.  It would take his staffers a couple of days to get done what Bensen could with a couple of phone calls.  The only benefit to the people he brought it was that they sufficed to keep him out of trouble (or at least from being prosecuted for it).  I mean--he even let Hillary do stuff.

Much as I hate the concept of the "good ol' boy" network in DC, it does make stuff run smoothly.  Reagan (and both Bushes) have/had a good partnership with the GOB network, and they can get things done.  

AFARR

That Ollie North story was discussed on this board about a moth ago.  It has been refuted on this site:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm

...rather a MONTH ago...

Eric, if it's OK for Reagan to violate the Constitution, why isn't it OK for Clinton to do it?  

Sorry, guy, but Iran/Contra was legally wrong.  Either you uphold the Constitution as you swore to do, or...?

People violating their sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution are what have brought us to the "Patriot Act".  I love my country, but I do fear my government.

KBaker

Exactly what part of the Constitution did Reagan violate?  He did violate a law passed by congress, the Bolin amendment, which may or may not be constitutional since it attempted to curtail the presidents role to set foreign policy.  That line is the typical line used by revisionist, who really cannot cite how a some what dubious law is "shredding the constitution."

DevilDog
How is I&I duty treating you.  I think I may get it after this FMF tour.

.....and so is rainman!

Ronald Reagan was by and large the BEST president this great nation has ever had.  If it weren't for him, our economy and technology would be along the lines of the Taili-whackers.  I support North as well.  So what if we sold them a few missles, we had American hostages lives at stake.

Carter had American hostages lives at stake. Did buy off the terrorists [our mortal enemy] by trading arms for hastages? NO!. He actually tried to RESCUE them. Oh shit, what a concept.

Yeah Rainman, he sure did, but guess what .... they weren't released until Big Ron was president.  They knew, just like they know of EVERY democrat, Carter wasn't going to do a thing about it.  He was all talk and no do, just like your illustrious pres klintoon (whom you can thank for the events of Sept 11th).  Jimmy would rather been picking peanuts and Slick Willy would rather have his hand up an intern's skirt, than tending to this country's affairs.  THANK GOD we have a REPUBLICAN in the white house!!!!

Post from KBaker -

Hmmmm, [b]KBaker[/b], please tell me what part of the United States Constitution President Reagan violated?

Could it have been that the Boland Amendment was an unconstitutional limitation upon the powers of the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch?

What was the penalty for 'breaking' the Boland Amendment? Answer - none. There was no provision in the amendment that called for any penalty for it's breach. Pretty poor draftsmanship, I'd say!

Why didn't Congress impeach President Reagan, you know, the way it impeached your favorite president Clinton? Answer - because (1) they knew the Boland Amendment would never stand a court challenge, and (2) they knew the American Public would hand them their heads back to them on a platter!

Eric The(SoWhat'sNext?'Dutch'ReaganKidnappedTheLindbergBaby?)Hun[>]:)]

Well, It seems to be O.K. and acceptable to all you patriots here that the president can publicly announce a policy of not negotiating with terrorists and then behind our backs supply missles to the Iranians for the release of just and handful of hostages. And then try to make us believe it all happened because he [the prez] is such a tough guy and the hostage takers feared our wrath. Until, ofcourse, he got caught. Then he "didn't know anything about it". Jesus Christ, whats wrong with you people. Are you all to young to remember all the "Death To America" signs in the streets of Teheran? Even our police departments don't give a hostage taker more arms.

In case you don't remember, reagans was a movie actor, remember? "Bedtime for Bonzo" [a great movie]. The guy was a second rate actor. If he didn't have a script he didn't have a brain.

rant off

I'm sorry Rainman, but you must have your K-mart underwear on too tight.

"he didn't have a brain"

That's the most absurd thing I've ever read.  The economy we have been enjoying throughout the nineties was because of Reagan, not your hero Klintoon.  Being a Gulf War vet, I'm also relieved that Reagan endorsed technology so much, b/c of our advantage technologically over the Iraqis, we had only minimal casualties.

You act as if we've sold our souls to the devil by trading a few missiles to lowly Iran for a "handful" of hostages.  It doesn't matter if it's a "handful" or a hundred, an American is an American, period.  Klintoon, had to send Jessie Jackson (of all people) to rescue hostages for him.  

America was the strongest it has been in my lifetime under Reagan, how can you argue this?
Your hero Klintoon disgraced the white house farther than it should have been allowed.  How can you or any other liberal deny this?  Oliver North did what he had to do to free American citizens, Klintoon lied under oath and to the American people for no other reason than to save face.

The thing you liberals don't understand is that your liberal counterparts in DC are trying to slowly but surely disarm American citizens.  Are you OK with this?  Because it sounds as if you have the liberal blinders on, when behind the scenes these democrats you willingly elect are taking away your rights. I think you need to turn the light on and quit living in lala land about your views.  

glx1747--You seem to want to turn this discussion into something about klinton and liberalism. For the record, Klinton was a scumbag, his wife is a bitch and his daughter is ugly, also i'm not a liberal. This has to do with what reagan did behind our backs.

Reagan was never an intellectual, but he was a slick talker. Had good speech writers and all that acting experience. It did him well. I'm just not as starry eyed about him as you and others here on this board are.

I remember his years in office. I remember the disgust I felt about iran/contra. It was in my opinion a disgraceful thing to do. And unforgivable.

If you can live with buying off terrorists to free hostages, well then, good for you, I can't.

If what he did wasn't so bad, why was it kept a secret? Why didn't he come out and tell the American people that he wants to trade arms for hostages to end that particular situation?

And you mentioned earlier about demo. presidents not doing nothing or not having the balls to do something: LBJ was a demo, he bombed the shit out of n.vietnam. Need I even mention WWII?

I'm just saying, to me that was a major f*ck up on his part and an impeachable offense. Its too bad that its been overlooked and forgotten by so many.

You, [b]rainman[/b], have some very idiotic ideas concerning recent US political history.

What do you say we just leave it at that?

'Bedtime for Bonzo'? Wow, now that's something that's usually not brought up by anyone other than silly little liberals with little cogent to say! Are [b]you[/b] a silly little liberal?

Eric The(IDoubtINeedToListenToThisDrivelAnyLonger!)Hun[>]:)]

Disgust, what a pussy, if you remember we gave the weapons to Israel and they gave the Iranians crap.  




I can, I bet the hostages can also.




We did not need to know.  Besides, it was a great idea, especially the part about funding the Contras.  Read the Nightingales Song