Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/26/2004 8:36:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 5:38:13 AM EST by The_Macallan]

Bring it on, John
Oliver North
August 27, 2004

"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry


Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi.

Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget?

When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?



Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:42:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 8:43:47 PM EST by LARRYG]
Although a Sailor instead of a Marine, this gets a big OORRAAHH! from me. Tell it like it is, Ollie.

Mac, I keep hearing about Kerry in Cambodia, but have never really read or heard the alleged details. Enlighten me, please.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:43:31 PM EST
Wow. Powerful. His campaign is unraveling like a cheap suit. Thank God.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:48:43 PM EST
John Kerry will slam Oliver North on his ass!

No doubt this one will go unanswered. Kerry is fucked!

HS1
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:48:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:56:03 PM EST

Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget?



Whoa. Just that, I can't understand how ANYONE could THINK of voting for this guy. Whoa.....
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:03:30 PM EST
Ouch

Ollie North is a stand up guy
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:07:55 PM EST
Beautifully, powerfully written – I wouldn’t have said North was that articulate.

The power of brevity:




John, did you think they would forget?



Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:16:06 PM EST
Hell of a letter!
No B.S just facts and common sense.

I am sending this letter to everyone I know.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:16:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
... Mac, I keep hearing about Kerry in Cambodia, but have never really read or heard the alleged details. Enlighten me, please.


If I may answer:

Kerry claimed on the Senate floor that he remembered being inside Cambodia during Christmas, 1968, listening to president Nixon on the radio claiming there were no American troops in Cambodia. He claimed this was “seared, seared” into his mind.

Turns out he almost certainly wasn’t in Cambodia until later, plus Nixon wasn’t President in 1968.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:21:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By 199:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
... Mac, I keep hearing about Kerry in Cambodia, but have never really read or heard the alleged details. Enlighten me, please.


If I may answer:

Kerry claimed on the Senate floor that he remembered being inside Cambodia during Christmas, 1968, listening to president Nixon on the radio claiming there were no American troops in Cambodia. He claimed this was “seared, seared” into his mind.

Turns out he almost certainly wasn’t in Cambodia until later, plus Nixon wasn’t President in 1968.



Does he claim that they took a Swift boat up the Mekong into Cambodia? The reason I ask is that I don't believe the Swift boats went that far up the Mekong, as that was the domain of the PBRs.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:23:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 9:23:48 PM EST by DrFrige]
PLEASE tell me this is an ACTUAL letter written by Ollie North and not something I will read on SNOPES.COM and the word "FALSE" next to it.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:27:22 PM EST
It's going to be "Dear John" letter of a different sort after Nov.!
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:29:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Does he claim that they took a Swift boat up the Mekong into Cambodia? The reason I ask is that I don't believe the Swift boats went that far up the Mekong, as that was the domain of the PBRs.


I don’t know if he was in a Swift boat at the time, but apparently he did enter Cambodia at some point (I believe to transport weapons to friendlies).
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:29:38 PM EST
good letter!
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:40:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By DrFrige:
PLEASE tell me this is an ACTUAL letter written by Ollie North and not something I will read on SNOPES.COM and the word "FALSE" next to it.


My reaction also.

Still, this looks like a legit site (the link to North’s article is in the “Spotlight on Today’s Opinion” column). www.townhall.com/

I really hope this gets picked up by Fox.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:43:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By DrFrige:
PLEASE tell me this is an ACTUAL letter written by Ollie North and not something I will read on SNOPES.COM and the word "FALSE" next to it.



Saw him on Hannity and Colmes last night saying the exact same thing. You won't find it on snopes.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:45:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dukota:

Originally Posted By DrFrige:
PLEASE tell me this is an ACTUAL letter written by Ollie North and not something I will read on SNOPES.COM and the word "FALSE" next to it.



Saw him on Hannity and Colmes last night saying the exact same thing. You won't find it on snopes.



Just being cautious... I got burned too many times with false hopes of people with clout not taking the high road. This is good.... VERY good.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:46:32 PM EST
Good man! I hope this is for real!
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:57:00 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:03:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 10:04:43 PM EST by raven]
never mind
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:07:29 PM EST
Damn good read, thank you.

I will be showing this to as many people as I can.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:07:39 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:23:06 PM EST
You won't change the mind of the liberals. If I showed this to a liberal guy, he would just say,"What? That low life Iran-Contra criminal Olie North dared to bad mouth Kerry? Olie North also LIED under oath during senate. Olie North is a CRIMINAL".

Then what would I say to that?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:25:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 10:27:50 PM EST by brasspile]
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:36:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By second:
You won't change the mind of the liberals. If I showed this to a liberal guy, he would just say,"What? That low life Iran-Contra criminal Olie North dared to bad mouth Kerry? Olie North also LIED under oath during senate. Olie North is a CRIMINAL".

Then what would I say to that?



You can remind said liberal that the Iran-Contra affair was an attempt to straighten out the mess that Carter left behind in Iran.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:39:55 PM EST
Absolutely stellar piece...

The left will forever despise Ollie... I've met him briefly and he is extremely pleasant. Reading his stuff is even more enjoyable.

- BUCC_Guy
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 4:35:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By second:
You won't change the mind of the liberals. If I showed this to a liberal guy, he would just say,"What? That low life Iran-Contra criminal Olie North dared to bad mouth Kerry? Olie North also LIED under oath during senate. Olie North is a CRIMINAL".

Then what would I say to that?



You can remind said liberal that the Iran-Contra affair was an attempt to straighten out the mess that Carter left behind in Iran.



As I remember it. Olie did not lie, he plead the fifth and refused to speak.

ktm500
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 4:44:39 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 4:49:44 AM EST
Oliver North is coming to campus this fall to speak.

When it was announced last spring, the campus liberals already started complaining. Its going to be almost as good as when Ann Colter came
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 4:49:57 AM EST
I was kinda wondering myself.
There was another piece of work that proved to be a fake (per snopes).....otherwise,
it was a good piece. Lots of questionable actions on JK's behalf
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 5:28:51 AM EST
Thanks,
The_Macallan

Great reading,thanks again


GM
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 5:31:32 AM EST
Ollie is always a good read
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 5:34:25 AM EST
great editorial. Oliver North is a damn fine American.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 5:54:06 AM EST
Thanks Mac. I sent that to a bunch of the socialist docs I work with.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 5:59:53 AM EST
... spread this far & wide (PS It needs a date)
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 6:58:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 7:21:19 AM EST
As one who once contributed to Oliver North's Legal Defense Fund, (used to have an autographed picture of him that they sent me) there was a time when I felt the way of those who believe he's a "stand-up guy".

FWIW, he's not. John Caffey (IIRC Ollie's alias which he used during the Iran-Contra Gate era) was not a stand up guy. He set-up and oversaw the operation in Mena, Arkansas with Terry Reed and Barry Seals and was responsible for the blizzard of cocaine traffiking in this country during those years. This was the same operation moved to central Mexico and headed up by Terry Reed after things got too hot in Arkansas, seems small boys got waste 'cus they saw things they shouldn't have, among other deaths there..... As Mr. Reed put it in his book, "while attending a local party w/ politicos in Mexico he walked by a TV just in time to see the man he knew all those years as John stand up to tell the truth, the whole truth and nuthin but the truth......", Reed was so aghast he dropped his cocktail. This was when he found out his real name for the first time.

He not only knew there were American POWs left in Vietnam but did nothing about getting them out, not that that's his fault as this was a government decision made not by him that I'm aware of but, among others another fella I love to hate, Henry Kissinger...... Ollie or John, did however provide a CIA contact in Thailand for Scott Barnes, a Bo Gritz associate, (both of which were subsequently discredited by those in government neck deep in the drug trade, some of which still hold government positions today) when they were attempting to verify/recover POWs and evidence back in 1981 and was neck deep in the covert arms and GoldenTriangle drug trade there too. Perot was trashed along the way and one could speculate they were all tarred with the same brush for the same reasons and Ollie knew the truth of these matters one can bet.

He was responsible for the death, (in fact ordered it) of Barry Seals and had it blamed on Columbians.

He ain't so squeeky clean as folks think.

There's also a Kerry / North history here that more than a few here probably don't remember as Senator John Kerry in IIRC the summer of 1986 called for a "full-scale congressional investigation" and spoke publically of a "private network" run from the White House by Oliver North and others in the NSC. Seems the story went that Ollie with the help of a suspected CIA agent who got himself a favorably associated with Kerry's committee staff by pretending a desire to be helpful. While "helping out" seems he gained access to the senators files and then leaked a rumor that John Kerry allowed his researchers to accept donations/money from some public interest group allied with the Christic Institute. While it was later determined by an ethics committe to be a false allegation seems it put a crimp in his calling for his "full-scaled congressional investigation" until after the farce of the Iran-Contra hearing were long ended.

All of this info can be verified by reading the following books:

"Compromised", by Terry Reed

"Barry and the Boys: The CIA, the Mob and America's Secret History" by Daniel Hopsicker

"Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own Pows in Vietnam" by Monika Jensen-Stevenson, William Stevenson

"Drug War: Covert Money, Power & Policy" by Dan Russell

These items are just the tip of the iceberg here folks as these criminals have been playing these games and covering up lies since long before I was gleem in my daddy's eye, most of 'em are still there, which is why people dis-trust their leadership and government so much. There's ample reason to.

Hope this helps some, I'm certain it'll only PO others,
Mike
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 7:31:23 AM EST
Somebody post this at DU. They will have FITS over this.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 9:49:17 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:28:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By second:
You won't change the mind of the liberals. If I showed this to a liberal guy, he would just say,"What? That low life Iran-Contra criminal Olie North dared to bad mouth Kerry? Olie North also LIED under oath during senate. Olie North is a CRIMINAL".

Then what would I say to that?



I'd ask him what the hell that has to do with the statements made by POWs about how John Kerry's Senate testimony was used to taunt them inside a North Vietnamese prison.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:48:14 AM EST
good reading there, thanks
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:14:13 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:38:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By second:
You won't change the mind of the liberals. If I showed this to a liberal guy, he would just say,"What? That low life Iran-Contra criminal Olie North dared to bad mouth Kerry? Olie North also LIED under oath during senate. Olie North is a CRIMINAL".

Then what would I say to that?



You can remind said liberal that the Iran-Contra affair was an attempt to straighten out the mess that Carter left behind in Iran.



That ain't exactly true. In fact as much as I admire Reagan Iran-Contra was a backdoor deal to undermine Carter (who literally worked until the last hour to try and free Americans) and make Reagan look good. It was also a violation of Reagans "No Deals For Terrorists" stance.



Iran-Contra was the deal that freed American hostages in BEIRUT, not Iran. This was YEARS after the hostages were released from Iran. By then, Carter was a bad memory of a wet spot on the sheets of the mattress of time. The I-C deal was to sell Hawk missiles and parts to Iran, Iran gets the Beirut hostages freed, and the Reagan administration used the money to support the Contras. Muslims in Iran using US weapons to kill Muslims in Iraq, our hostages freed from Beirut, and the Contra's kicking the communists' asses in Nicaragua. I call that a win-win, all around.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:47:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By second:
You won't change the mind of the liberals. If I showed this to a liberal guy, he would just say,"What? That low life Iran-Contra criminal Olie North dared to bad mouth Kerry? Olie North also LIED under oath during senate. Olie North is a CRIMINAL".

Then what would I say to that?




You say: "Ollie North isn't running for President, John Kerry is."
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:51:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By epeescott:

Originally Posted By second:
You won't change the mind of the liberals. If I showed this to a liberal guy, he would just say,"What? That low life Iran-Contra criminal Olie North dared to bad mouth Kerry? Olie North also LIED under oath during senate. Olie North is a CRIMINAL".

Then what would I say to that?




You say: "Ollie North isn't running for President, John Kerry is."




EXACTLY.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 11:55:11 AM EST
Oliver North is pro-2nd & RKBA/anti-UN too. I quoted his article for my English paper.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 12:11:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 12:12:46 PM EST by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 12:13:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By second:
You won't change the mind of the liberals. If I showed this to a liberal guy, he would just say,"What? That low life Iran-Contra criminal Olie North dared to bad mouth Kerry? Olie North also LIED under oath during senate. Olie North is a CRIMINAL".

Then what would I say to that?



You can remind said liberal that the Iran-Contra affair was an attempt to straighten out the mess that Carter left behind in Iran.



That ain't exactly true. In fact as much as I admire Reagan Iran-Contra was a backdoor deal to undermine Carter (who literally worked until the last hour to try and free Americans) and make Reagan look good. It was also a violation of Reagans "No Deals For Terrorists" stance.



+1
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 12:27:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 12:29:06 PM EST by The_Macallan]
Allow me to do my best Clintonesque parsing:

1. Reagan did not "sell" arms before he became President. Talk is all they did. No money or arms were exchanged, just "gentlemen's agreements".

2. According to what you said Reagan did not promise arms in exchange for hostages, he promised arms in exchange for the TIMING of the hostage release. The hostages were going to be released. Getting the man who CAUSED them to be taken in the first place (Carter) out of office was a pre-emption of any further hostage taking.

3. When the enemy outnumbers you in Congress and the law is putting America in a weaker position, what could a President do? The consequences of Reagan NOT doing what he did are far more serious than what he did do. Consider it "civil disobedience".

Link Posted: 8/27/2004 12:30:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
That ain't exactly true. In fact as much as I admire Reagan Iran-Contra was a backdoor deal to undermine Carter (who literally worked until the last hour to try and free Americans) and make Reagan look good. It was also a violation of Reagans "No Deals For Terrorists" stance.



What are you talking about? Iran-Contra happened long after Carter left. It had nothing to do with the hostages that were already released. It was a way to secure funding for the Contras after Congress forbid US money from funding their activities. So they came up with a contorted arms sale that laundered the money essentially and funded the contras while complying with the law that no general funds be used to support the Contras.




Ronald Reagan and George Bush used the American hostages, held by the Iranian government, as a political tool to win the 1980 election. Through the "Freedom of Public Information Act" and the Center for Constitutional Rights, we know the following:

1. Ronald Reagan, in 1979, sent George Bush, Richard Allen, and Donald Greg to two meetings, one in Paris France and one in Washington DC, to insure Carter was not re-elected. They negotiated with Manchari Gorbanifar (Iranian arms dealer), Bani Sadr (president of Iran and political puppet of the Kohmeni regime), Albert Hakim (arms dealer), and Hashem (diplomat of the Iranian government). Reagan's team promised that the US federal government would sell over one billion US dollars in American weapons to Iran if Iran would not release the American hostages until after the 1980 presidential election.

2. The reason Iran needed the weapons was to defend themselves from Iraq. Reagan sold Iran, with out the approval of United States Congress, military weapons to ensure he would be elected president of the United States, keep the campaign contarbutions from US oil companies flowing, and relieve his unfounded fear that the former Soviet Union was going to invade Iran and Iraq.



Your post makes zero sense. In 1979, GB was NOT RR's running mate. They faced off a year later in the primaries. BTW, the kook theory that says GB negotiated the release of the hostages states that GB flew in a CIA A-12 (a one seat aircraft) to Spain to finalize the deal. The hopped back before anyone noticed.
Also in 1979, Iran and Iraq weren't at war. They didn't go to war until 1980, and the war went poorly for Iraq in the beginning. It wasn't until the mid-80s Iran was in much need of arms and armament. That's when Iran-Contra was concocted to free the hostages in Beruit, not Iran.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top