Must Read: "Bring It On, John" - Oliver North - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Must Read: "Bring It On, John" - Oliver North (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 8/27/2004 1:31:04 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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).

That's right, he went to Cambodia on a top secret mission for which no records were kept.

Posted: 8/27/2004 1:56:42 PM EDT

[#2]

tagged

Posted: 8/27/2004 7:24:28 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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).

That's right, he went to Cambodia on a top secret mission for which no records were kept.

And these missions were so secret no one else in the chain of command or on his boats knew they were in Cambodia either.

GunLvr

Posted: 8/27/2004 7:35:14 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
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.

www.snopes.com/johnkerry/letter/ollienorth.html

Posted: 8/27/2004 8:32:07 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

www.snopes.com/johnkerry/letter/ollienorth.html

When I click your link, it says it can't find it. When I copy and paste, starting at the www.snopes, with all the rest in there, it goes to snopes, but can't find the letter.

So, what are you trying to say?

Posted: 8/27/2004 8:44:30 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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).

That's right, he went to Cambodia on a top secret mission for which no records were kept.

Looks like I was quoting old information.

It now sounds like he was never in Cambodia at all (he was close to the Cambodian border though!!

).

Is there anything Kerry hasn’t lied about?

Posted: 8/27/2004 9:25:56 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

May not make sense to YOU but that is what happened.

Iran knew the war was coming. The Iranian hostage crisis was a preipheral event related to the later Iran Contra.

Posted: 8/27/2004 9:31:01 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
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".

While technically true, and nobody is calling for his impeachment or anything, we know what he did and he didn't do it for the best of reasons. Reagan did a few back door things but in most cases it was with the best of intentions.

To be fair and honest Carter made a genuine attempt (Operation Eagle Claw) and we all know how that went to shit. I respect his attempt regardless, it was the correct decision.

As for Carter "causing" the hostages to be taken. He permitted the Shah (a US ally) to enter the US for medical reasons. Radical Islamics who resented the Shah "demanded" he not be allowed in the US and Carter refused to meet their demands. I think Reagan would have done exactly the same thing in his place. When we didn't kiss their asses they snatched US hostages.

Posted: 8/28/2004 5:45:13 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

www.snopes.com/johnkerry/letter/ollienorth.html

When I click your link, it says it can't find it. When I copy and paste, starting at the www.snopes, with all the rest in there, it goes to snopes, but can't find the letter.

So, what are you trying to say?

If you hover the cursor over the link, it will say "kerry is a loooooser! :)"

just having some fun with DrFrige's apprehension about the letter being debunked by (the pro-kerry) snopes. AFAIK, the letter is genuine Ollie North & right on the money.

Posted: 8/28/2004 6:02:15 AM EDT

[#10]

The liberals do not want to know the truth...Heck "They can't handle the truth!"

BigDozer66

Posted: 9/1/2004 9:08:30 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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"

While technically true, and nobody is calling for his impeachment or anything, we know what he did and he didn't do it for the best of reasons. Reagan did a few back door things but in most cases it was with the best of intentions.

Holy Cow!!!! How interesting to see these two big-time posters here AR15.com, condoning TREASON by both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.

Both ADMIT to knowing what really happen regarding "The October Surprise" and are fully aware of the back-door deals done behind the back of then President Jimmy Carter, and both explained why they thought TREASON against the TRUE government of the United States was justifed.

Note from the dictionary:
treason; 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Don't know about most of ya, but cutting deals with a foreign country, that happens to be holding U.S. hostages, in circumvention of the efforts of the standing U.S. President and offering arms in exchange for those same hostages dang sure qualifies as TREASON in my book.

But that’s okay by SteyrAUG and The_Macallan.

I have been chastised by these two many an occasion over the last few years w/ tin-foil hat comments and other slurs, at one time IIRC (I have an old link which is dead I can't access) on this very same subject in which they claimed that this situation never happened (the back-door deals) and now they show their true colors…….

Thanks guys ya made my day,

Mike

P.S. - Don’t matter how much one dislikes the current setting President, acting behind his back on matters of National Security and Foreign Policy ain't justified for any reason, and is exactly what I called it, TREASON.

FWIW, I'm inclined to believe that Reagan knew very little of this, as "October Surprise" evidence points more toward Bill Casey and George Bush Sr along with a few others setting right now in the current GWB adminstration.

Posted: 9/1/2004 9:33:54 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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

That's the same BS that liberals try to pull with G. Gordon Liddy, saying the he lied under oath during Watergate. I can remember a woman calling into his radio show, "You're a liar! You lied at Watergate!" He said, "Madame, I exercised my right under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution not to incriminate myself. In other words, I didn't say anything! How is that lying?" After a long silence, her only retort was, "You're still a liar!" Bitch...

Posted: 9/1/2004 9:49:06 AM EDT

[#13]

mr wilson-

the world is a nasty place. sometimes nasty men must do nasty things to protect the country. it's why we're not speaking german, or japanese. or russian. treason is hardly black and white.

Posted: 9/1/2004 9:51:32 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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"
While technically true, and nobody is calling for his impeachment or anything, we know what he did and he didn't do it for the best of reasons. Reagan did a few back door things but in most cases it was with the best of intentions.
Holy Cow!!!! How interesting to see these two big-time posters here AR15.com, condoning TREASON by both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.

Both ADMIT to knowing what really happen regarding "The October Surprise" and are fully aware of the back-door deals done behind the back of then President Jimmy Carter, and both explained why they thought TREASON against the TRUE government of the United States was justifed.

Note from the dictionary:
treason; 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
[And Reagan did NONE of those things - he in fact aided AMERICA by defending and restoring America's honor and respect throughout the world - there's NO denying that. America was STRONGER for what Reagan did, not weaker.]

Don't know about most of ya, but cutting deals with a foreign country, that happens to be holding U.S. hostages, in circumvention of the efforts of the standing U.S. President and offering arms in exchange for those same hostages dang sure qualifies as TREASON in my book.

Seeing as how your book is wrapped in tinfoil, I can understand that.

Reagan did what Carter was unable to do. Why? Because it was CARTER who was the inept stooge aiding and abetting Islamic radicals who sought to undermine US national interests and US power and respect throughout the world. Carter, through his spineless ineptitude aided the Islamic radicals whose intentions were to embarass and humiliate America - and Carter aided and abetted their cause to a "T".

Now I don't believe there were any actual "traitors" involved in anything surrounding the Iran Hostages but if ANYONE was damaging AMERICA - it was CARTER, not Reagan - and history proves that beyond a doubt.

And for that, Reagan should be honored.

But nice try anyway mr_wilson. I give you two stars.

Posted: 9/2/2004 3:46:06 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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"
While technically true, and nobody is calling for his impeachment or anything, we know what he did and he didn't do it for the best of reasons. Reagan did a few back door things but in most cases it was with the best of intentions.
Holy Cow!!!! How interesting to see these two big-time posters here AR15.com, condoning TREASON by both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.

Both ADMIT to knowing what really happen regarding "The October Surprise" and are fully aware of the back-door deals done behind the back of then President Jimmy Carter, and both explained why they thought TREASON against the TRUE government of the United States was justifed.

Note from the dictionary:
treason; 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
[And Reagan did NONE of those things - he in fact aided AMERICA by defending and restoring America's honor and respect throughout the world - there's NO denying that. America was STRONGER for what Reagan did, not weaker.]

Don't know about most of ya, but cutting deals with a foreign country, that happens to be holding U.S. hostages, in circumvention of the efforts of the standing U.S. President and offering arms in exchange for those same hostages dang sure qualifies as TREASON in my book.
Seeing as how your book is wrapped in tinfoil, I can understand that.

Reagan did what Carter was unable to do. Why? Because it was CARTER who was the inept stooge aiding and abetting Islamic radicals who sought to undermine US national interests and US power and respect throughout the world. Carter, through his spineless ineptitude aided the Islamic radicals whose intentions were to embarass and humiliate America - and Carter aided and abetted their cause to a "T".

Now I don't believe there were any actual "traitors" involved in anything surrounding the Iran Hostages but if ANYONE was damaging AMERICA - it was CARTER, not Reagan - and history proves that beyond a doubt.

And for that, Reagan should be honored.

But nice try anyway mr_wilson. I give you two stars.

They are both right. The above text simply backs "Ahnalds" speech that democrats want a "one world" and will negotiate with liars and killers, whereas the Republicans just kick ass and take names as needed.

Posted: 9/3/2004 12:29:21 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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"

While technically true, and nobody is calling for his impeachment or anything, we know what he did and he didn't do it for the best of reasons. Reagan did a few back door things but in most cases it was with the best of intentions.

Holy Cow!!!! How interesting to see these two big-time posters here AR15.com, condoning TREASON by both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.

Both ADMIT to knowing what really happen regarding "The October Surprise" and are fully aware of the back-door deals done behind the back of then President Jimmy Carter, and both explained why they thought TREASON against the TRUE government of the United States was justifed.

Note from the dictionary:
treason; 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Don't know about most of ya, but cutting deals with a foreign country, that happens to be holding U.S. hostages, in circumvention of the efforts of the standing U.S. President and offering arms in exchange for those same hostages dang sure qualifies as TREASON in my book.

But that’s okay by SteyrAUG and The_Macallan.

I have been chastised by these two many an occasion over the last few years w/ tin-foil hat comments and other slurs, at one time IIRC (I have an old link which is dead I can't access) on this very same subject in which they claimed that this situation never happened (the back-door deals) and now they show their true colors…….

Thanks guys ya made my day,
Mike

P.S. - Don’t matter how much one dislikes the current setting President, acting behind his back on matters of National Security and Foreign Policy ain't justified for any reason, and is exactly what I called it, TREASON.

FWIW, I'm inclined to believe that Reagan knew very little of this, as "October Surprise" evidence points more toward Bill Casey and George Bush Sr along with a few others setting right now in the current GWB adminstration.

1. I'm not sure what he did was technically treason but I never said I condoned his actions. In fact to the contrary I said it was wrong that he undermined Carters efforts.

2. I don't recall ever chastising you on similar subjects. Want to be a bit more specific?

Posted: 9/3/2004 12:56:35 PM EDT

[#17]

Excuse me while I freakin' fail to see how ANY of this debate about Olie's involvement in Iran-Contra negates the DEAD-ON points in his letter to Kerry.

I don't know what really went on the events mentioned here, but I DO know that John F'n Kerry is a traitor to our troops who served in Vietnam and is not fit to be the CINC. In that, Olie and I TOTALLY agree.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Must Read: "Bring It On, John" - Oliver North (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us