I think we need to have Ollie run for President.

He'll have my vote.

Not me, while I appreciate his service to our country.  I do not appreciate the lies he told out elected representitives.

JC Watts would be a much better candidate in my book.  YMMV.

What does he have to offer this country?  Wasn't he involved in illegal arms trades with Iran?  Do you really want a criminal as your president?

Bill C. [smoke]

Oh please first let me say I fought side by side with him. Second you better remember who he was working for and why the arms deal was being done. You think he said Well I will just sell Illegal arms ON MY OWN to these asswipes. He had the backing of the CIA, NSA,DOJ,DOD and many more.

I guess that's like blaming this kid who took the fall for Martha Stewart Stock. We forget so fast and look for scapegoats so fast.

It's a tough call. While I admire his absolute loyalty under fire, as a Marine to his Commander In Chief, it would trouble me to have Mr. North as our president because blind loyalty is not a trait that suits the job. He is s stand up guy, but we need some one who is a true leader, some one who will grab this country by the balls and squeeze hard enough to weed all the PC, Anti-Constitutional, Anti-American rejects right out of office, and for that matter out of the USA for good!                  ...Any suggestions?

Didn't he get convicted and thrown out of the military?  This is not presidential material.  The consequences could be disasterous.  Think about it.

Bill C. [smoke]

As long as he keeps appearing in that insipid JAG-off show, he's personna non grata.

Oneshot...thats what he would do

I have mixed feelings about the guy. Like hielo I was pissed off at the deception, but as I've seen him more in recent years I feel sympathetic.

You mean like the 42nd President ?

Sounds like Ollie to me.
Or we can just keep electing butt-sucking, smooth talking politicians interested only in their own accumulation of power. Ya know, we all sit here and bitch about 'em but we have no one to blame but ourselves. After all, we're the ones who keep electing and re-elcting pussies like the Klintons.
Colonel North is an american hero. As for lying to Congress, how many times do you think those SOB's lied to get to where they are today. And then they act all indignant when someone else does so in the service of their country while putting it all on the line for their CIC. he may of saved both the Reagan and Bush administrations, without which the cold war might still be ongoing and Sadam Hussein might now own Kuwait and enslaved its people. Hell, by now the entire middle east might be under Saddam's rule. Nicaragua might be totally controlled by the Sandinista's and a large chunk of Central America as well as the Carribean under communist control. The world might be a very different place, gentlemen.
I could hardly think of anyone whom I would trust more.

Now what crimes are you talking about?  The fact that I was impeached by over zealous Republicans for having oral sex with an intern is no crime.  The 42nd Presidncy may have been the greatest on yet.

Bill C. [smoke]

Clinton thats funny..I agree you should not have been impeached and I don't care it you inhaled or not. What I am pissed is what you did to my rights to own rifles. Keep comming maybe you might run again and fix the problem...LOL

"He had the backing of the CIA, NSA,DOJ,DOD and many more."

so...he had the backing of other criminals.

big deal.

REX 84.

so...a criminal lied to other criminals.

big deal.[:D]

As much as I like him, and as much as I think the entire Iran-Contra thing was a load of crap, you've got to accept the fact that he's simply unelectable.

JC Watts offers all kinds of interesting opportunities. I'd like to see the Left call us racists with a black as our nominee...

Now see, you all are starting to make sense.  You've come around.  Now say 'Al '04'.  C'mon, it won't hurt you, you may even like it.

Bill C. [smoke]

Yes, I agree, he is unelectable. Just like most everyone else in this country who would make a great president

My perception of Ollie is that while he did illegal things and lied to Congress about it, etc, etc... The number one thing he had in mind was the well being of the United States of America.

You can't say that about too many other people who have done illegal things and lied to Congress, etc, etc.

Hey, just what are you saying?

Bill C. [smoke]

Yep. You're right. Al Sharpton in 2004!

That way GW can REALLY kick the shit out of the leftist scumbag the [s]Socialists[/s]Democrats nominate!

I think Al Gore will be a great change of pace in 2004 when he is elected.  You already know that the people of America want him in office, he won the popular vote, remember?  It wasn't until the supreme court stepped in and canceled the vote counting that George W. Bush was elected President.  I am sure that these mistakes and deceptions won't be repeated in 2004.

Bill C. [smoke]

Disregarding his involvement in Iran-Contra, he seems be pretty smarmy to me.

In 10 years in the military, the guys I met that had "been there, done that" didn't talk the way North does.  He uses trite phrases better suited to bad paperback war novels, to talk about sacrafice and bravery that should be honored.

Every time he talks about seeing his "Marines dying face down in the mud" I want to gag.  How about "Brave F-n Marines that died doing the job their country sent the to do" (breaking s*#t and killing people).

I'm Army for cripes sake, and the kinds of phrases he uses cheapens and insults the sacrfice he's speaking of.

In short, he seems the type of self promoting blow hard that was all too common in the middle and upper military ranks of the Army when I was in.

Oliver North might not use the same discretion with the military that I did, and lots of young soldiers might die from it.  Please for your countrymen vote for Al Gore in 2004.

Bill C. [smoke]

Sorry Highpower that is how he is. His Marines and if you saw him when they did die face down in the mud you would understand. He felt that way about Army or any Vet.

Some people do use phrases that seem to turn others off. He had and still has heart for those who fight for this country. Like he said today there is no former Marine. Once a Marine always a Marine. Same has anyone in their Branch of service.

I started this thread on his powers of foreign affairs. True I would need to hear and judge what he would do for the economy. I don't base it only on Foreign Affairs. You just need to understand where his heart is for this country. Sure he might be a criminal in the eyes of some.

What can we say about others who want to run this country and be President. We need to realize it was done for the good of America. Taking the fall also was done for the good of the country. You just have to understand how much heart he has even after being F-ked by those above him.

Since he was a platoon commander in Vietnam, there is a pretty good chance he did see a few of his Marines die in the mud.

I've met him on three occasions, and each time he struck me as being a man of honor without any smarminess.

The first time was at the Dallas Country Club, when I attended a dinner that basically was to collect money for his legal defense.

So I gave money and had my photo taken with the gentleman. It hangs proudly in my office!

The next two times were at Republican Party functions in Dallas, including one which coincided with the publication of his book.

I even got him to autograph the previous photo that I had taken with him!

He was, and always will be, a fine American hero and gentleman.

Eric The(UnelectableOfCourse,ButFine)Hun[>]:)]

During the congressional hearings involving Oliver North and the Admiral. North was given time to rebutt what was being said against him during the hearings. The Washington Post said: [b][red]OLLIE TOOK THE HILL[/b][/red].

Does anybody think this clown is serious?

Bill

Transcript from the July 13, 1987 Iran/Contra hearings:

REP BROOKS: Colonel North, in your work at the NSC, were  you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the  continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?

BRENDAN SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman?

SEN INOUYE: I believe that question touches upon a highly  sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not  touch on that.

REP BROOKS: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman,  because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that [b]there had been a plan developed by that same agency, a  contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would  suspend the American constitution.[/b] And I was deeply  concerned about it and wondered if that was the area in which  he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his  confirmation.

SEN INOUYE; May I most respectfully request that that  matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into  this, I'm certain arrangements can be made for an executive  session.

North worked closely with then head of FEMA Louis Guiffrida in formulating REX 84 BRAVO.

In a November 18, 1991 story, the New York Times elaborated:

Acting outside the Constitution in the early 1980s, a secret federal agency established a line of succession to the presidency to assure continued government in the event of a devastating nuclear attack, current and former United States officials said today.

The program was called "Continuity of Government." In the words of a recent report by the Fund for Constitutional Government,1 "succession or succession-by-designation would be implemented by unknown and perhaps unelected persons who would pick three potential successor presidents in advance of an emergency. [b]These potential successors to the Oval Office may not be elected, and they are not confirmed by Congress.[/b]

According to CNN, the list eventually grew to 17 names and included Howard Baker, Richard Helms, Jeanne Kirkpatrick James Schlesinger, Richard Thornberg, Edwin Meese, Tip O'Neil, and Richard Chaney.

The plan was not even limited to a nuclear attack but included any "national security emergency" which was defined as:

Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.

No, the best thing for this country is not lieing, cheating or stealing, it is following the Constitution of the United States, to the letter, not interpreting it as you go to fit whatever situation you may find yourself in.

Just because he was lieing and cheating and stealing for our people doesn't make it right.

Anyone here want to support James Carville for president...thought so, same thing.

Post from hielo -

Then Congress should have followed the same document before it passed the Boland Amendment that seriously hampered the President's duty to conduct foreign policy, as outlined in the Constitution itself!

So, you want to say that the Iran-Contra mess was a shining example of Congressional wisdom and reasonableness?

It was Congressional pettifoggery at its very worst.

And the people understood it. Col. North went from being a petty criminal (BULLSHIT, I say) to being a national hero in the short course of one set of public hearings!

[b]Boy, were the Democrats stupid![/b]

And when Ronald Reagan left office in 1989, he left with the highest approval rating of any President since FDR. Notwithstanding the fact that the Iran-Contra investigation was going full tilt by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh.

It appears that Americans understand all about what goes on in Washington, very well, thank you.

Eric The(Astonished)Hun[>]:)]

Eric, I understadn that this is one of your pet Ox' and you are taking it personally that it is being gored, but using the schoolyard excuse of "SOmebody hit me first" or "They are all doing it, so why can't I" to justify illegality is just plain wrong.  Sure, I know, everybody in DC is corrupt and a piece of filtht hat I wouldn't allow into my home, but that doesn't excuse people who are not filth (IE, Col. North) to do the same thing, using their tactics.

I also understand that the good people are serioulsy ham-strung by not being able to use the "bad" peoples tactics, but that is why it is called th Good Fight.

Again, I ask you, are you willing to support James Carville for president?

Of course I'm serious.  Ollie North doesn't have a chance, and GW only beat Gore by 500 some odd votes in Fla., a mistake that won't be repeated in 2004.  Wasn't Bush the canidate for smaller government?  What happened to that?

Bill C. [smoke]

Post from hielo -

If I thought the way you do, [b]hielo[/b], then Col. Oliver North wouldn't be one of my heroes!

There was never any 'illegality' in what came to be known as Iran-Contra, proven.

The Boland Amendmnent was NOT a criminal law. There were no sanctions written into the law that said if it were violated, such and such would be the penalty, etc.

That's what the [b]liberals[/b] try to allege! That the 'scheme' developed by Poindexter, Bill Casey, and Col. North was a criminal act!

[b]It was not![/b]

The only thing that got Poindexter and North into trouble, and for which they and the others were prosecuted, was in lying to Congress!

And the only reason that these folks even had to testify to Congressional investigators was that our dear President Reagan, unlike other Presidents we know, specifically waived any and all executive privilege when it came to the investigation of Iran-Contra, and ordered all of the Executive Branch to cooperate with the Congressional investigations!

Wow! Now that's the way it should be done! (Take notes, William J. Clinton!).

And, when we discussed the matter of lying or telling the truth when national security issues were involved in connection with the USS Liberty court of inquiry, refresh my memory as to how you felt about that?

Did you support the 'lying' that some claimed occurred, simply because the witnesses were ordered to lie?

Then the folks involved in Iran-Contra lied to Congressional investigators, and only testified truthfully when given immunity!

This is what undid all of their criminal convictions, BTW. The government failed to prove that there were independent grounds for proving their perjury [u]besides[/u] their Congressional testimony, given under immunity!

Eric The(Satisfied)Hun[>]:)]

I cooperated fully with a congressianal grand jury, and answered every question truthfully.  I was busy trying to run the good old USA at the time and did not think that it was prudent to be off discussing my sexual behavior with congress.

Bill C. [smoke]

Edited for content

Eric,

(Whoa big boy, no need to get frothing over this).

Refresh my memory, is lying to congress a crime, or not?

More importantly, isn't lying to our representitives, the same as lying to you and me?

How can a Representitive Republic work, when the people charged with upholding the Constitution of these United States (Col. North) feel that for reasons that we need not know, they do not have to follow the laws laid out under that Constituion?

Or, is this a case, of the ends justify the means?  Or, Do as I say, not as I do?

Take a deep breath eric, I don't want you going off the deep end on this one.  While Col. North may be one of your personal heroes/friends, it doesn't excuse him for his breech of our trust, does it?

One more time, would you support James Carville for President?  I ask, because he is willing to lie and cheat and break laws for what he percieves as the common good (what he sees as the common good that is ).  How is what he doing anything more odious than what Col. North did?

(uh, well, other than Col. North taking a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of these United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic, people lying to our elected representitives would seem to be an enemy, no?)

I remember that about North and the FEMA or Continuity of Government. There happens to be such a plan now in case of a Nuke or a major unrealistic disaster. But you see that won't matter. There will be chaos till things get put back into order....Sort of like the movie The Postman.

Now like Eric says...There was no criminal act involved. It was never proven it was a criminal act. If anything he saved face for lots of people. Carville for president something to also to think about. He has to much sense to run.

So lets see you got North on an act of trying to protect our nation and being persecuted for it. Never found guilty or did time in jail. Was he steeling money from the US? Was he having sexual affairs and caught lying about it? Was he selling stocks has the prices fell and caused taxpayers to feel it in their wallets and long term security? NO he was selling arms from the US in a secret deal put together by the US> The plan was not and I repeat was not his idea. He followed orders right to the end.

    You're half-right. The Florida voters definately won't make THAT mistake again. This time the Republicans are coming out in force because they saw what that "..but my vote doesn't count stuff " almost did. Cripes, we almost had a psycho in the White House! While your "disenfranchised" crybabies have announced publicly that they won't vote in the next election on account of "dat dere disin fr.. er, dessonf....er, we done didn't be gettin our guy in." Here's a tip: Get over it already.
 
BTW: "canidate?" Is that going to dinner and a movie with a Howitzer? Geez, so much for that Russian education. Can you get your money back?  I hear the market is really hot right now for White House crockery. Might clear a few bucks on that stuff. Ask Hitlery if she has any left. She lives in N.Y. now.

Post from hielo -

Apparently so, although lying to Congress is in the nature of seducing a whore, IMHO.

Well, I won't use the same remark as before!

Was Col. North under an oath that precluded his testimony concerning matters of National Security? Was he given the opportunity to make this objection? I simply don't know.

But knowing the character of Lawrence Walsh, and the House Democrat lawyers, I seriously doubt he was!

You know these folks on Capitol Hill, they seem to believe themselves above the Law when it comes to disclosing top-secret information, witness the ongoing FBI investigation of 17 Senators and their staffs regarding disclosure of critical classified information.

So if Col. North says the information was top secret and classified, I will believe him over the word of Walsh and others.

When he was granted use-immunity, he told these cretins everything they wanted to know. And they clumsily failed to segregate the info from what they had already collected, tainting the later conviction of North.

I have no respect for a Congress that attempts to hamstring the Chief Executive's prerogatives to set foreign policy. That was an issue that held the key to the entire controversy, but one which was never used by President Reagan, so eager was he to resolve this issue.

Whose trust did he breach? I am not certain that I can say he breached anyone's trust.

Is there any reason that you believe that James Carville should be entitled to be in the same room as Col. North? I don't see that either!

I have seen no evidence that Col. North ever violated that oath, at all! What evidence have you seen that he has?

That these elected Representatives have chosen to act like enemies of the United States is not to be seriously challenged by anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together!

I don't know if you remember those days, but Col. Oliver North's rise in the estimation of the American Public caused a lot of hand-wringing and embarrassment among the enemies of freedom, then-known as the Democrats in Congress. As they still are known, to this very day!

Eric The(Col.NorthWasAMensche!)Hun[>]:)]

Sans the military's overseas votes that never got counted........

Why do I have the feeling that Ronald Regan, wasn't the Reagan completely in charge of the White House, at the end of his last term? Was he then, too far along into Alzheimers?

Bill

Your man GWB should take notes on that one, too.

LtCol North was a top-level staffer at the National Security Council, a high-level intelligence and operations directorate during the 1980s. The NSC performed some rather brilliant CT and intel operations. This group handled America's most pressing and urgent problems from behind the scenes, quietly fighting numerous shadow wars to keep Americans and American interests safe.

The sale of weapons to Iran was not illegal. It was a sanctioned, approved operation.

The Iranians claimed to have influence with the Hezbollah terrorists who were holding Americans hostage in Lebanon.  

The Iranians claimed that they would negotiate for the release of the hostages if we would sell them arms for their fight against Iraq. They had a long list of demands, mainly for spare parts and munitions for their US-manufactured high-tech weapons. Among those weapons systems were the TOW I(Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) anti-tank missile launchers.

The US had a large stock of TOW I missiles. Several early lots of TOW I missiles had degraded seriously while in storage and were unsafe. When fired by US crews, the missiles detonated upon launch or shortly thereafter, at a very high rate. They were being kept in storage until we could destroy or repair them.

Instead, North's NSC group hit upon the plan to sell these about 1,000 of these defective missiles to Iran, since the TOW was on the Iranian "wish list." They sold the bogus missiles to Iran, at a substantial profit. This was not illegal and was sanctioned and approved.

They used the profit to purchase weapons, primarily Polish AKs, and ammunition for Contras fighting the communist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. This was technically illegal and against the Boland Amendment, a law which only allowed humanitarian aid to the Contras. The Boland Amendment was a civil statute with no criminal enforcement, and probably unconstitutional, since the executive branch can decide to whatever it wants vis-a-vis our nation's foreign policy, including arming guerillas fighting a hostile regime. Congress has no constitutional authority to tell the Executive branch what to do about foreign policy, although it can decide not to fund it, and the Senate has the authority to ratify treaties. The Reagan Administration claimed not to know that the "illegal" arms transfers to the Contras happened, and that the NSC was running a "rogue operation," thereby invoking "plausible deniability," a standard government tactic at these levels. During this same time frame, other arms transfers violating Boland were occurring, and US SF troops were training the Contras, and even participating in some combat actions, particularly during Sandinista cross-border incursions into Honduras, also in violation of Boland. I am sure the Administration had no knowledge of those events, either (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

The whole "scandal" revolved around whether North was lying or not about whether top-level Administration officials knew about the "illegal" transfer of weapons to the Contras. Of course they did, and it was North's duty to take one for the team and claim that they did not. The really ironic part of all of this is that by the time this came to light, Boland had been over turned and we were openly providing weapons and direct assistance to the Contras.

Napoleon denied a Marshall's baton to one of his most capable generals because he was a spymaster, which he found distasteful. Napoleon could not bring himself to acknowledge that the service of one who deals with spies and the covert, back-alley operations is often times just as important, and sometimes more important than that of the man who fights on the conventional battlefield. Your spooks and spies measure success in wars that we did not fight and battles we never had to chance. What North did was part and parcel to that whole line of work. It may seem distasteful, but is absolutely necessary.

Ok, just so I get this striaght (I am not a mensa member, so have patience), Col. North took U.S. Property and sold it (The TOW Missles) at a profit (Damn good job there!), I gather he was authorized to sell them by congress, the branch that deals with all monetary matters, he then took said monies, including profits and purchased polish made AK's.  These AK's he then (gave/sold?) to the contra's, against a directive of the U.S. Congress?

Basically he took our possesions (the TOW's), sold them to a foreign power (Quasi-legal, but lets give it to him), then with those monies (our money) he bought polish AK's and gave these away to the contras.

Not only did he lie to our representitives, but he stole our money?  (Or did he get congressional approval to dip into the public purse to use that money form the TOW sales?)

Where am I going wrong here guys?

How so? Explain that [u]one[/u]!

And since George W. Bush is [u]your[/u] President, as well as ours, why do you call him 'your man'?

[b]Did you vote for AlGore?[/b] Was [u]he[/u] 'your man'?

Eric The(FessUp,Son!)Hun[>]:)]

Sic' em Eric!

The US Department of Defence got their money back for the sale of the worthless TOW missiles, which were just going to be scrapped anyway, and were more of a liability at that point. He basically scammed the Iranians, who lost an untold number of missile crews to those defective TOWs.

The profits were used to buy weapons to give to Contras, in accordance with the wishes of the Executive Branch of the government, which can do what it wants when it comes to foreign policy. Boland was not legitimate law in their view (or mine), but they chose to covertly break it, with the cut out being North and his NSC folks.

It ain't pretty, its politics.