Revising History. No way.
Note: I have added my own comments in brackets and in italics to demonstrably show how supercilious this attempt at revisionist history has been drafted.
The scene: In 1987, Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC, testifying at the Iran-Contra [constitutional and foreign policy scandal] hearings during the Reagan Administration: There was Ollie in front of God and country [the television cameras and under oath] getting the third degree [being asked probing, objective questions as the Senator was doing his job. It is an investigation after all.], but what he said was stunning. A senator was drilling him [asking a fair question]; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?" Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir." The senator continued, "Isn't that just a little excessive?" "No, sir," said Ollie. "No? And why not?" the senator asked. "Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir." "Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned. "By a terrorist, sir," Ollie answered. "Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?" "His name is Osama bin Laden, sir," Ollie replied.So what can we make of this dribble? How interesting that these conservatives hail North a hero? How wonderful that Ollie, an officer and a representative of the Regan Administration, after he took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, took deliberate steps to perform clear unconstitutional acts by by-passing the wishes of Congress stated in the Boland Amendment, and in addition sold arms to a country not friendly to the United States (Iran) and at that time a sworn enemy. Besides during the 1980s America was providing arms and military intelligence to Iraq. In the process North and his cohorts (Poindexter, Mc Farlane, Weinberger, Cassey), almost brought down the Reagan Administration. Intelligence operatives no wonder coined the term “blowback” for potential repercussions against the US due to a super-muscular American foreign policy.
“Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked. "Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of," Ollie answered. "And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator. "Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team [illegal since 1976] be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."
The senator disagreed with this approach [as it was against American foreign policy].
By the way, that senator was Al Gore [a human being who cannot read tea leaves].
In the 1994 film Clear and Present Danger, with Harrison Ford, the location might have been in Colombia, but the overarching theme was the Iran-Contra scandal and how presidential administrations can and often do break the law. Examples include: the Warren Harding Administration (Teapot Dome scandal), the Nixon Administration (Watergate), the Johnson Administration (Gulf of Tonking incident), the Reagan Administration (Iran Contra), George W. Bush (wiretapping without a Court warrant as dictated in the 1978 FISA statute, and the build up of war with lies and misrepresentations), and even the venerable Abe Lincoln (suspending the writ of habeas corpus in Courts, which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).
And as for assassinating nefarious characters in the world 14 years before a possible dastardly act is performed against the United States is also against the law, if not cheap Monday morning quarterbacking. Presidents since Ford have signed executive orders prohibiting international assassinations; in Ford’s case it was E. O. 11905. These EO’s were signed in order to curtail the excesses of the Cold War in South America and elsewhere in the world and the quite stunning acts of the CIA (Chile, El Salvador, Iran, and elsewhere).
Also, if Ollie had information about Osama, well he should since he was a part of the intelligence community within the Reagan White House and was privy to such information and it says little about Gore. As recent events during the build up of the US-Iraq War show as an example Senators have little intelligence information. This is because they do not have the CIA, the NSA, and others working for them. In addition, they obtain information via oversight committees and briefings from the executive branch. Gore, I assume, was against assassinations be used because it was against existing US policy. Since this exchange took place 14 years before 9/11 how can anyone who appreciates intellectual honesty take this FW seriously?
According to Section V, Part G of E. O. 11905: Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.Today, neo-cons and the Bush Administration want to reinstate assassinations and torture and repercussions will be felt here in the homeland and around the world.
See here: http:// www.heatherwokusch.com/columns/column45.html
Even Americans, in the main, know better. The so-called Christian extremist, Pat Robertson, got lambasted in every corner of the United States and in the media for advocating killing Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, to be sure an antagonist of the US. Talk about ignoring what Jesus Christ was said to have said in the Bible.
In short, this FORWARD being sent by Republicans only proves that Gore was stating American foreign policy at the time. It also proves that by looking at the whole Iran-Contra scandal in its entirety North acted as a nefarious character insofar he believes the president is above the law and can ignore the laws passed by Congress. We do not and should not have an imperial presidency. The Founding Fathers did not want that. Read the American constitution. Most of the powers in that document are given to Congress, the representatives of the people.
Is North a hero? Hardly. No way. Not to this American who believes in the separation-of powers.