More on Ollie

As anyone who follows our posts here knows, I really do try to give credit where credit is due. This is one of those times.

I'm in the habit of listening to my satellite radio exclusively to and from work. I listen to the political talk shows on the way in, and Catholic talk on the way home. Today, on the way in, Andrew Wilkow had Ollie North on as a live guest.

Convicted felon or not, the man has class. Nothing he said was partisan in any way, shape or form. He didn't favor one side of the aisle over another in his talk, and as much as Wilkow tried to get him to come down on the side of conservative GOP policy, North wouldn't bite. If he was critical of past Democrat administrations (and he was, especially Johnson's), he was just as critical of the GOP administrations... especially Bush's.

He was brutal on the policies and actions of L. Paul Bremer, the former head of the reconstruction effort in Iraq. He ripped de-Ba'athification and the dissolution of the Iraqi Army as the single greatest piece of failed policy since the end of the Reagan era (could he be referring to the Iran-Contra affair here?). He decried the Bush White House for not immediately recalling Bremer once the policies were announced, because they contradicted Rumsfeld's plans. He applauded Powell for standing tall and strong in the face of harsh criticism from the Vice President and the SecDef immediately after the invasion. In short, he made it abundantly clear that he seemed to agree that much of what we discussed about the facts behind the "Bush's War" program were true, even if they were presented in a biased manner.

Of course, the greater part of the show was about his new book, American Heroes. I am not the type of person that typically runs out and buys every conservative book to hit the shelves... especially those written by avowed pundits. However, tonight I ordered a copy of this book.

I do not agree with his defense of his actions while working for Reagan and Poindexter... but any wrongs he may have committed in the past are well on their way to being overshadowed by his actions since 9/11 and his role as a field correspondent for Fox News.

Just giving credit where credit is due...

That's no answer...

Yes, Ryan, you explained the "cool" aspect of North in the eyes of war-time Moms and people who like to read books written by conservative pundits... but the real meat-and-potatoes portion of Jambo's post was why the fawning nostalgia and longing for past Presidents that circumvented the separation of powers aspect of our Constitution?

James was dead-on with that post... one of his best yet, I think. The example set by the list of past Presidents that felt they were above the Congress in the governmental pecking order certainly gave GW no lessons on how to conduct himself in the face of military confrontation, did it? He got the Congressional support he needed... based on extremely biased and (now) questionable intelligence concerning Saddam's capacity to project force and destruction in the region. His administration is now seen as "liars" out to fulfill an agenda outside of the professed goals of the US government. Why is this acceptable in the eyes of conservatives? Even Bush's conservative supporters are divided in how they see the war in Iraq concluding... many are beginning to take the Ron Paul position of "no more nation-building"... true "conservatism" in my eyes (and not necessarily the right course, either).

How far back into the history of "republicanism" do you have to go to see that when the executive powers buck the legislative powers, it is almost always the latter that wins. Go all the way back to the "first" republic in history (Rome), and you see more examples than you can easily count... Tiberius Gracchus, Gaius Marius, Caesar himself... all bucked the Senate and paid the price, and none could point to their actions (had they lived to see the results) and say "See, I was RIGHT! It worked!" The Gracchian and Marian "reforms" paved the way for Caesar and Augustus and the end of the Republic.

FDR's strengthening of the Executive branch might have roots back to the 1860's and the Lincoln administrations, but his was the administration that fought the hardest and the most often against a rabidly opposed Supreme Court, and was constantly being handicapped by Congressional oversight and review (at least domestically speaking).

One more small item, then I'm done... I'm not up for a Reagan-bashing right this minute.

While James is correct in that any documents that could have implicated the White House in Iran-Contra were destroyed by Poindexter and his aids, and thus no concrete evidence exists to the fact that Reagan knew we were selling arms to Iran... the fact remains that while Reagan was President, we sold over 2,500 high-tech missiles to Iran, along with tons of spare parts and technology needed to service them (and, unfortunately, reverse engineer them, as well). These included TOW and Hellfire missile systems... cutting edge technology for the mid to late 80's. How does that NOT constitute US government cooperation with an established terrorist state (as Iran had already been labeled, by Congress and two Presidents)? As James stated... this practice did not end until Feb of 1989... one month into the administration of GHW Bush. How am I supposed to see this as anything less than some form of "bargaining" with a terrorist state that has already waged a campaign of terror against Americans?

IIIII'MMMMMMM BACK!!!! well pretty soon

Well it's good to be missed I suppose. And as for the slacker stuff I have completed almost 4 months of training so far in a not so quite inviting atmosphere, with 18 year old kids who think they know better about everything, instructors who believe they are above everyone and everything (I don't think I have ever in my 21 year military career met so many ego-maniacs in one place) and still managed to maintain an over 90% average in a course that has about a 50% wash rate. With that said I an GLAD to be going home in two days.

I am going to try and catch up with the posts when I get home so I can get back to stirring shit.

Hope all is well and I'm looking forward to seeing Jambo's apartment, sorry about the house bro.

Baddboy

Its not all shredded papers and cake you know?...

First ....

"Can anyone think of current "under-30" celebrity that is actively pro-military or morally conservative in their political views?"

Ummm ...NO. And there's good reason. You CAN NOT become successful in that industry and publicly be a "conservative", or a "traditionalist" if you like. I once heard Bill Cosby say that he knew something had gone terribly wrong when writers on his show were privately confessing their more traditional political views, but swearing him to secrecy so that they could still work in town. From the studio moguls (and they still exist), to the brand names in film making there is a "Stalinist" smell in the air - you will be ostracized, there own version of a blacklist ironically enough, if you confess to being politically right of center ... or even a practicing Christian for that matter. You can portray a serial murderer and be applauded, even win awards, but talk about Christ in positive terms and your reward is unemployment. Buddha and Allah are probably still acceptable, but not Jesus.

I could add to that list off the top of my head - Gary Sinese (Forrest Gump, etc), Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Jon Voight (and his greatest contribution to the world of film is having that SMOKIN' hot daughter, Angelina "Tomb Raider" Jolie) . But think about that list, yours and mine. Each and every person, outside of Willis and Eastwood, have seen their careers drop off the radar as soon as they visit the troops. Sinese is a better actor then 90% of Hollywood and what's he doing now? Silver? I haven't seen him since a Jean Claude Van Dam flick, and he's another classically trained actor (Silver that is). The Robocop guy speaks for itself - ROBOCOP. You have to have reached "untouchable" status like a Willis, or Eastwood, or Swarchenegger, and even a Gibson to some extent , in that you can make movies out of your own pocket, and people will go and see them, otherwise you kill your career by copping to being a troop supporting conservative - they've instituted a de facto blacklist whilst simultaneously claiming that Dubya supporters are trying to censor their criticism of the war (I'm talking to you, Dixie Broads).

There's a syndicated conservative radio host based here in Vegas, Jerry Doyle. He was a main character on Babylon 5. I've never seen the show, but if you have he was the bald guy. At any rate, for several years during the running of that popular Sci-fi show he was pulling down 50k a week! Now, he was a Wall Street investor for 10 years before he tried his bit at acting, so he used that tremendous salary wisely and set himself and his family up so that even if he never worked another day in his life, they could live like kings ..... and he did this for a particular reason, outside of it just being smart. As that show was going off the air he decided to run for Congress instead of further pursuing his acting career ... as a Republican, and a conservative Republican at that. He knew this would end his acting stint, thus the estate had to be in place to fall back on in the event he lost the congressional bid. He of course did lose, badly (he was running in CA after all), and subsequently went into the AM radio game where he's found some success. And he sums up Hollywood's attitude towards politics quite succinctly ... "You can come out of rehab, you can come out of the closet, and they will embrace you. But if you come out as a conservative, they'll give you the Corleone kiss of death, and order the hit."

****

I think I explained why North is "cool" in conservative circles, but I'll extend briefly on those comments since Jambo posed the question. One, Ollie is a brand name linked to Saint Ron, period. You can go on all day about it being linked in a negative way, say it was the proverbial "black eye" all you want, but we're talking an emotional connection, by definition it is "unreasonable." And by your own admission, the Democrat congress went on a political witch hunt rather then prosecute crimes, so Ollie represents Reagan in essence "beating" those who came after him in the only vulnerable moment of his presidency. Also, I think one can NOT underestimate the "respect currency" that North has accrued in his devotion to the current troops, getting out there story of success, rallying - using his brand name - much needed and much deserved attention to their many good deeds (this entire book that I got signed for my mother is the troops in theater from cover to cover & his entire bit on stage was about them). Name me another popular name, with a recurring news spot on a major cable network, that does that. So, you add these all up and while on paper it doesn't make sense, the Ronnie/pro-troop/we defeated the Soviets overall lens that one can use to look back on North, does in fact garner him a great deal of affection.

And let me add, we like him in spite of his failings that the judge pointed to, not because of them. I was in that line as the gold star moms thanked him for supporting their sons and daughters, and highlighting their wartime successes in an otherwise hostile media. It's not like we were in line shouting out, "hey Ollie, that was GREAT when you shredded those documents and all!" They were there to thank him. That was what I heard uttered the most as people passed through him in that line .... "thank you."

Let's dial the way back machine to 1989...

First off, Baddboy will be back on the Coast Thursday. His phase two training will be done out of Keesler, so that's nice. I'm sure he'll get a kick out of my new apartment.

Secondly, Ryan's gushing love fest concerning Oliver North made me think. I didn't recall Ollie being a convicted felon of the same cut as G. Gordon Liddy, (who is a turd no matter what your political views or affiliations are, a crook who makes a name for himself from the ashes of the darkest moments in United States Executive Office history.)

So I loaded up Mr. Peabody and we dialed the Way Back Machine to 1989.

Oliver North was part of a twenty-three count indictment along with Admiral Poindexter, Mag. General Richard Secord and Albert Hakim. Ryan's grandfather's contribution allowed Ollie to artfully separate his case from the others (they were all tried separately eventually) and due to classified testimony and national security issues, eleven charges were dropped. Of the twelve he was tried for in February 1989, he was convicted of three. They were:

1) Obstruction and misleading Congress.
2) Shredding and altering official documents.
3) Accepting illegal gratuities from Richard Secord.

In closing Judge Gessel said,

"The indictment involves your participation in particular covert events. I do not think that in this area you were a leader at all, but really a low-ranking subordinate working to carry out initiatives of a few cynical superiors. You came to be the point man in a very complex power play developed by higher-ups. Whether it was because of the excitement and the challenge or because of conviction, you responded certainly willingly and sometimes even excessively to their requirements. And along the way you came to accept, it seems to me, the mistaken view that Congress couldn't be trusted and that the fate of the country was better left to a small inside group, not elected by the people, who were free to act as they chose while publicly professing to act differently. Thus you became and by a series of circumstances in fact and I believe in your mind part of a scheme that reflected a total distrust in some constitutional values.
Now, a trial is a very extraordinary thing. As you stand there now you're not the fall guy for this tragic breach of the public trust. The jury composed of everyday citizens your supporters mocked and mocked throughout the trial understood what was taking place."[ 66]

"Observing that many others involved in the events were escaping without censor or with prosecutorial promises of leniency or immunities they used their common sense. And they gave you the benefit of a reasonable doubt." 66

Judge Gesell was referring to media opinion pieces and public statements by North supporters expressing the view that the jury was too ill-informed about current affairs to pass judgment on North. They argued this based on the fact that none of the jurors claimed to be knowledgeable of or interested in North or the Iran/contra matter before being sworn in. It was North's attorneys, however, (good job, Granddad Ryan!) who insisted on selecting a jury virtually unaware of their client's widely publicized congressional testimony. In pre-trial hearings regarding jury selection and possible problems stemming from the publicity that had surrounded the Iran/contra matter, Judge Gesell said it was his experience in presiding over high-profile cases, including some of the Watergate cases, that ordinary citizens pay little attention to the national news events occurring around them in Washington. Because of this, he said, it was possible to pick a fair-minded jury even in the most publicized cases.

"You're here now because of your own conduct when the truth was coming out. Apparently you could not face disclosure and decided to protect yourself and others. You destroyed evidence, altered and removed official documents, created false papers after the events to keep Congress and others from finding out what was happening. Now, I believe that you knew this was morally wrong. It was against your bringing up. It was against your faith. It was against all of your training. Under the stress of the moment it was easier to choose the role of a martyr but that wasn't a heroic, patriotic act nor was it in the public interest."67

Now, that being said, I wish I could link the freaking page I got this from, but I can't.

It is important to remember what Oliver North did was illegal. Viewing his actions through the rose tinted glasses of our victory in the Cold War, it nevertheless was the will of a freely elected Congress to deny funding of the Contras. It was the publicly stated (and I can't overstate that, as can anyone else who remembers Reagan's weekly addresses, regular as church on Sunday) that the United States never has, will not nor ever will negotiate with terrorists by our President. There was no record of any Executive Order clearing North for the actions he took. His original sentence was $150,000 and two years community service and probation.

In July 1990 the Court of Appeals dismissed the charges because it was deemed the witnesses were impermissably affected by immunized congressional testimony. So, in fact, North is not a convicted felon of the same cloth as Liddy. Had Congress been more in tuned to prosecuting law breakers and not witch hunting the most popular President of the last half of the century, North would have done hard time. Congress gave him immunity to get to the Administration.

In the end, what does history show us?

1) The Contras failed. Ortega was removed from power due to the financial collapse of his sponsor state, the USSR. Communism did not spread to El Salvador or the neighboring Central American states.

2) Negotiating with terrorists failed. In fact, it prolonged the hostages' internment by as many as five years. All the hostages were released within two and a half years of George Sr.'s election because George DIDN'T negotiate.

3) The policy, as admitted by Reagan on national TV in 1987, was a failure. It seemed like a good idea at the time but it wasn't. It became the one black eye on an otherwise top five executive era.

4) It set the stage for the underming of the Legislative Branch of the government that has been prevelant over the last eight years.

Opinion now.

I don't know why "conservatives" have such an issue with following rules when it comes to policy. Why is it we look to almost mythicly powerful executives and think, "That's it! That's what we need!" when the Framers NEVER intended for that to be the case. Our greatest President, Washington, abhorred that kind of executive power. Andrew Jackson, Jefferson, Madison, Wilson (as much as I can't stand the bastard), Teddy, all of them either toed the line or got slapped. Even FDR, as much a king as we've ever had, got his hands slapped repeatedly. So when Reagan circumvents Congress and allows members of his staff to fall under prosecution for HIS failed policy, why do we see heroism in that? What is "cool" or admirable about that?

MIA?

What the hell ever happened to Baddboy?

Did he ever get back from TX? I don't think we've heard from him in ages... somebody light a fire under that slacker.

That's for Ryan...

Maybe he'll stop "geeking out" now over "the good Colonel" and let the picture and the post fall to new topics and discussions.

(laugh)

I certainly can't argue with your summation of North's pro-military media efforts. He is, more than any other "celebrity" in the media today, working non-stop to show the effort and sacrifice that the service men and women are providing each and every day.

I keep comparing North's pride in his service with leading Democrat veterans (like John Kerry), who didn't take ANY pride in his service (according to his Congressional testimony upon his return to the US) until it was determined that it was something the DNC could count as "voter-friendly"... and by then it was too late.

On a side note... but kind of related topic... there is a rather "has-been" actor by the name of Peter Weller, who gained much fame and fortune through his sci-fi cult classic "Buckaroo Bonzai" and the Robocop series of movies. After his fall from the immediate lime-light spot, he took a position as a professor of history at Syracuse University (not all that far from where I am now, in fact). He hosts a History Channel series called Engineering an Empire and is a very good commentator on unique historical perspectives (I especially loved his commentary on the Byzantine Emperor Justinian's role in the "Nika" riots of the 6th Century... hehe). He hails from Stevens Point, WI (very close to my hometown) and has made some very acute observations about the historical necessity of our struggle against radical Islam in this country and across the world. I think his knowledge of the Byzantine Empire's struggle with Islam has given him a good view of just how pervasive the jihad-mentality can be to large segments of a population.

Celebrity support of our troops and of core Judeo-Christian values of family, life and liberty is a rare thing nowadays... North, Tom Selleck, Ron Silver, Ted Nugent, Robert Duvall, and the few others (it is a very short list) that support a moderate political view... not necessarily a conservative view even... are not given much of a voice in the modern media. On top of this... does anyone see something particular about the group I listed above? It truly is just about as full of a list as I can think of, off the top of my head, now that Heston is dead.

The people on my list are all of the "older" generation... probably not even of Ryan's generation. Jambo and I grew up with Magnum PI and "the Nuge" (I was particularly fond of Damn Yankees)... but for the younger crowd, I'm not sure there is a lot of connection from the celebrity world of Hollywood.

Can anyone think of current "under-30" celebrity that is actively pro-military or morally conservative in their political views?