July 9, 1987
Col. Oliver North started testifying this past Tuesday. I have watched large blocks of the proceedings, being fascinated, repelled and amazed by this man. He loses no opportunity to give extended statements in answer to questions to explain, justify and extol his actions. He believes the policy he was implementing was the right one, that it had to be done covertly, that lying to and misleading Congress was a necessary part of a covert activity. He named Casey, Poindexter, McFarlane and others on that level as authorizing and knowing about everything he did. He said, “I don’t mind taking the blame that the goals weren’t achieved, but I refuse to be a victim of a criminal prosecution.” He assumes Reagan and Bush knew what he was doing since he sent 5 memos for their approval up the line and they never came back dis-approving. Of course they could have been shredded.
August 8, 1987
In the last letter Ruth asked me “Why is Oliver North considered a hero?” You had to see him “perform” on TV to appreciate his appeal. As often noted, his voice had the passion and cracked in just the same way that James Stewart’s did in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” He is very telegenic/photogenic. His main forte was the projection of sincerity, conviction , loyalty, patriotism, endurance and intelligence. He offered a very simplistic approach. And that is paradoxical because he gave the most complex answers to simple questions, often mini-lectures on his beliefs, feelings and motivations.
I kept close watch on the Letters to the Editor in both the new York Times and The Hartford Courant and was pleased to note that people were not taken in by Ollie. After duly noting all of the above, most said, “but he lied, he broke the law, he destroyed official documents, he subverted our Constitution.”
Although the number of Americans who support aid to the contras increased during and after North’s testimony – but still not the point of being a majority – this week’s polls show that we’re almost back to where we were before Ollie. Before Ollie, 67% opposed aid; during and after Ollie, 46% opposed; this week, 59% oppose it.
People praised and condemn the hearings. I personally felt uplifted by them, because they reconfirmed my regard for our Senators and Representatives. I can continue to be confident that Congress will check an excess in another branch. Every one of the 26 members who sat on the panel was intelligent, articulate, courteous, defenders of the Constitution – even those who gave me a pain in the ass for their continuous attempts to defend Reagan at all cost (there were about 3) impressed me with their qualities of mind and speech. From the regional accents in which they spoke, you knew they were truly representative of America. The hearings were wonderfully educational about the Constitution, about the functioning of government under that Constitution, about the way people perceive, rationalize, rise to or turn away from the challenge.
As for Ronald Reagan: Daniel Schorr, a commentator on National Public Ratio in whom I have great trust, said: “After hearing Donald Regan describe the President’s reaction to the information that money from Iran arms sales had been diverted to the contras, I now believe the President did not know about the diversion. (Regan said that Reagan’s shock and anger were so real that if he was acting he deserved an Academy Award.)
On the other hand, Sam Gejdenson, a Congressman from Connecticut in whom I also have a great deal of trust, said, “If you know John Poindexter, you know that he would never do what he did without approval and authorization.”
My wish is that Israel could have a legislative body as responsible and responsive as the United States Congress.