Is Ollie North suggesting that soldiers not obey legal orders from a Democratic President?

Good golly, it's Ollie!

I mean, maybe ole Ollie learned the hard way about the dangers of carrying out illegal activities. But in this column, Obama Could Have Mentioned Iraqi Elections on Al-Arabiya Human Events 01/30/09 gripes about Obama's interview with an Arab TV station:

... he talked about “communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest.” He also responded to his interlocutor in ways that denigrated his predecessors with phrases like, his desire “to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years.”

During the interview Mr. Obama also spoke wistfully of the "respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago," and added, "there's no reason why we can’t restore that." ...

Unfortunately, the Al-Arabiya interview isn’t the only troubling talk coming from the Obama administration that could well leave members of our All Volunteer Force wondering just what is expected of them. In Congressional testimony this week, Defense Secretary Gates said that even though Afghanistan was the new Commander in Chief’s "top priority," we also "ought to keep our objectives realistic and limited in Afghanistan."

I have spent my life in and around our military. Everyone I’ve ever known in our Armed Forces believes in "realistic" missions and goals. But, I’ve yet to meet the man or woman in uniform who is willing to sacrifice all for "respect," a "partnership" or a "limited objective." [my emphasis]

Does that sound like he's encouraging "the troops" (who we all know the Republicans adore above everything else!) to do their duty to the best of their ability? Or to think again before they carry out orders on behalf of missions of which the Republicans don't approve? Just asking.


Christianist zealots like Ollie can't stand the idea of treating Muslim countries with "respect". Although how many times have Republicans told us that countries won't have respect for us, or that we'll lose our credibility, if we don't go along with their favorite military adventure of the moment?

Expecting consistency and clarity from the party headed by Rush "Mr. OxyContin" Limbaugh would just be too much. But, gosh, how can ole Ollie expect us to take stuff like the following seriously coming from him?

Let’s see, thirty years ago -- 1979 -- the year that Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran, the "Islamic Revolution" was proclaimed, the U.S. was first described as "the Great Satan," our embassy in Tehran was sacked and 53 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. That’s probably not the kind of “respect” Mr. Obama had in mind.

I know that Reps think they can reinvent their positions from day and day and even moment to moment. But this is the star of the Iran-Contra scandal saying this. That Islamic Revolutionary government - hey, Ollie, that would be the one you were supplying with weapons. And whose money you were taking to finance your little war in Nicaragua. Supplying them with weapons despite a US embargo on doing so because, uh, we were backing Iraq in the war they were having with Iran! The US even became an active belligerent on Iraq's side against Iran for a time. But Ollie is shocked, shocked that Obama isn't still outraged by the three-decades old revolution in Iran whose government Ollie went to such lengths to help.

These Republicans like Ollie are a strange lot.

Tags: obama administration, oliver north, republican party

| +Save/Share | |