We are just about finished. Statements any final to make . North a brief one. Please proceed. North i would simply like to thank the American People who have responded with their good wishes, their support, their prayers through what has been, for me and my family, a long and difficult ordeal. Thank and salute them. That is my statement. Thank you. It is my privilege and great honor to recognize the chairman of the house committee, mr. Hamilton. Express my appreciation for you . You have had some rather difficult moments i think you have been firm and fair. You have kept these proceedings moving on. All of us are most grateful to you. Me express my appreciation to you for your testimony. Rep. Hamilton as the chairman has indicated, i will use my time to give my impressions. Andcognize a president those carrying out his policies sometimes face agonizing choices. You have had more than your fair share. I have never, for a moment, over the years i have known you, doubted your good intentions. To free hostages to seek democracy in nicaragua to fight communism and to advance the best interest of the nation. For many in this country, i think the pursuit of such a worthy objective is not, in what strikes me, despite your very good intentions, you were intorticipating actions the most serious crisis of his presidency. Drove the congress of the United States to launch an unprecedented investigation, and i think probably damaged the causes that you sought to promote. Task, and not the task of these committees to judge you. As others to as others who learnaid, we are here to what the mistakes were and how to correct them. It is whether we understand the facts better because of your testimony, and i think we do, we are equal to you. In your Opening Statement, you said these hearings have caused serious damage to our national interests. But i wonder whether the damage has been caused by these hearings, or by the acts which prompted these hearings . I wonder whether you would have the congress do nothing after it has been lied to, misled come ignored. Ed it and would we be true to our congress and all responsibilities . Misdeeds,er to ignore or to investigate them behind closed doors, someone suggested . Or is it better to bring them into the open and try to learn from them . I submit that we are truer to our constitution if we choose the latter course. These committees build on the work of other committees, and i think that work is part of our constitutional system of checks and balances. There are many parts of your testimony that i agree with. I agree with you that these committees must be careful not to cripple the president. I agree with you that our government needs the capability to carryout covert actions. During my secures on the intelligence committee, over 90 of the covert actions that were recommended by the president were supported and approved. And only a large scale paramilitary operations, which really could not be kept secret, were challenged. You when you said in your Opening Statement that you are caught in a struggle between the congress and the president. Over the direction of american foreignpolicy, and that is mostly not your fault. And i agree with you that the congress, is certainly not unblemished, also must be accountable for its actions. Let me tell you what bothers me. I want to talk about two things. First policy than process. The chairman has said that the business of these select committees is not policy, and i agree with him. But you may such an impassioned statement on policy that i wanted to comment. I am very troubled by your defense of secret arms sales to iran. Theres no disagreement about the desire of an opening to iran. My concern is with the means employed to achieve those objectives. The president has a knowledge the president has acknowledged that his policy, as implemented was for hostage , policy. And selling arms to iran in secret, to put it simply, was bad policy. The policy contradicted and undermined longheld, often articulated, widelysupported Public Policies in the United States. It repudiated u. S. Policy to make no concessions to terrorists. To remain neutral in the gulf war, and to stop arms sales to iran. We sold arms to a nation officially designated by our government as a terrorist state. This secret policy of selling arms to iran damaged u. S. Credibility. A great power cannot base its policy on an untruth without a loss of credibility. Friendly governments were deceived about what we were doing. You spoke about credibility of u. S. Policy in Central America , and you are right about that. But in the middle east, mutual trust with some friends is was damaged and even shattered. The policy of arms for hostages sent a clear message to the states of the persian gulf and that message was, the United States is helping iran and its war effort in making an accommodation with the iranian revolution and irans neighbors should do the same. The policy provided the soviets an opportunity they have now grasped with which we are struggling to deal. The policy achieved none of the goals. The ayatollah got his arms. More americans are held hostage today than when this policy began. Subversion of u. S. Interest by iran continues. Moderates in iran, if any there were, did not come forward. And today, those moderates are showing fidelity to the iranian revolution by leading the charge against the United States in the persian gulf. In brief, the policy of selling arms to iran in my view at least simply cannot be defended as in the interest of the United States. There were and there are other means to achieve that opening , which should have been used. Now let me comment on process. First with regard to covert actions. You and i agree that covert actions pose very special problems for a democracy. It is, as you said, a dangerous world, and we must be able to conduct covert actions as every member of this panel has said, but it is contrary to all that we know about democracy to have no checks and balances on them. We have established a lawful procedure to handle covert actions. It is not perfect by any means, but it works reasonably well. In this instance, those procedures were ignored. There was no president ial finding in one case, and a retroactive finding and another. Committees ofce the congress were not informed, and they were lied to. Foreign policy foreign policies were created and carried out a tiny circles of persons. Apparently, without the involvement of even some of the highest officials of our government. The administration tried to do secretly what the congress sought to prevent it from doing. The administration did secretly what it claimed to all of the world it was not doing. Covert action should always be used to supplement, not to contradict our Foreign Policy. It should be consistent with our Public Policies. It should not be used to impose a Foreign Policy on the American People, which they do not support. Mr. Macfarlane was right. He told these committees it was clearly unwise to rely on covert action as the core of our policy. And as you noted in your testimony, and i agree with you it would have been a better , course to continue to seek contra funding through open debate. You have spoken with compelling eloquence about the reagan doctrine. As laudable as that doctrine may be, it will not succeed unless it has the support of the congress and the American People. Secondly, with regard to process, let me talk about accountability. What i find lacking about the events, as you have described them, is accountability. Who was responsible for these policies, for beginning them, for controlling them, for terminating them . You have said that you assumed you are acting on the authority of the president. I dont doubt your word, sir. But we have no evidence of his approval. The president says he did not know that the National SecurityCouncil Staff was helping the contras. You thought he knew. And you engaged in such activities with extraordinary energy. You do not recall what happened to the five documents on the diversion of funds to the contras. Those documents radically changed american policy. They are probably, i would think, the most Important Documents you have written. Yet, you dont recall whether they were returned to you. And you dont recall whether they were destroyed, as i recall your testimony. There is no accountability for an 8 million account on from the sale of u. S. Government property. There is no accountability for a quarter of a Million Dollar account available to you. You say you never took a penny. I believe you. But we have no records to support, or to contradict what you said. Indeed, most of the important records concerning these events have been destroyed. Your testimony points out confusion throughout the Foreign Policymaking process. You have testified that director casey sought to erect and off the south selfsustaining program to carry out actions , apparently without the knowledge of other high officials in the government. You have testified there was an unclear commitment to israel concerning the replenishment of missiles to iran. You testified it was never u. S. Policy never to negotiate with terrorists, but the president has said the opposite, that we would never negotiate with terrorists. You have that a lot of people were willing to go along with what we were doing, hoping against hope that it would succeed, and willing to walk away when it failed. Is, is that that is a pretty accurate description of what happened, but it is not the way to run a government. Secret operations should pass a sufficient test of accountability, and these secretive operations did not pass that test. There was a lack of accountability for funding and for policy. And responsibility rests with the president. If he did not know of your highly significant activities done in his name, then he should have. And we will obviously have to ask admiral poindexter some questions. The next point with regard to process is your attitude toward the congress. As you would expect, i am bothered by your attitude regarding congress. You show very little appreciation for its role in the Foreign Policy process. You acknowledge you were erroneous, misleading, evasive, and wrong in your testimony to congress. I appreciate, sir, that honesty can be hard in the conduct of government. But i am impressed that policy was driven by a series of lies. Lies to the iranians, lies to the Central Intelligence agency, lies to the attorney general, lies to our friends and allies, lies to the congress, and lies to the American People. So often during these hearings, not just during your testimony, but others as well, i have been reminded of president thomas thersons statement whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Your experience has been in the executive branch and mine has been in a congress. Mind has been in the congress. Inevitably our perspectives will , differ. Nonetheless, if i may say so, you have an extraordinarily expansive view of president ial power. You would give the president free rein in foreign affairs. You said on the first of your testimony and i quote i did not want to Show Congress a single word on this whole thing. End of quote. I do not see how your attitude can be reconciled with the constitution of the United States. I often find in the executive branch, and this administration , as well as in others, a view that congress is not a partner , but an adversary. The constitution grants foreign powers to both the president and the congress, and our Foreign Policy cannot succeed unless they work together. You blame the congress as if the restrictions approved were the cause of the administration. Yet, congressional restrictions in the case of nicaragua if polls are accurate, reflect the majority view of the American People. In any case, i think you and i would agree, that there is insufficient consensus on policy and nicaragua. Public opinion is deeply divided. And the task of leadership, seems to me, is to build public support for policy. If that burden of leadership is not met, the secret policies cannot succeed over the longterm. The fourth point with regard to process relates to means and ends. As i understand your testimony, you did what you did because those were your orders. And because you believed it was for a good cause. I cannot agree that the end ends justify the means, that the threat in Central America was so great we had to do something even if it went disregarding constitutional processes, deceiving the congress and the American People. The means employed were a profound threat to the democratic process. A democratic government, as i understand it, is not a solution , but it is a way of seeking solutions. It is not a government devoted to a particular objective, but a form of government to which specifies means and methods of achieving objectives. Methods and means are what this country is all about. We subvert our democratic process to bring about a desired end no matter how strongly we may believe in that end, we have weakened our country, not strengthened it. The few do not know what is better for americans than americans know themselves. If i understand our government correctly, no small group of people, no matter how important, no matter how wellintentioned they may be, should be trusted to determine policy. As president madison said, trust should be placed not in a few, but in a number of hands. Let me conclude. Your Opening Statement made the analogy to a baseball game. You said the Playing Field here was an even, and congress would declare itself the winner. I understand your sentiments. But may i suggest that we are not engaged in a game with winners and losers. That approach, if i may say so, is selfserving and ultimately , selfdefeating. We all lost. The interest of the United States have been damaged by what happened. This country cannot be run effectively when major foreign policies are formulated by only a few, and are made and carried out in secret, and when Public Officials lied to other nations and to each other. One purpose of these hearings is to change that. The selfcleansing process the , Tower Commission and these joint hearings, the report which will follow, are all part, we hope, of a process to reinvigorate and restore our system of government. I dont have any doubt at all, colonel north, but you are a patriot. There are many patriots in this country, fortunately. And to many forms of patriotism. For you, perhaps patriotism rested in the conduct of deeds. Some requiring great personal courage to free hostages and fight communism. And those of us who pursue Public Service with less risk to our physical wellbeing, i admire such courage. But there is another form of patriotism, which is unique to democracy. It resides in those who have a deep respect for the rule of law and faith in americas democratic traditions. To uphold our constitution requires not the exceptional efforts of the few, but the confidence and the trust and the work of the many. Democracy has its frustrations. You have experienced some of them. But we, you and i, know of no better system of government, and when that democrat process is subverted, we risk all that we cherish. I thank you, sir, for your testimony. You, and i wish your family well. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Colonel north, mr. Sullivan. I think we are now at the end of a long six days. The questions i had cannot be answered because some of those that couldve answered these questions are not here with us , and furthermore im certain , you will agree with me that we have had enough questions here. I would like to first, before proceeding with my statement, because of the call of fairness, clarify the record. Much has been said about fairness to the witness, fairness to the president , fairness to the government. In response to the question of two of my fellow Panel Members relating to the bombing of libya, you said for example today, when the briefing conducted by the president 5 30,ded at about 5 00 or two members of congress, and you meant two members of the senate, to make an unannounced address on libya. I will tell you it was immense that evening. Two american airmen died as a consequence of the antiaircraft fire as best as we can determine. They alerted our adversaries. When the response was first made a few days ago, i checked with the senior officials of the senate, and looked into the record. When the briefing was concluded, these two members did not stop at the bank of microphones the white house. They immediately left and returned to the senate. There, they were confronted by members of the press. One leader responded, no comment. The other said, you should ask the president the question. He might have something to say tonight at 9 00. The 18th u. S. Planes left britain on monday, april the 14th at 12 13 p. M. The briefing began at 4 00, and the bombs fell at 7 00. Week before the bombing, cbs evening news had this to say top u. S. Officials acknowledge the detailed military contingency plans for italian nation already exists. Said one source, they involve five targets in libya. On the same day, the wall street journal had this to say u. S. Officials are putting out the word they are laying the groundwork for possible retaliatory actions against libya for suspected involvement in the bombing of the discotheque. In the next day, tuesday, april the eighth, the wall street journal again reagan and his advisers are united in wanting to respond militarily against qaddafi, but have not agreed on a time or place to strike back. A senior official administration said. On the same day, cbs evening news, 48 hours after the bombing in west berlin, the Reagan Administration had reached the consensus for military retaliation against libya. On wednesday, april 9, cbs evening news, according to a highly placed source, president reagan has approved another possible military strike against libya. The white house denied military rumors that a military response was already underway. But a wellplaced intelligence source said that a military response has been approved. That same evening, abc world news tonight, the understanding now is the strike against libya is in the works. If it comes to that, seldom will military action have been so widely and publicly advertised in advance. Thursday, april 10, we are getting closer to the date. Show, Administration Officials say intense planning is underway for retaliation against libya. On the same day, the New York Times, Administration Officials say the Libyan Military sites are the prime options in the consideration for retaliations , and that among the key possibilities are bidding airbases near the coast. Officials said postal listening posts including Early Warning radar sites and units that pick up airplane and ship traffic are also key targets. As we know, they were the targets. On friday, april 11, nbc today show the goal is to strike as many targets as possible as close to the coast to reduce the danger to american aircraft. Saturday, april 12, New York TimesAdministration Officials speculated that the placement and advance, a retaliatory strike against libya, but officials declined to rule out a raid even in the next 48 hours. Associated press the british mail on sunday said british mail on sunday said mrs. Thatcher had cleared the way for president reagan to use british basis to launch a massive new attack on libya. Another from ap italian premier told reporters saturday, april 12 in milan, i do not believe there will be a military intervention there before monday. Same evening, nbc nightly news by monday, the diplomatic lobbying tour will be complete , and Administration Sources indicate that means a strike could come as early as tuesday. Washington post after consulting conservative Prime Minister john schrock by telephone, it was decided to deny the american request and the french refusal was communicated to washington the following morning, saturday, april 12. In the day before the bombing, nbc nightly news Administration Officials say the president is moving toward a decision about whether to make it retaliatory strike against libya, and white house officials confirm the president will have a special, National Security meeting tomorrow to evaluate the today the president conferred , with Vice President bush, secretary of state schulz, both of them are believed to favor a military strike. Noticeably absent from the camp david meeting was defense secretary weinberger who is , believed to have oppose such action. I think it is grossly unfair to suggest that two american lives were lost because one leader said,no, and the other i believe you should ask the president. He should have something to say tonight at 9 00. From the beginning of the history of mankind, organized societies, whether they be tribes, clans, or nations have , nurtured and created heroes. Because, heroes are necessary. To serve as a cement to unite people. To bring unity and that nation. It provides glory to their history. It provides legends. We have many heroes. This hearing is being held in washington, the city of heroes. The city of monuments. We have hundreds of monuments in this city. In the capital, each state has on it, two of their heroes or heroines. The state of hawaii honors the warrior king and father damien, who is soon to become a saint. And if you step on the west steps of the mall and looked down the majestic mall, you will see the monument of George Washington. Very majestic. I remember as a child, long before i heard of the revolutionary war, that one day, George Washington was confronted by his father. Who asked, who cut the cherry tree . And Little George answered, father, i cannot lie. I cut the cherry tree. It was an important lesson to all little children, and i believe it is still a very important lesson. Then, if you go further down, you will see the Lincoln Memorial. Murray on a a great president. Where we honor a great president for the courage he demonstrated in upholding the brotherhood of man. It was not easy during those days. And then you have Arlington Gary and then you have arlington. A sacred place. Men you served with and men i served with use that as their final resting place. All heroes. Then you have lees mansion. This was the home of the great gentleman from virginia. We honor him today for his great demonstration of loyalty and patriotism. And as we get back to the Lincoln Memorial nearby, we see this new and exciting monument one to your fellow combat men, the vietnam memorial. I believe during the past week participated in creating and developing, very likely, a new american hero. Like you, who is one that has tinge burning stain s burning sting of bullets and shrapnel, and heard the unforgettable and frightening sounds of incoming shells, i salute you, sir, as a fellow combat man. And the rows of ribbons that you have on your chest, will forever remind us of your courageous service, and your willingness, your patriotic willingness, to risk your life and your limb. I am certain the life and the burdens of a hero will be difficult and heavy. And so, with all sincerity, i wish you well as you begin your journey into a new life. However, as an interested observer, and as one who has participated in the making of this new american hero, i have found certain aspects of your testimony to be most troubling. Chairman hamilton has most eloquently discussed them. Because as a result of your very gallant presence, and articulate statements, your life, i am certain, will be emulated by many, many, young americans. I am certain we will, all of us, receive an abundance of requests from young citizens throughout the land for entrance into the privileged ranks of cadets of the military services. These young citizens, having been imbued with the passion of patriotism, will do so. And to these young men and women, i wish to address a few words. In 1964, when colonel north was a cadet, he took an oath of office, like all throughout the hundreds service academies. And he also said that he will abide with the regulations, which set forth a cadet honor concept. The first honor concept, first, because it is so important, over and above all others, is a very simple one. A member of the brigade does not lie, cheat, or steal. And in this regulation of 1964, the word lie was defined as deliberateote a oral or written untruth. It may be an oral statement which is known to be false or a simple response to a question in which the answer is known to be false. End of quote. The words, mislead or deceive, were defined as follows a deliberate misrepresentation of a true situation by being untruthful or with holding or omitting or subtly wording information in a way, as to leave an erroneous or false impression of the known true situation. Lonelhen the kernel co put on his uniform and the bars of a second lieutenant, he was well aware that he was subject to the uniform code of military justice. It is a special code of laws that apply to our men and women in uniform. It is a code that has been applicable to the conduct activities of colonel north throughout his military career, and even at this moment. And that code makes it abundantly clear, that orders of a superior officer must be obeyed by subordinate members. But it is lawful orders. The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says members of the , military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders. This principle was considered so important that we, with the so important that we, we the government of the United States proposed that it be , internationally applied, in the nuremberg trials. And so in the nuremberg trials , we said that the fact that the defendant mr. Sullivan mr. Chairman. May i please interject . Chairman inouye may i continue my statement. Mr. Sullivan i find this offensive i find you engaging in a personal attack on colonel north, and you are far removed from the issues of this case. To make reference to the nuremberg trials, i find personally and professionally distasteful, and i can no longer sit here and listen to this. Chairman inouye you will have to sit there, if you want to listen. Mr. Sullivan mr. Chairman, please dont conclude these hearings on this unfair note. I have strong objections to many things in the hearing and you up , there speak about listening to the American People. Why dont you listen to the American People, and what they said as a result of last week. There are 2000 telegrams and our room outside the corridor here that came in this morning. The American People chairman inouye im sure that there are. Mr. Sullivan the American People have spoken and please stop this personal attack against colonel north. Chairman inouye i have sat here, listened to the colonel without interrupting. I hope you will accord me the courtesy of saying my case. Mr. Sullivan sir, you may give speeches on the issues, it seems to me. You may ask questions, but you may not attack him personally. This has gone too far, in my opinion, with all due respect. Chairman inouye im not attacking him personally. Mr. Sullivan thats the way i hear it, sir. Chairman inouye colonel north, im certain it must have been painful for you, as you stated, to justify that you lied to senior officials of our government. But you lied and misled our congress. And believe me, it was painful for all of us to sit here and listen to the testimony. It was painful. It was equally painful to learn from your testimony that you lied and misled because of what you believe to be a just cause nicaraguanrs of Freedom Fighters the contras. , you have eloquently articulated your opposition to marxism and communism. And i believe that all of us, i am certain that all of us on this panel, are equally opposed to marxism and communism. But should we, in the defense of democracy, adopt and embrace one of the most important tenets of communism and marxism . The ends justifying the means. This is not one of the commandments of democracy. Our government is not a government of men. It is still a government of laws. And finally, to those thousands upon thousands of citizens who have called, sent telegrams, written letters, i wish to thank all of you most sincerely, and commend you for your demonstrated interest in the wellbeing of our government, on our freedoms, and of our democracy. Your support or opposition of what is happening in this room is important. Important because it dramatically demonstrates the strength of this democracy. We americans are confident in our strength to openly and without fear, put into action one of the most important teachings of our greatest founding fathers, thomas jefferson, who spoke of the right to dissent, the right to criticize the leaders of this government, and he said, the spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that i wish it to always be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so, then not to be exercised at all. Unlike communism, in a democracy such as ours, we are not afraid to wash our dirty linen in public. We are not afraid to let the world know that we do have failures, and we do have shortcomings. I think all of his should recall the open invitation that we send to the press of the world to view the spaceflights, to record our successes, and to record our failures. We permit all to film and record our spaceflights. We dont, after the fact, let the world know only of our successes. And i think we should recall that we did not prohibit any member of the world press to film and record one of the bloodiest chapters of our domestic history, the demonstration and riots in the civil rights period. This was not easy to let the world know that we have police dogs, and Police Officers with whips and clubs, denying fellow citizens their rights. But i have always felt that, as long as we daily reaffirm our belief in and support of our constitution, and the great principles of freedom that was long ago enunciated by our founding fathers, we will continue to prevail and flourish. I would like to make one more closing remark. Throughout the past 10 days, many of my colleagues on this panel, in opening their questions to the colonel, preface their remarks by saying, colonel, i am certain you know that i voted for aid to the contras. Ladies and gentlemen the and colonel north, i voted against aid to the contras. I did so not as a communist. I did so not as an agent of the kgb. I did so upon information that i gathered as a member of the Bipartisan Commission on Central America, based upon information that i gathered as chairman of the foreign operations committee, based upon information that i gathered as a Senior Member of the defense subcommittee, and based upon information that i gathered as chairman, and member of the Senate Intelligence committee. I voted against aid to the contras. It wasnt easy to vote against your commanderinchief. It is not easy to stand before my colleagues and find yourself in disagreement, but that is the nature of democracy. I did so because i was firmly convinced that to follow the path or the course that was laid down by the reagan proposal would certainly and inevitably lead to a point where young men and women of the United States would have to be sent into the conflict. And colonel, i am certain, having experienced warfare, that is not what we want our young to that is not something we want our young people to go through again. You have lost many friends, and their names are now engraved on the black marble. I have lost many friends who are buried throughout this land. I know that the path of diplomacy is frustrating, at times, angering. But i would think that we should give it a chance, if it means that with some patience, we could save even one life. So, that is why i wish my colleagues to know that i voted against aid to the nicaraguan Freedom Fighters. This has been a long day. I know that all of us are desirous of a rest. Colonel north, with all sincerity, i thank you for your assistance these past six days. You have been most cordial, and your presence here should make your fellow officers very proud of the way you have presented yourself. And to your lady, i wish her the best. She has sat there throughout these days with patience and grace. You have a fine lady. The panel will stand in recess for ten minutes. You are watching American History tv, all weekend every weekend on cspan3. To join the conversation, like us on facebook at cspan history. On july 23,ago, 1967, five days of riding erected in detroit, sparked by a police raid in a bar and fueled by long simmering tension over racism and segregation. American history tv will be live sunday beginning at new eastern to explore what happened in tr