 I respect that, but I want to know, did he ever tell you that? Did he ever tell you? The intelligence committees of the Congress were not informed, and they were lied to. Foreign policies were created and carried out by a tiny circle 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 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. McFarland 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, 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 were acting on the authority of the President. I don't doubt your word, sir, but we have no evidence of his approval. The President says he did not know that the National Security Council 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 don't recall whether they were returned to you, and you don't recall whether they were destroyed, as I recall your testimony. There is no accountability for an $8 million account earned 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 say. Indeed, most of the important records concerning these events have been destroyed. Your testimony points up confusion throughout the foreign policymaking process. You've testified that Director Casey sought to create an on-the-shelf, self-sustaining, standalone entity to carry out covert actions, apparently, without the knowledge of other high officials in the government. You've testified there was an unclear commitment to Israel concerning replenishment of missiles to Iran. You've testified that it's never been U.S. policy not to negotiate with terrorists. Yet the President has said the opposite, that we will never negotiate with terrorists. You have testified 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. My guess is that's a pretty accurate description of what happened. But it's not the way to run a government. Secret operations should pass a sufficient test of accountability, and these secret operations did not pass that test. There was a lack of accountability for funds 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 will obviously have to ask Admiral Poindexter some questions. The next point with regard to process relates to your attitude toward the Congress. As you would expect, I'm bothered by your comments about the Congress. You show very little appreciation for its role in the foreign policy process. You acknowledge that you were, quote, erroneous, misleading, evasive, and wrong, end of quote in your testimony to the 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 to others as well, I have been reminded of President Thomas Jefferson's statement. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Your experience has been in the executive branch and mine has been in the Congress. Inevitably our perspectives will differ. Nonetheless, if I may say so, you have an extraordinarily expansive view of presidential power. You would give the President free reign in foreign affairs. You said on the first day of your testimony, and I, quote, I didn't 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, in this administration as well as in others, a view that the Congress is not a partner but an adversary. The Constitution grants foreign policy-making 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 that approved were the cause of mistakes by the administration, yet congressional restrictions in the case of Nicaragua, if the polls are accurate, reflected the majority view of the American people. In any case, I think you and I would agree that there is insufficient consensus on policy in Nicaragua, public opinions deeply divided, and the task of leadership, it seems to me, is to build public support for policy. If that burden of leadership is not met, secret policies cannot succeed over the long term. 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 ends justified these means, that the threat in Central America was so great that we had to do something, even if it meant 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's a way of seeking solutions. It's not a government devoted to a particular objective, but a form of government which specifies means and methods of achieving objectives. Methods and means are what this country are all about. If we subvert our democratic process to bring about a desired end, no matter how strongly we may believe in that end, we've weakened our country and we have not strengthened it. A 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 well-intentioned 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 uneven and the 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 self-serving and ultimately self-defeating. We all lost. The interests 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 lie to other nations and to each other, one purpose of these hearings is to change that. The self-cleansing process, the Tower Commission, and these joint hearings and the report which will follow are all part, we hope, of a process to reinvigorate and restore our system of government. I don't have any doubt at all, Colonel North, that you are a patriot. There are many patriots in this country, fortunately, and many forms of patriotism. For you, perhaps patriotism rested in the conduct of deeds, some requiring great personal courage to free hostages and to fight communism. And those of us who pursue public service with less risk to our physical well-being admire such courage. But there's 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 America's 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've experienced some of them, but we, you and I, know of no better system of government, and when that democratic process is subverted, we risk all that we cherish. I thank you, sir, for your testimony. And I wish you and I wish your family well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Colonel North, Mr. Sullivan. I think we're now at the end of a long six days. The questions I had cannot be answered because some of those who could have answered these questions are not here with us. And furthermore, I'm certain you'll agree with me that we've had enough questions here. I'd 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 concluded at about five, or 5.30, two members of Congress, and you meant two members of the Senate, proceeded immediately to waiting microphones and noted that the president was going to make a here-to-forth unannounced address to the nation on Libya. I would tell you that the volume of fire over the Libyan capital was immense that evening. Two American airmen died as a consequence of that anti-aircraft 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. First, when the briefing was concluded, these two members did not stop at the bank of microphones near 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 nine. The 18 U.S. F-111s left Britain on Monday, April 14th at 12.13 p.m. The briefing began at four o'clock and the bombs fell at seven. However, a week before the bombing, CBS Evening News had this to say, top U.S. officials acknowledged that detailed military contingency plans for retaliation already exist. 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 that they are laying the groundwork for possible retaliatory actions against Libya for a suspected involvement in the bombing of a West Berlin discotheque. Then the next day, Tuesday, April 8th, the Wall Street Journal again, Reagan and his advisors are united in wanting to respond militarily against Qaddafi, but haven't agreed on a time or place to strike back, a senior administration official said. On the same day, CBS Evening News, 48 hours after the bombing in West Berlin, the Reagan administration had reached a consensus for military retaliation against Libya on Wednesday, April 9th. CBS Evening News, according to a highly placed source, President Reagan has approved another possible military strike against Libya. The White House denied rumors today that a military response was already underway, but a well-placed intelligence source said that a military response has been approved. That same evening, ABC World News tonight, the understanding now is that a strike against Libya is in the works. If it comes to that, seldom will U.S. military action have been so widely and publicly advertised in advance. Thursday, April 10th, we're getting closer to the day. NBC Today Show, administration officials say that intense planning is underway for retaliation against Libya. On the same day in the New York Times, administration officials said that Libyan military sites are the prime options on the consideration for retaliation, and that among the key possibilities of Libyan air bases near the coast, the officials said that coastal electronic listening posts, including early warning radar sites as well as units that pick up airplane and ship traffic are also key targets, and as we know, they were the targets. On Friday, April 11th, 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 12th, New York Times, administration officials speculated that the Walter Strip placed in abeyance, at least for the moment, 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 Mrs. Thatcher had, quote, cleared the way for President Reagan to use British bases to launch a massive new air attack on Libya. Another AP, Italian Premier Bettino Crazzi, told reporters Saturday, April 12th, in Milan, I don't believe there will be a military intervention there before Monday. Same evening, NBC Nightly News. By Monday, the diplomatic lobbying tool will be complete, and administration sources indicate that means a strike could come as early as Tuesday, Washington Post. After consulting, Conservative Prime Minister Jacques Chirac by telephone, Mitterrand decided to reject the U.S. request for overflight rights, and the French refusal was communicated to Washington the following morning, Saturday, April 12th, and the day before the bombing, NBC Nightly News. Administration officials say the president is moving towards a decision about whether to make a retaliatory strike against Libya, and White House officials confirmed the president will have a special national security meeting tomorrow to evaluate the situation. Today, the president conferred with Vice President Bush and Secretary of State Schultz, both of whom are believed to favor a military strike. No display absent from the Camp David meeting was Defense Secretary Weinberger, who is believed to oppose such action. I think it is grossly unfair to suggest that two American lives were lost, because one leader said no comment, and the other said, I believe you should ask the president, he may have something to say tonight at nine. From the beginning of the history of mankind, organized societies, whether they be tribes or clans or nations, have nurtured and created heroes. Because heroes are necessary, they serve as a cement to unite people, to bring unity in 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 and statuary hall, each state has honored two of their heroes or heroines. The state of Hawaii honors King Kamehameha, 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 look 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 still is a very important lesson. And if you go further down, you'll see the Lincoln Memorial, where we honor a great president for the courage he demonstrated in upholding the brotherhood of man. It wasn't easy during those days. 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 Lee's mansion. This was the home of that 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 and nearby, we see this new and exciting monument, one to your fellow combat man, the Vietnam Memorial. I believe during the past week, we have participated in creating and developing very likely a new American hero. Like you, who as one has felt the burning sting of bullet 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. And certainly life and 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 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 your articulate statements, your life I'm certain will be emulated by many, many young Americans. I'm 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 hundreds throughout the service academies. And he also said that he will abide with the regulations with set forth the cadet honor concept. The first honor concept, first because it's 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 follows, quote, a deliberate oral or written on truth. It may be an oral or written statement which is known to be false or 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 true situation by being untruthful or withholding or omitting or subtly wording information in such a way as to leave an erroneous or false impression of the known true situation. And when the Colonel 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's a special code of laws that apply to our men and women in uniform. It's a code that has been applicable to the conduct and 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, 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 Defendants act- May I please register an objection? I find this offensive. I find you're engaging in a personal attack on Colonel North and you're far removed from the issues in this case. To make reference to the Nuremberg trials, I find personally, professional, gestational, I can no longer sit here and listen to this. You will have to sit there if you want to listen. Mr. Chairman, please don't conclude these hearings on this unfair note. I have strong objections to many things in the hearings and you up there speak about the listening to the American people. Why don't you listen to the American people and what they've said as a result of the last week? There are 20,000 telegrams in our room outside the car to here that came in this morning. The American people have spoken and please stop this personal attack against Colonel North. I have sat here, listen to the Colonel without interrupting. I hope you will accord me the courtesy of saying my piece. Sir, you may, you may give speeches on the issues. It seems to me you may ask questions, but you may not attack him personally. This is going too far in my opinion. I am not attacking him personally. That's the way I hear it, sir. Colonel North, I'm certain it must have been painful for you, as you stated, to testify that you lied to senior officials of our government, that you lied and misled our Congress. Believe me, it was painful for all of us to sit here and listen to that testimony. It was painful. It was equally painful to learn from your testimony that you lied and misled because of what you believed to be a just cause, supporters of Nicaraguan freedom fighters, the contrary. You have eloquently articulated your opposition to Marxism and Communism, and I believe that all of us, I'm certain 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 justify 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 well-being of our government, of our freedoms and 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 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 be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than 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 us should recall the open invitation that we send to the press of the world to view the space flights, to record our successes and record our failures. We permit all to film and record our space flights. We don't, 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 had police dogs and police officers with whips and clubs denying fellow citizens their rights. But I've 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'll continue to prevail and flourish. I'd 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, prefaced their remarks by saying, Colonel, I'm certain you know that I voted for aid to the Contras. Ladies and gentlemen 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 wasn't easy to vote against your commanding chief. It was 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 people to go through again. You have lost many friends and their names now are engraved on the black marble. I have lost many friends who 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. And 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 arrest. 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.