There’s been plenty of talk during the past

There’s been plenty of talk during the past several weeks about Lt. Col. Oliver L. North and his role in the Iran/Contra investigation. Some deplore his conduct, others speak of a write-in “Ollie for President” campaign.

During his testimony, Col. North made no secret of his disdain for the Congressional investigation. The pile of telegrams written in his support mounted as his testimony continued; apparently thousands of Americans share Col. North’s feelings. The colonel displayed them proudly - during his last day of testimony his wife clutched a sheaf of them in her lap.

It is ironic, and sad, especially in this year of the celebration of the Constitution’s bicentennial, that so many Americans share Col. North’s disdain.

Make no mistake, I respect Col. North for his patriotism, heroism and leadership in combat, and during his long and distinguished career as a Marine Corps officer.

But, the actions he took during his participation in the bargaining for the release of the American hostages in Lebanon, and in support of the Nicaraguan freedom fighters, cannot be countenanced.

It appears, from testimony by Adm. John Poindexter, Col. North’s boss at the National Security Council, that Col. North’s actions were indeed approved by his immediate superior, though apparently without the knowledge of President Reagan. So, the allegations that he was a “loose cannon on the gundeck of state,” would appear to be unfounded.

Col. North’s patriotism and sense of duty cannot be faulted, but as one of the Congressional committee members so rightly commented, “I do not believe that your attitude can be reconciled with the Constitution of the United States.” The United States is a nation of laws, and its elected and appointed officials are sworn to uphold those laws, regardless of whether they are in personal agreement with them.

The idea of Executive Branch officers sneaking out the back door and setting up a secret foreign policy, especially one directly in conflict with its public policy, should be anathema to every American.

The results of that policy are clear: embarrassment for the Administration, outrage from Congress - and from allies and adversaries alike.

In a desperate effort to placate moderate Arab countries in the Middle East, including one which requested aid from the Soviet Union, we have now agreed to “reflag” Kuwaiti oil tankers. Is it possible that we have become the victims of a cleverly-played, high stakes hand of international poker?

Does anyone else hear echoes of the Marine “peacekeeping force” in Beirut, slaughtered by a car bomber as they slept in their barracks?

The Iraqis are angry, understandably. Not only does it become clear that we supported their mortal enemy in a war in which we publicly professed neutrality, Col. North apparently made vague promises about assistance in assassinating Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Our allies are furious, understandably. As we condescendingly accused certain European countries of spinelessness in dealing with terrorism, and loudly berated those who refused to join our public spuming of Iran as an outlaw nation, Oliver North and Robert McFarlane flew to Tehran to engage in secret negotiations with “moderates.” And we sold them weapons, supposedly in return for the release of hostages.