The Diem cables

[Pat Speer]

On August 3, 1973, former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray testified before the Watergate Committee. He'd been forced to resign after John Dean came forward admitting the existence of the cables, and that he'd given the cables to Gray. Upon resignation, Gray admitted he'd destroyed the cables.

Here is the relevant part of his testimony:

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

On September 24, 1973, Howard Hunt testified. Here is the relevant part of his testimony. He was questioned by Sam Dash. At this point, they have already started discussing Hunt's review of the legitimate cables in the state department's files. SOURCE: The Watergate Hearings by The New York Times

Q: Now in the review of these cables did you notice any irregularity in the sequence?

EHH: I did.

Q: And at what period did the gap in sequence occur?

EHH: The period immediately leading up to the assassination of the premier of South Vietnam.

Q: Did you show the cables to Mr. Colson and offer an interpretation of them?

EHH: I showed him copies of those chronological cables, yes, sir.

Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?

EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy.

Q: What was Mr. Colson's reaction to your statement and the showing of the cables to him? Did he agree that the cables were sufficient evidence to show any relationship with the Kennedy Administration and the assassination?

EHH: He did.

Q: Did he ask you to do anything?

EHH: He suggested I might be able to improve on the record.

Q: And what did you understand him to mean when he said to improve upon the record?

EHH: To create, to fabricate cables that could substitute for the missing chronological cables.

Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?

EHH: I did.

Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

EHH: I did.

Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?

EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables.

Q: Now are you aware from your conversations with Mr. Colson and the use of these cables any strategy that Mr. Colson had with regard to Catholic voters?

EHH: Yes, sir.

Q: Could you describe that more fully?

EHH: I believe it was desired by Mr. Colson, or at least some of his colleagues, to demonstrate that a Catholic United States Administration had, in fact, conspired in the assassination of a Catholic chief of state in another country."

Here is a more complete version of the transcript available online. It's interesting to note that the NY Times book edited out the specific references by Hunt to Life Magazine and William Lambert. Professional courtesy, I suppose.

"Senator Baker, and that is what I have been triying to do. At this early time of your employment at the White House, Mr. Hunt, did you have access to State Department cables covering the period of the Diem assassination?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Why did you have access to them?

Mr. HUNT. Because I had requested such access and it had been granted me.

Mr. DASH. Now, in the review of these cables, did you notice any irregularity of sequence?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. In what period did the gap in sequence occur?

Mr. HUNT. The period immediately leading up to the assassination of the Premier of South Vietnam.

Mr. DASH. Did you show the cables to Mr. Colson and offer an interpretation of them?

Mr. HUNT. I showed him copies of those chronological cables, yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. And what interpretation, if any, did give him concerning the cables?

Mr. HUNT. I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstacted from the files maintained by the Department of State in chronological fashion and that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of an accumulated evidence of the cable documentation, that the Kennedy administration was implicitly, if not explicitly, responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply comming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy.

Mr. DASH. What was Mr. Colson's reaction to your statement and the showing of the cable to him? Did he agree that the cables were sufficient evidence to show any relationship between the kennedy administration and the assassination of Diem?

Mr. HUNT. He did.

Mr. DASH. Did he ask you to do anything?

Mr. HUNT. He suggested that I might be able to improve upon the record. To create, to fabricate cables that could substitute for the missing chronological cables.

Mr. DASH. Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy administration and the assassination of Diem?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. What was his response to the fabricated cables?

Mr. HUNT. He indicated to me that he would be probably getting in touch with a memeber of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables.

Mr. DASH. And were you in fact put in touch with a memeber of the media?

Mr. HUNT. I was.

Mr. DASH, Who was that?

Mr. HUNT. Mr. William Lambert of Life magazine.

Mr. DASH. What was your instruction concernign the relationship you were to have with Mr. Lambert?

Mr. HUNT. To show Mr. Lambert the contex of the other legtimate cables that I acquired from the Department of State, to permit Mr. Lambert to hand-copy the texts of the fabricated cables, but I having warned Mr. Colson previously that the cables were not technically capable of withstanding professional scrutiny, that Mr. Lambert was not to be allowed to remove the cables for photocopying purposes.

Mr. DASH. Did Mr. Lambert use the information?

Mr. HUNT. Not to my knowledge, no.

Mr. DASH. Now, are you aware from your conversation with Mr. Colson and the use of these cables of any strategy that Mr. Colson had with regard to Catholic voters?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. Could you describe that more fully?

Mr. HUNT. I believe it was desired by Mr. Colson, or at least some of his colleagues, to demonstrate that a Catholic U.S. administration had in fact conspired in the assassination of a Catholic chief of state of another country.

Mr. DASH. Did you show the fabricated cables to Colonel Conein?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Under what circunstances?

Mr. HUNT. Prior to Colonel Conein's appearance on a--I believe NBC-TV network special concerning Vietnam.

Mr. DASH. And did Colonel Conein use any of this infromation from the fabricated cables in his program?

Mr. HUNT. I would have to answer in these terms, Mr. DASH, that I had shown him the fabricated cables in the broader context of the overall cables, that he was then interrogated by a camera and interview crew and that I believe he made, if not specific reference to the cables I showed him, at least they reinforced his own belief that there had been direct complicity by the Kennedy administration in the events leading up to the assassination of the South Vietnamese Premier."

Edited July 4, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Terry Mauro]

On August 3, 1973, former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray testified before the Watergate Committee. He'd been forced to resign after John Dean came forward admitting the existence of the cables, and that he'd given the cables to Gray. Upon resignation, Gray admitted he'd destroyed the cables.

Here is the relevant part of his testimony:

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

On September 24, 1973, Howard Hunt testified. Here is the relevant part of his testimony. He was questioned by Sam Dash. At this point, they have already started discussing Hunt's review of the legitimate cables in the state department's files.

Q: Now in the review of these cables did you notice any irregularity in the sequence?

EHH: I did.

Q: And at what period did the gap in sequence occur?

EHH: The period immediately leading up to the assassination of the premier of South Vietnam.

Q: Did you show the cables to Mr. Colson and offer an interpretation of them?

EHH: I showed him copies of those chronological cables, yes, sir.

Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?

EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy.

Q: What was Mr. Colson's reaction to your statement and the showing of the cables to him? Did he agree that the cables were sufficient evidence to show any relationship with the Kennedy Administration and the assassination?

EHH: He did.

Q: Did he ask you to do anything?

EHH: He suggested I might be able to improve on the record.

Q: And what did you understand him to mean when he said to improve upon the record?

EHH: To create, to fabricate cables that could substitute for the missing chronological cables.

Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?

EHH: I did.

Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

EHH: I did.

Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?

EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables.

Q: Now are you aware from your conversations with Mr. Colson and the use of these cables any strategy that Mr. Colson had with regard to Catholic voters?

EHH: Yes, sir.

Q: Could you describe that more fully?

EHH: I believe it was desired by Mr. Colson, or at least some of his colleagues, to demonstrate that a Catholic United States Administration had, in fact, conspired in the assassination of a Catholic chief of state in another country."

***********************************************************

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

Well then, isn't that considered to be tampering with State's evidence?

In that respect, Ashton is right in contending there are no cables. Therefore, one is left with what is known as

"circumstantial evidence."

"Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?

EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy."

Aka, "circumstantial evidence."

"Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?

EHH: I did.

Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

EHH: I did.

Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?

EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables."

A pre-meditated, egregious, and deceitful obstruction of justice, employing malice aforethought. This all leads back to a murder case, mind you. Actually, to two subsequent "bloody" coup d'etats, as opposed to those of the "bloodless" kind, if you will. But, alas that's just my humble opinion and take on this whole sordid mess.

[Dawn Meredith]

I'm sorry Dawn was subjected to Daniel's temper. He's no disinformationist. He's actually hard at work researching the RFK killing for the November Lancer conference. I don't approve of his insulting any Forum member.

Sorry I posted on the wrong thread. My intent was never to disrupt this most important work.

As to Danny's RFK "theories" I am familiar with same, and , as usual we totally disagree, (Re Sirham=MC-myview vs his), but that is ok.

He had no right to PM me with his outrageous venom.

I wish I had posted what he wrote to me.

(I am not going to "Ignore function" on posts, as before this Watergate stuff occurred I had read all of Pat's and Ray's posts on the jfk forum and we were generally in agreement.)

Again apologise for posting on this thread.

Dawn

On August 3, 1973, former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray testified before the Watergate Committee. He'd been forced to resign after John Dean came forward admitting the existence of the cables, and that he'd given the cables to Gray. Upon resignation, Gray admitted he'd destroyed the cables.

Here is the relevant part of his testimony:

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

On September 24, 1973, Howard Hunt testified. Here is the relevant part of his testimony. He was questioned by Sam Dash. At this point, they have already started discussing Hunt's review of the legitimate cables in the state department's files.

Q: Now in the review of these cables did you notice any irregularity in the sequence?

EHH: I did.

Q: And at what period did the gap in sequence occur?

EHH: The period immediately leading up to the assassination of the premier of South Vietnam.

Q: Did you show the cables to Mr. Colson and offer an interpretation of them?

EHH: I showed him copies of those chronological cables, yes, sir.

Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?

EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy.

Q: What was Mr. Colson's reaction to your statement and the showing of the cables to him? Did he agree that the cables were sufficient evidence to show any relationship with the Kennedy Administration and the assassination?

EHH: He did.

Q: Did he ask you to do anything?

EHH: He suggested I might be able to improve on the record.

Q: And what did you understand him to mean when he said to improve upon the record?

EHH: To create, to fabricate cables that could substitute for the missing chronological cables.

Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?

EHH: I did.

Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

EHH: I did.

Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?

EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables.

Q: Now are you aware from your conversations with Mr. Colson and the use of these cables any strategy that Mr. Colson had with regard to Catholic voters?

EHH: Yes, sir.

Q: Could you describe that more fully?

EHH: I believe it was desired by Mr. Colson, or at least some of his colleagues, to demonstrate that a Catholic United States Administration had, in fact, conspired in the assassination of a Catholic chief of state in another country."

***********************************************************

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

Well then, isn't that considered to be tampering with State's evidence?

In that respect, Ashton is right in contending there are no cables. Therefore, one is left with what is known as

"circumstantial evidence."

"Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?

EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy."

Aka, "circumstantial evidence."

"Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?

EHH: I did.

Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

EHH: I did.

Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?

EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables."

A pre-meditated, egregious, and deceitful obstruction of justice, employing malice aforethought. This all leads back to a murder case, mind you. Actually, to two subsequent "bloody" coup d'etats, as opposed to those of the "bloodless" kind, if you will. But, alas that's just my humble opinion and take on this whole sordid mess.

Good response Ter.

Dawn

[Ashton Gray]

I'd be very grateful if Mr. Speer, after presenting his entire case so all the evidence is in view, would repost it all in an unbroken series, with any summation he'd like to make.

Then I will rebut. I can repost his exhibits myself so it's continuous, but with his cooperation it will remain in his voice.

Ashton Gray

[Pat Speer]

On August 3, 1973, former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray testified before the Watergate Committee. He'd been forced to resign after John Dean came forward admitting the existence of the cables, and that he'd given the cables to Gray. Upon resignation, Gray admitted he'd destroyed the cables.

Here is the relevant part of his testimony:

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

On September 24, 1973, Howard Hunt testified. Here is the relevant part of his testimony. He was questioned by Sam Dash. At this point, they have already started discussing Hunt's review of the legitimate cables in the state department's files.

Q: Now in the review of these cables did you notice any irregularity in the sequence?

EHH: I did.

Q: And at what period did the gap in sequence occur?

EHH: The period immediately leading up to the assassination of the premier of South Vietnam.

Q: Did you show the cables to Mr. Colson and offer an interpretation of them?

EHH: I showed him copies of those chronological cables, yes, sir.

Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?

EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy.

Q: What was Mr. Colson's reaction to your statement and the showing of the cables to him? Did he agree that the cables were sufficient evidence to show any relationship with the Kennedy Administration and the assassination?

EHH: He did.

Q: Did he ask you to do anything?

EHH: He suggested I might be able to improve on the record.

Q: And what did you understand him to mean when he said to improve upon the record?

EHH: To create, to fabricate cables that could substitute for the missing chronological cables.

Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?

EHH: I did.

Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

EHH: I did.

Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?

EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables.

Q: Now are you aware from your conversations with Mr. Colson and the use of these cables any strategy that Mr. Colson had with regard to Catholic voters?

EHH: Yes, sir.

Q: Could you describe that more fully?

EHH: I believe it was desired by Mr. Colson, or at least some of his colleagues, to demonstrate that a Catholic United States Administration had, in fact, conspired in the assassination of a Catholic chief of state in another country."

***********************************************************

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

Well then, isn't that considered to be tampering with State's evidence?

In that respect, Ashton is right in contending there are no cables. Therefore, one is left with what is known as

"circumstantial evidence."

"Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?

EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy."

Aka, "circumstantial evidence."

"Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?

EHH: I did.

Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

EHH: I did.

Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?

EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables."

A pre-meditated, egregious, and deceitful obstruction of justice, employing malice aforethought. This all leads back to a murder case, mind you. Actually, to two subsequent "bloody" coup d'etats, as opposed to those of the "bloodless" kind, if you will. But, alas that's just my humble opinion and take on this whole sordid mess.

Terry, the discussion isn't IF the cables exist, it's IF they ever existed. I say "Yes." For some strange reason, Ashon says "NO." I do not understand how he could assert such a thing, when we have Nixon and Ehrlichman discussing the cables in private, have Hunt testifying he created them, and Gray testifying he looked at them before he destroyed them. There are numerous other references to the cables.

For example, we have the disgraced former Attorney General John Mitchell discussing them in his July 10, 1973 testimony before the Watergate Committee. He cites the creation of these cables as one of the prime reasons he (Mitchell) participated in the cover-up, encouraging Mr. Magruder to perjure hmself, and giving hush money to Hunt and the "burglars." Here he is being questioned by minority counsel Fred Thompson, who went onto play senators in movies and eventually become a Senator himself.

"Q: Let me refer to June 19 and 20 (NOTE: this was 2 days after the break-in), I am not quite sure when it was, Mr. Mitchell. As I understand it, Mr. Mardian and LaRue debriefed Liddy and found out what he knew about the break-in, his involvement, and the involvement of others. And at that time, he related to them some of the White House horror stories, I believe you characterized them as, the plumbers activity and so forth. I will go back to that in a minute, but as I understand your testimony this morning, this is really the reason, the knowledge you got from that debriefing was really the reason why you, in effect, stood by while Mr. Magruder was preparing a story which, according to what you knew from Liddy, was going to be a false story to present to a jury.

JM: Along, Mr. Thompson, with some of the other stories that Mr. Dean brought forward to him, the Diem papers and the suspected extra-curricular wiretapping, and a few of the others."

So here we have John Mitchell, one of Nixon's best friends and closest political allies, testifyng that he was aware of the cables within days of the break-in, before Hunt was ever arrested. He states, furthermore, that his awareness of these cables was instrumental in his decision to participate in the cover-up. He obviously considered them real and very damaging. It's of interest as well, that it was he who brought up the cables, not his questioner. Thompson was minority counsel...in other words, he represented the Republicans on the committee. As such, Thompson's job was, in fact, to get enough of the truth out to satisfy the public, but not so much it would hurt his party's chances in upcoming elections. Thompson, not coincidentally, wrote a long section of the Watergate Report on possible CIA involvement. This was obviously done to murk the waters a bit and make the blatant head-to-toe corruption of the Nixon Administration less clear-cut. The Republicans were fighting for their life and knew it.

In sum, there is simply no reason to believe the cables did not exist, outside of a burning desire to believe that everything we've ever learned or been told about Watergate is some gigantic CIA lie. None of the men whose careers were upset or destroyed by their existence ever doubted their existence. They even testified to creating the cables and looking at the cables. If they didn't doubt their existence, why should we?

I believe you should really ask yourself who benefits from Ashton's illogical assertion that these cables did not exist. And the answer is... Richard Nixon. If the cables did not exist, it means that everything we were told by Dean, Hunt, and Gray about the cables was some sort of set-up, by either the Democrats, the CIA, or both. Although Ashton denies being a Nixon apologist, when I have asked him if he felt that Nixon was guilty of impeachable offenses he has repeatedly refused to answer. Once again, Ashton, was Nixon guilty of impeachable offenses? If so, why is it LOGICAL to believe the cables did not exist? The CIA could still have played a role in the Watergate story. The agency could have encouraged McCord and Hunt, and leaked information to Woodward, in order to help bring Nixon down. Why is it so much more LOGICAL to you to believe the agency set Nixon up from the beginning, and that men such as Dean, Liddy and Hunt, by all appearances loyal to Nixon before they were threatened with imprisonment, and even afterwards in Liddy's case, were part of a plan to destroy Nixon?

Please explain to us why Nixon recalled the cables being shown to Life Magazine if they in fact did not exist. Please explain to us why L. Patrick Gray would resign in disgrace after admitting he destroyed the cables if they in fact did not exist.

Edited July 3, 2006 by Pat Speer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If the cables did not exist, it means that everything we were told by Dean, Hunt, and Gray about the cables was some sort of set-up, by either the Democrats, the CIA, or both. Although Ashton denies being a Nixon apologist, when I have asked him if he felt that Nixon was guilty of impeachable offenses he has repeatedly refused to answer.

You have not (yet) cited any statements or testimony from Chuck Colsen. According to Hunt's testimony, Colsen was the instigator of the forgeries.

Did Colsen testify before the Committee, or did he describe his involvement in any other forum?

[Ashton Gray]

Please explain to us why L. Patrick Gray would resign in disgrace after admitting he destroyed the cables if they in fact did not exist.

Are you done or not? Is this all you got?

Yes or no?

Is this it? I want a clear-cut statement from you when you are done presenting your alleged case for these no-see-um cables.

So are you finished? Yes, or no?

You can throw yourself down on the floor, and kick your heels, and hold your breath until you turn from red to blue, and have any kind of tantrum you want over your inane irrelevant questions as far as I'm concerned. I told you: make your case, and then when you're done I'm going to turn it to confetti before your very eyes.

And I sure hope you came packing more than what's here right now.

So are you done or not? Yes, or no?

Ashton Gray

[Pat Speer]

Ashton, if that's your name, who are you to demand answers from me when you have placed yourself above answering any of my questions from day one? If you have anything to rebut the evidence presented, then rebut it. I reserve the right to counter with other evidence if I so choose. That's the way the world works.

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton, if that's your name

You can call me Legion.

My entire rebuttal to your Bazooka Joe comic follies will be posted in this thread within 24 hours of the posting of this message. Watch for it.

When it's posted, fulfilling my vow to answer on the fraud of the "Diem cables," my other vow goes back into full force and effect. It's already posted in this thread. See if you can find it. You may use both hands and a guide.

Ashton Gray

[Dawn Meredith]

Ashton, if that's your name, who are you to demand answers from me when you have placed yourself above answering any of my questions from day one? If you have anything to rebut the evidence presented, then rebut it. I reserve the right to counter with other evidence if I so choose. That's the way the world works.

Pat:

Forgive me for butting in here but it was you, was it not, who said you could "prove" your case for the the cables having been created. Like with your past "proof", you give us statements of men many of us here believe to be less than candid. That is not "proof".

Sorry to hold you to some sort of legal standard, but it was you who said you had the goods. And that you'd prove it. So seems to me you have created a catch -22 for Ashton. (When he is merely asking you to do that which you said you were going to do.) Sorry to have to resort to logic here, but B does follow A, does it not?

Ashton did answer many of your questions and respond to your points until you twisted his words until they were no longer recognizable.

So, again where's the proof? Kinda hard for someone to rebut something when the instant case has yet to be made. The floor's all yours.

Dawn

[Pat Speer]

Dawn, if you don't believe that one man's sworn testimony that he created something, another man's sworn testimony that he destroyed this same thing, and a tape-recorded conversation between two other men that indicates they were aware of this item's existence, is strong evidence this item existed, I feel sorry for you. When the defense of your pet theory has pushed you to such extremes that you are ready to believe willy-nilly that a bunch of men, including the President of the United States, his top advisers, and his Attorney General, would all colloborate on a story created out of whole cloth THAT MAKES THEM ALL LOOK VERY VERY BAD, then it's time to take that pet for a walk. Politicians and their closest aides, as a rule, make up stories that make them look very very good. The Diem cables are the proof that Nixon was obsessed with discrediting John Kennedy, and making John Kennedy's assassination look more like the divine retribution mentioned by Johnson. I think the creation of these cables can be used to support the Yankee and Cowboy War view of history. I'm completely baffled as to how you can possibly conclude these cables didn't exist, and why you suddenly are so protective of Nixon.

To make an analogy, let's say that the creation of these cables was a war crime. We have a young lieutenant, Dean, accused of war crimes, who decides to moderate his sentence by ratting out an over-zealous sergeant, Hunt, for killing civilians at the height of the Vietnam war. This second lieutenant Dean says furthermore that he found the head of a murdered civilian in Hunt's locker and gave this head to a General Gray to hold onto. General Gray ends up leaving his command upon admission that he dumped the head in the middle of the ocean. He swears before congress he opened the box containing the head and saw that it was a head before dumping it in the ocean. Hunt confesses to killing the civilian and taking the head but swears it was upon orders of a Colonel, a top military advisor to the President. The top military advisor, Colson, says if any heads were chopped off by Hunt it was based upon Hunt's misunderstanding of one of his orders. There is, however, a tape recording of the President discussing this case with another one of his top military advisors, Ehrlichman. On this tape, the military advisor says he had a conversation with the other advisor, in which the other advisor admitted ordering the collection of civilian heads. The President responds by saying that he knew that people died, but didn't realize that his advisor had ordered their heads to be collected. There is also a Life Magazine journalist who saw Hunt with the head and the testimony of another disgraced General that he participated in the cover-up of the head-collecting.

DAWN'S considered verdict: there were no severed heads. It's all a big hoax to make the President look bad.

Edited July 4, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Terry Mauro]

On August 3, 1973, former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray testified before the Watergate Committee. He'd been forced to resign after John Dean came forward admitting the existence of the cables, and that he'd given the cables to Gray. Upon resignation, Gray admitted he'd destroyed the cables.

Here is the relevant part of his testimony:

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

On September 24, 1973, Howard Hunt testified. Here is the relevant part of his testimony. He was questioned by Sam Dash. At this point, they have already started discussing Hunt's review of the legitimate cables in the state department's files.

Q: Now in the review of these cables did you notice any irregularity in the sequence?

EHH: I did.

Q: And at what period did the gap in sequence occur?

EHH: The period immediately leading up to the assassination of the premier of South Vietnam.

Q: Did you show the cables to Mr. Colson and offer an interpretation of them?

EHH: I showed him copies of those chronological cables, yes, sir.

Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?

EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy.

Q: What was Mr. Colson's reaction to your statement and the showing of the cables to him? Did he agree that the cables were sufficient evidence to show any relationship with the Kennedy Administration and the assassination?

EHH: He did.

Q: Did he ask you to do anything?

EHH: He suggested I might be able to improve on the record.

Q: And what did you understand him to mean when he said to improve upon the record?

EHH: To create, to fabricate cables that could substitute for the missing chronological cables.

Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?

EHH: I did.

Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

EHH: I did.

Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?

EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables.

Q: Now are you aware from your conversations with Mr. Colson and the use of these cables any strategy that Mr. Colson had with regard to Catholic voters?

EHH: Yes, sir.

Q: Could you describe that more fully?

EHH: I believe it was desired by Mr. Colson, or at least some of his colleagues, to demonstrate that a Catholic United States Administration had, in fact, conspired in the assassination of a Catholic chief of state in another country."

***********************************************************

"I distinctly recall that I burned them during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas. To this point I had not read or examined the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire I opened one of the files. It contained what appeared to be copies of "Top Secret" state department cablegrams. I read the first cable. I do not recall the exact language but the text of the cable implicated officials of the Kennedy Administration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam."

Well then, isn't that considered to be tampering with State's evidence?

In that respect, Ashton is right in contending there are no cables. Therefore, one is left with what is known as

"circumstantial evidence."

"Q: And what intepretation, if any, did you give him concerning the cables?

EHH: I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstracted from the files maintained in the Department of State in chronological fashion. And that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of the accumulated evidence and the cable documentation, that the Kennedy Administration was implicitly if not explicitly responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply coming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy."

Aka, "circumstantial evidence."

"Q: Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy Administration and the assassination of Diem?

EHH: I did.

Q: And did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

EHH: I did.

Q: What was his response to the fabricated cables?

EHH: He indicated to me that he would probably be getting in touch with a member of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables."

A pre-meditated, egregious, and deceitful obstruction of justice, employing malice aforethought. This all leads back to a murder case, mind you. Actually, to two subsequent "bloody" coup d'etats, as opposed to those of the "bloodless" kind, if you will. But, alas that's just my humble opinion and take on this whole sordid mess.

Terry, the discussion isn't IF the cables exist, it's IF they ever existed. I say "Yes." For some strange reason, Ashon says "NO." I do not understand how he could assert such a thing, when we have Nixon and Ehrlichman discussing the cables in private, have Hunt testifying he created them, and Gray testifying he looked at them before he destroyed them. There are numerous other references to the cables.

For example, we have the disgraced former Attorney General John Mitchell discussing them in his July 10, 1973 testimony before the Watergate Committee. He cites the creation of these cables as one of the prime reasons he (Mitchell) participated in the cover-up, encouraging Mr. Magruder to perjure hmself, and giving hush money to Hunt and the "burglars." Here he is being questioned by minority counsel Fred Thompson, who went onto play senators in movies and eventually become a Senator himself.

"Q: Let me refer to June 19 and 20 (NOTE: this was 2 days after the break-in), I am not quite sure when it was, Mr. Mitchell. As I understand it, Mr. Mardian and LaRue debriefed Liddy and found out what he knew about the break-in, his involvement, and the involvement of others. And at that time, he related to them some of the White House horror stories, I believe you characterized them as, the plumbers activity and so forth. I will go back to that in a minute, but as I understand your testimony this morning, this is really the reason, the knowledge you got from that debriefing was really the reason why you, in effect, stood by while Mr. Magruder was preparing a story which, according to what you knew from Liddy, was going to be a false story to present to a jury.

JM: Along, Mr. Thompson, with some of the other stories that Mr. Dean brought forward to him, the Diem papers and the suspected extra-curricular wiretapping, and a few of the others."

So here we have John Mitchell, one of Nixon's best friends and closest political allies, testifyng that he was aware of the cables within days of the break-in, before Hunt was ever arrested. He states, furthermore, that his awareness of these cables was instrumental in his decision to participate in the cover-up. He obviously considered them real and very damaging. It's of interest as well, that it was he who brought up the cables, not his questioner. Thompson was minority counsel...in other words, he represented the Republicans on the committee. As such, Thompson's job was, in fact, to get enough of the truth out to satisfy the public, but not so much it would hurt his party's chances in upcoming elections. Thompson, not coincidentally, wrote a long section of the Watergate Report on possible CIA involvement. This was obviously done to murk the waters a bit and make the blatant head-to-toe corruption of the Nixon Administration less clear-cut. The Republicans were fighting for their life and knew it.

In sum, there is simply no reason to believe the cables did not exist, outside of a burning desire to believe that everything we've ever learned or been told about Watergate is some gigantic CIA lie. None of the men whose careers were upset or destroyed by their existence ever doubted their existence. They even testified to creating the cables and looking at the cables. If they didn't doubt their existence, why should we?

I believe you should really ask yourself who benefits from Ashton's illogical assertion that these cables did not exist. And the answer is... Richard Nixon. If the cables did not exist, it means that everything we were told by Dean, Hunt, and Gray about the cables was some sort of set-up, by either the Democrats, the CIA, or both. Although Ashton denies being a Nixon apologist, when I have asked him if he felt that Nixon was guilty of impeachable offenses he has repeatedly refused to answer. Once again, Ashton, was Nixon guilty of impeachable offenses? If so, why is it LOGICAL to believe the cables did not exist? The CIA could still have played a role in the Watergate story. The agency could have encouraged McCord and Hunt, and leaked information to Woodward, in order to help bring Nixon down. Why is it so much more LOGICAL to you to believe the agency set Nixon up from the beginning, and that men such as Dean, Liddy and Hunt, by all appearances loyal to Nixon before they were threatened with imprisonment, and even afterwards in Liddy's case, were part of a plan to destroy Nixon?

Please explain to us why Nixon recalled the cables being shown to Life Magazine if they in fact did not exist. Please explain to us why L. Patrick Gray would resign in disgrace after admitting he destroyed the cables if they in fact did not exist.

**************************************************************

"I believe you should really ask yourself who benefits from Ashton's illogical assertion that these cables did not exist. And the answer is... Richard Nixon. If the cables did not exist, it means that everything we were told by Dean, Hunt, and Gray about the cables was some sort of set-up, by either the Democrats, the CIA, or both. Although Ashton denies being a Nixon apologist, when I have asked him if he felt that Nixon was guilty of impeachable offenses he has repeatedly refused to answer. Once again, Ashton, was Nixon guilty of impeachable offenses? If so, why is it LOGICAL to believe the cables did not exist? The CIA could still have played a role in the Watergate story. The agency could have encouraged McCord and Hunt, and leaked information to Woodward, in order to help bring Nixon down. Why is it so much more LOGICAL to you to believe the agency set Nixon up from the beginning, and that men such as Dean, Liddy and Hunt, by all appearances loyal to Nixon before they were threatened with imprisonment, and even afterwards in Liddy's case, were part of a plan to destroy Nixon?"

I believe Ashton was inferring that the cables do not exist NOW. I don't remember him saying that they never existed, at all. L.P. Gray attested to their existence, as you've been so helpful to point out, but turned around and destroyed them. So, they do not exist in the record today. I specifically do not remember Ashton stating that they NEVER existed, but that if you knew they were in existence today, for you to produce them. At least that's the gist I got from that exchange when it was taking place.

As far as any loyalty to Nixon on the parts of Hunt, Liddy, Woodward, or any of the other "usual suspects," you've got to be kidding. The only loyalty those hustlers had was to "The Company" and the "money" it was always so ready to supply them with. Nixon had no one I would ever consider to be loyal to him, except for his wife, and maybe Kissinger, who was merely just another "paid" loyalist, if you will. There is no loyalty in D.C. because everyone is out for themselves, and/or for what other people can do for them to further their aspirations and their personal agendas. Anyway, being loyal to Nixon is analogous to to being loyal to Hitler or Stalin, IMHO.

[Pat Speer]

Terry, Ashton asserted that there never were any Diem cables. As he has claimed that pretty much everything that ever made Nixon look bad--from the Pentagon Papers to the Watergate break-in--was some sort of conspiracy against Nixon, I took from this that he felt the existence of these cables was invented as part of some master plot against poor Richard. Evidently, he'll explain it all to us shortly.

As far as loyalty to Nixon, Nixon's closest aides pretty much fell away like ancient wallpaper under the heat of the investigation. Only Liddy remained loyal. As a matter of pride, he refused to cut a deal and testify against his co-conspirators. As a result he endured a far harsher prison sentence than anyone else involved in the Watergate scandal. His loyalty was more due to his obsession with loyalty and duty than to Nixon himself, however. If you ever see his book Will, you might want to check it out. It makes for pretty interesting reading. Liddy was so obsessed with discipline and duty etc. that he actually screened Hitler propaganda in the White House to study their techniques. He also held his hand out over a fire and deliberately burned himself in order to demonstrate his loyalty. Both Magruder and Dean were reportedly frightened of him. Some of these stories made their way to Nixon. On one of the tapes where Nixon and Haldeman discuss the cover-up Nixon refers to Liddy as "that fruticake" if I remember correctly. Ashton's assertion that Liddy worked with men like Magruder, Dean, and Ellsberg, men he has openly despised and publicly insulted his entire public career, to bring down Nixon, is completely bizarre and without merit. To put it in a modern context, it's like saying Karl Rove and Joseph Wilson teamed up to discredit Bush.

[Ashton Gray]

Deputy Sheriff said to me:

"Tell me what you come here for, boy.

You better get your bags and flee.

You’re in trouble, boy, and now you’re heading into more."

It's the same old story everywhere I go:

I get slandered, libeled,

I hear words I never heard in the Bible.

—Paul Simon

THE GREAT PHANTOM "DIEM CABLES" NON-DEBATE

Unlike a mule, it's hard to know exactly which end of fictional "forged cables" to approach from. The first problem is that they are invisible.

In civilized societies, people don't try to approach invisible cables at all, much less discuss them at great length. The attempt will get you a padded room and three squares a day, plus meds, for life.

In certain barbaric cultures, though, this seems to be not only a great pass-time, but something worth millions upon millions of dollars, hundreds of books, oceans of ink, and even Congressional hearings. Personally, I'd prefer a good mule.

However: a certain person (and I won't mention any names, but his initials are "Pat Speer") has developed finger blisters typing his little heart out to sell people on this elaborate delusion and—because I wandered in here innocently, and he didn't like the cut of my hat or something—he demanded to know "what you come here for, boy," and he's followed me all over the forum trying to smear me in any depraved way he can conjure, while simultaneously begging me endlessly to explain why I won't discuss these fantasy cables and other group hallucinations with him and his small band of boorish fellow day-trippers.

So I will. Once. But only for the rational mind.

CAVEATS FOR THE RATIONAL MIND

We're about to enter the "No-See-Um Zone." It makes The Matrix look like a church day care. If you're here at all, it is hoped that you have some acquaintance already with the Official Forged Diem Cables Myth, and have read Mr. Speer's rendition in this thread, because I'm not about to seriously try to explain the existence of non-existent, invisible cables. I'm not that nuts.

And while the Phabulous Phantom Cables are funny on their face (or lack thereof), the ghoulish clowns that created them are perhaps the most unfunny wraiths that ever plagued mankind. So even to enter the No-See-Um Zone requires crossing a mine field of psy-ops techniques that the very unfunny clowns have been developing for decades. As long as you know where these deadly "mind mines" are, you can cross into the No-See-Um Zone with a cavalier lilt in your step and an appropriate sense of humor, and we can find and study the invisible cables.

Far more importantly: you can get back out with your sanity intact. Here's the first set of "mind mines" as we go in. Watch your step:

YOSSARIAN'S "MAN WHO SAW EVERYTHING TWICE"

In the book "Catch 22," the protagonist, Yossarian, has the misfortune to get laid up in a hospital bed next to a man whose malady causes him to see everything twice. It's a brilliant recursive pun on the title of the book and an absolutely hilarious piece of literature. It also describes an almost deadly trap for the mind.

E. Howard Hunt, a veteran CIA covert operative, purportedly created the alleged "forged cables" concerning the assassination of South Viet Nam President Diem. Sitting directly on your path to the invisible "Diem cables," you cannot avoid a mention of E. Howard Hunt's per diem as a White House consultant, because it's also part of the contents of Hunt's safe. Did you just see something twice? Watch your step.

The next "everything twice mind mine" in your path, which you cannot possibly avoid in your quest to the invisible cables, is a simple name: "Fielding." That's not a "mind mine," you say. It's just a name. Watch carefully: of only three people in the entire world who ever claimed personally to have seen these purported cables, one of them, E. Howard Hunt, is heavily associated with a purported "break-in" at the office of a psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Fielding. Got a good grip on that? Okay, now: one of the only two other people in existence who claimed to have handled and seen the purported forgery is John Dean, and he just happens to have a personal assistant—who also handles the contents of Hunt's safe, but doesn't see the purported forged cables—whose name is Fred Fielding. Did you just see something twice? Are you feeling a little dizzy yet? No?

Well, there's the psy-op rule of three to get you so spun around and confused that you'll believe anything, so we ought to be on the lookout for at least one more (and there are plenty more):

Please notice that not directly in the middle of the "This Way to the Invisible Cables" path, but just to the side where you can't possibly miss it, is a big smiling, waving Larry O'Brien, Chairman of the DNC. He's the "victim" of the main act of mayhem, which also, of course, involves Hunt. If you follow the "forged cables" path all the way to where the invisible cables disappear (several times, but that's another "mind mine" we haven't gotten to), you simply can't avoid a guy named Paul O'Brien suddenly appearing in the path, startling you. Did you just see something twice? Who the hell is Paul O'Brien? Oh, well, he's just a guy. He happens to be "former-CIA," just like Hunt, but somehow he's suddenly at CREEP, involved with Hunt's wife, Dorothy, spinning envelopes of cash around your head in so many different directions at once that you soon feel like the nucleus at the center of an atom of Federal Reserve notes.

If you haven't sunk down in the poppy field of duplicate words and names yet and gone totally unconscious, just slip past the O'Brien dopplegangers and the gates will open into the promised land: The Land of the No-See-Um Cables. Or is that "cable"? Is there one forged cable? Are there two forged cables? How many forged cables are there? Just exactly what is it we're looking for, and how will we recognize it?

Well, just step right in, and we'll ask whoever we can find in here who's actually seen them. There sure seem to be a lot of people standing around...

A CAST OF HUNDREDS. WELL, TENS. WELL, A FEW...

They were standing under a tree, each with an arm round the other's neck, and Alice knew which was which in a moment, because one of them had "DUM" embroidered on his collar, and the other "DEE." "I suppose they've each got 'TWEEDLE' round at the back of the collar," she said to herself.

They stood so still that she quite forgot they were alive, and she was just going round to see if the word "TWEEDLE" was written at the back of each collar, when she was startled by a voice coming from the one marked "DUM."

"If you think we're wax-works," he said, "you ought to pay, you know. Wax-works weren't made to be looked at for nothing. Nohow."

"Contrariwise," added the one marked "DEE", "if you think we're alive, you ought to speak."

—Lewis Carroll

It is almost like a wax museum in here. Or a house of mirrors. There seem to be so many people standing around who we just know have seen these no-see-um invisible cables. Let's see who's in the cast of characters, and find out who actually says themselves, for themselves, that they saw them:

• Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon: Surely ol' Tricky Dick saw them, right? But there's not a word anywhere in the record—from anybody, much less him—that he ever saw the purported cables. So we can't ask him how many there were and what they said. Moving on...
  
• Charles Colson: Hmmm. Well, he just stands there mum, thumping the Bible. Hunt says that Colson saw them. Hunt says that Colson ordered them. But Colson just smiles and thumps the Bible and doesn't say a word about ever seeing any forged cables. So we aren't going to get anything out of him about how many there were and what they said. But he's arm-in-arm with...
  
• William "Bill" Lambert: Hey! It's the Life magazine reporter who Hunt also says saw the cables. Now, why is he so damned chummy with Colson? Ohhhh, that's right: Lambert published the big smear piece that Colson wrote on Democratic Senator Tydings in 1970 that caused Tydings to lose his seat, even though the allegations were all proven false after the election! That's why you two good Christian men are so cozy. Hey, Bill: you wouldn't let these goons just use your name to put over a big fraud, as sort of a quid pro quo, would you? You Operation Mocking Bird boys aren't that low-life. Are you? Did you ever say anywhere, yourself, that you actually saw any cables? Oh. "Ask Hunt." Sure. No problem. Sorry to have interrupted the prayer meeting.
  
• Lucien Conein: Okay, this just seals the deal right here. I mean, this is Mr. CIA Black Ops himself, and if anybody is going to back Hunt to the hilt, it's this one. So what do you say, Lucien? Did you ever say anywhere that you actually saw any such forged cables? Because Hunt tells us very powerfully and forcefully that you got the forged cables worked into a national network show, so you must have said it on national television, right? Because here's what Hunt says exactly: "I would have to answer in these terms: ...that I had shown him [Conein] the fabricated cables in the broader context of the overall cables, that he was then interrogated by a camera and interview crew and that I believe he made, if not specific reference to the cables I showed him, at least they reinforced his own belief that there had been direct complicity by the Kennedy administration in the events leading up to the assassination of the South Vietnamese Premier." But... But...
  

And phantom eyewitness after phantom eyewitness shimmers and thins and disappears entirely until there's nobody left in the hall of mirrors except three, and only three people in this entire CIA-manufactured universe who actually claim, themselves, by their own testimony, to actually have laid eyes on these magic forged cables. And who would these three be?

• E. Howard Hunt
  
• John Dean
  
• L. Patrick Gray
  

Now we're getting somewhere. Now we can ask the real, admitted, confessed eyewitnesses to this world-shaking piece of forgery just exactly what the form and substance and content of these history-making cables were. Or was it a cable? Do we even know exactly what kind of Holy Grail we're on the "Hunt" for? How will we know it if we see it? We're so close now we can almost touch it. Or touch them. Or whatever. Almost. We just have to question these only three eyewitnesses to history.

Follow along into Part II: The Form and Substance of Magic Nothingness

Ashton Gray

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Follow along into Part II: The Form and Substance of Magic Nothingness

Ashton Gray

The whole world can't hardly wait to hear the rest of this pretentious gibberish.