Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ashton Gray: His repeated violations of Board Guidelines


Recommended Posts

[L]ike Caddy having been dubbed as a successor to Mullen, that aren't in the timeline

Ashton Gray

Mr. Gray makes a big deal about Mullen telling Hunt he was planning to hand over the business to Hunt and Douglas Caddy. Since part of the business (one European country) was actually a CIA front, the logical inferences, per Mr. Gray, are that:

1/ Mr. Caddy knew that Mullen was thinking about him as a possible co-owner/co-manager and

2/ Mr. Caddy actually knew the true status of the European operation in question.

I submit that neither of these these inferences is warranted by the evidence I have seen so far from Mr. Gray.

1/ is a minor issue, but Mr. Grays treatment of it displays the shortcomings of his method. Just because Mullen was THINKING about bringing Mr. Caddy into ownership does not at all mean that he had shared his thoughts with Mr. Caddy. It is highly unlikely that a successful businessman like Mullen would reveal his plans to Mr. Caddy unless and until he was absolutely certain of them. Anybody could figure that out . You don't have to be involved with the business world for more than thirty years, as I have, to know that. The movies have been showing things like for as long as I can remember.

2/ is much more serious because Mr. Gray is trying to draw us closer to believing bad things about Mr. Caddy. Why he is trying to do this, I do not know. Maybe he has some dark little sub-conspiracy theory he is trying to prove, and the theory will not work without Mr. Caddy being a KNOWING participant in the sub-plot in question.

At any rate, just because one Mullen subsidiary was actually a CIA front, and just because Mr. Caddy worked for the Mullen Company, does not at all involve that Mr. Caddy was aware of the true situation, except in the mind of someone who has never heard, or pretends he has never heard, of "compartmentalization."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks. Can you document Caddy's ties to the Mullen Company? To me that

seems crucial.

I've already attempted to do a thorough and yeoman-like job of that very thing some time ago in the following thread, hence the title:

Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen, and the CIA

I have considerable experience trying to identify "whistleblowers" who do

things that bother their conscience. If Caddy was a Mullen insider, how do

we know that his present stance is not an attempt to get the truth out?

We don't. At least I don't. Your mileage may vary. There are quite a few unanswered questions remaining in that thread. Although I believe the entire thread is worth studying, I refer particularly to my post not quite midway down the second page listing unanswered questions from my first round, a clarification of questions he innocently or intentionally misunderstood, and several new questions arising out of some of his responses. About the time I asked those, he stopped responding to me, and posted his indirect set-up of this thread we're in now by warning of infiltrators, etc. (It should be clear to anybody paying attention by now that that was a javelin aimed solely at my heart, but thrown from the bushes.)

A suggestion: make a list of things on which you and Caddy agree and

another list of things on which you disagree. It needs to be narrowed down

to points you disagree on. Then each could be analyzed.

It's not nearly as much a question of Caddy and I being in disagreement as it is of Caddy being in disagreement with some of his own statements, and being in extreme disagreement with statements made by Hunt and Liddy, purportedly about the same events. My efforts with Mr. Caddy have been to find out why there are all these contradictory, mutually exclusive stories. I had hoped for candid and open explanations. Instead it's been like trying to find a gopher.

But, again, I've already attempted to do a yeomanlike and thorough job of exactly what you just suggested by starting yet another thread last week:

Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When?

If you can read my introductory message, and my following three messages in which I quote the accounts of Caddy, Hunt, and Liddy about purportedly the same events, and come away with an explanation to me of how one of them, or two of them, or all three of them aren't lying, please come back here and 'splain it to me. That's all I've been trying to get Mr. Caddy to do. That's why in my three postings in that thread (after the introduction) I have a total of 52 questions posted for Mr. Caddy trying to make sense of the dog's breakfast of conflicting stories.

About the time I posted those questions, he posted the thread we're in (in both forums) calling for my head on a platter.

I'm afraid that the sum of those threads is going to exceed your length requirements, but I would remind you, with all due respect, I didn't create this mess. I'm trying to sort it out. I think it's about time somebody did. I've been seeking Mr. Caddy's help. But Mr. Caddy: he lay low; he don' say nothin'.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what respects does the Simkin timeline differ (or agree) with the Ashton timeline, for those of us not inclined to compare them directly?

Jack, I have attempted to explain why the Watergate story really begins in 1968 here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7253

In fact, in some ways, the Watergate story began in November, 1963.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what respects does the Simkin timeline differ (or agree) with the Ashton timeline, for those of us not inclined to compare them directly?

Jack, I have attempted to explain why the Watergate story really begins in 1968 here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7253

In fact, in some ways, the Watergate story began in November, 1963.

This is what many of us have been saying since 1974 or so. For those memebers who did not live through Watergate, or the assassination, they missed a crucial part of history. Because even with the press being controlled there is always a few gems dropped, so that a discerning person can piece the real story together. Just connect all the dots. As Terry posted a few days back: "all roads lead to Rome".

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what respects does the Simkin timeline differ (or agree) with the Ashton timeline, for those of us not inclined to compare them directly?

Jack, I have attempted to explain why the Watergate story really begins in 1968 here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7253

In fact, in some ways, the Watergate story began in November, 1963.

This is what many of us have been saying since 1974 or so. For those memebers who did not live through Watergate, or the assassination, they missed a crucial part of history. Because even with the press being controlled there is always a few gems dropped, so that a discerning person can piece the real story together. Just connect all the dots. As Terry posted a few days back: "all roads lead to Rome".

Dawn

There's a heckuva lot of difference, IMO, between saying that anti-Nixon forces were able to influence the CIA to help expose the Watergate break-in, and that the CIA faked the break-ins to begin with. The first theory reflects an adversarial relationship between different forces; we know this relationship existed; the second theory entails a convoluted plot that completely absolves Nixon of most of the wrong-doing done in his name; we have no reason to believe this is true and the only reason to believe it is true is because one wishes it was true.

In order to insist that Nixon was a dupe, it becomes necessary to insist that men such as Caddy,Baldwin, Dean, McCord, Hunt, Liddy, Magruder, Ehrlichman, Colson, Gray, etc. were all part of an ongoing conspiracy to remove Nixon from office. Their motive? Who was it again among these men who benefitted from Nixon's removal from office?

I'm deeply offended that my trying to make sense of Ashton's nonsense has forced Ashton to call my intentions into question, and that some seem ready to believe him. I believe this is what Caddy was trying to warn us about. Whether or not Ashton is a deliberate provocateur, his influence on this forum could not possibly be any worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to insist that Nixon was a dupe, it becomes necessary to insist that men such as Caddy,Baldwin, Dean, McCord, Hunt, Liddy, Magruder, Ehrlichman, Colson, Gray, etc. were all part of an ongoing conspiracy to remove Nixon from office. Their motive? Who was it again among these men who benefitted from Nixon's removal from office?

That's not necessarily true, Pat. Recall Tom Houston's plan to institute a US Gestapo, which generally found favour with the Nixon White House, but gave Hoover palpitations. It is clear the Nixonites were anxious to create an intelligence mechanism for their own use, and did so by recruiting what became the Plumbers and Segretti's Ratxxxxers. Hence, half the men you named above were responsible for creating the teams that led to Nixon's downfall, albeit without having that intent at the outset.

Now, were you Helms and you realized the creation of such an intelligence mechanism would do an end run around your own organization, would you not be tempted to insinutate your own people into that newly created mechanism, if only to keep tabs on what was being undertaken at the White House's behest?

I think it is inarguable that the Plumbers achieved nothing significant for Nixon, which raises the notion that they were nominally his instrument, but actually controlled by someone else. Given their respective CIA backgrounds, the Agency would have to be the first on any list of suspects when seeking to identify who exercised control over them and their activities.

Donald Freed and Mae Brussell both uncovered interesting circumstantial evidence that, prior to Watergate, Hunt and Liddy attempted to arrange an assassination attempt upon Nixon during the 1972 Republican Convention. While that seems ridiculously counterintuitve when viewed through the prism of Hunt and Liddy being loyal Nixonites, it is less ridiculous if one questions the party to whom they were ultimately loyal.

I'm deeply offended that my trying to make sense of Ashton's nonsense has forced Ashton to call my intentions into question, and that some seem ready to believe him. I believe this is what Caddy was trying to warn us about. Whether or not Ashton is a deliberate provocateur, his influence on this forum could not possibly be any worse.

Ashton Gray has raised a number of interesting questions, several of which have troubled me since these events unfolded, albeit in a fashion Gray must know is virtually guaranteed to alienate Messrs. Caddy and Baldwin, and any number of others who cleave to the official version of events. While I might wish that he did so in a less confrontational fashion, I appreciate the questions being raised and am marginally surprised that Messrs. Caddy and Baldwin have chosen to take the Fifth and seek intercession from the umpire.

As for calling into question your own intentions, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, Pat. Long time members here know the cut of your jib, and appreciate the consistency of your Devil's advocacy. It will take much more than Mr. Gray's contributions here to sway us from that appreciation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KUH-TOOMMMM!!!!!!! <Look, Mommy! He made a sound effect too! tee-hee>

In a previous post, "He ain't no new Messiah," a phenomenon known as "doing a Weatherman" was mentioned, in which persons in a group of public activists would sometimes try to bring discredit and adverse publicity upon the group by advocating the most extreme options.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7221

In the above posting what I have done should be called "actin like Ayton," a strategy of putting in front of readers a vast amount of semi-interesting information which soon leads them to doubt if they want to go on with life.

It can be taken with a high degree of probability that Powers' book can be considered as reflecting the point of view of many of his interview sources (CIA men with CYA interests), as I have suggested in reference to a different subject area in postings on the JFK-Lancer forum.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...mp;page=2#48018

But the issue is whether the scenario presented in the book is accurate --- as in, whether the stated evidence corresponds with reality or not. This is not something I am qualified to judge, dimwitted as I am, so I leave it to others to discuss and determine. And now, if you don't [expletive deleted] mind, I'll depart from this madhouse to continue trying to recover from recent virus wounds, and attend to my own work --- none of which is a topic of discussion here in this here forum/madhouse.

Yours sincerely,

Dan

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

"But the issue is whether the scenario presented in the book is accurate --- as in, whether the stated evidence corresponds with reality or not. This is not something I am qualified to judge, dimwitted as I am, so I leave it to others to discuss and determine. And now, if you don't [expletive deleted] mind, I'll depart from this madhouse to continue trying to recover from recent virus wounds, and attend to my own work --- none of which is a topic of discussion here in this here forum/madhouse."

Dan, if you want to refer to any forum as a madhouse, I suggest you refer to the alts. or McAdams' site in the same breath, instead of attempting to include The Education Forum in with the rest of those snakepits.

Thank you. Now, get back to work on you Qumran project, as it will no doubt prove to be a more interesting read, at least for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in Sicily and have not had access to the forum. I will have to deal with this when I get back next week.

At the risk of being accused of trying to post something actually relevant to the topic of this thread, let me say that I do not support the removal of Mr. Gray from this forum, but I believe he should be severly reprimanded by the moderator for persistently accusing Mr. Douglas Caddy of being a xxxx.

I would also advise him to stop insulting the intelligence of members of this forum by asking asinine questions of Mr. Caddy.

This is from the thread entitled: "Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When?"

Mr. Gray's questions are in quotes:

[*]Did the purported call from Hunt to you come at 2:13 a.m. or at 3:13 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 1972—if at all?"

The "if at all" part seems just gratuitously insulting. As to whether the call came at 2.13 or 3.13, clearly one of these was a typo. Anyway, what difference would it make?

"[* in your due diligence for your clients, what did you discover concerning this bizarre police response for a reported burglary in progress?"

How in heaven's name would that be any part of Mr. Caddy's "due diligence"?

[*]What section, division, department, or unit of the D.C. police were these plain-clothes first responders part of?

See previous note. Even if Mr. Caddy once had this information in memory 30-odd years ago, it is absurd to think that he would be able to recall it today.

"[*]Did Hunt in fact tell you that you likely would be getting a call from Bernard Barker's wife?"

Previously asked and answered

"[*] You claim contrarily [to Hunt's account] that both you and Hunt spoke to Liddy at some length on the telephone between 4:45 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.... Which of these contradictory accounts, if any, is true?"

Again, the "if any" is gratuitously insulting. It is not at all clear that there IS a conflict here, but -- even if there is -- using Howard Hunt's version in an attempt to impeach Mr. Caddy is, well, a bit silly.

"[*]." How did you get the aliases that the other men were using in order that you and Rafferty could locate them downtown?"

What difference does it make?

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, what had Hunt done with the antenna he purportedly had stuffed down his pants leg?"

I can answer that myself. At some point Hunt took the antenna out of his pants. Of course there is no evidence that he did this in Mr. Caddy's presence. The question is completely lacking in foundation, like so many other questions posed to Mr. Caddy by Mr. Gray.

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, why was there purported "surplus electronic gear" in the temporary "command post" room with Hunt and Liddy?"

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, when did you learn that Hunt had stashed incriminating "surplus electronic gear" in his White House safe, and did you advise him to leave it there?"

Here, as in other questions, Mr. Gray is asking Mr. Caddy to violate the attorney-client privilege ( I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hunt told Mr. Caddy about this electronic gear. It would not surprise me if that assumption is false). I think Mr. Caddy has amply demonstrated that he is willing to go to jail before he would violate his solemn obligations in this regard.

Does Mr. Gray have delusions that he is John J. Sirica? Is he going to put Mr. Caddy in jail for refusing to answer his asinine questions?

Mr. Caddy has demonstrated that he acts upon his principles; Mr Gray has yet to demonstrate that he has any, unless persistently calling Mr. Caddy a xxxx, or insinuating that he is one, is Mr. Gray's idea of a "principle."

"[*]Given that you had worked for John Dean beginning in March 1972; given that as an extension of that work did work for Liddy; given that you purportedly had been advised that Liddy was involved; given that Hunt says that Dean was in town at the time, did you contact John Dean that morning, and if not, why not?"

Why in heaven's name would he? Is a lawyer supposed to notify his other clients every time one client gets in trouble? This one is a candidate for the title of "Most Asinine Question Ever Asked by Ashton Gray," but the competition is intense.

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, isn't it true that all "documentation" for every one of the aliases for every one of the participants had originated at CIA?"

Why ask Mr. Caddy that question? He has already made it crystal clear that he had no CIA clearance. Or is this just another of the myriad ways Mr. Gray is inventing as an excuse to call Mr. Caddy a xxxx?

Besides, even if Mr. Caddy could prove that the documents originated in CIA, would this have done much to assist his clients defense, which was Mr. Caddy's sole responsibility?

Mr. Gray's final questions for Mr. Caddy in that thread are listed below. There will be a prize for the first person who can correctly list them in order of asininity:

"[*]Did you wait for Rafferty to come to your apartment, or did you meet Rafferty elsewhere?

[*]Had you ever seen or met James McCord prior to seeing him in the cell block? If so, when, where, and under what circumstances?

[*]What became of the tapes from the recording system that had been installed in Hunt's White House office on or about July 9, 1971?

[*]Had you ever met with Hunt in that office?

[*]Hunt, in telling you the men had been arrested, claims to have said to you: "You know one of them, Bernie Barker." Is that how it happened?

[*]Hunt says he never saw you again after he left your apartment. How did you manage to avoid ever encountering him throughout all the subsequent legal actions?

[*]Exactly when and under what circumstances did you stop representing each of the seven people that you have both claimed, and denied to the press, as having represented?

Ashton Gray"

On June 15, 2006, in the thread "Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen, and the CIA"

Mr. Caddy wrote:

"No, I was not cleared and witting of the Mullen Company’s involvement with the CIA. I only learned for certain of such involvement when I read Senator Howard Baker’s supplemental lengthy statement that was released about the same time that the final Senate Watergate Committee report was promulgated."

Despite Mr. Caddy's unambiguous statement about what he knew and did not know about the operations of the Mullen Company, Mr. Gray keeps on insinuating that Mr. Caddy is lying.

Mr. Gray: What part of "no" do you not understand?

If Mr. Caddy is no longer answering Mr. Gray's questions, I suspect it is not just because he persists in casting aspersions on Mr. Caddy's character; it is also because he persists in insulting Mr. Caddy's (and our) intelligence.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J Raymond Carroll writes:

"At the risk of being accused of trying to post something actually relevant to the topic of this thread, let me say that I do not support the removal of Mr. Gray from this forum, but I believe he should be severly reprimanded by the moderator for persistently accusing Mr. Douglas Caddy of being a xxxx."

Although he repeatedly quotes Ashton Gray, in none of those quotes does Gray accuse Caddy of being a xxxx. It is Carroll that makes unfounded and undocumented attacks. Carroll indulges in his penchant for giving unsolicited and advice to others:

"I would also advise him to stop insulting the intelligence of members of this forum by asking asinine questions of Mr. Caddy."

Carroll evidently sees himself as somehow speaking for other members of this Forum. He even claims to "suspect" why Caddy is no longer answering questions, like he had some special insight into Mr. Caddy's thought processes. Why not let Mr. Caddy speak for himself, which he has proven quite capable of doing in the past.

Carroll also shows no hesitation in giving his advice to Forum moderators. He feels they should "severely" reprimand Ashton Gray.

Somehow, I think the moderator(s) of this Forum aren't seeking, nor do they need the advice of Carroll concerning what actions (if any) they should take on anything.

I leave the reader with just a few of Carroll's quotes just in the last month. Mr. Carroll's words speak volumes about his qualifications to judge others. The following are direct quotes from J. Raymond Carroll in no particular order.

June 10, 2006

"There have been many fakes, delusions and hoaxes in this case, but I have never seen a more obvious fake than Judith Baker."

June 8, 2006

"There is one very obvious reason why Judith Baker's claims are bullxxxx. Lee Oswald had better taste in women."

May 30, 2006

"You must be proud of your bravery, Mr. Parsons. It must take some kind of courage to make scurrilous accusations like these against a poor defenseless woman who has been so cruelly abused by your oh-so powerful government for the past 40-odd years. Take a bow, why don't you."

May 29, 2006

"I am sad to say that Mellen's book is scandalous and a disgrace to the research community, IMHO."

"I am not certain that you are yet capable of knowing what a fact is, even when it stares you in the face."

May 29, 2006

"Joan Mellen's book, assuming it belongs in a bookstore, belongs in the pornography department, IMHO."

June 4, 2006

"Because NOBODY buries their children in miserable boxes like that, and only a complete idiot would think that it is even remotely possible."

"But what troubles me is the brutality inherent in Mr. Hogan's attacks upon an innocent person who was victimised first by the assassins who killed JFK and her husband, then by the enormously callous forces of the Federal Government , and now, it seems, even some researchers on this forum can't wait to throw stones at her."

"Mr. Hogan, do you really think that throwing stones at a helpless and innocent woman will make you some kind of hero? Would you like to add some insults to her children also, assuming you think they would not be sufficiently insulted if they had the misfortune to read the remarks you have already posted on this forum?"

"Mr. Hogan, if you have nothing to contribute beyond regurgitating what others had written 40 years ago, then you really don't have a helluva whole lot to contribute to this inquiry, now do you?"

Carroll felt comfortable in posting crap like the above with absolutely no documentation to back up any of his claims. He was never able to show that I 'brutally attacked" Marina Oswald, simply because I did nothing of the sort.

Rather than take affront at Carroll's BS...I was then, and I am now more than willing to let his own words speak to Carroll's credibility on this Forum.

Here is one more quote from Carroll taken today from a related thread:

"I suggest that he (Ashton Gray) be reminded that libelous statements or innuendos against fellow-members do not belong on this forum."

I'll leave it to the Forum members as to whether or not J. Raymond Carroll is in any position to give advice to anyone when it comes to how to conduct themselves on this Forum.

Mike Hogan

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll, your lack of understanding of the relevance of some of the questions you cite, completely out of the context in which they were asked, seems to go less to their relevance than to your understanding.

One attorney posted in that thread that you yanked a few of the questions from, willy-nilly, that she felt the questions asked of Mr. Caddy were perfectly valid questions in the context of conflicting testimony and fact (which you omit).

On June 15, 2006, in the thread "Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen, and the CIA"

Mr. Caddy wrote:

"No, I was not cleared and witting of the Mullen Company’s involvement with the CIA. I only learned for certain of such involvement when I read Senator Howard Baker’s supplemental lengthy statement that was released about the same time that the final Senate Watergate Committee report was promulgated."

Despite Mr. Caddy's unambiguous statement about what he knew and did not know about the operations of the Mullen Company, Mr. Gray keeps on insinuating that Mr. Caddy is lying.

Mr. Gray: What part of "no" do you not understand?

What I don't understand is why you omitted the fact that E. Howard Hunt wrote in his autobiography that Douglas Caddy had been selected by Mullen to run the CIA front company with Hunt on Mullen's retirement, and that I asked Caddy to reconcile the two grossly conflicting "facts" in the record—especially given that Caddy himself has said in this very forum: "The Mullen Company was a front cover for the CIA and, in fact, had been organized as an entity by the CIA."

Why would you omit those salient facts in your indictment of my questions, Mr. Carroll?

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why you omitted the fact that E. Howard Hunt wrote in his autobiography that Douglas Caddy had been selected by Mullen to run the CIA front company with Hunt on Mullen's retirement, and that I asked Caddy to reconcile the two grossly conflicting "facts" in the record—especially given that Caddy himself has said in this very forum: "The Mullen Company was a front cover for the CIA and, in fact, had been organized as an entity by the CIA."

Why would you omit those salient facts in your indictment of my questions, Mr. Carroll?

Ashton Gray

Actually I posted my comments on that very topic, on this very thread. Since Mr. Gray must have missed it, I post it for the second time on this thread;

[L]ike Caddy having been dubbed as a successor to Mullen, that aren't in the timeline

Ashton Gray

Mr. Gray makes a big deal about Mullen telling Hunt he was planning to hand over the business to Hunt and Douglas Caddy. Since part of the business (one European country) was actually a CIA front, the logical inferences, per Mr. Gray, are that:

1/ Mr. Caddy knew that Mullen was thinking about him as a possible co-owner/co-manager and

2/ Mr. Caddy actually knew the true status of the European operation in question.

I submit that neither of these these inferences is warranted by the evidence I have seen so far from Mr. Gray.

1/ is a minor issue, but Mr. Grays treatment of it displays the shortcomings of his method. Just because Mullen was THINKING about bringing Mr. Caddy into ownership does not at all mean that he had shared his thoughts with Mr. Caddy. It is highly unlikely that a successful businessman like Mullen would reveal his plans to Mr. Caddy unless and until he was absolutely certain of them. Anybody could figure that out . You don't have to be involved with the business world for more than thirty years, as I have, to know that. The movies have been showing things like for as long as I can remember.

2/ is much more serious because Mr. Gray is trying to draw us closer to believing bad things about Mr. Caddy. Why he is trying to do this, I do not know. Maybe he has some dark little sub-conspiracy theory he is trying to prove, and the theory will not work without Mr. Caddy being a KNOWING participant in the sub-plot in question.

At any rate, just because one Mullen subsidiary was actually a CIA front, and just because Mr. Caddy worked for the Mullen Company, does not at all involve that Mr. Caddy was aware of the true situation, except in the mind of someone who has never heard, or pretends he has never heard, of "compartmentalization."

Mr. Carroll, your lack of understanding of the relevance of some of the questions you cite, completely out of the context in which they were asked, seems to go less to their relevance than to your understanding.

One attorney posted in that thread that you yanked a few of the questions from, willy-nilly, that she felt the questions asked of Mr. Caddy were perfectly valid questions in the context of conflicting testimony and fact (which you omit).

Let me hasten to correct my ommission: You have not yet shown how these questions are relevant to solving the real mysteries of Watergate. They may be valid "in the context of conflicting testimony and fact", in other words to impeaching Mr. Caddy's word -- but is not that precisely what he so rightly complains about?

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why you omitted the fact that E. Howard Hunt wrote in his autobiography that Douglas Caddy had been selected by Mullen to run the CIA front company with Hunt on Mullen's retirement, and that I asked Caddy to reconcile the two grossly conflicting "facts" in the record—especially given that Caddy himself has said in this very forum: "The Mullen Company was a front cover for the CIA and, in fact, had been organized as an entity by the CIA."

Why would you omit those salient facts in your indictment of my questions, Mr. Carroll?

Ashton Gray

Actually I posted my comments on that very topic, on this very thread. Since Mr. Gray must have missed it, I post it for the second time on this thread;

[L]ike Caddy having been dubbed as a successor to Mullen, that aren't in the timeline

Ashton Gray

Mr. Gray makes a big deal about Mullen telling Hunt he was planning to hand over the business to Hunt and Douglas Caddy. Since part of the business (one European country) was actually a CIA front,

Since your entire premise in the sentence above (which is entirely consistent with your entire premise) is the grossest possible alteration of the facts, I don't think I'm going to allow you to waste any more of my time, Mr. Carroll.

The Mullen company was a CIA front, not just "part of the business." I just quoted for you from Douglas Caddy himself in my earlier message, so allow me to post it so you can see it this time:

  • "The Mullen Company was a front cover for the CIA and, in fact, had been organized as an entity by the CIA." --Douglas Caddy

Now. If you've allowed Mr. Caddy to sear that unqualified statement sufficiently into your brain, you'll find that your vain attempt to confine the damage to some distant European Mullen office arises solely from your misapprehension of the fact that one of the Mullen offices was admitted by CIA to have been entirely "staffed, run, and paid for by CIA." That has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the company itself had been organized by the CIA as a front company, as Mr. Caddy has admitted himself, and had been a front company for CIA for at least seven years when Caddy arrived.

It might behoove you to attempt to form some nodding acquaintance with the facts before you attempt again to build your house on quicksand.

That's what's causing that loud sucking sound where your argument was a minute ago.

Let me hasten to correct my ommission: You have not yet shown how these questions are relevant to solving the real mysteries of Watergate.

Your omission is that you haven't found where I have done just that, so you haven't corrected it yet.

They may be valid "in the context of conflicting testimony and fact", in other words to impeaching Mr. Caddy's word -- but is not that precisely what he so rightly complains about?

I'll give you that: if my word were so easily and copiously impeachable, I'd be complaining about being asked questions about it, too. Or maybe I'd just clam up entirely, instead.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since your entire premise in the sentence above (which is entirely consistent with your entire premise) is the grossest possible alteration of the facts, I don't think I'm going to allow you to waste any more of my time, Mr. Carroll.

Suit yourself, Mr. "Pat-in-the-hat."

The Mullen company was a CIA front, not just "part of the business." I just quoted for you from Douglas Caddy himself in my earlier message, so allow me to post it so you can see it this time:
  • "The Mullen Company was a front cover for the CIA and, in fact, had been organized as an entity by the CIA." --Douglas Caddy

The company itself had been organized by the CIA as a front company, as Mr. Caddy has admitted himself, and had been a front company for CIA for at least seven years when Caddy arrived.

Well Mr. Caddy believes that now, but the problem for you is that hundreds of thousands of other people also believe the same thing, and there is no reason to doubt they acquired this information from the same public sources that Mr. Caddy said he aquired it from.

I assume you know (since he posted it on this forum in response to one of your questions) that Mr. Caddy says that at the time he worked for Mullen he had no knowlege of the firm's CIA connection. So this is just another anaemic attempt on your part to insinuate that Mr. Caddy is a xxxx.

That's what's causing that loud sucking sound where your argument was a minute ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think it's time this thread died of boredom. It's been decreed that Aston's rights will not be revoked, so Ray and Pat, just take your toys and go home. Honestly don't either of you you have anything

of value to say?. Mr Hogan did a fine job a couple of posts back of demonstrating just HOW nasty you can be Mr Carroll. Kinda odd for you to be calling the proverbial kettle now, ain't it?

Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton, since you find something so mysterious about Mr. Caddy's role at Mullen, can you tell us what procedures would have had to have taken place before Mr. Caddy could ever take over Mullen? Would there not have been a security check on Mr. Caddy before he would EVER be told the company was a CIA cover company overseas? Would this security check not have disclosed Mr. Caddy was gay? Would the CIA not have told Mr. Mullen that Mr. Caddy was gay and was therefore ineligible to run a CIA cover company?

Your contention that Mr. Caddy was, and remains, a CIA asset of some sort is ridiculous on its face. The FBI, under the deeply-closeted Hoover, LIVED to find dirt on homosexuals, and expose them as security risks. Even if the CIA loved Mr. Caddy, it's highly unlikely they would consider using him for fear J. Edgar would use him to embarrass them.

I URGE you and anyone swayed by your nonsense to read any and everything you can about the Vietnam War, the Nixon Administration, the FBI and the CIA. Read the Pentagon Papers. Read the Watergate Report. Read the Rockefeller Report. Read the Church Report. Read the Pike Report. These documents hold together for the most part and are HEAVILY critical of the executive branch and intelligence agencies. Anyone thinking these documents are nothing but whitewashes created and engineered by the CIA is dangerously out of touch with reality, IMO.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...