Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Diem cables


Pat Speer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ashton, are you ready to concede the Diem cables existed? I'd rather not spend my time proving you wrong on this point, but if you insist, I will. Believe me, you should just concede this point and focus on your other poiints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jun 30 2006, 01:29 AM' post='66711']

Ashton, are you ready to concede the Diem cables existed? I'd rather not spend my time proving you wrong on this point, but if you insist, I will. Believe me, you should just concede this point and focus on your other poiints.

So, where's the beef?? Prove him wrong already.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, where's the beef?? Prove him wrong already.

Maybe Pat's off trying to find Hunt and get him to forge some cables now so Pat can actually have something to talk about.

Ashton Gray

Ashton, you are the king of obfuscation. Do you or do you not believe the Diem cables existed? Are you really willing to say that Hunt, Colson, Lambert, Ehrlichman, Dean, Nixon, and Gray, all lied about the existence of these cables? Are you really that far gone? If Hunt was part of the conspiracy, and willing to lie about the cables, why wouldn't he have just made the cables? Do you think it was beyond his ability, or the ability of his purported co-conspirators at the CIA, to fake cables?

Do I really need to print the excepts of Hunt's and Gray's testimony, and the Watergate transcript of April 28 1973 to demonstrate you wrong? Are you so over the edge that you can't concede you were just bluffing about the cables, and that they actually existed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I really need to print the excepts of Hunt's and Gray's testimony, and the Watergate transcript of April 28 1973 to demonstrate you wrong? Are you so over the edge that you can't concede you were just bluffing about the cables, and that they actually existed?

Perhaps what Mr. Gray is trying to tell us is that Howard Hunt would never stoop so low as to forge cables designed to falsely implicate JFK in the assassination of Diem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who came in late to the "Pat Speer Phantom Diem Cables Show," below is the actual record of events leading to this topic that he created, which he started with no substance at all, but a school-yard taunt directed at me. Mr. Speer elected to omit the record that I provide below of the genesis of this topic—for reasons that I believe will be painfully apparent to any rational reader from the record itself:

1) In a completely inappropriate thread, the Alfred C. Baldiwn thread, Speer threw in everything including the kitchen sink, the cabinets, and the contents of the pantry in an attempt to take the thread off-topic and keep it off topic. This is no idle statement. I've provided the link to that thread, and I called him on it several times in that thread. Go see for yourself. Among just one of his off-topic red herrings was a challenge to me regarding purported "forged Diem cables" (having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Alfred Baldwin) which I reproduce here in pertinent part:

As stated earlier, (and still not addressed by Mr. Gray) Howard Hunt created these cables under orders from Charles Colson and Richard Nixon.

2) I responded thusly:

What cables? Where are some of these cables? I want to see them. Post some, and then I'll address them. Are you going to put these alleged cables into evidence or not? I don't see any cables. Do you? If not, your entire bloviating sermon assumes "cables" not in evidence. Some people call this "hallucination."

So are you busy propagating more of the CIA-generated fiction—and in a thread where it's completely off-topic to boot?

I thought so.

See my sig.

Ashton Gray

3) Mr. Speer responded thusly:

I'll read back through my Watergate books and testimony and slap you down big time.

4) Oh, well then: having not been slapped down big time in quite some time, I would have paid admission to see my own slapping down. Therefore, I hastened to accept Mr. Speer's gentlemanly offer to read back through his Watergate materials and slap me down big time on certain non-negotiable conditions going to his continuing efforts to take the Alfred Baldwin thread off-topic:

I've got every single reference that exists on the alleged "cables" right here at my fingertips. So you go start a new topic about your precious Hunt "cables," and you make your case for the "cables" in that appropriate topic, and I'll see you there.

If you continue to try to sabotage the Alfred Baldwin thread with it, the only thing I'm going to do is report it to the admins, and wash my hands of you permanently. Your choice.

So go start an appropriately named topic, and then bring it all on. Lay it all out there in as much detail as you can muster, with cites, in the dusty street of your new thread at high noon.

I'll be there.

I'm calling you out.

Ashton Gray

5) So did Mr. Speer make good on his bluff and go start the thread then, on June 23, 2006, and lay out his purported case for the Phabulous Phantom Cables in order to slap me down big time? What do you think, gentle reader? Well, I regret to inform you that he did not. No, he did exactly what could be expected: he continued to attempt to sabotage the Alfred Baldwin thread with it, and instead of acting on his chest-thumping bluff, whiffed and weasled:

If you have it the material on the cables at your disposal, go ahead and start the thread and I'll see you there.

6) Some of you may think at this point that I'm somehow making this up, that it just couldn't be like this, that I must be forging forum messages from Speer the way Hunt supposedly was forging these no-seeum "cables." But no; no, it happened just this way. Of course I responded the only way any any decent person could do—I accepted his surrender:

:rolleyes: I thought so. :angry:

I accept your capitulation and your stipulation that the "cables" are yet another fiction, Mr. Speer.

And there, a week ago, with Mr. Speer's back-down on the slap-down, the Phabulous Phairy Tale of the Phantom Cables ended. Or so I thought.

I don't know if his own whiff made him churlish, but Mr. Speer has almost been acting like Mr. Smear by attempting to tar me with every despicable, repugnant, revolting brush he could find. So far he's trotted out at least these pathetic paste-on smears trying to stick them onto me:

  • Holocaust denyers
  • space aliens
  • black helicopters
  • Jonestown cyanide Kool-Aid massacres

You probably think I'm trying to smear Mr. Speer by accusing him of such debased tactics without cause, but ask him yourself. It's in his record.

So I've put up with all that oblique name-calling from him ("just consider the source, and go on about your business," my Daddy used to say), but then he trailed along behind me—sort of reminiscent of that floating skull in the "Red Meat" comics—into another topic I had started called Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When? and tried to sell me a handful of Douglas Caddy evasion as an "answer" to questions I had asked Mr. Caddy about the Phantom Phone Call from Mrs. Barker, and at that point I'd had enough. And I made the following vow to Mr. Speer:

I see you've managed to use the no-answer Caddy gave you in that other thread to bring it over and hijack this thread and take it off topic. Therefore, I am reposting below the reply I have just posted (in the appropriate thread) to the no-answer Mr. Caddy gave you, and that you ran over here waving. And in posting this, I want make you this personal undying vow: this is the last response to anything you post in this or any forum that you ever will see from me. Happy trails.

Well, ever since then, of course Mr. Speer has been tailing along after me into every thread—sort of reminiscent of that floating skull in "Red Meat"—making cat-calls and bullying taunts and saying "Diem cables, Diem cables, Diem cables" in every off-topic place he can spread the fertilizer. (It's in the record. I couldn't make this up.) And of course he still hasn't laid out his purported case for the Phantom Diem Cables.

I wonder why not.

And I'm hereby going on record to say that although my two vows recorded in this message would seem to be contradictory—only because Mr. Speer weasled on the cables the first time I called his bluff, and so folded before I cut all correspondence with him—I try in good faith to honor my word, even when others go back on their own word. So I am on record here as saying that on this one specific, narrow, clearly defined subject of these purported forged cables, I'm calling Mr. Speer's bluff again, and I will honor my vow to answer him on the cable issues alone, once he stops spewing his meaningless taunts, and make the "case" he said he was going "slap me down big time" with.

He won't. He'll whiff again. I've called his bluff—twice now—and he won't turn over his cards.

Honest people I know who actually have a case to make just make it: they don't waste endless hours of other people's time crowing about it. They just make it.

That's why he still hasn't made his case, and that's why he won't. Because when he does, I'm going to wipe the floor with it and hand him the dirty rags to take out to the trash, where they belong.

Dawn said it: where's the beef, Mr. Speer?

I'm calling you out. Again.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Mr. Gray, you guessed wrong. AGAIN. You avoided answering my questions. I wanted to see if you actually wanted to debate this point. You dragged your feet on it. Now you're trying to say I'm afraid of you and your incredibly detailed understanding of history. So here goes.

For those just joining the fray...Mr. Gray has asserted that most of what we know about the Watergate affair, after numerous government hearings and dozens of books written by participants and journalists, is a cover story designed to hide some bigger and scarier story which only he seems to understand. Central to his theory is that the CIA framed Richard Nixon by orchestrating the botching of the Watergate break-in. Central to his theory is also that there was no first break-in, and that ALL the so-called Watergate burglars, men whose lives were side-tracked and nearly ruined by their involvement in the affair, willingly screwed up their lives in order to bring down Nixon, a man to whom a number of them, including G. Gordon Liddy, were by ALL indications, fiercely loyal. In order to sell this theory--that these men were willing to ruin their lives to bring down Nixon-- and account for the fact that these men said NOTHING before the election, whereby Nixon could have been VOTED out of office--Mr. Gray has stated further that this was part of the plan, that the men remain silent till after the election, whereby they could ensure Nixon's re-election and the subsequent appointment of Gerry Ford to the vice-presidency. He asserts that this was one of the overall objectives of the plan--to make Gerry Ford-- a man who, despite many years in Washington, had never run for President, the new President. While this plan is already ludicrous on the face of it--why oh why would these men deliberately get caught in JUNE if they weren't gonna spill the beans till the next year--there is another pertinent question. Wasn't there an EASIER way to remove Nixon from office? These are the kinds of questions I've tried to ask Mr. Gray, who has tried to avoid them as best he can. (His attitude seems to be that since he's convinced the "official" story is a lie he is perfectly within his rights to harrass men such as Caddy and Baldwin wiith meaningless or nearly meaningless questions, but that he is under no obligation whatsoever to have his theory make the least bit of sense.)

One of my questions centered on a series of fake state department cables whose creation was admitted by Howard Hunt in both his testimony before the Watergate Committee and in his memoirs. These cables were designed to make Nixon's long-time rival John F. Kennedy look personally responsible for the murder of the leader of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem. The revelation that Hunt had created these cables and tried to get them published in Life Magazine, under the guidance of Nixon and his special projects (read dirty tricks) advisor Charles Colson, would have been a huge bombshell, far bigger than Nixon's involvement in a break-in. If these cables existed and if Hunt did not reveal them when he had the opportunity to use them to bring down Nixon, then Gray's entire theory that Hunt deliberately arranged for Nixon's downfall should be called into question. As I lack the capability to scan printed testimony into my computer, and convert it into text, and as I am a slow typist, I will limit this initial post to two parts: the testimony of L.Patrick Gray and the April 28, 1973 transcript of a meeting between Nixon's Chief Political Advisor John Ehrlichman.

First: the April 28th transcript. This transcript came one day after L. Patrick Gray admitted that he was given Hunt's cables by John Dean and that he had subsequenttly destroyed the cables. Along with this admission Gray resigned from his job as acting FBI Director. The next day Ehrlichman, who had advised Dean to get rid of the cables, came to Nixon's office to discuss the situation. This is one week after John Dean had told Nixon that his top aides Ehrlichman and Haldeman would have to go for Nixon to save his presidency. Dean was later to tell the Watergate investigators that Nixon had played dumb in this conversation, and that Dean had had the feeling that Nixon was saying things designed to make himself look innocent, as if the conversation was being taped. Ehrlichman, like Dean, had never been informed of the White House taping system. This is obvious in the transcript. SOURCE: ABUSE OF POWER: THE NEW NIXON TAPES by Stanley Kutler.

"RN:...(In) the plumbers operation, the papers said it was something regarding some letter that Hunt prepared from, alledgedly, a fake letter from Kennedy on the Diem thing or something.

JE: Yeah.

RN: But that of ocurse is totally, totally out of our ken. Have you ever heard of such a Goddamn...

JE: Yes, sir. (Sarcastically) That leads directly to your friend Colson...

RN: Goddamn it. I never heard of it, John. What, that a fake letter was--

JE: No, it's a cable.

RN: But a fake one?

JE: Yeah.

RN: From John F. Kennedy?

JE: Well, that is what it is alleged to be.

RN: Oh, my God. I just can't believe that. I just can't believe that. The whole--you remember, you were conducting for me--you and Young were conducting a study of the whole Diem thing and the Bay of Pigs thing.

JE: That's correct. That's correct.

RN: But, John, you will--of my recollection is correct, I just said get the facts.

JE: Well, I don;t know where Colson got this inspiration, but he was very busy at it.

RN: And he had told that there was a fake letter or a fake cable?

JE: YES!

RN: I should have been told about that, shouldn't I?

(NOTE: IT SEEMS OBVIOUS AT THIS POINT THAT NIXON WAS TRYING TO GET ON THE RECORD THAT HE DIDN"T KNOW ABOUT THE FAKE CABLES. BUT LOOK HOW EHRLICHMAN, WHO DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE TAPING SYSTEM, RESPONDS.)

JE: Well, I'm not so sure but what you weren't.

RN: By whom?

JE: I don't know. I don't know.

RN: No, I wasn't told about anything, a mistake. I mean, the only thing I was ever told about, you remember I said that the thing that you did for Life magazine?...That's the only thing I ever heard about the Diem thing.

(NOTE: WILLIAM LAMBERT OF LIFE MAGAZINE HAD A MEETING WITH HUNT IN WHICH HUNT SHOWED HIM THE FAKE CABLES. WHEN LAMBERT SAID HE WOULDN"T PUBLISH THEM WITHOUT HAVING THEM AUTHENTICATED, HUNT REFUSED TO GIVE THEM TO HIM. THESE WERE THE ONLY DIEM CABLES DISCUSSED WITH LIFE MAGAZINE. NIXON IS HEREBY ADMITTING HE KNEW OF THE CABLES AND THAT THEY EXISTED. THE ONLY QUESTION IS IF HE SPECIFICALLY KNEW THEY WERE FAKE.)

JE: Well, that's a part of the transaction.

RN: But was the fake thing in that?

JE: Right, that's what I believe. I could be wrong on this.

RN: You didn't know there was anything fake in that, though, did you? You didn't tell me anything about that, John.

(NOTE: NIXON HAS NOW PUT EHRLICHMAN IN A CORNER BY INSISTING THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE CABLES. HE IS OFFERING EHRLICHMAN A WAY OUT, HOWEVER, IF EHRLICHMAN WILL ONLY STATE, FOR THE TAPED RECORD, THAT HE DIDN"T KNOW ABOUT THE CABLES. EHRLICHMAN, HOWEVER, IS UNWITTING OF NIXON"S GAME AND FAILS TO PLAY ALONG.)

JE: Well, I'd have to go back and check my notes. But my recollection is that this was discussed with you.

RN: Well, I'd be amazed at that. I mean, I must say that I knew that a lot was done. I mean, I knew that we were making a study, but I didn't know we were putting together something that was totally fake to send to Life magazine or something like that on Kennedy and Diem.

JE: Well, I could be wrong on this. I'll try and get the time to check my notes tomorrow before I come up.

RN: Well, yeah. Well, I've got to know about this. If I'm in, I mean, if I'm in that kind of position, I'm in a position I just didn't know about, believe me. I have--throughout this this thing, I must say, I have not known (unintelligible)--I didn't know about the Watergate and I didn't know about the other thing. But I knew we were checking all this. But my God, I didn't know they were faking stuff involving that on Kennedy.

JE: Well, as I say, I got this second-hand.

RN: From Young and Krogh?

JE: No, no, no. I think Chuck (COLSON) told me one time.

RN: Well, he sure didn't tell me. You didn't tell me, did you?

JE: I don't know whether I did or not. As I say, I'd have to go back and check...

RN: Another one of those things. Well, thank God. Thank God it wasn't used.

JE: Yeah, that whole thing, that Hunt--and it was mostly a Hunt-Colson thing--ran off in a lot of strange directions that I really don't have a lot of information on."

My fingers are tired. I'll have to come back to Pat Gray's testimony later. But the point is made. Neither Ehrlichman nor Nixon had the slightest doubt the cables existed. The only question, at least according to Nixon, was whether or not he knew the cables were fakes. Ehrlichman certainly seemed to think Nixon knew they were fakes. Why shouldn't we?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John (Simkin)

I just received a hateful PM from this Daniel Dunne character. I have fwd it to you. (As well as to the people it concerned besides me). Ashton and Terry.

There is a concerted effort on this forum to cause serious dissent and it is NOT coming from the person about whom all this concerns as he is merely the messenger here. If people don't like his message, DON"T READ IT. He (Ashton) has said, repeatedly now, that he will no longer respond to Pat Speer, Raymond Carroll and now Daniel Dunne who has posted some lunatic fringe thing on the Politiacal conspiracies part of the forum , reference to- who else- Ashton- on some aburdly named thread "Response to the New Messiah"

I am actually quite tempted to post what he sent to me. He is CRAZY and extremely hostile.

POSTERS ON THIS FORUM BE PUT ON NOTICE THAT HATE PM'S TO ME WILL PROMTLY BE SENT TO THE FORUM ADMINISTRATOR. THEN THEY WILL BE DELETED FROM CLUTTERING UP MY IN BOX. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF LETTING THIS CRAP SLIDE. THIS DOG AND PONY SHOW HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH AND I AM NOT ABOUT TO BACK DOWN OR BE INTIMIDATED BY SOME WET-BEHIND -HE EARS-FORUM xxxxx.

The PM function is for communicating with someone with whom you may have something to ask/answer etc, and do not wish to do it publicly. It should not have to be said that to harrass someone is a misuse of this function key, and that such misuse will be immediately reported.

For the record-for those who still do not GET it: Ashton is no longer responding to these people. He has better things to do with his time. As do I and as does Terry.

But we all have your f****** number pals.

As for me I now intend to utilize the "ignore" function key on this forum for the above three names. (Pat, Ray and Dan) like I did when little Ms. Lynne Foster was doing this internet xxxxx stuff. It sure made life and the forum easier.

I apologise for the length of this post. I only wish I did not have to make one but it's reached the point where reasonable minds are not permitted to simply differ. It's become terribly ugly.

I can "do ugly" but why bother?

This is exactly what these people want. It's just another MO. Same story different day.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John (Simkin)

I just received a hateful PM from this Daniel Dunne character. I have fwd it to you. (As well as to the people it concerned besides me). Ashton and Terry.

There is a concerted effort on this forum to cause serious dissent and it is NOT coming from the person about whom all this concerns as he is merely the messenger here. If people don't like his message, DON"T READ IT. He (Ashton) has said, repeatedly now, that he will no longer respond to Pat Speer, Raymond Carroll and now Daniel Dunne who has posted some lunatic fringe thing on the Politiacal conspiracies part of the forum , reference to- who else- Ashton- on some aburdly named thread "Response to the New Messiah"

Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive and not giving Forum members enough credit, but I'd like to make clear that Daniel Wayne DUNN [no "e" on the end] is NOT to be confused with yours truly, Robert Charles-DUNNE [with an "e" on the end.]

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I think I can safely speak for the vast majority, if not all the people that read the posts on this Forum that you would never be mistaken for someone else.

Your posts are inimitable in both style and substance. I invariably find myself agreeing with your logic and admiring the way you express your ideas.

Mike Hogan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John (Simkin)

I just received a hateful PM from this Daniel Dunne character. I have fwd it to you. (As well as to the people it concerned besides me). Ashton and Terry.

This is exactly what these people want. It's just another MO. Same story different day.

Dawn

Daniel Dunne has never posted on this thread, which is devoted to the Diem Cables. I don't see how your post belongs here, unless your purpose is simply to disrupt the thread.

I hope it is just an unhappy coincidence that you posted this directly after Part I of Pat Speer's report on his research into the Diem cables. You were one who challenged him to produce this research, and as soon as he begins to do so, you intervene with your totally unrelated Daniel Dunn problem. You are quite right to forward an offending PM to the moderator, but quite out of line, IMHO, in barging into Pat Speer's research (Pat has nothing in common with Daniel Dunn that I know of) with your personal tale of woe.

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

I hope it is just an unhappy coincidence that you posted this directly after Part I of Pat Speer's report on his research into the Diem cables.

Whatever differences there are between you and me, I'll give you my personal guarantee that none of Pat Speer's posts on this will be allowed to get lost in other traffic or be overlooked in any way. Speaking just personally, I'd like to see him be allowed to get his entire case made sequentially without interruption of any kind and announce when he's done. I'd even be happy if he would repost his first message with the tape transcript and pick back up where he left off.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John (Simkin)

I just received a hateful PM from this Daniel Dunne character. I have fwd it to you. (As well as to the people it concerned besides me). Ashton and Terry.

There is a concerted effort on this forum to cause serious dissent and it is NOT coming from the person about whom all this concerns as he is merely the messenger here. If people don't like his message, DON"T READ IT. He (Ashton) has said, repeatedly now, that he will no longer respond to Pat Speer, Raymond Carroll and now Daniel Dunne who has posted some lunatic fringe thing on the Politiacal conspiracies part of the forum , reference to- who else- Ashton- on some aburdly named thread "Response to the New Messiah"

Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive and not giving Forum members enough credit, but I'd like to make clear that Daniel Wayne DUNN [no "e" on the end] is NOT to be confused with yours truly, Robert Charles-DUNNE [with an "e" on the end.]

Thanks.

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

"Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive and not giving Forum members enough credit, but I'd like to make clear that Daniel Wayne DUNN [no "e" on the end] is NOT to be confused with yours truly, Robert Charles-DUNNE [with an "e" on the end.]

Thanks."

Trust me, RCD. This DWD with no "e" on the end, couldn't hold a candle to you. Plus, he turns like a rabid dog on you when you try to explain something to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

P.S. for the record, Dawn, a xxxxx is someone who joins a forum, usually using a fake name, only writes on one issue, insults other members, and posts many links to articles supporting their "research," quite often written by themselves under a different name.

P.P.S. Who's Huntley Troth again?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...