Venezuela in connection with that. He then escaped in 1985 with assistance from Felix Rodriguez--
I do not know if this is going to be in the [Rodriguez] book or not...
-Gregg: It is.
Sen. Kerry: Okay, and he brought him to Central America to help the Contras under pseudonym of
Ramon Medina, correct? Gregg: Now, I know that; yes.
Sen. Kerry: ... [Is] it appropriate for a Felix Rodriguez to help a man indicted in a terrorist bombing
to escape from prison, and then appropriate for him to take him to become involved in supply
operations, which we are supporting?
Gregg: I cannot justify that, sir. And I am not certain what role Felix played in getting him out.... I
thought that Orlando Boche [sic], or someone of that nature, had been responsible for that.
Sen. Kerry: When did you first learn that [i.e. about Posada's hiring for Contra resupply], Don?
Gregg: When I learned who the various aliases were, which was some time in November/December
[1986], after the whole thing came out.
COMMITTEE SESSION JUNE 15, 1989
Sen. Cranston: Before proceeding in this matter, I would like to state clearly for the record what thecentral purpose of this investigation is about and in my view what it is not about. It is not about who (^)
is for or against the Contras.... Similarly, this investigation is not about building up or tearing down
our new President [Bush]. We have tried throughout this proceeding to avoid partisan attacks.
Indeed, Republicans and Democrats alike have sought Mr. Gregg's withdrawal as one way to avoid
casting aspersions on the [Bush] White House.... [emphasis added].
Mr. Gregg remains steadfast in his loyalty to his boss, then-Vice President Bush, and to his long-
time friend, Felix Rodriguez. Mr. Gregg has served his country in the foreign policy field for more
than three decades. By all accounts he is a loyal American.... As Mr. Gregg himself conceded last
month, there are substantial reasons for senators to suspect his version of events and to raisequestions about his judgement. It does not take a suspicious or partisan mind to look at the
documentary evidence, the back channel cables, the eyes only '' memos, and then to conclude that Mr. Gregg has not been straight with us. Indeed, I am informed that more than one Republican senator who has looked at the accumulated weight of the evidence against Mr. Gregg, has remained unconvinced and has sought Mr. Gregg's withdrawal. Mr. Gregg, this committee has a fundamental dilemma. If we are to promote a man we believe to have misled us under oath, we would make a mockery of this institution. We would invite contempt for our enquiries. We would encourage frustration of our constitutional obligations. ... [It] has been established that when you are confronted with written evidence undermining your sthe finger of blame elsewhere. At our last hearing you said Gorman's cables were wrong, North'story, you point notebooks were wrong, Steele's memory was wrong, North's sworn testimony [that Gregg introduced Rodriguez to him] was wrong, you concocted a theory that your aide, Watson, and your secretary erred by writing Contras '' instead of `` helicopters '' on those infamous briefing memos
for the Vice President. In sum, you hacolleagues and long-time friends conspired to keep you ignorant of crucial facts through dave told a tale of an elaborate plan in which your profeys ofssional
meetings, monthly phone calls and nearly two years' worth of cables and memos. Incredibly, when
senators confront you with the documentary evidence which undermines your story, you accuse us
of concocting conspiracy theories and you do so with a straight face. ... I think it is clear by now
that many important questions may never be answered satisfactorily, especially because we have