Ward Boston, Jr.served his country as a naval aviator during World War II. He completed law school and then, after a stint with the FBI, he returned to the Navy as a legal specialist in the days prior to creation of the Judge Advocate Generals Corp. By 1967, he had been promoted to the rank of Captain and established a fine reputation as a legal officer. When the Liberty incident occurred, he was selected by then Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, Jr. as counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, convened by order of Admiral John McCain (the father of Senator John McCain) Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe.

When Boston reentered the Navy, he took an oath to faithfully perform his duties as a United States Naval Officer and upon the opening of the Court of Inquiry, on the record at page 106, he took another oath to faithfully perform his duties as counsel to the Court. Also sworn to faithfully perform their duties on the Court were Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, Jr. As President, Captain Bernard J. Lauff, a highly respected veteran of Wake Island, and Captain Bert M. Atkinson, Jr., a Naval Academy Graduate, as members, Lieutenant Commander Allen Feingersch, as associate counsel and YNC Joeray Spencer, as court reporter.

The Court convened at forty-six minutes before midnight on June 10, 1967, in London, moved to the USS Liberty to take sworn testimony of the crew, and then back to London where it closed for deliberations at 16:45 London time on June 16 and filed its report on or about June 18, 1967 with Admiral McCain, who endorsed it."The foregoing comments by the convening authority lead to an overall conclusion that the attack was in fact a mistake." It was sent immediately to Washington to the Chief of Naval Operation Admiral David McDonald, being carried personally by Admiral Kidd in a brief case chained to this wrist.

The Boston article goes on to recite some hearsay,"I know from personal conversations with the late Adm. Isaac C. Kidd - President of the Court of Inquiry - that President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of mistaken identity." The article fails to explain how or when President Johnson or Secretary McNamara transmitted the orders.

Prior to the publication of the June 8, 2007 article, Ward Boston signed an affidavit which was released on October 22, 2003, making similar allegations and later supplemented the affidavit by declaration making additional allegations. So, Boston, who signed the Court of Inquiry findings under an oath in 1967, now says under oath in 2003 that he participated in a lie in 1967. If he is telling the truth now, he confirms lying in 1967, or if he was truthful in 1967, then obviously he is lying now. So how does one decide when Ward Boston was lying? Then or now?

Perhaps an analysis of the June 8, 2007 San Diego Times Unions article, Boston’s affidavit, and the supplemental declaration will help determine when, not if, but when, Ward Boston lied.

First, a look at the article raises a question of whether it was written by Ward Boston or written by someone else for him. The first paragraph talks of the"bombing" of the ship. Boston was aware and the record is clear, the ship was not bombed. It was attacked with 30MM cannons by the aircraft and then by 20MM cannon, 50 caliber machine guns and torpedoes by the torpedo boats. The second paragraph says 34 American sailors died. In fact, 33 sailors and one NSA civilian died. It says 172 were wounded. The official records show 171 were wounded. Next. the article says the cover-up has haunted us for 40 years. If the Johnson administration had engaged in a" cover-up," why did the next seven administrations, five Republican and two Democrat, continue the" cover-up"?

The next paragraph is a repetition of the demand of various conspiracy theorists requesting a congressional hearing and suggesting the survivors be allowed to testify. One hundred and fifty four pages of sworn testimony of the Liberty’s Captain, William McGonagle, the ship’s officers and key crew members was taken on June 13 and June 14, 1967 and is available for review by any member of the public. Not one shred of additional evidence has been produced or disclosed by the conspiracy theory supporters since 1967. What is being requested is a platform to make allegations and charges before TV cameras without any prior showing that there is new or credible evidence to support he allegations. In our system of justice, first there must be the presentation of some credible evidence of probable cause to support the charges. To date, neither Boston nor anyone else has produced such evidence.

The article confirms that"we," Boston and Admiral Kidd, boarded the Liberty and interviewed the survivors and states that"the evidence was clear" but does not state what that evidence was. What evidence was clear? This is the point where Boston makes a leap of faith. He says"we both believed with certainty that the attack was deliberate."

Boston, the lawyer, if he wrote those words, knows better. He could say"I believed" but when he attributes that belief to Admiral Kidd, he violated the hearsay rule and the Dead Man Statute which forbids quotation of a dead man because the dead man can neither confirm nor deny the statement. The article says"I heard testimony that made it clear the Israelis intended there be no survivor." What testimony did Boston hear? A careful reading of the 154 pages of sworn testimony does not even suggest it. Who testified about what? Since no Israelis participated in the Court of Inquiry, who was able to testify about he intent of the Israelis and where is that testimony?

And an even better question, if the Israelis intended to sink the Liberty, then why didn't the Israeli Armed Forces, which had destroyed the entire Egyptian Air Force in minutes, had destroyed thousands of Egyptian tanks and artillery in a few days, had captured the Sinai, the Suez Canal, the Old City of Jerusalem, the West Bank and a day later destroyed the Syrian army and its armor and captured the Golan Heights, all in six days, why didn’t they sink the ship, if that is what they intended?

The myth Boston repeats about Israel committing a war crime by machine gunning three life rafts was initiated by Lloyd Painter about ten years after the event. The sworn testimony of Lloyd Painter taken June 13, 1967 does not mention machine gunning the three life rafts, nor does the testimony of the Captain or any of the crew, who were there on the bridge and on the deck with Lloyd Painter at the time on June 8, 1967.

Boston states"I am outraged at the efforts of Israel’s apologists to claim this attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity.’" This outrage, coming in 2003 - 36 to 40 years after Boston signed the Court of Inquiry findings under oath raises a number of questions.

QUESTIONS:

Why was Boston not outraged on June 18, 1967 by the report of the Court of Inquiry signed by, according to his definition apparent apologists for Israel, Admiral Kidd, Captain Atkinson, Captain Lauff and Captain Boston?

Why was Boston not outraged on June 18, 1967 when apologist for Israel, Admiral John C. McCain, in Boston’s presence, endorsed the Court of Inquiry with the comment:"15. The foregoing comments by the convening authority lead to an overall conclusion that the attack was in fact a mistake"?

Why was Boston not outraged in July 1967 when apologist for Israel, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated,"In the case of the attack on the Liberty, it was the conclusion of the investigatory body headed by an Admiral of the Navy [Isaac C. Kidd, Jr.] in whom we have great confidence that the attack was not intentional. I read the record of investigation and I support that conclusion, and I think . . . it was not a conscious decision on the part of either the government of Israel . . . [t]o attack a U.S. vessel." (Released by U.S. Government printing office: 1967.)

Why was Boston not outraged on September 15, 1967, when distinguished journalist and, by Boston’s definition"apologist for Israel," James L. Kilpatrick wrote in an article published in the National Review, on page 958,". . . that the Israeli government was heavily dependent upon the goodwill of the united States; it would have been utterly irrational for the Israeli Navy knowingly to have launched an attack on the U.S. ship; and that the only reasonable explanation is that the incident was mistake arising from the natural tensions and fallible judgments of a hot war."

Why was Boston not outraged on February 27, 1978 when"apologist for Israel," the CIA Director Admiral Stansfield Turner, stated in a letter to Senator Abourezk,"It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake."

Why was Boston not outraged on September 19, 1978 when the Director of Central Intelligence, Admiral Stansfield Turner, stated publicly on ABC television in a discussion about the Liberty incident:". . .we released an evaluated over-all document which said very clearly that it was our considered opinion that the Israeli Government had no such knowledge at that time."

Why was Boston not outraged on July 11, 1983 when"apologist for Israel," the National Security Agency released in its partially declassified 1981 report"Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors"?

Why was Boston not outraged on September 5, 1991 when"apologist for Israel," President George H.W. Bush’s (41) White House, wrote". . . A thorough investigation into the USS Liberty incident was conducted and the conclusion was that it was a tragic case of mistaken identity."

Why was Boston not outraged on May 10, 1995 when"apologist for Israel," President William Clinton’s White House, wrote,"There is no information available that demonstrates that the attack was deliberate."

Why was Boston not outraged on August 30, 1995 when Clark Clifford’s July 18, 1967 report was declassified revealing the conclusion,"The weight of the evidence is that the Israeli attacking forces originally believed their target was Egyptian . . .2. The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American."

Why was Boston not outraged on October 2, 2002, when President George W. Bush’s White House, wrote"The results of the investigations . . . were considered satisfactory . . .there is no precedent to reinvestigate this case."

Why was Boston not outraged on July 2, 2003 when the"apologist for Israel" National Security Agency further declassified a portion of page 64 of its 1981 Report, which stated,"While these reports revealed some confusion concerning the nationality of the ship, they tended to rule out any thesis that the Israeli Navy and Air Force deliberately attacked a ship they knew to be American."

Boston says"Let former intelligence officers testify that they received real-time Hebrew translations of Israeli commanders instructing their pilots to sink the American ship. This myth is perhaps the easiest of all to debunk. Although the conspiracy theorists have claimed for years that there exist NSA audio intercepts between Israeli pilots and their controllers which prove the attack was deliberate, no such tapes have ever been produced. What has been produced on July 2, 2004, as a result of this author’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, are audio tapes and translations of communications between Israeli pilots and their controllers which clearly establish that the Israelis believed the target ship was hostile, most likely Egyptian, until 3:12 PM, approximately 44 minutes after the attack was concluded. The National Security Agency confirms that there are no other tapes.

Dr. Marvin Nowicki, the U.S. Navy/NSA person who recorded and initially translated the intercepts has stated clearly that they show the attack to be a mistake. See letter of the Dr. Nowicki to Editor of the Wall Street Journal published May 16, 2001 at page A23.

Richard Hickman, the NSA Hebrew linguist at headquarters, who made the final translations of the intercepts and briefed NSA Director Marshal Carter on the tapes, also confirmed that the tapes make it clear the attack was a mistake.

The reader may hear the tape recordings in Hebrew and read the official transcripts of English translation on the National Security Agency’s NSA website, www.nsa.gov.

So who told Ward Boston about the former intelligence officers receiving"real-time Hebrew translations"? Could it have been Ron Gotcher who helped Boston with his initial affidavit and declaration and very likely wrote or assisted in the preparation of the June 8, 2007 article, bylined Ward Boston, Jr., published in the San Diego Union Tribune. Ron Gotcher has long made claims of the existence of the alleged incriminating tapes on his website. Gotcher also claimed to have worked for the National Security Agency; however, reference the"Documents" page of www.libertyincident.com and go to"Gotcher Debunked." There the viewer will see the actual letter from the National Security Agency, in response to a FOIA request, confirming that Gotcher never worked for NSA.

What or who is behind these continuing false charges that have induced Boston, a naval officer with a distinguished career, to dishonor himself by admitting to have violated his oath, either in 1967 or more recently. Ron Gotcher is only a bit player in a much broader propaganda effort.

The propaganda emanates from a small but well-funded and very vocal group of people and organizations principally supported by Saudi Arabian money. The groups include the American Educational Trust (AET) operated in Washington, DC by former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Andrew I. Kilgore, and a circle of others whose agenda is to attack the present excellent symbiotic relationship between the United States and Israel. It includes: the Americans for Mideast Understanding (AMEU) which was reportedly founded with money from Arabian American Oil Company, ARAMCO, and has former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, who was dismissed by the U.S. State Department in 1975"for being too compliant to Saudi demands" and former congressman Paul Findley serving on its National Council; and the Liberty Alliance operated by Tito De Nagy Howard, who is described as"a man at war with the Israelis" by Anthony Pearson. Howard met Pearson in Dubai and upon learning that Pearson was considered by the PLO to be pro-Palestinian, gave him"an idea to resurrect the Liberty incident as a whole new story."

It all started with former Illinois congressman Paul Findley (who was defeated for re-election after he announced his support for the terrorist organization, the PLO) and former California congressman Paul"Pete" McCloskey, who speaks regularly at meetings of Holocaust denial organizations in California and Washington and was defeated for re-election. Findley and McCloskey were the moving force in founding the Liberty Veterans Association. Findley served as its advisor and McCloskey incorporated the association and served as its attorney. They continue to manipulate and distress Liberty survivors and their families by prodding this old wound and preventing its healing – all for their own political agenda. And what is that agenda? Findley and McCloskey are also the founders of the Council for the National Interest (CNI), whose publicly announced purpose is to be the anti-Israel lobby.

Distorted explanations of events obfuscate the picture and destroy the ability to learn real lessons for the future. Multiple official investigation reports and endorsements have all concluded the incident was the result of a tragic mistake or that there is no evidence that the attack was deliberate. Nevertheless, dozens of conspiracy stories, in addition to Ward Boston’s sad confession that he dishonored his oath taken in 1967 and remained silent about it for 36 years, have become part of the literature through the actions of persons and organizations with their own political agenda. The conspiracy stories continue to multiply and become more extreme. They detract from the possibility to learn from the tragedy. They also inflict pain and suffering upon the victims and their families creating an additional tragedy by provoking, goading and torturing the victims with inaccurate, false and even absurd theories about that sad day, not with the goal of bringing closure and peace but for political objectives.

As for the victims, they should be left to believe whatever brings them peace. As for historians seeking the truth, it is respectfully suggested that a review of all evidence, now declassified and available, will confirm the official conclusion that the Liberty incident was a tragic case of mistaken identity as a result of numerous mistakes by both the United States and Israel, and will explain the conflicting recollection of Ward Boston, who boasts he is now in his eighties. Perhaps the quotation from a recent speech by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer explains. Breyer said"I am now at the age where I remember quite clearly and with great detail, many things that never actually happened."

After forty years, it is time to close the book. Let those who lost their lives rest in peace and be honored in treasured memory. Let the survivors be honored and respected and let them and their families have peace and closure.

Related Links

HNN Hot Topics: The Attack on the USS Liberty

Ward's affidavit from 2004 in which he first charged there was a cover-up

Hiram Jefferson Davis - 4/27/2010

Cristol manufactured "gun photos " in his book tat even the State of Israel Defense Ministry will not claim. He is a liar, a fraud and just like most Israel First-Liberty apologists who continue to obfuscate and who oppose any honest open investigation. Boston destroyed Cristol's book. He destroyed Mr. Weeks all in composing verbal apologias he presents all over the Internet like a dutiful dupe.
When he manufactured False photos" heis integrity and his shoddy scholarship and real motive and disloyalty was exposed.

And here you are defending the indefensible as usual Mr. Weeks.
You and Cristol are cut from the same mold.

Who do you really serve ?

Israelite Knight - 2/10/2008

Is, or is not, the following statement a truthful statement?:

"I am now an admiral again and I want you to listen to me very closely. If you ever repeat what you have just told me to anyone, I don’t care if its your mother, another shipmate, anyone, I will make sure you end up in prison…"

Israelite Knight - 2/10/2008

The tribe always sticks together, always denies it had any role in the attack, in the same paragraph it claims the attack was necessary, in the same paragraph it claims it was an accident.

That alone makes McCain persona non grata in this putative Christian nation.

Israelite Knight - 2/10/2008

You can learn Mexican so your Mexican gardner can understand you better, or German so you can read technical journals. Which do you think is better in the long run?

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

If it were the first time it certainly is NOT the last time that Israel gets favoured treatment from the USA, at the USA's expense!

Very often we wonder whoever is ruling the USA?
Is it the adminstration elected by the American people ? Or is that only a facade for a behind the scene cabal dominated, and appointed?, by others?

In the case of Iraq , I guess, this cabal showed its hand more than it cared to and more than was expected .

The belated sidelining of Perle and Wolfowitz failed to obliterate their and theirs influence in this utterly tragic American demarche .

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman, you are right, I have no facts to add.
I only have a question that the American public, witness the outbursts above, have come, though belatedly, to ask more frequently than before.
Do questions necessarily lead to "conspiracy mongering"?
Are you, in principle, against asking questions or only when it touches on Israel??
I do NOT recall you were, ever, as suspicious of questions when they touched on others; including the USA.
To be wary of questions is inimical to your cause; or any body else's for that matter!

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Sometimes it is "Hatred of Jews", other times it is "conspiracy mongering" ; always it is an explicit or implicit charge of "anti Semitism".

What we have here is a community, hopefully only a minority in that community, that demands that everything should be taken as sanctioned by it.

Although, for obvious reasons, Jews have more reasons than most to be wary, the thing is progressing in a very unhealthy manner to both Jews and to the world at large.

It has led to the hitherto unthinkable: incriminating an author for writing a book, bankrupting him and sending him to jail.

I recall a time when a book full of unsavoury "allegations" was met with books, articles, critiques even denunciations.
Is that now of the past with an untouchable, non discussable, list of topics and an infallible, uber alles, Israel ??

William J. Haywood - 6/26/2007

"Too bad it wasn't sent to the bottom of the Mediterranean."

Hey, my tax dollars pay for your mean little country, show some gratitude. If it weren't for us buying you napalm and cluster bombs, you'd have to go back to killing Palestinian babies with stones.

Stephen Kislock - 6/25/2007

If it were not for the Soviet Union, not voting against the state israel, so you owe the REDS (your homeland), more than you know!

Mike Weeks - 6/24/2007

The mention of late 1960's 3-inch armaments for USN's auxiliary-designated ships leaves out that they were:

one: new construction IIRC
two: auxiliaries designated to be part of larger forces of the operational forces -- not independent steamers working (in reality) for the national command level, manned by USN personnel.

I don't understand the mention, again, of the Vulcan-type gun; they were not used by the USN in 1967.

And without FC radar, any weapons systems is not really going to be effective against jet aircraft. Then add the needed training required, etc, etc. -- all that has an impact on what was the SIGINT platform's true mission.

Attacking jet aircraft in addition had a much wider latitude of approaches (plus speed) then what any WWII prop aircraft had. It's really a stretch to compare "barrage" type of AAA fire utilized at times by NVN to defend a fixed point _on land_ to what a single aux.-type ship might have available.

The bottom line; these type ships were designated to operate independently (i.e. solo) in a non-hostile environment, sucking up various signals. They were not configured, nor would it have been wise, to make them so-configured that they might attempt to slug it out with heavier-armed forces. After all, the cover story generated was they were just "technical research ships".

I fail to see the point of even raising the Battle of Midway, or the Rolling Thunder strikes over NVN. The tecnnology had advanced by '72 for the Linebacker strikes, using the second-generation of guided munitions.

And back to the IAF, Mirages (and Super Mysteres) and munitions; Liberty was not a harden target. Heck, the Mirage flight attacked this target w/ 30mm cannons only, and they could not assume the target wasn't a destroyer or other-similar armed vessel (given the lack of maritime training by the IAF). IOW, the IAF would have pressed home any further attacks regardless of the type of target.

As for a Mirage and a Stuka -- the latter carried one bomb, the former could carry multiple. In addition, if one wishes to go down this path of munitions, the IAF had, again IIRC, the French-built AS-20/30 ATG missiles (similar to the US Bullpup).

As to the closing scenario, it does leave out that the Sixth Fleet instructed the pilots to defend "only" the ship, and not cross into any territorial spaces. Besides, the Israeli Navy was not rushing to the scene any other elements of its rather limited force. In addition the Sixth Fleet only had a limited number of strike aircraft available, with a limited number of munitions (shortages due to the drain of the VN war).

Take note of the following from the CNO daily brief of 7 June 1967:

"CINCLANTFLT has reported to CINCUSNAVEUR that be does not plan to deploy the additional A4, F4, and VP aircraft requested. He notes the extreme shortages of VA, VF and VP assets. He states that to deploy additional aircraft at this time would not only jeopardize vital training programs, but might indicate provocative action at the very time the announced U.S. position of neutrality is being questioned."

Anything further in the way of possible action by US forces would have been decided much, much, MUCH further up the chain of command.

As for the Soviets, they did nothing when the Israeli Navy sank one of their merchant ships in the 1973 war.

That the situation could have ended up being much worse, there is no doubt, but let's not get carried away with scenarios that assume no further information becomes available to those who had command responsibilities, regardless of country.

Andrew D. Todd - 6/24/2007

Of course the Navy's conventional approach to arming auxiliary ships at the time was to fit them with anywhere from four to twelve three-inch guns, in twin anti-aircraft mounts, of the type which, in surface combatants, were being superseded by missiles. These would of course have had anti-aircraft rounds fitted with proximity fuses. I take it that at least some of the guns actually were hand-me-downs. The bottom line was that the Liberty was a ship the size of a cruiser, and it could be fitted with the armament of a destroyer escort (or a frigate as it is now called), without substantially impairing the ship's primary functionality. The place to locate anti--aircraft guns would be on the extreme bow or stern, leaving the middle section for the radio masts. The great virtue of Gatling guns, such as the Vulcan, is that they fit a lot of firepower into a small space. For example, half a dozen Gatling guns could have been put on a common mount, adjusted to slightly different elevations via a common linkage, so that traversing the mount would yield a "shotgun effect," which need not depend on exact aim.

For a "point target," such as a ship or a bridge, simply firing anti-aircraft guns upward was a surprisingly effective tactic, as the North Vietnamese demonstrated. Before Precision-Guided Munitions, the attacking aircraft generally had to fly over the target, in order to aim its ordnance correctly. Further, the attack had to be along the long axis of the target, in order to get hits, given the imperfect accuracy of aiming. During the Second World War, the British developed an inexpensive equipment for merchant ships on this basis, consisting of a rocket, a parachute, and a steel cable. The rocket, fired when an attacker was on the final approach, carried the parachute and the cable aloft to form a temporary equivalent of a barrage balloon. (Gerald Pawle, _Secret Weapons of World War II_, alt title: _The Secret War_, 1957, ch. 8, "Cables in the Sky")

I realize this is stretching a point, but the U. S. Navy expended something like a hundred and fifty aircraft at Midway to destroy four aircraft carriers which were both bigger targets than the Liberty, and vastly more flammable, getting from two to four hits per carrier (see Mitsuo Fuchida and Masatake Okumiya, _Midway: The Battle that Doomed Japan_, 1955). The United States experienced comparable losses trying to take out the bridges over North Vietnam's Red River, before eventually resorting to Precision-Guided Munitions. The greater speed of a jet airplane made it harder to hit, but it also made it more difficult for the airplane to place bombs accurately. A Mirage simply could not place conventional bombs with the accuracy of a Stuka.

The bottom line is that if the Liberty had not been almost studiously disarmed, an Israeli attack would probably have led to an escalating confrontation, with re-enforcements coming in from both sides, and in an escalating confrontation, unless stopped, the United States Sixth Fleet must inevitably have destroyed the entire Israeli Air Force and Navy in detail. The Israeli Navy was very definitely playing with fire. I note Cristol's observation that the Israelis were greatly relieved to discover that they had attacked an American ship, and not, as they briefly feared, a Russian ship (p. 63). Russians could not be placated with fair words, but would find a way to retaliate.

Joseph Mutik - 6/24/2007

In 1948 Israel was left on its own (and the help of Jewish organizations). After 1948 and till 1967 Israel bought weapons from France which because of its Algerian war was anti-Arab. When De Gaulle made peace with the Arabs and came to his anti-Jewish senses the French went back to the old hatred. When USA begun to sell weapons to Israel it was only to counter balance the soviet sales of weapons and economic help to the Arabs and also to limit the soviet weapon sales to the N.Vietnamese by diverting soviet money to the middle east. Today the U.S. interest is to divert Iranian money from Iraq (to Lebanon and Palestinian territories). The Jews are the scapegoat diverting attention from the real reasons of the U.S. foreign policy.

Daniel Buck - 6/24/2007

Mr. Mutik-

You have strong points comparing the US's relationship with other countries to its relationship with Israel. However, my comparison was between the US's relationship with Israel, vis a vis other countries' relationship with Israel. I think that the US has supported Israel more than other countries have, especially in recent times.

Joseph Mutik - 6/24/2007

Too much hate, even for a red fascist?!

Stephen Kislock - 6/23/2007

Mr. Full of Hate, your words are but a shadow of your self denial, Hate is your Hope.

I do not think, you have ever started any conversation, without "I am an Isareli" and that is why, you hate me!

Craw back in your dark hole and hope for forgiveness from the Civilized world.

Caterpiller Bull Dozers, to Kill Arabs and their supporters, I will not forget or forgive you or your country [Made in America].

Mike Weeks - 6/23/2007

While Mr. Todd is entitled to his own opinion regarding how Israeli Navy's 2nd-in-command normally fleeted up, a look at the table on pg. 268 does indeed reflect what Cristol wrote in both the text and the EN (pg. 267-268).

"In the opinion of Captain Castle, Rehav had been an outstanding naval officer. He was talented, diplomatic, and charismatic. In the history of the Israel Navy, the second in command has almost always 'fleeted up' and became the next Commander."

The table clearly supports the phrase "almost always".

The other mention by Mr. Todd of "Vulcan guns" is interesting, but it misses one critical element, -- to have been effective against jet aircraft (the type which actually attacked the ship) they would have had to have been radar controlled, and that would indeed have had some impact on the ship's operation. In addition they would have required a large degree of "clear to fire" zones, and that just wasn't possible given the ship's configuration -- reflecting what her job actually was. In any case, IIRC, no US ship in 1967 had any Vulcan-type weapons system.

OTOH there is docmentation available which does discuss the aspect of arming (or not to arm) the _commissioned_ SIGINT vessels with something larger than manually-operated .50 cal. MGs for use against limited _surface_ threats.

The point of raising the issue of more firepower aboard Liberty brings up what the reaction of the IAF would most likely have been had the pilots noted AAA (they didn't, and are repeated asked if there is AAA) -- it most likely would have been to call on other flights (two are mentioned in Cristol's book) armed properly for ship killing, and thus the ship would have indeed been sunk, with even a greater loss of life, and thus there would have been nothing to threaten the MTBs when they came up on any survivors.

The subject of armaments & SIGINIT vessels is an interesting one in its own right.

Andrew D. Todd - 6/23/2007

I have now obtained a copy of Jay Cristol's _The Liberty Incident_ (2002). I was pleased to find that Cristol is of a higher mental order than his HNN supporters. Interestingly, he talks about the chronic inferiority complex of the Israeli navy, and its active desire that the Liberty should be an Egyptian warship in order to have the glory of sinking an Egyptian warship (pp. 7-8, 44, 52). Not to put too fine a point on it, the Israeli navy was "medal hunting," projecting its rivalry with the Israeli Air Force onto third parties.

I observe that Cristol's own table of Commanders and Second in Commands of the Israeli Navy (p. 268) does not bear out his claim that promotion from Second in Command to Commander is routine (p. 170). Rather, it is routine in peacetime, but failure to be promoted from Second in Command to Commander is routine in wartime. It would appear that the Israeli government is systematically dissatisfied with the performance of its navy in wartime. Ships are much harder to destroy than airplanes. Airplanes are mostly made of thin layers of a flammable material, aluminum. Ships are made of thick steel plates. If a ship is anchored over a shallow mud bottom, a la Pearl Harbor, it can usually be put back into service even after being sunk. In naval warfare, it is exceedingly difficult to achieve a decisive victory, on the order of Trafalgar or Midway, unless the enemy is willing to accept the wager of battle in deep water. If the Israeli government expected the Israeli navy to destroy the Egyptian navy in a decisive battle, that hope was inevitably doomed to disappointment. One can imagine how a pervasive climate of invidious comparisons might have developed.

Parenthetically, a reasonable armament for the Liberty, which would have been inconspicuous and unostentatious, and which would not have interfered with the ship's normal function, would have been four Vulcan guns. A ship thus equipped would very probably have splashed all the Israeli aircraft involved in the attack, and then started in on the torpedo boats.

On another related note, given the "German" character of the Israeli military, operating in the tradition of Rommel and Guderian, the inferiority complex of the Israeli navy seems to have strong points of similarity to the inferiority complex of the German Kriegsmarine, as discussed by the former U-boat officer Wolfgang Ott in Chapter 11 of his autobiographical novel, _Sharks and Little Fish_ (English translation, 1957). The German navy did stupid things because it was trying to prove that it was not a coast guard.

Joseph Mutik - 6/23/2007

Chief, a forty years exploiter of his navy stripes, a cowardly spewer of invented happenings. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer (phew, another Jew for the sensitive nose of chief White) quote from the article describes the best the state of mind of the chief:
"I am now at the age where I remember quite clearly and with great detail, many things that never actually happened."
Kislock doesn't deserve much consideration, he is a red fascist with KKK convictions. In the 21st century the anti-Jewish hatred is mostly concentrated in the extreme left.
There is no hope for the future because hating Jews is the rule not the exception.

Stephen Kislock - 6/23/2007

The US has sold it's soul, for israel, many times over!

If israel had a Treaty with the United States of American, it could do the War Crimes with Impunity it is currenty doing in Gaza, West Bank and Lebanon. Treaties have strings attached, That is Why israel has No Signed Treaty with the US, it's paperless to protect against the War Crimes committed by isarel!

Joseph Mutik - 6/22/2007

USA has bilateral security treaties with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and multilateral security treaties with the European countries (NATO). These treaties state that if a party to the treaty is attacked the result is as if USA has been attacked. USA doesn't have such a treaty with Israel. A super left wing site states it: "The U.S. has no mutual security treaty with Israel" :

"http://www.ciponline.org/nationalsecurity/news/articles/mullins032306.htm"

It is only a matter of good will not an obligation. The supposed 200-300 Israeli nukes are only a matter of last resort.
Israel in real trouble will be left dangling in the wind.
There is no publication about too much influence of Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans or Mexican-Americans of U.S. policies. Nothing about Irish-Americans financing the IRA, Italian or Mexican mobs trafficking drugs into the USA or the Mexican Illegal immigration (the last bill was made in such a way to make it very sure that the Congress will reject it). Only the Jewish influence is publicly discussed (as in the M&W new "protocols of the elders of zion" under prestigious ivy league sponsorship)
Again, please read the very good historical review of U.S> - Israel relations:

Policy trumps presidential personality By ELLIOT JAGER

John Charles Crocker - 6/22/2007

If not the US then what country is the strongest supporter of Israel, other than of course Israel?
What nation is a closer or more reliable ally?

Stephen Kislock - 6/22/2007

U.N. Human Rights watchdog agreed Tuesday June 19, 2007, to continue their scrutiny of ISRAEL, while halting investigations of Cuba and Belarus, Explain that mr.mutik?

Joseph Mutik - 6/21/2007

1) uss liberty was a ship that, by the U.S. government declaration, wasn't there.
2) Did the Congressional oversight committee inquired who gave the order to deploy the spy ship close to the war area? Was the order given, illegally, without the knowledge of the U.S. government? Considering the aftermath of the attack when U.S. navy ships, close to the incident, were not allowed to help uss liberty, it seems very plausible that uss liberty was in an illegal mission.
3) If USA, in June 1967, would have sent navy ships through the straits of Tiran, fulfilling president's Eisenhower 1958 written promise, the war could have been avoided. But the U.S. government couldn't find president's letter?! Laughable!!!! The awful truth is that the U.S. government doesn't give a damn about the Jews and only uses them, for peanuts called aid, to protect American interests. The so called "aid" is in reality a subsidy for the U.S. military industrial complex.
I direct you, again, to the "Jerusalem Post" article showing the real history of the U.S. policy toward Israel:

Policy trumps presidential personality By ELLIOT JAGER

Stan White - 6/20/2007

Aw, come on Mike, just give me a few of the places, I'm just a tired old confused guy using my "stripes to spew hate", is that guy for real ?

Mike you must have a few places I could investigate, you are the authority and as such, I would really like to read some of the material you talk about. Be a man, step, just don't disappear like usual, then I'll never get to the information you talk about.

Joseph Mutik - 6/20/2007

You can continue to believe your own lies.

George Robert Gaston - 6/20/2007

Then there is no point in further discussion.

Stephen Kislock - 6/20/2007

mr. mutik, are you a not a benefactor of the Big Lie, israel the only Democracy in the Mid-East.

Why do all jews and isralis deny, the wanton and murderous attack on the USS LIBERTY?

The Palestinians of today, are the New Warsaw Ghetto Freedom Fighters, Correct??????????

Joseph Mutik - 6/19/2007

Chief White why, for forty years, you continue to exploit your navy stripes and spew imaginary "facts" about a regrettable war incident. A shrink may help. No Israeli attacked USS liberty intentionally but in your head. Leave the Jews (Israelis) alone and stop the lies!

Mike Weeks - 6/19/2007

Nice try Chief White, but once again, you continue to be very, very confused.

The material is available, and it gets quoted over & over -- including stories from some former Liberty crewmembers.

That you continue with this rather silly game of yours simply shows that indeed your mind is made up, and don't have any interest in widening your knowledge base.

So be it. I could care less.

Joseph Mutik - 6/19/2007

The same as Richard Helms or the self proclaimed perjurer Ward Boston "believe me I know the secrets but I can't show you the documents". Come on! The OSS and CIA had a lot of Jews too because the average American doesn't speak foreign languages and probably immediately after WWII the former members of the German American Bund were not very much trusted. I don't believe that any Jew was at the decision making level in the NSA and the "trust me "argument is not going to convince me about that.

Stan White - 6/19/2007

In my earlief inputs to this forum I mentioned how Mike Weeks in many other forums and discussions, always shows up, like a man that knows the details, facts and findings that the attack on the Liberty was definitely an accident. When trying to rebut his comments, he nit picks everything said into pieces, knowing you will want to explain whatever he decides wasn't just right and leaving his very "authentic?" comments alone. Then I ask about his resources. and that there are countless places where research and data are available. Then I ask him to give me a list and location of such information, then he makes some off the wall comment or disappears.

This time he has taken a new approach, I am confused ? I'm not sure about what, and as you can see in his response below either he has none to offer or they are secret and available only to Mr Cristal and himself. I have to believe after so many times of asking him, it has to be the former. (Or maybe he will soon disappear)


Mr Weeks, I wasn't going to return to this forum, becasue there is way too much hate going on. However I keep thinking about your comment that I am confused and "at odds with the material available to researchers"

So I am returning to ask you to please give me a list of this material and where to go to it and I will definitely do this research.

Thanks


------------------------------------

by Mike Weeks on June 18, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Chief White, you must be joking. But perhaps it's simply a continuation of the level of confusion that exists.

George Robert Gaston - 6/19/2007

I stand corrected. However, anyone who was around then will tell you he ran the place. He was also very involved in the initial organization and its initial recruiting. Many of the early members who were hired were catholics. This was because parish records were a way of verifying births during background checks (you are who you say you are). These were later known as the "Irish Mafia". Another group were the young women who came to work for the AFSS at Arlington Hall during World War II. These later became known as the "little old ladies in tennis shoes". These two groups of people ran NSA until the Mid-1980's.
I would say that it was hardly what you would call a WASP stronghold.

Joseph Mutik - 6/19/2007

William F. Friedman wasn't the director but the chief cryptologist. Why trying to spread lies. A lot of Jews worked on the Manhattan project too. It was a period when Jew were not liked too much and science was one of the places they could enter easier.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Friedman"

Joseph Mutik - 6/19/2007

In a situation where the lives of the Jews will be in danger and the Jew will not be able to defend themselves I am sure USA will let them die as USA did in the past. Another reason for helping Israel after 1967 was the probable Israel nuke and the problem Americans would have using radioactive gasoline for their cars.
A few months ago "Jerusalem Post" had a very interesting article about the "evolution" of the U.S. position on Israel:

Policy trumps presidential personality By ELLIOT JAGER

Of course there are a lot of other places in the world deserving attention and material support but the reality is that most of the attention in the world is directed toward Israel and the Jews. The "human rights" organizations of the UN are headed by Saudi Arabia, Libya, China and other similar "human rights champions".
It is true that Germany did a lot for the Jews after the crimes of WWII but for the record there are still forces in Germany who blame the Jews for the problems Germany had after the reunification and desecration of Jewish cemeteries or swastikas on synagogues are not uncommon in today's Germany.
Also for the record, The U.S. government didn't consider that European Jews forced into Israel deserved to be included in the Marshal plan and they forced Israel to ask for reparations from the West German government. These reparations helped the new country of Israel a lot but all the calculations I've seen show that the money Germany gave to Israel represent, at most, about 15% of the German Jewish properties taken (or destroyed) from the German Jews. I am talking only about Jewish properties, because would be very hard to put a price on every killed Jew during the war.
Why these USS liberty frustrated survivors are allowed (as an exception to any other U.S. intelligence operation) to blame the Jews for forty years instead of being directed to good shrinks who can direct them to introspection which can give them real explanations about why do they feel compelled to lie?

George Robert Gaston - 6/19/2007

Would you be surprised that the founder and first director of the National Security Agency (William Friedman) was a Russian Jew? He, His wife, and other Jewish men and women have served the U.S. Intelligence community for many years. I doubt that Mr. Pollard is considerd anything more than a traitor among those Jews who serve their country in these services.
Keep in mind that good movies are not always accurate, and usually should not be used in developing a historical perspective. Those pesky facts keep getting in the way.

Daniel Buck - 6/19/2007

Thanks for responding, Mr. Mutik-

If you knew me at all, you would not call me a 'normal brainwashed American.' As for this perverse focus on Jews, well, as far as I am concerned, that was entirely the point I was trying to make in my first post. Why not talk about other things? This site consistently runs articles on Israel when other world events are far more important. These articles receive far more comments than others. From one side (and yes, I do believe there are two or more sides to every story, and you have not yet convinced me that I am wrong with your ranting), it reinforces anti-Semitism, by always putting Jews in the spotlight and having heated debates as to whether Israel, in doing things that every other country does, is evil and illegitimate. On the other hand, it reinforces Zionism, by focusing on what, in fact, is a rather small group of people who were shamefully mistreated throughout history, built a nation under adverse circumstances, and are trying to live with the fallout of everyone else's empires (Russia, Britain, Ottoman, France, etc.). As if Jews were actually special.

As for the USS Liberty, I believe it was a simple SNAFU. Nothing more or less. The Israeli pilots messed up, for good reason, because, as Sunzi said, "There is no end to deception in warfare." Those IDF boys and girls know their tactics for sure. It was reasonable to assume that the ship was camo, and they responded accordingly, if wrongly.

Notice that, among other countries, the US is still the strongest supporter of Israel in the world. I know it's not paranoia if everyone's out to get ye, but still...Please think, Mr. Mutik: What would serve Israel better?

I note with irony that the Federal Republic of Germany is probably the safest place on Earth for Jews to live now.

Joseph Mutik - 6/19/2007

The main reason the Six Days War took place is because USA didn't fulfill the written promise to keep the Tiran straits open, eventually through military action (they didn't find the president's letter - LOL). In 1948 USA and UK didn't help in any way the about 600000 frightened Jews, they got help only from Jewish organizations and when the USA and UK hoped for the ultimate final solution the frightened Jews with great chutzpa won the war in 1948. In 1956 USA forced the Jews out of Sinai giving written assurance that USA will protect the rights of passage for the Israeli commercial ships, through international waters like Tiran, but it was a lie. In 1967, when USA failed to fulfill presidential written promises, Israel had to do it alone. Afterwards when the French, who were losing the war in Algeria, refused to sell weapons to Israel because they were not anti-Arab anymore, USA sold (and partly financed) the weapons Israel needed. This sale was done not because USA wanted to help Israel but because U.S. weaponry in capable Israeli hands kept a lot of Soviet money out of Vietnam and out of harming U.S soldiers there. In 1973 Haig and Kissinger had to trick Nixon into helping Israel with weapons.
As a normal brainwashed American, you, Mr. Buck, need "two sides" to any story but to Israel story there is only ONE side, no one would help Jews if they don't help themselves. The western "civilized" world let the Jews die before, during and after WWII and forced the Jews from European transit camps into Israel without any help hoping for the final solution perpetrated by the Arabs.
All responsible Jews from all over the world should get together and scream out loudly: we are mad as hell and we are going to defend ourselves against any attempt to exterminate us. The peanuts USA gives Israel today (about $2.4 billion/year) go a long way into diverting Arab money from attacking U.S. interests. Why no one is talking about the tenths of billions, EACH, U.S. is spending every year to protect Europe, Japan and N.Korea but everyone is talking about the "tax payer" money spent in Israel?
Why the media doesn't talk about the real problems of the world and prefers to single out Israel? Very simple that's the 2000 years old story of singling out the Jews.
Why the USS liberty is the only friendly fire incident kept alive for 40 years by psychopathic Jew haters? Very simple that's the 2000 years old story of singling out the Jews.
Why Jonathan Pollard (who deserved 10-15 years for his crime) got a harsher sentence than Hanson or Ames? Very simple that's the 2000 years old story of singling out the Jews.
The list is very long and you, Mr. Buck should be ashamed of yourself for calling me a "hateful Jew" only for supporting the rights of the Jews to defend themselves and to fight lies and innuendo against them!

Daniel Buck - 6/19/2007

It constantly amazes me how much time and effort is devoted on this site by intelligent people, well capable of doing quite complex research, on minutae involving Israel in some way or another. I titled this post 'Jew-haters and Hateful Jews' because in my several years of reading comments on this site, I have seen ample evidence of both. If I am forced to point fingers, Mr. Kislock and Mr. Mutik seem to provide examples of the former and the latter.

What I wonder is, for those of us who are not Israeli, and therefore do not view Jerusalem as the center of the universe, whether you intelligent, well-read gentlemen could spend a bit more of your time on other topics? Obviously you read a lot and can do research; why not talk a little bit more about other geopolitical events that are equally if not more important? China? Russia? EU? Latin America? Africa?

I exempted Israelis from this because, of course, events involving your country (even if it's one of two) are of immediate and pressing importance. But for Americans, all the issues I named will dwarf Israel in the near future, if they haven't already and we're just not paying attention.

N. Friedman - 6/18/2007

John,

You have a tendency toward being literal. Sometimes, people write for impact. You will have to ask Mr. Mutik whether he was speaking literally or had something else in mind.

So, I do not take as much, without knowing more, from the language you quote.

Mike Weeks - 6/18/2007

Chief White, you must be joking. But perhaps it's simply a continuation of the level of confusion that exists.

"I will definitely do this research"???

Got access to a library, got Internet access?

Willing to learn? The record, based only on your various Internet comments, suggest not.

Joseph Mutik - 6/18/2007

CIA (and its precursor the OSS) has been founded on the principle ”No Jews, no Negroes, no Catholics” (I borrowed the quote from the excellent movie "The Good Shepherd" by Robert De Niro). In 1967 CIA and NSA were putrid dumps full of hatred of Jews. They may be a little less anti-Jewish today but considering the opposition of the intelligence community to the release of Jonathan Pollard I am not sure how much less?!
Anything coming from former top leaders of CIA (dominated by WASP Jew haters) under the argument "believe me I've seen documents but I can't disclose them" is probably a lie and cover up.

Stan White - 6/18/2007

Mr Weeks, I wasn't going to return to this forum, becasue there is way too much hate going on. However I keep thinking about your comment that I am confused and "at odds with the material available to researchers"

So I am returning to ask you to please give me a list of this material and where to go to it and I will definitely do this research.

Thanks

Stephen Kislock - 6/18/2007

You did it!

And No I will never forgive or forget!

Stephen Kislock - 6/18/2007

The Wanton Attack on the USS LIBERTY, by the state of israel, must be Protested by all members of Society, Regardless of nationality.

Stephen Kislock - 6/18/2007

I hve to Admit ou israeli's are a real piece of work!

we suffered, therefore you must Suffer!

I am a Real Liberal and do not see making israel Pay for it's War Crimes, above reproach!

You are the Knight of the Klan, riding at night, Instead of Burning my house, you call me Names, and you are Not an AMEREICAN.....

Joseph Mutik - 6/17/2007

Nothing to add but "The wolf changes his skin, but not his nature".

Joseph Mutik - 6/17/2007

By the way did you begin to learn Spanish, because our country is going to become a dual language country. I learned Spanish here in USA because is good for business.
Your KKK lingo is irrelevant, feel free to whine as much as you want.

John Charles Crocker - 6/17/2007

How else do you read, "USS liberty got exactly what it deserves" and "Too bad it wasn't sent to the bottom of the Mediterranean. If this waste carrier would have been totally destroyed, we wouldn't have this group of treasonous cowards spewing hate against the Jews"?

His further comments refering to the Liberty "spying with impunity" certainly imply that he feels the ship should have been attacked.

Assuming a reasonable grasp of the language he is using I don't see another likely interpretation do you?

John Charles Crocker - 6/17/2007

Again you misquote, misrepresent and label anyone who disagrees with one of your screeds or calls you out when you spew your hate a "Jew hater."

I don't hate Jews in general or any Jew in particular, not even you.

If you look back over the comments you will see that I think the incident with the Liberty was an accident. The Israelis had nothing obvious to gain by the attack and a considerable amount to lose (the goodwill of their most reliable ally).
All incidents of this type need to be investigated and when fault or negligence is found there need to be appropriate consequences. In this case there was an investigation, but it was not apparent with cursory investigation that there were consequences for anyone of the attackers. Thanks to another commenter I learned that there was some, unofficial, consequence doled out by the Israelis for at least one of the responsible parties. My curiosity was satisfied and I saw no reason for further comment until I saw your hateful screed.

You apparently look no further than the nationality of those involved before determining guilt or innocence and then have the nerve to call others bigots. You make vile hateful comments and then have the nerve to call others hateful.

N. Friedman - 6/17/2007

John,

I am not entirely sure I understand Mr. Mutik's point. If his point is that bad things happen in war, that is true. If his point is that he is happy that happened - and I did not read his point as meaning that -, I think he needs to take some medicine.

Joseph Mutik - 6/17/2007

Better stay with your Jew hating line, "we discuss only Jews, any other similar incident is beside the point". You being a Jew hater, I don't really care what you buy!

John Charles Crocker - 6/17/2007

The odious rhetoric you used in the above thread is typical of your previous posts on other topics. This time you went far enough out on that limb in your initial post and in your responses that you effectively marginalized yourself. Now that you realize your mistake you try this lame stunt to try and extricate yourself. I don't buy it and I doubt anyone that has read your comments on other topics does either. Even now you call any Jew who would dare question your tirade "weak hearted." You have shown your true colors for all to see and you can't hide them now. Nice try though.

Stephen Kislock - 6/17/2007

International Waters are Not the Wrong place for any Neutral Ship.

Applying your Logic, anyone governmentcan can Attack/Destroy any other Nations Ship(s), in International waters, correct?

You mr. mutik, are not an AMERICAN!

The Attack on the USS LIBERTY, was israel's death warrant as far as I am Concerned!

Joseph Mutik - 6/17/2007

In 1956, after heavy pressure, USA forced Israel out of the Sinai peninsula. President Eisenhower wrote a letter to the Israeli government promising U.S. military intervention if Egypt blocks the straits of Tiran. When in 1967 Egypt blocked the straits, the U.S. government told the Israelis that they "can't find the letter"?! When the Israelis produced a copy of the letter the Americans "suddenly remembered" that the letter is at the Eisenhower presidential library. That's the "commitment" to Israel that the U.S. government was ready for in 1967. In a follow up week to the Six Day war anniversary this "commitment" story would have been a good choice. But this site preferred to recycle one of the longest hate stories in U.S. history.
The participants to the thread recycled a good part of the 40 years long thread of lies about the USS liberty incident.
When I have seen that, normally, nothing changed I made an inflammatory stattement above and I got, exactly, the answers I expected:
- Israelis (read Jews) are criminals
- the subject on hand is Israel (read Jews) and any other friendly fire incidents are beside the point. That's a very normal argument used by Jew haters.
- some faint hearted Jews even expressed their disgust
The truth is that Israel attacked, in June 1967, a non existent U.S. ship (according the the U.S. government declaration). The U.S. government was so embarrassed about the ship (and maybe about its mission) that the U.S. fleet in the Mediterranean received the order to not help USS liberty. The survivors of USS liberty could not attack the U.S. government, because the silence agreements they signed would have sent them to jail, so the only way to express their frustration was the very old blame the Jews (Israel), a very old song in the Christian songbook.
There is a very long list of friendly fire incidents at this address:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire"

A lot of them don't involve the U.S. military but there is a special section about the incidents involving U.S. forces.
Of course if one does a Google search on "uss liberty" he gets about 541000 results and if one does a Google on "friendly fire incidents" he gets about 75800 results. To be more accurate if the search is on "friendly fire" one gets about 1390000 results. The 541000 for "uss liberty" is still significant even compared to the second search for friendly fire.
Bottom line any discussion of the USS liberty incident as an intentional attack perpetrated by Israel is a pure expression of anti-Jewish hate.

John Charles Crocker - 6/17/2007

His odious comments started this thread. Do you have no opinion of them?

N. Friedman - 6/17/2007

Mr. White,

You write: "The attack was intentional ..." Yet, you have to admit, as you do state: "for what reason I am not aware of ..." Normally, if something is intentional, there is a reason that can be discerned.

My suggestion is this: those attacked certainly would perceive the attack as intentional. After all, those who shot, shot to kill. But, the reason for the attack is a different matter.

The reason for the attack may have had nothing at all to do with the ship being American and, in fact, those who gave orders to attack may have had no idea what country's ship was there.

The likely reason for the attack is that the ship was in a location where it was perceived as potentially hostile, during what was, to its participants, a total war. In short, the ship was in the wrong place at the wrong time. That, and likely not much more.

In war, that happens. In fact, it happens frequently. Sometimes, even countries not at war attack, as the US did to an Iranian airline, killing all aboard. The perception was, notwithstanding the clear markings on the Iranian airline, that the plane was a danger. Terrible and intentional - as in those who shot meant to shoot down the airline -, but a mistake nonetheless.

Stephen Kislock - 6/17/2007

They Tried!

The USS Liberty, will arise and show the world, what Israeli's Really Are!

Look no futher that the "Apartheid Wall", as to the true character of the victims of the holocaust!

Stephen Kislock - 6/16/2007

Friendly Fire, your logic is perverted, Repeated Attacks on the Flaged [United States] USS Liberty, is not Friendly Fire it's a WAR CRIME, and Israel Must be held Accountable.......

Stephen Kislock - 6/16/2007

This is from the Washington Report by Delinda C. Hanley "USS Liberty Veterans Present Pentagon With Report on Israeli War Crimes"

Ken Halliwell, When he presented his finding to an Israel defense Forces archivist, Halliway continued, the IDF official agreed that Cristol's photos, actually are doctored U.S. photos of a ship at dock,etc.

The Truth is your Problem, not your religion or nationality!

Stephen Kislock - 6/16/2007

I would like to point out two article,
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/August_2005/0508017.html and
http://www.ussliberty.org I will side with the United States Navy Veterns of the USS Liberty and Not Israel.

America First! And israel in this case Never.

Mike Weeks - 6/16/2007

The comment that:

"The Israelis were aware that the Liberty had been there the previous two days and apparently had no problem with it being there at that time."

Is factually incorrect. She did not arrive "there" until the early morning of June 8.

For example she was still in the Central Med when the SDW broke out on 5 June.

"Liberty records her position at 36-32.7N, 13-58.2E on course 106º, speed 17 knots. This places her in the central Mediterranean, just a bit west of Malta. [USS Liberty Deck Log, 5 June 1967.]"

http://libertyincident.com/docs/timeline.pdf

This time line file is worth a look.

Solid points otherwise.

John Charles Crocker - 6/16/2007

The Israelis were aware that the Liberty had been there the previous two days and apparently had no problem with it being there at that time.

Your comments about spying with impunity certainly implies that you think that the Liberty should have been intentionally attacked whether or not the actual attack was accidental. Is this intentional?

I have said or implied nothing about American friendly fire incidents as they are not what is under discussion here. All friendly fire incidents should be investigated and when fault is found there should be consequences.

Again, it is you who are filled with hate as has become apparent to anyone who has bothered to read this thread. Find yourself some help it is not healthy to carry around so much hatred.

Joseph Mutik - 6/16/2007

USS liberty, waste carrier, was spying on a little more than 2 million Jews, only 22 years after the extermination of half of the Jews of Europe (my relatives are part of the exterminated). The survivors of the wounded waste carrier, for 40 years, continue to spew lies and innuendo about a classic accident. That's the main reason I am not polite , because these cowards don't deserve it.
By the way do you believe that Jonathan Pollard deserves a harsher punishment than Hanson or Ames? Don''t answer that it's beside the point because the point is: the U.S. intelligence community is a Jew hating crowd (things begun to change but not enough).

Joseph Mutik - 6/16/2007

1)Why your waste carrier ship, USS liberty (I wrote liberty with lower case on purpose), was in a war area when the U.S. government declared that there were no U.S. ships in the area?
@)Why after you signed a non-disclosure agreement with the NSA your are allowed for 40 years to spew your hate and lies?
Israel is the best asset USA has in the Middle East. When after 1967 Israel agreed to use U.S. weapons it was the best help USA could get because it forced the soviets to spend money for rearming the Arabs instead of using the money to help the N.Vietnamese against the U.S. soldiers.
Get over your hate, it was an accident and you and your shipmates got hit because your were in the wrong place at the wrong time and under a lying declaration of the U.S.government

Joseph Mutik - 6/16/2007

The waste carrier USS liberty was spying with impunity, in 1967, on a little more than 2 million Jews only 22 years after the extermination of half of the European Jewish population under the lying cover of the U.S.government which said that no American ships are in the area. The U.S. took the risk and a ship got hit.
Should the Israelis be more accountable than U.S. pilots sinking soviet ships or U.S. pilots killing Canadian soldiers or U.S. soldiers killing Italian agents. You seem to imply that when Americans are not accountable for friendly fire incidents, Israelis should be?!

Mike Weeks - 6/16/2007

While Mr. Mutik's comments are disgusting, Chief White continues with multiple are at odds with the material available to researchers he continues to be confused).

Chief White really should review the official CIA position, as it doesn't support his belief, as only one example.

Stan White - 6/16/2007

Mr Weeks thinks I'm confused, which doesn't seem to serious a comment, but you Mr Mutik, your stating that 34 of my shipmates deserved to die, and 171 badly wounded got what was coming to them and finally the ship should have been sent to the bottom of the sea with all 296 crewmen ending up dead makes me very much confused ! I don't know if you an American or an Israeli or just a hate monger.

So here's the deal:

1) Mr Weeks and I have exchanged views in several different web sites, he thinks I'm confused, I think he has no right state the attack was an accident, because he wasn't there and as far as I know he has no research of definitive information to state it was an accident, but I don't believe either of us has ever stooped to the level of hate I hear from you.

2) The attack was intentional, for what reason I am not aware of,and it WAS meant to go to the bottom, after the planes had completed their mission, the torpedo boats shot at anyone on the LIBERTY fighting fires or helping wounded, then lined up, ran at the ship and fired FIVE torpedos, four of them missing, then "prepare to abandon ship " was announced, what few life rafts that hadn't burned were released, when they inflated the torpedo boats machine gunned them and sunk them. A short time later a helicopter arrived filled with Israeli armed soldiers but the ship was listing too badly from the torpedo to put them on our ship.

3) You will note that in all the above I have never mention the word "Jew", why, because, the Jews, of which there many in our crew, did not attack us, the country of Israel did. I do not know if you are a Jew nor do I care, but your hatred is very serious problem you are carrying. If you are a Jew or have respect for the Jews the woes and deaths they have carried in their memorys and hearts for centeries, you should lose this terrible hate you have. Remember the Holocaust, it came from this kind of hate !

I have NO problem with Jews, I have a large problem with the State of Israel.

Stan White

John Charles Crocker - 6/16/2007

Response below

John Charles Crocker - 6/16/2007

You stated plainly that "USS liberty got exactly what it deserves." That would be the death of 34 men. Why do you think they deserved to die?

The first sentence of your post makes the point you now claim was the only one you made. You continue beyond this and state "Too bad it wasn't sent to the bottom of the Mediterranean." This clearly expresses your wish that the Liberty, which you call a dreadful ship, had been sunk ending the lives of the crew who you call "treasonous cowards."

You continue even now to call the ship a waste carrier, disparaging the entire crew for the words of a few you disagree with.

The incident with the Liberty was a tragic accident for which there was precious little accountability. Your libel of the crew for the words of a few does no one justice.

Mike Weeks - 6/16/2007

This type of comment is just as bad and hateful as from those who hate Jews, and thus use the tragic incident as just another tool for their hate-filled agendas.

Mike Weeks - 6/16/2007

Unfortunately Chief White is one very, very confused retired Navy Chief, on a number of points.

Joseph Mutik - 6/16/2007

The waste carrier named USS liberty would have been totally destroyed if the Israeli attack would have been intentional. But it wasn't intentional, it was a regrettable mistake. Any reasonable person would agree that when the U.S. government announced that in June 1967 were no U.S. ships in the area the Israelis should get at least the benefit of the doubt. But there is no doubt for Jews, they are for sure "guilty" since the Joshua from Nazareth (or as is commonly named Jesus Christ, the super star) myth.
It's common knowledge that anyone working for NSA (or any other intelligence agency) signs a non-disclosure agreement about anything he/she has done for the agency unless they clear things with the agency and the agency censors the specific action or publication. The USS liberty hateful liars are allowed to breach this kind of agreement because against the Jews anything goes.

John Charles Crocker - 6/16/2007

Again with the name? You are so clever. You must have been the terror of your grammar school playground.

In the title of your post amounted to saying that the 34 men on the Liberty who died deserved that death. Why do you think they deserved to die?

"Too bad it wasn't sent to the bottom of the Mediterranean. If this waste carrier would have been totally destroyed, we wouldn't have this group of treasonous cowards spewing hate against the Jews."
This is what you wrote in reference to the USS Liberty. You have gone far beyond trying to explain an admitted mistake by the IDF and labelled all aboard the Liberty waste and advocated their wholesale slaughter. This sentiment can only be described as hate filled.
What makes you think the crew of the Liberty are/were treasonous or cowards?

You seem to feel that anyone you feel is spreading or will spread what you feel is a "hateful lie" about Jewish people deserves to be summarily executed along with any companions or crew-mates that might be present at the time. For you to label anyone hate-filled requires a serious lack of self examination.

Joseph Mutik - 6/16/2007

I guess where you stand on this.

Joseph Mutik - 6/16/2007

As usual your crock is hateful. What I wrote is that if the dreadful ship (spying on Israel) would have been at the bottom of the Mediterranean we wouldn't have all this hateful chorus spreading lies and going against the facts and reason. Even admitting to perjury is good when one wants to blame the Jews.
USS liberty chorus of hatred is on of the longest blame the Jews in the U.S. history and you of course like it.

John Charles Crocker - 6/16/2007

You have just advocated the murder of over 200 men. Now you have the chutzpah to accuse those same men of hatred because you dislike what a handful of them have said about a handful of men in the IDF.

Mike Weeks - 6/15/2007

Sorry Chief White that you really don't understand what it means to take a look at a historical incident as a third-party, looking at all the material which has been produced.

And as for 82-year old Boston; well, he hasn't admitted (or owned up to, if you prefer) to addressing/admitting today his claim of failing as not only an officer, but as counsel to the court back in 1967. And naturally he should know better then to claim the same of others, who are deceased, and can not respond to this later-in-life claim. Why do you suppose the Navy JAG (as only one example) is ignoring him?

Your ending comment on Cristol's book sure appears to be nothing but sour grapes; have you even read it? Heck, I've read the Ennes book as well as his other stories (as only one example) ...

Joseph Mutik - 6/15/2007

If the Israeli action would have been intentional they would have sunk the dreadful ship. Too bad it wasn't sent to the bottom of the Mediterranean. If this waste carrier would have been totally destroyed, we wouldn't have this group of treasonous cowards spewing hate against the Jews.
As I said above, this is a very long act of hate and the only case of mistaken friendly fire incident kept alive only by hatred of Jews.

Stan White - 6/15/2007

Mr. Weeks shows up on every forum, discussion or debate concerning the attack on the USS LIBERTY stating that the attack was an "accidental attack", quited often brings into the conversation Mr. Cristal's deeply biased and questionalble book. He nit picks everything so as to keep others distracted and when questioned, time after time, where does he get the knowledge the attack was an "accident", would he share his research and resources with every one involved in the topic, he either makes a statement about some other part of the LIBERTY discussion, or just DISAPPEARS !

At one point of Mr. Cristal's serious research (mostly in Israel), one of the leading officers on-board the LIBERTY attempted to have an interview with him but was turned down. Too bad, this officer had a great deal of information to offer, and also survived the torpedo explosion, being in the spaces the torpedo hit. OH well, probably wouldn't have fit into the book anyway !

Stan White - Proud to have served with the Captain and Crew of the USS LIBERTY where "Don't give up the ship" rang out loud and clear.

Stan White - 6/15/2007

As the world knows Mr. Weeks, you know absolutely NOTHING CONCERNING THIS MURDEROUS ATTACK. You talk up Cristal's book, but when asked yourself what references, facts or real information concerning this event, you have NONE.

If Capt. Boston admitted he committed perjury during a trial I'd say he is way ahead of you for honesty.

By the way it's a long way from getting "good reviews" and writing a
book with out displaying the bias and misleading truth's of it's contents.

Stan White

Mike Weeks - 6/15/2007

Getting beyond the rather silly rant by Whyte, this popped up on Google News:

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/jun/15/judge_awards_goldman_family_right_oj_simpsons_book/?breaking_news

Judge awards Goldman family right to O.J. Simpson's book
...
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge A. Jay Cristol ruled that the company that currently owns the book's rights, Lorraine Brooke Associates, can be considered as belonging to the former football star. Lorraine Brooke Associates is run by Simpsons daughter, Arnelle.
...

Mike Weeks - 6/15/2007

It should have been:

Despite the personal attacks seen here the Cristol book has gotten very good reviews:

http://libertyincident.com/book.html

Mike Weeks - 6/15/2007

The claim that Moorer and "other military experts" conducted anything close to an "investigation of their own" in late 2003 is a very sad joke. Why do you think it's been ignored? There were no other "experts" involved, let alone Moorer. What was done was simply parrot the already-held views of a select number of former Liberty crew members and the like.

Heck, it was so screwed up that it couldn't even mention the earlier released NSA tapes, but instead continued the discredited Bamford tale from his book.

As for 82-year old Boston; here's UCMJ article 135, section e:

"(e) The members, counsel, the reporter, and interpreters of courts of inquiry shall take an oath to faithfully perform their duties."

So apparently Boston is now claiming he had no honor back in 1967, as well as claiming neither did the other members of the board (all who are now deceased). How sad; what a poor legacy he's leaving for himself -- especially when one compares what he first had mentioned to Cristol:

http://libertyincident.com/boston-comments.html

The Cristol book as gotten very good reviews, despite the personal attacks as seen here:

http://libertyincident.com/book.html

Perhaps the poster should _finally_ obtain a copy and read it.

Joseph Mutik - 6/15/2007

This miserable Ward Boston signed an affidavit admitting that in 1967 he perjured. In a mafia trial when a criminal becomes a witness against other criminals the truth of what he says is questioned. Why should we believe a criminal like Ward Boston? Did he tell the truth in 1967 or when he signed the affidavit?
I used the term "mafia" because all this USS liberty crowd, accusing Israel, is a crime family of yellow cowards hating Jews.

Mike Weeks - 6/15/2007

I strongly urge a reading of the "Liberty Incident" -- the author goes into great detail of the IDF's command, control & communications structure as it existed in 1967. The Navy wasn't situated with IAF and army.

There was a very strict split in authority and responsibility regarding which branch dealt with the air, and which dealt with the sea.

The previous comments regarding indviduals at "the control center" isn't clear as to which center is being assumed, and it may well assume there was only one. There was not. Nor does it address exactly what was the equipment available to the IDF regarding the ability to track electronically.

That the IAF in 1967 had a plot room similar to what the RAF had back in 1940 (referencing images of the Battle of Britian) is documented. That's not exactly state-of-the-art, and the IAF was the best funded of the three IDF branches.

Stan White - 6/15/2007

What a miserable piece of writing, Mr. Cristal's attack on Captain Ward Boston, a man that served his country with honor and then is assailed by this pretend Navy officer (Reserves).

This is typical A.J. Cristal, writes a book on how the attack on the LIBERTY was an "accident". He makes several trips to Israel get the "facts" for said book, wouldn't take the time to sit down and interview Survivors of the attack right here in the United States of America. He speaks as a US Navy pilot in his ramblings concerning what Israeli pilots, could or could not see or do, and a REAL US Navy Top Gun pilot tears his writings bit by bit to shambles. He uses doctored pictures of the USS LIBERTY under fire from Israeli planes, turns out the picture of the Liberty was taken while entering Chesapeake, VA. the year before.

His "no need to worry about Survivor's conspiracy theories" like he really knows the facts, since he is a US Judge, a US Navy "Reserve" and gets to go to Israel quite often. Admiral Thomas Moorer, an American hero, deceased, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with several other military experts, conducted an investigation of their own, the details of which are recorded in the "Congressional Record" concluded that this was NO accident.

Mr. Cristal's book has been discredited in so many ways, yet he and his merry band of followers, continue to cite it and with great authority that it was an "accident".

It was NOT AN ACCIDENT, it was murder and Crimes of War were committed!

Stan White (USS LIBERTY Survivor)
MCPO USN (Ret)

Andrew D. Todd - 6/15/2007

Look at Sir Arthur Hezlet (Vice Admiral, Royal Navy, KBE, CB, DSO, DSC), _Electronics and Sea Power_ (1975), for a good technical overview of developments during the Second World War. Len Deighton, _Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain_ (1977) provides a good discussion of what was involved in assimilating the early and crude radars to make them yield useful information. There were whole chains of plotting rooms, in which bits of information were painstakingly worked out by large numbers of young women (WAFs), and reconciled to yield a usable "big picture." Nowadays, that sort of thing is done in an electronic computer attacked to a radar set, but the underlying methods are basically the same.

The basic idea is to record radar blips, and permanently mark them on a map, noting the time beside each mark, and drawing lines between the marks to make a trail. It is important that the observations should be frequent enough that there is not sufficient time for an object to get from one trail to another. Record various other information as it becomes available. At regular intervals, update the big map from the plot map. There is someone whose job is to look at the big map and make sure that it is an accurate summary of the various little maps. The kind of explanation the Israelis have offered posits a massive breakdown in training. One would have difficulty in accepting the idea that half of the people in the Israeli command center could neither read nor write, and were therefore unable to use training manuals, or something of that nature. Israelis are just not like that.

My guess is that the control center commander received an urgent message that El Arish was being shelled. This message was very likely coupled with a demand from above, from Moshe Dayan or Yitzhak Rabin, that he do something about it, "like yesterday." The commander observed, correctly, that the only ship within artillery range of El Arish was "that liberty ship with the American flag." There were two possibilities: either the report of shelling was wrong, or the ship was a "false flag." It was not easily possible to determine which. The commander chose the wrong possibility. He may have been influenced by the likelihood that questioning the accuracy of the report of shelling might get him called a "chairborne commando" over the telephone. The commander certainly did not want Moshe Dayan, the man with the eyepatch, to get the idea that he was "wishy-washy."

Mike Weeks - 6/15/2007

Basically it's a wrapup to legal proceedings and the reaction from the USG (as well as some historical parallels). It ends with what Cristol learned regarding Rehav's departure as the 2nd in command of the Navy (the one who authorized the torpedo attack on a vessel he had been told was the "El Quseir")

BTW, Rehav is the fifth interviewee (as Rahav Itzhak) in the Ram Ron report.

Rehav does not fleet up to chief of the Israeli Navy, as was the normal procedure), he's either pushed, or jumps, "ship". Cristol covers what he was told during his research phrase and leds/ends with the following while discussing what he was told by various individuals in the middle:

"While there was no court-martial, punishment within the understanding of naval service was clearly evident in an event that took place about two weeks after the 1967 war, ... So while most of Israel was rejoicing over the great 1967 victory, a man who had spent his adult life working his way up to the position from which he would probably become commander in chief resigned from the navy."

Hope that helps some.

Carmelo Lisciotto - 6/15/2007

Interesting perspective on a peice of history..
Carmelo Lisciotto

John Charles Crocker - 6/15/2007

Can you provide a synopsis of pg 170?

Mike Weeks - 6/14/2007

It really would be useful if it could be understood that despite Cristol's count error, it's 82-year old Boston who is making a claim of what was known back in 1967. Now if the individual(s) who are feeding him the material can't get it right ...

Not quite sure why it would be claimed that "support was not provided the Liberty." Of course support was provided, assumming the context is that it relates to the ship having been attacked.

Now, if it relates to why the ship was sent where she was, when she was -- and then w/in six months there's the Pueblo debacle -- that's different.

Mike Weeks - 6/14/2007

Regarding what's presented relating to possible personal views of people like Tordella and Inman.

In no case has there been any evidence of either having "seen evidence if it."

However there is evidence that the intelligence community has concluded that there's no evidence which would led it to believe the attack was done not only on a ship known to the Israelis to be a US ship, but by name, the USS Liberty.

Unlike some views which are only personal and which have never been presented with any supporting material not supplied by the LVA, we can actually read the official position of the CIA (the very same CIA led by Helms at the time of the conclusion and as such sent on up to the WH). In an official 1978 re-statement it goes like this:

"It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack the USS Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake."

Mike Weeks - 6/14/2007

It would be interesting to learn exactly where it's been stated that the IAF/IDF of 1967 operated airborne "radar pickets". Until that can be established as an actual fact ...

That apparently is the whole of basis on the narration.

BTW, how does a surface blip on a radar screen in 1967 (whether airborne or ship-/shore-based) tell an operator the name/identity of that blip?

And if one wishes to believe the various Israeli investigations amount to "dereliction of duty", it still remains that there wasn't simply one "senior officer" involved in making various decisions based on the information being received from others, of various ranks.

Lastly, as to non-judical fallout, one really should obtain a copy of the "Liberty Incident". Look at page 170 regarding what happend to the
Israeli Navy's Captain Issy Rehav.

Andrew D. Todd - 6/13/2007

I have examined three of the four Israeli reports posted on Jay Cristol's website, those for which English translations are provided, that is, the Ram Ron Report of 1967, the Examining Judge's Report of the same year, and the IDF History Department Report of 1982. As I do not read Hebrew, I was not able to read the Israeli Air Force report of 2002.

In the first place, a radar set carried aloft in an airplane to an altitude of 20,000 feet or higher can detect a ship at a tremendous distance, at least a hundred miles. It was therefore easily feasible for Israel to establish "radar pickets" reaching a hundred miles out to sea. The British and American navies were doing this sort of thing back in the Second World War, from about 1943 onwards. If Israel had not taken such reconnaissance as to know continuously where the Liberty was, within five miles or so, and to know whether there were any other ships out there, then Israel would have been wide open to Arab fighter-bombers coming in off the sea at low altitude, a la Jimmy Doolittle. That is a serious matter. It is not good to have enemy fighter-bombers suddenly appear out of nowhere. The radar operator is supposed to report the coordinates of "blips," so that they can be plotted on the map in an orderly way, in such a way as to reveal not only their present position, but the history of their movements. Then an airplane may have to be sent out to establish visual identification. It was precisely the failure to plot movements by the numbers in this way which enabled the Japanese attackers at Pearl Harbor to get past a working radar set. The Israelis claim, in effect, that they had "lost the plot," become disoriented with respect to an area only two or three minutes flying time from the coast.

Thus the story told by the Israeli reports amounts, on its face, to a confession of Dereliction of Duty. If it were true, I would expect to find that a senior officer, at least of the grade of commander, had been censured, reduced in grade, and forced into retirement, the way the commander of the U.S. S. Stark was after he allowed his ship to be struck by an Iraqi missile. The statement in the 1982 report (English version, p.30), that an Israeli court found no one to blame, would seem to be a tacit admission that 'all of this never really happened, and it is just a charade we are putting on for the Americans.' Parenthetically, the Examining Judge seems to have a very strange idea of command responsibility.

Now, of course I do not really believe that the Israeli Defense Force is one of those comic-operetta South American armies. But I don't believe the Israelis were telling the truth, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31)
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/usships/

George Robert Gaston - 6/13/2007

At this point further speculation about Israel’s intent when they attacked the USS Liberty has a very limited utility. Both countries have their stories and they are likely to stick to them. Unreleased information will likely remain unreleased for a good many years.

However, the event’s impact on Israeli American relations, especially military-to-military relations may have an impact for some time.

The fact that Dean Rusk and Richard Helms think the attack was deliberate is one thing. These names change with administrations. They come from the legal/political/academic world, they server and then they go away and write books.

However, if Louis Tordella or Bobby Inman thought the attack was either deliberate, or a covered up act of criminal negligence it is another matter.

First, they would not have just thought it. They would have seen evidence of it.

Second, they were part of the US intelligence services their entire adult lives, and had great impact on the military intelligence community, the NSA and the CIA. As such, they mentored several generations of leadership within these organizations. In short, their influence extends far beyond their tenure.

I would not expect this to go away.

Frank O'Classen - 6/13/2007

It is interesting that one of Cristol's proofs that the attack was due to incompetence is the great competence of the IDF.

In his attack on CAPT Boston Cristol claims that 1 civilian and 33 sailors were killed. His facts are equally incorrect. The count was 1 Civilian, 2 Marines and 31 Sailors. The wounded count has increased to 174 as addition men were recognized.

A new investigation is needed not just to show whether or not the attack was intentional but to clear up why support was not provided the Liberty. We learned little at the time given the Pueblo incident just a few months later.

Mike Weeks - 6/13/2007

It is stunning to read someone claim that certain individuals had "their opinions then, not after hearing crew statements later."

There is zero evidence of that. What there is is evidence of them having received "additional" information in later years -- starting with the efforts by Ennes to change history and make a buck in the process.

A classic is the late Admiral Moorer back in 1987 shortly after he started making public comments on the subject: "I have studied the details of this attack for several years and draw my specific information from the brave captain and crew who certainly were in a position to see it all."

The LVA provides no evidence which supports the later-year opinions of others that's not drawn from their efforts; they simply have provided the "additional" material as to what some of them claim took place.

The silly idea that the gun camera film is fake is another red herring in a long list of red herrings. Some guy plays around on a PC, using Photoshop, with scanned images of non-digital photos scanned into a book on non-photograph pages ... This of course ignores there would be no reason for the IAF to even produce fake photos in the first place.

If one wishes to see who has doctored official photos (USN photos in this case) however, one can checkout the efforts of the LVA not all that long ago:

http://members.aol.com/libertyincident/RGxxfakephoto.html

The problem with Bamford, and others who write as he does regarding this switching horses is simple; he's already come to a conclusion. Thus when it at last becomes very clear his conclusion isn't supported by anything, he doesn't change his conclusion, but instead changes the material used to base that already drawn conclusion.

That's not "the scientific method".

Here's a classic:

"John Borne, a New York University adjunct professor of history who also wrote a dissertation on the Liberty and believes the attack on the U.S. ship was intentional, nonetheless agrees with Cristol that a clear motive is tough to pin down. 'I mean if the ambassador is sending this message [that the Israelis have told the US about plans to strike the Golan Heights], there's no point in attacking the ship to prevent the ship from sending the message,' Borne says.

He says the crew will need to find 'another motive' if they are ever to prove their case."

"The Rutland [VT] Herald", March 11, 2001

IOW, first draw a conclusion, then shop for a reason ...

As for sworn testimony. It's nice for conspiracy supporters to ignore the information which was collected as a result of open-ended questioning (as only one example), but it's really a stretch to believe it provides the only source(s) to question these multiple later-year and ever-changing stories.

"Not asked many of the crucial questions"? Like what? Like, "What were the orders the IDF were operating on?" None of the crew could testify to anything beyond what they experienced. And there's plenty of material within the record which show the efforts made to get as complete a picture as possible, even outside what took place aboard ship. Once again, there were opened-ended questioning. It was up to crew members to indeed tell their story. They did so.

Lastly, a means to show an example of how it works in today's arena; Remember the claim that there were tapes which would prove the Ennes-based story? When it looked like there would be a release of what was captured (thanks to the legal efforts of Cristol, not Ennes or Bamford or any other conspiracy story-teller) there were claims it would prove the Ennes-based story.

Well, guess what, those tapes didn't. So then the claim by the conspiracy-tellers became that there was another aircraft ALSO recording, this one an USAF C-130. A story which hadn't seen the light-of-day until after the NSA release (which, again, certainly didn't support what Bamford and others claimed it would prove). This other story naturally doesn't have any supporting material like what was provided which got Cristol moving on attempting to pry recordings from the NSA. And not one word from the LVA that it has attempted to obtain any such USAF C-130-based recordings. All that we see is this rather lame statement on its web site:

"We know there is more, though NSA claims this is all they have
Don't you believe it"

Naturally there's no proof provided as to what the LVA claims the NSA has stated; i.e. "this is all they have"

Once again; it's a case of having already formed a conclusion, no matter the lack of anything to support that conclusion.

William J. Haywood - 6/12/2007

We all have the disadvantage of being removed several times over from the evidence. That is why it is important to balance ones own analysis with what other smart people have to say.

The list of NSA, Pentagon, White House insiders who were certain it was intentional is stunning. And that was their opinion then, not after hearing crew statements decades later.

BTW: automatically dismissing eyewitness oral histories as unreliable is the same trick Holocaust deniers use. And why would Cristol accept anything the Israelis say? They say the pictures are authentic, but how does he know? Isn't he relying on claims made decades later?

"His research was so shallow as to change horses regarding why he believes the Israelis attacked the ship"

Isn't that the scientific method -- changing interpretations to fit evidence?

Personally, I doubt Bamford's explanation that it was to cover up the massacre of Egyptian POWs. I don't think the White House would care enough for Israel to risk attacking an ally. But the testimony that it did happen, for one reason or another, is overwhelming. Israeli plans to violate the truce and invade Syria is a contender.

Weeks insists on using only testimony given in the official investigation. That's the investigation estimated to require six months that was finished in a week. The crew simply were not asked many of the crucial questions. To say all testimony outside that narrow set of interviews are tainted is to engage in conspiracy thinking.

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

The Bamford book is not an "excellent fact checker" given his misrepresentations of what various official records state, but also his use of later-year stories which he accepts without question.

His research was so shallow as to change horses regarding why he believes the Israelis attacked the ship from one debunked theory in his first book, "The Puzzle Palace" to a completely different (and debunked) theory in 2001.

And as the NSA made clear, regarding this claim made about certain NSA people:

"Yesterday, an NSA spokesperson questioned a point made in the book about the USS Liberty.

'We do not comment on operational matters, alleged or otherwise; however, Mr. Bamford's claim that the NSA leadership was "virtually unanimous in their belief that the attack was deliberate" is simply not true,' the spokesperson said."

Baltimore Sun, April 24, 2001

BTW, there's been more of late concerning other subjects relating to other misrepresentations/errors of fact by Bamford in his 2001 book. That should not be surprising given Bamford's agenda and political views.

As to this story of "were buzzed at low level for hours ..."

What a bunch of boloney. There is not mention of anything close to that in either sworn testimony, ship's logs, messages or after-event reports.

It's simply a repeating of a bunch of later-year stories after multiple retellings and LVA reunions.

And lastly, as to this story of insignias "painted over". Why would the IAF attack with Mirages, a delta-wing jet? It was the only AF in the region which such jets.

But more to the point; here's how one author represented what one former crewmember remembers:

"When the first planes attacked, Signalman Russell David was on the bridge and claimed that he saw the Star of David on the Mirages. He told both Captain McGonagle and Lt. Bennett that he had seen the Israeli insignia. The Captain said nothing but apparently did not believe him, for during the next hour McGonagle continued to order his radiomen to send out the message 'under attack by unidentified planes.'”

John Borne's self-published "The USS Liberty: Dissenting History vs. Official History"

So if all you're going to do is rely on former crewmember stories, here's one which is very specific, and it certainly doesn't support the claim made.

As noted, even by Borne, the reports used the term "unidentified", not "unmarked". There's a world of difference.

John Charles Crocker - 6/12/2007

Thanks for the information. I don't have easy access to the book. If you wouldn't mind a short summary would be appreciated.

Charles S Young - 6/12/2007

The Bamford book is full of new information, it is an excellent fact checker.

Weeks chooses one individual, George Ball, as getting his information late and from Innes. But there's another half dozen people from the NSA itself, etc., in the provided list. People serving at the time, who knew the details, and they concluded the attack was on purpose.

Andrew Todd draws a very sensible scenario for how there could have been a coverup, even with an unintentional attack. I agree that the existence of a coverup does not prove the attack was on purpose. I urge Todd to look at the particulars. The Bamford book provides plenty of evidence specific to intent. To take one example: the crew reports they were buzzed at low level for hours by Israeli planes, whose insignia was clear, but the attacker's insignia was painted over.

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

While that a valid point in the larger context of what was taking place, remember that by late AM on 8 June certain elements within the IDF were aware that a US ship had indeed entered the area. That early AM Nord patrol plane reported that it had spotted a US "supply-type" vessel.

But one must chuckle regarding what isn't acknowledged by some folks, even Ennes would write:

"During the afternoon a radio broadcast of news and commentary was directed through the ship’s entertainment system. Men gathered around speakers, listening to reports of Israel’s stunning successes against the Arab nations and digesting the heated United Nations debates over the issues and the righteousness of the participants.

We chuckled as the newscaster quoted an American official assuring newsmen and the world that 'no American ship is within three hundred miles of the fighting.' Perhaps not at this moment, we thought, but by morning we’ll be smelling the smoke."

pg. 41 of his 1979 book

Of course nowadays Ennes (and others)claims there was no sense of any possible danger ...

An amazing turn.

N. Friedman - 6/12/2007

Mike,

We are all free to overlook trash on the Internet and, so far as I know, most people, including most Americans, have little time for trash.

Joseph Mutik - 6/12/2007

We already know about your hate and of course a straight forward question, giving the Israelis the benefit of the doubt, doesn't fit your anti-Jewish hatred.

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

The complete Clark Clifford Report:

http://libertyincident.com/clifford.html

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xix/28064.htm

See Document 373

http://www.ussliberty.org/cliffor2.htm

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

"I think that most Americans are suspicious of conspiracy mongering."

And yet we're waist deep in such no matter the subject; thanks in part to what the Internet has brought in the way of "information". <g>

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

The question was:

"What happened to the Israeli pilots and navy men who attacked the Liberty? I have found no mention of any consequences for the attackers."

The answer can be found by reading "The Liberty Incident", Chapter 13, "Israel Investigates".

Page 170 has the wrap up of the legal proceedings undertaken by the Israeli military, as well as the non-legal fallout.

N. Friedman - 6/12/2007

Omar,

Again, what you write has no relationship to the topic at hand.

I am not sure which Americans you refer to. I think that most Americans are suspicious of conspiracy mongering.

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

"Why what is good for American pilots isn't good for Israeli pilots?"

Doubt it, as well as examples of "blue-on-blue" incidents will be addressed.

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

"What the Israelis ought to have done, after the Liberty incident, in order to demonstrate good faith, would have been to invite the U. S. Navy to send representatives to serve on the Israeli court of inquiry"

The following might be of interest:

"3. LT COL BLOCH FURTHER STATED THAT THE IDF AGPEES (SIC) TO HEAR TESTIMONY OR WITNESS THE USN OR USG IS INTERESTED IN PROVIDING IN THIS CASE."

http://libertyincident.com/messages/210920ZJUN67.html

It appears the offer was not acted upon.

"He [Yerushalmi], like Rear Admiral Kidd, was handicapped by lack of input from the other parties to the incident. Yerushalmi told this author that each day, he asked the Chief Military Prosecutor, 'When are the Americans coming?' Finally he was told that they were not coming. It is amazing that both Yerushalmi and Kidd were able to do such excellent work without input from each other."

"The Liberty Incident", pg. 168

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

Always that small problem when reposting those selective quotes the LVA likes to display (so that uninformed folks will repeat them); they are not based on any available information that doesn't come from individuals like Jim Ennes, or selectively quoted and not complete, or never properly referenced at all.

The George Ball quote is a classic (as only one example); it's part of his book, and in that book George Ball states his ONLY source is the Ennes book. Gee, guess what, the LVA is quoting Ball, who is in fact referencing Ennes.

The other problem for those who don't wish to dig past the LVA supplied material is the simple fact that nothing coming from the US side supports these later-years stories -- let alone what the Israelis reported.

Instead of calling Cristol a shill, one might take a little time and actually fact-check the material being presented by the LVA. It might be an eye-opener.

BTW, what should one call those who only puppet the LVA line of this week?

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

Very, very hard to take any view point by someone who lkes to compare this tragic 1967 incident during a major regional war to the Holocaust of WW II.

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

You guess wrong, but that's should not really come as any surprise.

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

"Crystle"?????

Speaking of being rather ...

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

As noted, there's nothing to rebut the material Cristol presents in taking Boston to the wood shed for this OpEd piece he most likely didn't even write.

BTW, one can read one of the Congressional investigation which surrounds the Liberty incident here:

http://libertyincident.com/house-investigation-1971.html

Besides, as Jim Ennes himself has noted, in multiple published arenas:

"the Defense Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, which investigated the attack in 1967"

To say nothing of what he stated in his 1979 book ...

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

the claim of "There was an independent ivestigation and it found Israel guilty!" is bogus. There was nothing independent whatsoever about the misinformation put together by the LVA support team headed by the late Adm. Moorer. The ONLY input came from the material supplied by the LVA and its supporters; i.e., the likes of Bamford, etc, etc.

Nothing independent about it at all.

Andrew D. Todd - 6/12/2007

What the Israelis ought to have done, after the Liberty incident, in order to demonstrate good faith, would have been to invite the U. S. Navy to send representatives to serve on the Israeli court of inquiry, with the right to deliberate, and to examine witnesses, but not to vote. If there had been a proper inquiry, rather than a whitewash job, I thing you would find that the Israeli staff believed that every Egyptian cargo ship was actually a "secret cruiser" like the German Atlantis, fitted with concealed guns, submarine-style underwater torpedo tubes, and a disguise kit of collapsible canvas funnels, deckhouses, etc., quite apart from false flags. Normal wartime paranoia, made up of plausible worst-case assumptions. If the Israeli pilots had formed the belief that a ship was fitted with multiple Oerlikon 20-mm cannon mounts, they would very probably have shot first and asked questions afterwards.

A further complicating factor was that the Liberty really was a Liberty Ship (or rather a Victory ship, a member of the follow-on, improved class, a "Liberty II," if you like). That is, it was the maritime equivalent of a DC-3; a standard design, mass-produced during the Second World War, lend-leased to all the Allies, sold surplus to all the world after the war, quasi-obsolete by 1967, and readily purchasable with a dummy company and a Swiss bank account. The Israelis could not easily eliminate the possibility that the Liberty had been bought in Singapore by the Saudis, and surreptitiously refitted as a warship.

The probability is that the Israelis knowingly fired on the Stars and Stripes, believing it to be carried by an impostor. That would account for all of the evidence accessible to the United States government. It was not until the Israelis picked up a life raft with U. S. Navy markings, serial numbers, etc. (*) that they came to doubt themselves, and when they attempted to parley, they got told precisely what to do with themselves in good old-fashioned American expletives. Then they knew.

(*) Not the kind designed to be read at sea, but rather the kind designed to put a San Diego pawnbroker on notice that he might be purchasing stolen government property from an AWOL sailor on a toot.

What happened next was that the Israelis set out to lie about their involvement. To do so involved smearing the Liberty's crew. This earned the the Israelis the undying hatred of the "institutional navy," the men, both commissioned and enlisted, who serve for twenty or thirty years without making admiral. The American admirals accepted the necessity of a cover-up for reasons of state, but the wardroom and the lower deck felt differently. For years, they whispered angrily into their beer, until they had evolved a full-blown JFK-style conspiracy theory. The publication of James Ennis's book happened when they all reached retirement age, and were no longer bound by orders from above. Of course, not all of the sailors retired. Some of them eventually became admirals.

To take an analogous incident, after My Lai, the United States Army accepted the painful necessity of disinfecting itself in public, and the result was the Peers Commission report. The Israelis refused to do this, and the wound festered.

N. Friedman - 6/12/2007

Omar,

The issue here is an event during a war. On that topic, you evidently have no opinion or even facts to add - only conspiracy mongering.

john james olson - 6/12/2007

Yeah, Mike History Channel last aired the episode on the USS Liberty back in April 2005. If it was a program dealing with the holocaust they would be running it on a weekly basis.

N. Friedman - 6/12/2007

john,

WWII was not a minor incident in a war. The Liberty event was. Third party deaths and attacks happen in pretty much every war. There was nothing unusual here. It was a mistake.

john james olson - 6/12/2007

I guess we should only receive the Zionist approved POV regarding all things Jewish.

N. Friedman - 6/12/2007

The links are propaganda. They are meaningless drivel.

john james olson - 6/12/2007

WWII is ancient history yet we still get ad nauseum cries for reparations. Guess that's different when it concerns Jewish people.

Kevin Allen Brinegar - 6/12/2007

You didn't read my links did you! There was an independent ivestigation and it found Israel guilty!

Joseph Mutik - 6/12/2007

Quote from "http://www.aish.com/societywork/arts/Return_of_the_USS_Liberty.asp"

" It is very interesting that a forgotten incident on June 2, 1967--just six days before the attack on Liberty--involved U.S. fighter bombers which accidentally attacked a Soviet ship in the North Vietnamese harbor of Cam Pha. Viktor Sokolov, the Soviet ship's captain, said "We were bearing all the markings of the Soviet government. A Soviet flag was flying from the stern mast. The stack was painted with a red stripe and a hammer and a sickle...The visibility was excellent. There is no possibility of talking about an accidental attack. The American pilots aimed their guns at the central superstructure where the crewmen live and work."
But it was an accident. So was the attack on the Liberty. Unfortunately, these things happen."
Why what is good for American pilots isn't good for Israeli pilots?

N. Friedman - 6/12/2007

John,

You write: "The ship was not bombed it was shot and torpedoed."

What conceivable significance to you see to this point, assuming you are correct? I see none.

You write: "The ship was not only of a different type than the Eqyptian ship, it was twice the size and had US markings and flags."

So what? The issue is that the ship was in a place where it might, during a war, be used to spy. Recall that the US shot down an Iran Air passenger aircraft back in 1988, when tracking techniques were more sophisticated than they were in 1967 - and in a country that, by American standards, was not, back then, as advanced as was the US. Accidents happen.

You write: "Countries, even in war, generally do worry about identifying their targets. This target was clearly American and clearly not the Eqyptian ship in question."

Well, in fact, countries during war are not all that careful. Countries even in peace time make mistakes, as the US did with an Iranian passenger jet. But, in war time, the number of such incidents, historically speaking, is very high, including mistakes made by the US and everyone else.

You write: "The Israelis who attacked the Liberty and continued that attack after they should have known better should have and possibly did (but I can't find reference of it) face consequences for their negligence."

Negligence is a term that involves deviation from a standard, namely, what the theoretical reasonable person would have done in a similar situation. The assertion of some people is that the attack was deliberate and/or willful, which is a very different thing from ordinary negligence. In fact, a mistake may or may not be negligent, since not all mistakes involves deviation from a standard. One might, on the other hand, be grossly negligence or show wanton disregard, but such are different sorts of things than either ordinary negligence including a negligent mistake or an ordinary mistake.

There is the very difficult job of applying the reasonable man standard during a war. In war, people are trying to kill each other - a terrible thing. The reasonable man in a war tries to kill other people, unless one denies the right to make war. And, the reasonable person at war expects others to shoot at them and to try to deceive them, including mimicking what other countries do to mark their ships and mimicking the appearance of other countryies' ships, etc., etc. Which is to say, I note that it would be difficult, by any reasonable man standard, to pin even negligence on the Israelis.

In all likelihood, all that can be said, taking into account the applicable standard, is that a mistake was made.

Joseph Mutik - 6/12/2007

What's your comment on this?

Charles S Young - 6/12/2007

Atty. Cristol's lawyers brief suggests that it is crackpot conspiracy theorizing and beyond the pale of consideration to think the Liberty attack was intentional

Readers can draw their own conclusions about the incident itself, but Cristol's claim that skeptics are marginal is false and he knows it. High government officials who were serving at the time accepted the crew's eyewitness testimony. Cristol thinks he knows more than CIA head Richard Helms. (Key informational links at bottom of post.)

James Bamford wrote the authoritative account of the Liberty attack in a chapter of _Body of Secrets_, and concluded the evidence of intentionality was 100%. Bamford compiled these statements from nutball "conspiracy theorists":

-- Richard Helms, Director of Central Intelligence at the time: "Your chapter on the Liberty was exactly right."

-- George Ball, Under Secretary of State at the time: "American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens."

-- Lieutenant General Marshall S. Carter, director of the National Security Agency at the time: "There was no other answer than it was deliberate."

-- Dr. Louis Tordella, the deputy director of NSA at the time: "I believed the attack might have been ordered by some senior commander on the Sinai Peninsula [where the massacres were taking place] who wrongly suspected that the Liberty was monitoring his activities." Tordella also scrawled across the top page of the formal Israeli "mistake" report, "A nice whitewash."

-- Major General John Morrison, NSA deputy director of Operations at the time: "Nobody believes that explanation. The only conjecture that we ever made that made any near sense is that the Israelis did not want us to intercept their communications at that time."

-- Walter Deeley, the senior NSA official who conducted an internal NSA investigation of the incident: "There is no way that they didn't know that the Liberty was American."

-- Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "I have to conclude that it was Israel's intent to sink the Liberty and leave as few survivors as possible. Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American."

-- Captain William L. McGonnagle, the Liberty's commander: "After many years I finally believe that the attack was deliberate."

-- George Christian, press secretary to President Johnson at the time: "I became convinced that an accident of this magnitude was too much to swallow."

-- Paul C. Warnke, Under Secretary of the Navy at the time: "I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units.... I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests."

-- Dean Rusk, Secretary of State at the time: "The Liberty was flying an American flag. It was not all that difficult to identify, and my judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly senior Israeli official gave the go-ahead for these attacks."

-- David G. Nes, the deputy head of the American mission in Cairo at the time: "I don't think that there's any doubt that it was deliberate.... [It is] one of the great cover-ups of our military history."

Ward Boston article: http://counterpunch.com/boston06092007.html

James Bamford statement: http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/bamford.html

Cristol is a shill who believes everything Israel tells him.

John Charles Crocker - 6/12/2007

1) The ship was not bombed it was shot and torpedoed.

2) The ship was not only of a different type than the Eqyptian ship, it was twice the size and had US markings and flags.

3) Countries, even in war, generally do worry about identifying their targets. This target was clearly American and clearly not the Eqyptian ship in question.

4) The Israelis who attacked the Liberty and continued that attack after they should have known better should have and possibly did (but I can't find reference of it) face consequences for their negligence.

Joseph Mutik - 6/12/2007

Why the Israeli government would not believe what the U.S. government said?

N. Friedman - 6/12/2007

John,

The markings on the ship are irrelevant. It would be a perfect disguise, during a war, for an Egyptian ship to bear US identifiers.

It was wartime and in war, countries do not worry about little details such as those you raise. A ship was in a spot the Israelis thought problematic and, as such, they bombed it, believing to be a potential problem. Had they known it was really an American ship, they probably would have left it alone - if, of course, they believed such to be the case.

N. Friedman - 6/12/2007

kevin,

So what that there were never any congressional investigations? This is all ancient history. In war, countries do things that, were it not a war, seem nuts. An investigation would no doubt reveal that the Israelis made a mistake - no matter how clearly marked the ship was. End of story.

Kevin Allen Brinegar - 6/12/2007

Stupid Crystle made that up.

Kevin Allen Brinegar - 6/12/2007

There were never Congressional ivestitagtions in the USS Liberty!
http://www.ussliberty.org/thebiglie.htm

The gun pictures are fake!
http://www.ussliberty.org/fraudanniversary.htm
It's imposible for the uss liberty to be mistaken for what there cliaming it was!
http://www.ussliberty.org/g/samosamo.gif

John Charles Crocker - 6/12/2007

The ship they thought it was was about half the size of the Liberty. By all American accounts its US flags were prominently displayed. The lettering on the ship was not Arabic. All in all it was pretty staggering negligence on the part of the Israelis involved.
With friendly fire incidents there is generally an inquiry and if negligence is involved there are consequences. In this case dozens of allies were killed and an international incident was caused and negligence seems clear (the only other option is a deliberate attack on a key ally, which seems unlikely). Those responsible should have faced consequences for their actions.

Kevin Allen Brinegar - 6/12/2007

It's been Refuted dumb ass!
http://www.ussliberty.org/thebiglie.htm

The gun pictures are fake!
http://www.ussliberty.org/fraudanniversary.htm
It's imposible for the uss liberty to be mistaken for what there cliaming it was!
http://www.ussliberty.org/g/samosamo.gif

N. Friedman - 6/12/2007

john,

You call for an objective look at the events and then, in basically the same breadth, call the attack a terrorist attack. That suggests that you are not interested in an objective look but to place blame on the Israelis.

Kevin Allen Brinegar - 6/12/2007

It that somthing you read in Cristol's book
http://www.ussliberty.org/thebiglie.htm

N. Friedman - 6/12/2007

John,

If the attack was the result of a mistake made during a war - which appears likely to be the case -, there would be no real culpability for the individuals involved.

Joseph Mutik - 6/12/2007

The USS liberty incident concoction (done by Jew hating liars) is one of the longest actions of hatred against the Jews in the U.S. history.
Two of the most anti-Jewish arms of the U.S. government are the State Department and the Intelligence community. Things change in both of these communities but the Jew hating people still hold important positions in both of them.
In the very good movie "The Good Shepherd", directed by Robert De Niro, the general in charge of the creation of the OSS (the precursor of CIA) says that organization should be "clean" which means ”No Jews, no Negroes, no Catholics”. Most of the WASP founders of the CIA, NSA etc. are still in charge and with hateful pleasure fuel anti-Jewish actions.
The case of Jonathan Pollard is the best example of anti-Jewish hate. Pollard the Jew spied for Israel and he has to be smashed. Hanson and Ames caused the death of many agents working for the USA but Pollard received a harsher sentence when he shouldn't have gotten more than 10 years for what he did. Today the only obstacle against Pollard's is the hatred of Jews coming from the U.S. intelligence community.
The same about the USS liberty incident. I am sure that anyone working for NSA signs some kind of non disclosure agreement and is bared from talking about what he did for NSA but the only exception is this group of Jew haters who are not bound by any rules because, for some, blaming the Jew is allowed. The USS liberty incident is actually the only friendly fire incident kept alive by using lies and innuendo.
The fact that the U.S. government declared in June 1967 that there is no U.S. ship in the area should be enough to give the Israelis the benefit of the doubt but this isn't for Jews.
One of the most used arguments, by this Jew hating group, is that Israel attacked USS liberty to cover up the intention to attack Syria but the record shows that Israel in formed USA, through diplomatic channels, about the the intention to attack Syria and did it before the attack.
Also there is the repeated bold lie about radio transmissions, in Hebrew, showing that the Israeli pilots knew that the ship is American. The NSA site has the transmissions and the English transcripts, online, but I couldn't find anything about the pilots knowing, what the liars say, that it's a U.S. ship.
What can be said about some yellow coward signing an affidavit, in which he admits that he perjured himself, only to get back and blame the Jews for imaginary actions.
The best way to describe all these bold liars and haters is the quote from a speech of the Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, included in this article:
"Perhaps the quotation from a recent speech by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer explains. Breyer said "I am now at the age where I remember quite clearly and with great detail, many things that never actually happened.""
I guess this group uses an "enhanced" version of a famous song as a mantra: "hate is all you need".

John Charles Crocker - 6/12/2007

What happened to the Israeli pilots and navy men who attacked the Liberty? I have found no mention of any consequences for the attackers.

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

That silly little History Channel program was the product of only selective presentation of material. If one only produces material based on only one POV, then one can expect there to be valid criticism of said produced material.

Unlike the mistaken claim that it "has never aired ... again", the program has been run multiple times on the HC. A Google search will confirm it.

It continues to be noted that nothing has been posted to rebut what Cristol takes Boston to task for.

john james olson - 6/12/2007

It is interesting to note that the History Channel once ran a documentary on the terrorist attack upon the USS Liberty. The documentary brought up many of the same conclusions James Ennes writes in his book "Assault on the Liberty." The History Channel experienced unprecedented protests from Jewish groups and has never aired the documantary again. Thank god for VCR's. I have an excellent copy of this program. Obviously the History Channel has continued to be plagued by pro-Zionist organizations and Israeli sympathizers. What else can explain their running this piece of tripe and outright fabrication by Cristol?

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

It's noted that the above two postings make no attempt to actually rebut with any factual material the material Cristol took the time to research and post.

The titles used is a clear indication of how shallow are the postings.

Mike Weeks - 6/12/2007

It's noted that nowhere are any facts presented as to why those reportedly quoted should be taken at face value as presented by the LVA.

However let's look at the complete sentence from the former captain of the USS Liberty, as only one example, and not the partial and out of context quote supplied by the LVA:

"[I]t appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity, it was on the other hand gross incompetence and aggravated dereliction of duty on the part of many officers and men of the state of Israel,” said McGonagle, who now lives in Palm Springs, Calif.

That's from the AP, June 9, 1997.

Well, OK, one more; here's what actually Clark Clifford reported to LBJ as it relats to that all impotant word, intent:

"The weight of the evidence is that the Israeli attacking force originally believed their target was Egyptian. ...

Based upon a thorough review of all information on the incident which has become available thus far, I wish to submit the following conclusions:

a. The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American."

One will never, ever see the LVA quote this conclusion of Clifford's.

There are, of course, more examples.

John H. Kimbol - 6/11/2007

Here are some interesting quotes from prominent leaders at the time regarding the 75-minute air and sea attack on the USS Liberty, during which a huge American flag and of course the identifying hull numbers on the ship were clearly visible:

"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous " -- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk

"...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty." -- CIA Director Richard Helms

"I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship." -- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby

"That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable."
-- Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson

"The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it 'inconceivable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error."
-- Lyndon Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31)

"A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted]."
-- Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack.

"Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers."
-- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor

"The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.... It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident.... I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American." -- Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry

That the attack was deliberate "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the National Security Agency
-- Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings

Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident. -- 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings

"Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate." -- David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings

"It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity." -- Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery, June 8, 1997

"To suggest that they [the Israeli Defense Forces] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument." -- Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14

There are many more such observations.

So who is this 'Judge' Cristol? What credentials does he have to stand against these august Americans?

john james olson - 6/11/2007

Cristol's attempt to discredit the survivors of the USS Liberty is pathetic. The report Cristol harps about is not the report that was taken turning the official interrogation. There are officers from the Liberty as well as those on McCain's panel that are on record stating the so-called "official" report is not the one they sign and that there were numerous ommissions and changes made.

Cristol is an Israeli apologist with no credentials who happened to write a poorly documented book attempting to debunk the survivors accusations.

There has never been a FULL Congressional investigation into the terrorist attack on the Liberty. This is literally unprecedented and Christol offers no explanation other than a falsehood that no new evidence has been submitted since 1967. That simply isn't true. McCain needed the report to conform to certain standards as he was the one responsible for not sending a warning to the Liberty's Capt. that U.S. intelligence had pciked up reports that the ship would indeed be attacked. Christol doesn't explain either why President Johnson himself called back the fighter jets from the Saratoga that were on their way to aid the battered unarmed vessel. He merely asks a rhetorical question of why would other administrations continue the cover-up. That is easy to answer, AIPAC and the Israel lobby. Also no presidential administration has bothered to reopen JFK assassination since the Warren Report, so why would one bother encuring the wrath of one of the biggest lobbying groups and risk their job to reopen the files on the Liberty?

Jame Ennes, a Lt. and survivor of the attack, wrote an excellent book detailing the incident. An Israel fighter pilot contacted Ennes after the publication of his book and told him that Israel knew they were attacking a U.S. vessel. Ennes and others have supplied the powers that be with literally tons of evidence contradicting Israel's lame excuse of mistaken identity. The attack lasted longer than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, mistakes like that just don't happen, especially from a military that claims to be the best. A U.S. spy plane flying over the Liberty caught the conversations of the Israeli pilots on tape. that plane was order to be shot down and narrowly escaped the same fate as the Liberty. If Israel and her supporters are so convinced that it was merely a "tragic accident" then they have nothing to fear the convening of a FULL Congressional investigation. It is amazing to see how many Jewish Americans refuse to allow this and resort to the kneejerk action of taring and feathering anyone who suggests such an investigation as being an anti-semite. That type of behavior certainly makes the arguement of duel loyalty with Israel winning out.