The USS LIBERTY Incident

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark wrote:

"Your posts on this thread and others are liberally sprinkled with insults."

Perhaps you can cite examples of where I have ever insulted you anywhere on this forum or insulted anyone on this thread. I don’t claim to be a saint but I usually wait to be provoked before insulting someone. I have done nothing to provoke your insults on this or other threa

"Your insult to me this time is 'Sid, your hero'. Well, I happen to agree with a lot of what Sid says actually but does that make Sid my hero? No."

I don’t see how referring to a forum member you regularly come to the defense of and agree with 95% of the time or more as “your hero” constitutes an insult especially since you called me a “knucklehead”, previously insinuated I was crazy, insinuated I was stupid on previous occasions and now say I’m “bloody stupid”.

"Why are you so obsessed with the postings and opinions of Sid Walker? Why do you attack him on a regular basis? Are people entitled to their opinions on this Forum? Your obsession with and pursuit of Sid is, like your moral sermanising, pathetic."

“Obsession” and “attack him” are exaggerations my positions are diametrically opposed to his on most issues that come up on this forum. I find some of his views offensive. Just as he has the right to express his views here I have the right to challenge them and ask him about them. If he finds my behavior abusive he is free to complain to a moderator about it. If he doesn’t want to answer questions about his views on certain issues he shouldn’t bring them up.

"btw, who are you trying to fool? You use the bump to express hubris. Other Forum members usually use it to resurrect old threads which have been dormant for some time. This thread has not been dormant, at least not in recent weeks. However, I don't mind if you bump your posts immediately after making them. Only a knucklehead would behave like that so you're just proving me right."

It would be a waste of my time to debate this question any futher with you. If you aren’t the only active member of this forum who doesn’t know about the software glitch I referred to you are one of the few. Like I already said it is not uncommon for members to bump a thread when they notice their most recent post hasn’t registered on the forum board. See this recent post made by Sid for example http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=106563

“Perhaps you might like to persuade your hero--A Jay Cristol--to join the Forum.

I've got some questions for him.”

Moderators please take note of this extremely offensive insult by Mr. Stapleton! LOL

If you want to ask him some questions or get him to join here you are free to contact him yourself

“Maybe Kidd was two-faced. He wouldn't be the first.”

If he was there is no reason to take his opinions seriously. I think options 1) or 2) far more likely

“Excuse me, smartass, I have read the affidavit:”

I never said you didn’t just that you weren’t familiar with it

And how wrong you were. Dismissing dissenters by rudely inferring that they have an inferior grasp of the material won't work here. Bear that in mind.

“So what if Kidd spoke disparagingly of Cristol behind his back?”

I find it very hard to believe that anyone but a snake would speak so disparagingly of someone being their back then choose to socialize with them and send him a note like the one Kidd sent the judge.

I don't.

Ever heard of the real world? There's a lotta snakes out there. Many are discussed right here on the Forum.

“When a person of historical significance speaks out against Israel and its past behaviour, then it's all about destroying that person's credibility, isn't it Len?”

No, I qnly question people’s credibility when I see evidence they are dishonest or have bad memories. Though he can be evasive at times I don’t think Sid is dishonest.

Again the obsession with Sid Walker.

“Boston's affidavit (and article, see post #79) are an indictment of the 'official inquiries' and proof that a coverup was ordered by LBJ to protect Israel's ass.”

They aren’t proof of anything they are simply his uncolaborated statements.

Yeah, right. And if Arlen Spector ever comes clean and states that the SBT was fantasy and the WC was a fraud, then, hey, that's just an uncollaborated (uncorroborated?) statement. And it must be dismissed at once. Right?

“Like Admiral Moorer, Boston has great credibility”

I have no reason to doubt the admiral’s credibility though I disagree with him. Mr. Boston is another story. Other than the fact he backs your position what do you think makes this confessed perjurer credible?

So the new label for Boston is confessed perjurer? You really love those labels.

“I've got strong doubts about the motives of A Jay Cristol, however.”

This doesn’t have anything to do with his ethnicity does it? If you have any other reasons to have “strong doubts about [his] motives” tell us what they are.

No it doesn't have anything to do with his ethnicity. It has plenty to do with his efforts to give the historical narrative an ever so subtle tweak. Like, 'yes it was terrible. Horrible. Gross incompetence. But hey, it was just an accident'.

And by the way, if I had a bias against Jewish writers, why would I praise Avner Cohen?

“They were all forced to sign off on the COI 'investigation'.”

Do you have any evidence of this? One of the other members of the court denies this. http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/AtkinsonInterview.pdf

“Don't be so bloody stupid”

Remember what I said about sinking to your level

Remember what I said about taking the high moral ground? You might get altitude sickness.

I wrote: “According to Cristol, Boston reaffirmed his faith in the COI’s investigation saying “all the facts were there” and “was offended by the allegations of coverup” etc and that Ennes and other survivors were “emotional” and “wrong”.”

Mark replied “Well Cristol's obviously full of it, isn't he? Boston believes no such things.”

You missed the point. Boston seems to have changed his views 180 degrees in a few years. Funny that he waited for the admiral to die to speak up. Ennes’ recollection of Kidd’s position regarding the COI is much closer to Cristol’s than to Boston’s

Isn't it odd that Cristol seems to have interposed himself neatly into these 'conflicting' allegations which apparently exist among the main players in this affair. And while you note how convenient it is for Boston that Kidd is no longer with us, it also appears to be convenient for Cristol as well. If only we could learn what Admiral Kidd REALLY thought about Judge Cristol. The interesting note he apparently sent to Cristol falls short of convincing me. If only we could ask him.

[Mark Stapleton]

Len,

I notice you have failed to respond to my post which referred to the late Admiral Moorer's opinion of Israel's actions in sinking the Liberty (post #117).

I just did partially in my post about the life rafts. Yes he believed the attack was no accident (or believes I think he's still alive), but he didn't have any direct knowledge of what happened. There are highly qualified people on both sides of this debate. I previously replied to Moorer's comment about being able to ID the Liberty.

The late Admiral believed with great conviction that the attack was deliberate, yet like Kidd, McGonagle and the others he was forced to tow the official line of mistaken identity forced on them by LBJ.

When and if you have any evidence other than the word of an admited purjurer let us know. AFAIK he never said this.

Who? What?

I have the word of the Admiral himself (see post #117).

If you're going to throw that label around, then try to make sure it's pointed at the right target (after you learn how to spell it correctly of course).

Maybe you should hire that assistant after all.

As for McGonagle he reaffirmed his belief the attack was due to negligence 30 years after the fact in a ceremony with other survivors long after he had retired from the Navy.

[Sid Walker]

Your diligence in maintaining these detailed debates with Len is admirable, Mark. I say that without any irony. You have the endurance to play our resident South American sophist at his own game. In my opinion, of course, you win.

I have less patience for this kind of grueling duel and it seems to have decreased over time. In a curious kind of way, I also have developed greater empathy, over time, for the ideological enemy.

Len has to dispute survivors' accounts of the attack on the USS Liberty. He has to dispute the rather obvious fact that it was a deliberate attack (deliberate, that is, on the part of those who ordered the assault - I doubt they told Eshkol!)

He has to dispute these things, like Sisyphus has to keep rolling the boulder up the hill.

He has to do it, that is, until he uncouples the chain that fastens him to the boulder and walks away a free man.

[Len Colby]

The late Admiral believed with great conviction that the attack was deliberate, yet like Kidd, McGonagle and the others he was forced to tow the official line of mistaken identity forced on them by LBJ.

When and if you have any evidence other than the word of an admitted perjurer let us know. AFAIK he never said this.

Who? What?

I have the word of the Admiral himself (see post #117).

If you're going to throw that label around, then try to make sure it's pointed at the right target

Where did Moorer say “he was forced to tow the official line of mistaken identity”?

“ (after you learn how to spell it correctly of course).”

Great you’re criticizing me for typos now.

MARK- “Excuse me, smartass, I have read the affidavit:”

ME -I never said you didn’t just that you weren’t familiar with it

MARK - And how wrong you were. Dismissing dissenters by rudely inferring that they have an inferior grasp of the material won't work here. Bear that in mind.

Funny you call me “smartass”, “knucklehead” and “bloody stupid” insinuate I’m crazy but I’m the rude one! Yeah right.

Like it or not your question showed that you weren’t very familiar with the contents affidavit. It wasn’t like you forgot an arcane detail in a voluminous document like the WCR or the NIST report, you were unaware of one of the main points in a 20 odd paragraph affidavit. It would be akin to someone claiming familiarity with the Bill of Rights asking if the right to trial by jury is guaranteed in the US Constitution.

It was not rude to point out that you were unfamiliar with it nor did I do so in a rude way. You are the only person acting rudely on this thread.

ME - I find it very hard to believe that anyone but a snake would speak so disparagingly of someone being their back then choose to socialize with them and send him a note like the one Kidd sent the judge.

MARK - I don't.

Ever heard of the real world? There's a lotta snakes out there. Many are discussed right here on the Forum.

OK for your theory to work you have to believe Cristol is a xxxx and that Kidd is two faced and that Admiral McCain was in on it too, why not suspect Admiral Moorer who was next up on the chain of command as well? The only evidence you have to support your position are the claims, in many cases made decades after the fact, of a confessed perjurer.

If Kidd is as two faced as your theory supposes his opinions are hardly relevant.

ME - I don’t think Sid is dishonest.

MARK - Again the obsession with Sid Walker.

How horrible of me I said Sid is honest.

MARK - Boston's affidavit (and article, see post #79) are an indictment of the 'official inquiries' and proof that a coverup was ordered by LBJ to protect Israel's ass.

ME - They aren’t proof of anything they are simply his uncolaborated statements.

ME - Yeah, right. And if Arlen Spector ever comes clean and states that the SBT was fantasy and the WC was a fraud, then, hey, that's just an uncollaborated (uncorroborated?) statement. And it must be dismissed at once. Right?

Poor analogy Specter played a far more active role in the WC than Boston did in the COI. Unlike the former the latter wasn’t the father of a ‘novel’ theory rejected by many experts in the field which seemingly necessitates putting people in locations different from those seen on film. Even if Specter* started saying such things this wouldn’t be proof in and of itself that the WCR was a fraud it could be possible it was a publicity stunt (how many false confessions have their been concerning the assassination) or because he came to believe the assassination was a conspiracy and said it just to strengthen the case. There is a lot of data in the WCR that contradicts it’s conclusions the same same can’t be said for the COI.

* (And even if you learn how to spell his name correctly LOL)

“So the new label for Boston is confessed perjurer? You really love those labels”

What can I say? In his 2004 affidavit he confessed to committing perjury in 1967. I of course believe he perjured himself on the later occasion. He has never given a satisfactory explanation for why he and Kidd signed why he now claims they knew at the time to be a fraudulent document. He invoked the ‘Nuremberg defense’ but as a military lawyer and second generation admiral they must have known soldiers have a “moral obligation — to report [an unlawful] order and, more important[ly], [to] refuse to obey it… U.S. military law is crystal clear on this subject: Service members have the right to refuse to obey an illegal order”. http:// www.omjp.org/artLarryNavyT.doc

MARK - I've got strong doubts about the motives of A Jay Cristol, however.

ME - This doesn’t have anything to do with his ethnicity does it? If you have any other reasons to have “strong doubts about [his]motives” tell us what they are.

MARK - No it doesn't have anything to do with his ethnicity. It has plenty to do with his efforts to give the historical narrative an ever so subtle tweak. Like, 'yes it was terrible. Horrible. Gross incompetence. But hey, it was just an accident'.

This was the conclusion Boston and Kidd (among others) endorsed at the time. Cristol didn’t invent this theory he merely compiled evidence to support it.

In this case your argument is totally circular. You “have got strong doubts about the motives of” (i.e. credibility of) anyone who pushes the theory that the attack was accidental thus you can argue that no one credible backs that theory thus you are justified in having “strong doubts about the” credibility of anyone who backs it.

I suppose you’d have us believe you weren’t alluding to his ethnicity when you wrote the following:

“His transition from Federal Bankruptcy Judge (in the state of Florida--a stronghold of support for Israel) to authoritative historian seems to have been remarkably seamless…So Len, naturally I have to ask the question, is Cristol as staunchly supportive of Israel as yourself?”

By “a stronghold of support for Israel” didn’t you really mean, ‘a state with a lot of Jews’?

”And by the way, if I had a bias against Jewish writers, why would I praise Avner Cohen?”

You have no bias against them when they tell you what you want to hear, but if they contradict what you think about Israel you ‘have strong doubts about their credibility’.

“Isn't it odd that Cristol seems to have interposed himself neatly into these 'conflicting' allegations which apparently exist among the main players in this affair.”

Not in the least bit ‘odd’ because there wasn’t a ‘conflict’ until Boston made his affidavit, Cristol made contact with Boston and Kidd many years beforehand. He was investigating the Liberty incident it was only natural for him to contact the principle players. While he can show he was on friendly terms with Kidd we have only Boston’s say so that he had any contact with the admiral after the COI. There was no reason for Cristol to discuss his relationship with the admiral till Boston made his allegations.

“And while you note how convenient it is for Boston that Kidd is no longer with us, it also appears to be convenient for Cristol as well.”

What’s “odd” is that while Boston could have spoken up during the 32 years that had passed between the COI, especially after they both had retired, he never did. Even though he knew Cristol was researching the case but he remained silent. What’s also “odd” is that if Kidd really felt the way Boston claims he did he apparently never told anyone else about it. Even Ennes said he defended the COI till the day he died.

Cristol spent many years researching the incident and spoke to many of the people involved. At least two of the people he spoke to died before he published the book (Rusk in 1994 and Kidd 5 years later). So it’s not as if for reasons not clearly defined he didn’t say anything till after Kidd had died. He even published his dissertation, which is on file with the Library of Congress in 1997 about 2 years before the admiral’s death and presumably he is mentioned there as well.

“If only we could learn what Admiral Kidd REALLY thought about Judge Cristol. The interesting note he apparently sent to Cristol falls short of convincing me.”

I doubt anything would convince you. While not conclusive the note, Ennes recollection of Kidd’s position, Cristol’s ‘notes’ and the fact that Boston perjured himself at least once concerning the case and only spoke up after the only person who could contradict him died all reinforce Cristol’s version of events on the other hand we have only the word of a man in his 80’s.

SID WROTE:

“Len has to dispute survivors' accounts of the attack on the USS Liberty.”

Not really, though most of them believe the attack was intentional nothing that they agree on proves that to be the case.

“He has to dispute the rather obvious fact that it was a deliberate attack (deliberate, that is, on the part of those who ordered the assault - I doubt they told Eshkol!)”

There is little dispute over who ordered the attack, what’s missing is convincing evidence they knew the target was an American ship.

[Mark Stapleton]

“So the new label for Boston is confessed perjurer? You really love those labels”

What can I say? In his 2004 affidavit he confessed to committing perjury in 1967. I of course believe he perjured himself on the later occasion. He has never given a satisfactory explanation for why he and Kidd signed why he now claims they knew at the time to be a fraudulent document. He invoked the ‘Nuremberg defense’ but as a military lawyer and second generation admiral they must have known soldiers have a “moral obligation — to report [an unlawful] order and, more important[ly], [to] refuse to obey it… U.S. military law is crystal clear on this subject: Service members have the right to refuse to obey an illegal order”. http:// www.omjp.org/artLarryNavyT.doc

Well, this excerpt from Boston's article of June 8, 2007 (post79) explains Boston's rationale:

For decades, I have remained silent. I am a military man, and when orders come in from the secretary of defense and president of the United States, I follow them. However, attempts to rewrite history and concern for my country compel me to share the truth.

Readers can accept Boston's explanation or reject it. I accept it.

Readers can accept or reject Len's hatchet job on Boston's character. I reject it.

In any case, if Boston is lying then why is he lying? I can't see what Boston has to gain. He would surely know that he would provoke a storm of criticism from Cristol and his supporters. I think he showed courage both in 2004 and again here.

So Len, what's his motive for making these claims? If you can provide a plausible motive, I'm all ears.

Merely attaching labels like 'admitted perjuror' doesn't cut it. I already said I accepted Boston's explanation for signing off on the COI in 1967.

[Mark Stapleton]

The late Admiral believed with great conviction that the attack was deliberate, yet like Kidd, McGonagle and the others he was forced to tow the official line of mistaken identity forced on them by LBJ.

When and if you have any evidence other than the word of an admitted perjurer let us know. AFAIK he never said this.

Who? What?

I have the word of the Admiral himself (see post #117).

If you're going to throw that label around, then try to make sure it's pointed at the right target

Where did Moorer say “he was forced to tow the official line of mistaken identity”?

“ (after you learn how to spell it correctly of course).”

Great you’re criticizing me for typos now.

No, I was criticising you for getting your perjurors mixed up. Your spelling errors were an added bonus (no charge).

MARK- “Excuse me, smartass, I have read the affidavit:”

ME -I never said you didn’t just that you weren’t familiar with it

MARK - And how wrong you were. Dismissing dissenters by rudely inferring that they have an inferior grasp of the material won't work here. Bear that in mind.

Funny you call me “smartass”, “knucklehead” and “bloody stupid” insinuate I’m crazy but I’m the rude one! Yeah right.

How could anyone ever accuse you of rudeness?

Like it or not your question showed that you weren’t very familiar with the contents affidavit. It wasn’t like you forgot an arcane detail in a voluminous document like the WCR or the NIST report, you were unaware of one of the main points in a 20 odd paragraph affidavit. It would be akin to someone claiming familiarity with the Bill of Rights asking if the right to trial by jury is guaranteed in the US Constitution.

It was a downright disgrace.

It was not rude to point out that you were unfamiliar with it nor did I do so in a rude way. You are the only person acting rudely on this thread.

ME - I find it very hard to believe that anyone but a snake would speak so disparagingly of someone being their back then choose to socialize with them and send him a note like the one Kidd sent the judge.

MARK - I don't.

Ever heard of the real world? There's a lotta snakes out there. Many are discussed right here on the Forum.

OK for your theory to work you have to believe Cristol is a xxxx and that Kidd is two faced and that Admiral McCain was in on it too, why not suspect Admiral Moorer who was next up on the chain of command as well? The only evidence you have to support your position are the claims, in many cases made decades after the fact, of a confessed perjurer.

No, I don't have to believe those things at all.

I just need to recognize spin when I see it.

(I played cricket, you know).

If Kidd is as two faced as your theory supposes his opinions are hardly relevant.

ME - I don’t think Sid is dishonest.

MARK - Again the obsession with Sid Walker.

How horrible of me I said Sid is honest.

MARK - Boston's affidavit (and article, see post #79) are an indictment of the 'official inquiries' and proof that a coverup was ordered by LBJ to protect Israel's ass.

ME - They aren’t proof of anything they are simply his uncolaborated statements.

ME - Yeah, right. And if Arlen Spector ever comes clean and states that the SBT was fantasy and the WC was a fraud, then, hey, that's just an uncollaborated (uncorroborated?) statement. And it must be dismissed at once. Right?

Poor analogy Specter played a far more active role in the WC than Boston did in the COI. Unlike the former the latter wasn’t the father of a ‘novel’ theory rejected by many experts in the field which seemingly necessitates putting people in locations different from those seen on film. Even if Specter* started saying such things this wouldn’t be proof in and of itself that the WCR was a fraud it could be possible it was a publicity stunt (how many false confessions have their been concerning the assassination) or because he came to believe the assassination was a conspiracy and said it just to strengthen the case. There is a lot of data in the WCR that contradicts it’s conclusions the same same can’t be said for the COI.

Having tried and failed to make any sense out of that, I must conclude this is one of your funniest posts.

* (And even if you learn how to spell his name correctly LOL)

“So the new label for Boston is confessed perjurer? You really love those labels”

What can I say? In his 2004 affidavit he confessed to committing perjury in 1967. I of course believe he perjured himself on the later occasion. He has never given a satisfactory explanation for why he and Kidd signed why he now claims they knew at the time to be a fraudulent document. He invoked the ‘Nuremberg defense’ but as a military lawyer and second generation admiral they must have known soldiers have a “moral obligation — to report [an unlawful] order and, more important[ly], [to] refuse to obey it… U.S. military law is crystal clear on this subject: Service members have the right to refuse to obey an illegal order”. http:// www.omjp.org/artLarryNavyT.doc

MARK - I've got strong doubts about the motives of A Jay Cristol, however.

ME - This doesn’t have anything to do with his ethnicity does it? If you have any other reasons to have “strong doubts about [his]motives” tell us what they are.

MARK - No it doesn't have anything to do with his ethnicity. It has plenty to do with his efforts to give the historical narrative an ever so subtle tweak. Like, 'yes it was terrible. Horrible. Gross incompetence. But hey, it was just an accident'.

This was the conclusion Boston and Kidd (among others) endorsed at the time. Cristol didn’t invent this theory he merely compiled evidence to support it.

In this case your argument is totally circular. You “have got strong doubts about the motives of” (i.e. credibility of) anyone who pushes the theory that the attack was accidental thus you can argue that no one credible backs that theory thus you are justified in having “strong doubts about the” credibility of anyone who backs it.

I suppose you’d have us believe you weren’t alluding to his ethnicity when you wrote the following:

“His transition from Federal Bankruptcy Judge (in the state of Florida--a stronghold of support for Israel) to authoritative historian seems to have been remarkably seamless…So Len, naturally I have to ask the question, is Cristol as staunchly supportive of Israel as yourself?”

By “a stronghold of support for Israel” didn’t you really mean, ‘a state with a lot of Jews’?

No, I meant a stronghold of support for Israel. Pay attention.

”And by the way, if I had a bias against Jewish writers, why would I praise Avner Cohen?”

You have no bias against them when they tell you what you want to hear, but if they contradict what you think about Israel you ‘have strong doubts about their credibility’.

Do I? How about you?

“Isn't it odd that Cristol seems to have interposed himself neatly into these 'conflicting' allegations which apparently exist among the main players in this affair.”

Not in the least bit ‘odd’ because there wasn’t a ‘conflict’ until Boston made his affidavit, Cristol made contact with Boston and Kidd many years beforehand. He was investigating the Liberty incident it was only natural for him to contact the principle players. While he can show he was on friendly terms with Kidd we have only Boston’s say so that he had any contact with the admiral after the COI. There was no reason for Cristol to discuss his relationship with the admiral till Boston made his allegations.

Sounds great, but it's a pile of rubbish.

“And while you note how convenient it is for Boston that Kidd is no longer with us, it also appears to be convenient for Cristol as well.”

What’s “odd” is that while Boston could have spoken up during the 32 years that had passed between the COI, especially after they both had retired, he never did. Even though he knew Cristol was researching the case but he remained silent. What’s also “odd” is that if Kidd really felt the way Boston claims he did he apparently never told anyone else about it. Even Ennes said he defended the COI till the day he died.

Cristol spent many years researching the incident and spoke to many of the people involved. At least two of the people he spoke to died before he published the book (Rusk in 1994 and Kidd 5 years later). So it’s not as if for reasons not clearly defined he didn’t say anything till after Kidd had died. He even published his dissertation, which is on file with the Library of Congress in 1997 about 2 years before the admiral’s death and presumably he is mentioned there as well.

“If only we could learn what Admiral Kidd REALLY thought about Judge Cristol. The interesting note he apparently sent to Cristol falls short of convincing me.”

I doubt anything would convince you. While not conclusive the note, Ennes recollection of Kidd’s position, Cristol’s ‘notes’ and the fact that Boston perjured himself at least once concerning the case and only spoke up after the only person who could contradict him died all reinforce Cristol’s version of events on the other hand we have only the word of a man in his 80’s.

If he's that old he's got to be lying.

SID WROTE:

“Len has to dispute survivors' accounts of the attack on the USS Liberty.”

Not really, though most of them believe the attack was intentional nothing that they agree on proves that to be the case.

“He has to dispute the rather obvious fact that it was a deliberate attack (deliberate, that is, on the part of those who ordered the assault - I doubt they told Eshkol!)”

There is little dispute over who ordered the attack, what’s missing is convincing evidence they knew the target was an American ship.

Len, you forgot the bit about pushing the boulder up the hill. That was the funniest part.

[Len Colby]

“So the new label for Boston is confessed perjurer? You really love those labels”

What can I say? In his 2004 affidavit he confessed to committing perjury in 1967. I of course believe he perjured himself on the later occasion. He has never given a satisfactory explanation for why he and Kidd signed why he now claims they knew at the time to be a fraudulent document. He invoked the ‘Nuremberg defense’ but as a military lawyer and second generation admiral they must have known soldiers have a “moral obligation — to report [an unlawful] order and, more important[ly], [to] refuse to obey it… U.S. military law is crystal clear on this subject: Service members have the right to refuse to obey an illegal order”. http:// www.omjp.org/artLarryNavyT.doc

Well, this excerpt from Boston's article of June 8, 2007 (post79) explains Boston's rationale:

For decades, I have remained silent. I am a military man, and when orders come in from the secretary of defense and president of the United States, I follow them. However, attempts to rewrite history and concern for my country compel me to share the truth.

Readers can accept Boston's explanation or reject it. I accept it.

Readers can accept or reject Len's hatchet job on Boston's character. I reject it.

In any case, if Boston is lying then why is he lying? I can't see what Boston has to gain. He would surely know that he would provoke a storm of criticism from Cristol and his supporters. I think he showed courage both in 2004 and again here.

So Len, what's his motive for making these claims? If you can provide a plausible motive, I'm all ears.

Merely attaching labels like 'admitted perjuror' doesn't cut it. I already said I accepted Boston's explanation for signing off on the COI in 1967.

Motive for lying I can see two:

1) He could have become convinced recently that the Israeli’s did know the Liberty was an American ship and out of guilt for his role in the COI and/or a desire to make the case stronger made up his story.

2) A desire for attention.

These reasons aren’t mutually exclusive and some combination of the two could be at play.

We also can’t ignore his advanced age, I know some people his age who seem reasonably coherent but whose recollections of the past are a bit scrambled. This could also be in conjunction with any combination of the above motives.

I’m not convinced by his explanation of his timing. Both he and Kidd must have been out of the Navy for years before the latter passed away as Cristol points out if what he’s saying is true numerous occurrences should have stirred his ire earlier.

Also as I pointed out his ‘Nuremberg defense’ doesn’t hold any water because as a WWII era military lawyer he should have known better than anyone else that not only was he not obliged to follow an order he knew to be illegal but he was obliged to NOT follow it and report it.

The facts that Kidd went his grave defending the COI and that another participant said it was legit (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/AtkinsonInterview.pdf) also undermine Boston’s claims.

“No, I was criticising you for getting your perjurors mixed up.”

I was unclear by perjurer I was referring to Boston since to made reference to “Kidd…and the others”

“How could anyone ever accuse you of rudeness?”

Point out where I’ve been rude on this thread to anyone or to you anywhere on this forum. Point out were I’ve been rude without provocation

ME - OK for your theory to work you have to believe Cristol is a xxxx and that Kidd is two faced and that Admiral McCain was in on it too, why not suspect Admiral Moorer who was next up on the chain of command as well? The only evidence you have to support your position are the claims, in many cases made decades after the fact, of a confessed perjurer.

MARK - No, I don't have to believe those things at all.

Of course you do.

Unless one of them has a faulty memory, either Cristol or Boston is lying about their phone calls.

Unless Kidd was ‘two faced’ Boston was mistaken about his feelings about Cristol.

If the fix was in at the COI it would be hard to see how McCain wouldn’t have been involved; he was the ‘convening authority’, he set the deadline and chose Kidd and IIRC approved the others, he approved the COI report and cut short Sterling’s review. He, Moorer and the chairman of the JCS were the only people between McNamara and Kidd in the chain of command.

“No, I meant a stronghold of support for Israel. Pay attention.”

Then I’m sure you can point us to evidence that you knew of before making that post indicating that Floridians are more likely to support Israel than other Americans that doesn’t attribute this to the large number of Jews that live their.

“Sounds great, but it's a pile of rubbish.”

One of your trademarks is calling something crap/rubbish/nonsense etc without being able to say why.

“Having tried and failed to make any sense out of that, I must conclude this is one of your funniest posts.”

I give you more credit than that; it’s not that difficult to figure out.

“If he's that old he's got to be lying.”

We’ve been through that strawman before. I’m not indicating a correlation between advanced age and dishonesty but rather age and memory.

...research shows that memory skills tend to decline dramatically in old age, with decreasing levels of accuracy and increasing errors.

[…]

"Our study suggests that the failing memories of older adults, including their tendency to remember things that never happened, are not an inevitable consequence of aging," said Henry L. "Roddy" Roediger III, study co-author and James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor at Washington University.

[…]

"We tested a group of adults with an average age of 75 years and found that about one out of four had managed to avoid the memory declines so common in older adults," said Roediger.

[…]

Roediger, a leading expert on human memory, has focused recent research on understanding cognitive processes behind the creation of false memories, also known as memory illusions. Human memory, he explains, is not a storehouse of crystal clear, video images available for immediate and 100 percent accurate recall.

[…]

Several theories exist for why false memories increase with age. One suggests that older adults fail to properly encode information as an event is experienced or have problems retrieving and sorting such details during recall a problem known as source monitoring.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/...30811070612.htm

OK so “about one out of four” “adults with an average age of 75” “managed to avoid the memory declines so common in older adults" especially “the creation of false memories” thus about 75% don’t. I assume a carrier pilot during WW2 would be between 22 and 30 years-old (Evan can you shed light on this?) thus Boston would hace been 82 – 92 when he made his affidavit in 2004 and 85 – 95 in 2007. Thus the odds that he was suffering from memory problems is probably well over 80%.

[Mark Stapleton]

Motive for lying I can see two:

1) He could have become convinced recently that the Israeli’s did know the Liberty was an American ship and out of guilt for his role in the COI and/or a desire to make the case stronger made up his story.

2) A desire for attention.

These reasons aren’t mutually exclusive and some combination of the two could be at play.

We also can’t ignore his advanced age, I know some people his age who seem reasonably coherent but whose recollections of the past are a bit scrambled. This could also be in conjunction with any combination of the above motives.

I’m not convinced by his explanation of his timing. Both he and Kidd must have been out of the Navy for years before the latter passed away as Cristol points out if what he’s saying is true numerous occurrences should have stirred his ire earlier.

I was thinking more along the lines of whether Boston may have a gripe with Israel. But I've yet to see any evidence of that, outside his understandable anger at having been pressured into participating in a phony investigation conducted for the purpose of clearing Israel's name.

I don't find your first two possible motives very compelling and as for his age, his recent writings don't reveal any problem with memory retrieval. His recall of minor details precludes the possibility that he would have trouble recalling something as significant as being told that LBJ and Mac had ordained the final outcome of the report.

Here's a few paras:

Adm. Kidd and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy's official investigation, though we both estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry would take at least six months.

We boarded the crippled ship at sea and interviewed survivors. The evidence was clear. We both believed with certainty that this attack was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.

I am certain the Israeli pilots and commanders who had ordered the attack knew the ship was American. I saw the bullet-riddled American flag that had been raised by the crew after their first flag had been shot down completely. I heard testimony that made it clear the Israelis intended there be no survivors. Not only did they attack with napalm, gunfire and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned at close range three life rafts that had been launched in an attempt to save the most seriously wounded.

I am outraged at the efforts of Israel's apologists to claim this attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”

Adm. Kidd told me that after receiving the president's cover-up orders, he was instructed to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Department of Defense and rewrite portions of the court's findings. He said, “Ward, they're not interested in the facts. It's a political matter, and we cannot talk about it.” We were to “put a lid on it” and caution everyone involved never to speak of it again.

I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent to Washington. I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand-correct and initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. In addition, the testimony of Lt. Lloyd Painter concerning the deliberate machine-gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and including in the original transcript, is now missing.

Notice he mentions that LBJ gave them just a week to gather evidence, when he and Kidd believed they needed six months.

The transcripts differ from the originals sent by Boston and the testimony of one of the witnesses is missing.

It doesn't seem like his memory is faulty.

Also, its follows the pattern of coverups and scandals which were a feature of LBJ's corrupt administration. LBJ has a long record of slavish devotion to Israel, from persuading Ike not to impose sanctions on Israel in 1957, arming them to the teeth and allowing Israel to become a nuclear weapon state.

A bit off topic but my personal opinion is that the Liberty coverup, the sham nuclear inspection regime and the JFK assassination all share the common link of LBJ and Israel, supported by their powerful friends.

[Mark Stapleton]

“So the new label for Boston is confessed perjurer? You really love those labels”

What can I say? In his 2004 affidavit he confessed to committing perjury in 1967. I of course believe he perjured himself on the later occasion. He has never given a satisfactory explanation for why he and Kidd signed why he now claims they knew at the time to be a fraudulent document. He invoked the ‘Nuremberg defense’ but as a military lawyer and second generation admiral they must have known soldiers have a “moral obligation — to report [an unlawful] order and, more important[ly], [to] refuse to obey it… U.S. military law is crystal clear on this subject: Service members have the right to refuse to obey an illegal order”. http:// www.omjp.org/artLarryNavyT.doc

Well, this excerpt from Boston's article of June 8, 2007 (post79) explains Boston's rationale:

For decades, I have remained silent. I am a military man, and when orders come in from the secretary of defense and president of the United States, I follow them. However, attempts to rewrite history and concern for my country compel me to share the truth.

Readers can accept Boston's explanation or reject it. I accept it.

Readers can accept or reject Len's hatchet job on Boston's character. I reject it.

In any case, if Boston is lying then why is he lying? I can't see what Boston has to gain. He would surely know that he would provoke a storm of criticism from Cristol and his supporters. I think he showed courage both in 2004 and again here.

So Len, what's his motive for making these claims? If you can provide a plausible motive, I'm all ears.

Merely attaching labels like 'admitted perjuror' doesn't cut it. I already said I accepted Boston's explanation for signing off on the COI in 1967.

Motive for lying I can see two:

1) He could have become convinced recently that the Israeli’s did know the Liberty was an American ship and out of guilt for his role in the COI and/or a desire to make the case stronger made up his story.

2) A desire for attention.

These reasons aren’t mutually exclusive and some combination of the two could be at play.

We also can’t ignore his advanced age, I know some people his age who seem reasonably coherent but whose recollections of the past are a bit scrambled. This could also be in conjunction with any combination of the above motives.

I’m not convinced by his explanation of his timing. Both he and Kidd must have been out of the Navy for years before the latter passed away as Cristol points out if what he’s saying is true numerous occurrences should have stirred his ire earlier.

Also as I pointed out his ‘Nuremberg defense’ doesn’t hold any water because as a WWII era military lawyer he should have known better than anyone else that not only was he not obliged to follow an order he knew to be illegal but he was obliged to NOT follow it and report it.

The facts that Kidd went his grave defending the COI and that another participant said it was legit (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/AtkinsonInterview.pdf) also undermine Boston’s claims.

“No, I was criticising you for getting your perjurors mixed up.”

I was unclear by perjurer I was referring to Boston since to made reference to “Kidd…and the others”

“How could anyone ever accuse you of rudeness?”

Point out where I’ve been rude on this thread to anyone or to you anywhere on this forum. Point out were I’ve been rude without provocation

ME - OK for your theory to work you have to believe Cristol is a xxxx and that Kidd is two faced and that Admiral McCain was in on it too, why not suspect Admiral Moorer who was next up on the chain of command as well? The only evidence you have to support your position are the claims, in many cases made decades after the fact, of a confessed perjurer.

MARK - No, I don't have to believe those things at all.

Of course you do.

Unless one of them has a faulty memory, either Cristol or Boston is lying about their phone calls.

Unless Kidd was ‘two faced’ Boston was mistaken about his feelings about Cristol.

If the fix was in at the COI it would be hard to see how McCain wouldn’t have been involved; he was the ‘convening authority’, he set the deadline and chose Kidd and IIRC approved the others, he approved the COI report and cut short Sterling’s review. He, Moorer and the chairman of the JCS were the only people between McNamara and Kidd in the chain of command.

“No, I meant a stronghold of support for Israel. Pay attention.”

Then I’m sure you can point us to evidence that you knew of before making that post indicating that Floridians are more likely to support Israel than other Americans that doesn’t attribute this to the large number of Jews that live their.

I thought this was fairly common knowledge. I read an article online shortly before last years mid-term elections which focused on the Florida candidates. The article mentioned the fact that a visit to Israel is considered compulsory for candidates of both major parties. I think one of the candidates had chalked up nearly a dozen trips to Israel over the years. Don't ask me to find it.

Is Florida not a stronghold of support for Israel? I haven't read anything confirming this. Since we both live in the southern hemispere, perhaps the opinions of American, or better still, Floridian forum members would be useful.

“Sounds great, but it's a pile of rubbish.”

One of your trademarks is calling something crap/rubbish/nonsense etc without being able to say why.

“Having tried and failed to make any sense out of that, I must conclude this is one of your funniest posts.”

I give you more credit than that; it’s not that difficult to figure out.

You're being modest. It was very funny.

“If he's that old he's got to be lying.”

We’ve been through that strawman before. I’m not indicating a correlation between advanced age and dishonesty but rather age and memory.

...research shows that memory skills tend to decline dramatically in old age, with decreasing levels of accuracy and increasing errors.

[…]

"Our study suggests that the failing memories of older adults, including their tendency to remember things that never happened, are not an inevitable consequence of aging," said Henry L. "Roddy" Roediger III, study co-author and James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor at Washington University.

[…]

"We tested a group of adults with an average age of 75 years and found that about one out of four had managed to avoid the memory declines so common in older adults," said Roediger.

[…]

Roediger, a leading expert on human memory, has focused recent research on understanding cognitive processes behind the creation of false memories, also known as memory illusions. Human memory, he explains, is not a storehouse of crystal clear, video images available for immediate and 100 percent accurate recall.

[…]

Several theories exist for why false memories increase with age. One suggests that older adults fail to properly encode information as an event is experienced or have problems retrieving and sorting such details during recall a problem known as source monitoring.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/...30811070612.htm

OK so “about one out of four” “adults with an average age of 75” “managed to avoid the memory declines so common in older adults" especially “the creation of false memories” thus about 75% don’t. I assume a carrier pilot during WW2 would be between 22 and 30 years-old (Evan can you shed light on this?) thus Boston would hace been 82 – 92 when he made his affidavit in 2004 and 85 – 95 in 2007. Thus the odds that he was suffering from memory problems is probably well over 80%.

Nonsense. Boston doesn't have any memory problems.

[Len Colby]

“No, I meant a stronghold of support for Israel. Pay attention.”

Then I’m sure you can point us to evidence that you knew of before making that post indicating that Floridians are more likely to support Israel than other Americans that doesn’t attribute this to the large number of Jews that live their.

I thought this was fairly common knowledge. I read an article online shortly before last years mid-term elections which focused on the Florida candidates. The article mentioned the fact that a visit to Israel is considered compulsory for candidates of both major parties. I think one of the candidates had chalked up nearly a dozen trips to Israel over the years. Don't ask me to find it.

You're citing it to support your claim. Are you sure the article doesn't say this is due to the large number of Jewish voters? Why would non-Jewish Floridians be any more likely to support Israel that other non-Jewish Americans?

“If he's that old he's got to be lying.”

We’ve been through that strawman before. I’m not indicating a correlation between advanced age and dishonesty but rather age and memory.

...research shows that memory skills tend to decline dramatically in old age, with decreasing levels of accuracy and increasing errors.

[…]

"Our study suggests that the failing memories of older adults, including their tendency to remember things that never happened, are not an inevitable consequence of aging," said Henry L. "Roddy" Roediger III, study co-author and James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor at Washington University.

[…]

"We tested a group of adults with an average age of 75 years and found that about one out of four had managed to avoid the memory declines so common in older adults," said Roediger.

[…]

Roediger, a leading expert on human memory, has focused recent research on understanding cognitive processes behind the creation of false memories, also known as memory illusions. Human memory, he explains, is not a storehouse of crystal clear, video images available for immediate and 100 percent accurate recall.

[…]

Several theories exist for why false memories increase with age. One suggests that older adults fail to properly encode information as an event is experienced or have problems retrieving and sorting such details during recall a problem known as source monitoring.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/...30811070612.htm

OK so “about one out of four” “adults with an average age of 75” “managed to avoid the memory declines so common in older adults" especially “the creation of false memories” thus about 75% don’t. I assume a carrier pilot during WW2 would be between 22 and 30 years-old (Evan can you shed light on this?) thus Boston would hace been 82 – 92 when he made his affidavit in 2004 and 85 – 95 in 2007. Thus the odds that he was suffering from memory problems is probably well over 80%.

Nonsense. Boston doesn't have any memory problems

How would you know? You've never met him or even I imagine seen or herd him speak.

[Len Colby]

A 1994 US Navy study identified "53 incidents" "in which U.S. ships were damaged or sunk ["at sea"] by Allied

weaponry during World War II" "resulting in 438 WIA and 186 KIA". "Only three [of the incidents] occurred during naval battles"

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA278291

[Len Colby]

According to a 1993 study by the Naval Health Research Center:

“There were 53 incidents of amicicide [u.S. Ships...damaged or sunk by Allied weaponry] at sea during World War II, resulting in 438 WIA and 186 KIA...Amphibious operations accounted for 25 incidents, only three occurred during naval battles...Mistaken identity was responsible for several of the amicicides."

http://www.dtic.mil/.../u2/a278291.pdf pgs 2 & 9

Several of the Liberty survivors claimed the Israeli jets were unmarked but according to two separate sources at least two indicated otherwise:

"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 "The USS Liberty: Dissenting History vs. Official History" PhD thesis NYU as quoted by Cristol

http://hnn.us/node/39936?page=1

“

The ship's mission was to monitor the communications of Israel's Arab enemies and their Soviet advisers, but not Israeli communications./ The Liberty felt safe. Then the jets started shooting at the officers and enlisted men stretched out on the deck for a lunch-hour sun bath. Theodore Arfsten, a quartermaster, remembered watching a Jewish officer cry when he saw the blue Star of David on the planes' fuselages.”

John Crewdson, “New revelations in attack on American spy ship - Veterans, documents suggest U.S., Israel didn't tell full story of deadly '67 incident” Chicago Tribune, October 2, 2007

http://www.chicagotr...2,0,43090.story

Both Bourne and Crewdson promoted the thesis the Israelis knew the ship was American so they would have no reason to have made up these accounts. Russell David who died last year was a signalman and African American so he wasn't the “Jewish officer” of the second account.

[Len Colby]

Jim Ennes wrote:

...Israeli Major Seth Mintz reported that he was in the Israeli war room where he heard the order given to attack a ship the Israelis knew to be American.

Both the Porter and Mintz reports were picked up by nationally syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. Their story brought angry denials from spokespersons for Israel and sparked a debate with pro-Israel New York Times columnist A.M. Rosenthal, who reported that the Israeli major had been misquoted by Evans and Novak.

Despite Rosenthal's efforts, no one could discredit the story after Liberty survivors revealed that they had Mintz's original remarks on videotape. The tape was offered to CNN, which declined to use it. And still no member of Congress was willing to probe the serious issues being aired.

Ennes omitted that Mintz himself sent a letter to the Washington Post saying Evans and Novak "seriously misrepresent{ed}" him and that he believed it had been a “case of mistaken identity.” ::

Attack on the Liberty: A Tragic Mistake

The Washington Post - Nov 9, 1991 [FINAL Edition]

Page:a.26 - Section: OP/ED

...At that point, the consensus in the room was that the Americans would know better than the Israelis if the ship was theirs, and since they said it wasn't, it could only be an enemy vessel masquerading as American and was therefore a legitimate target. The attack was ordered, but not in the room I was in, because the officers there were relatively junior, but elsewhere by higher authority. I don't know who ordered the attack. After the attack began, some of the people in the room still had doubts about the ship's identity, but nobody thought the Israelis were attacking an American ship. It is inconceivable to me that the Israelis would have attacked the ship had they known the ship to be American...

But Ennes claimed Mintz was on video, Evans and Novak claimed to have seen a transcript:

Last June 7, at a Washington reunion, Mintz told former crew member Bob Casale in a videotaped conversation, the transcript of which we have read: "They {the Israelis} knew ... even when it was happening. Pilots in the Mirage attack were saying that it was an American ship. You could read the numbers on the side of the ship. There was no big secret."

Curious about Mintz's supposed claims and later denials I searched in vain for the interview on the Internet which surprised me, surely the Liberty survivors would have posted in in several places. So I wrote to Ennes

Hello,

I have read about Seth Mintz's videotaped interview with Bob Casle [sic] in a few sources but was unable to find it on the Net. Do you have a copy? If so can you post it to Youtube or somewhere else and/or send me a copy? If not do you know where I can find it or who has a copy?

Len

I was quite surprised by his reply:

I am not aware of such an interview.

So I wrote back:

Jim,

Evans and Novak (see the link you sent me) and others have said Casale videotaped the interview.One or two said the tape was played at a survivors reunion. Is Casale still alive? If so are you in touch with him? I saw a link to his photosite but it isn't working.

Len

That was Jan. 20 I e-mailed him again 2 days later

Jim,

I was hoping to have heard back from you. Was there at least an audio recording of the Mintz interview? If not where did the transcript Evans and Novak saw come from? The author of the article linked below claimed Mintz made his statements "in a videotaped interview in front of 12 Liberty veterans" IIRC Bourne also said it was videotaped. And I just found an article you wrote in which you said "no one could discredit the story after Liberty survivors revealed that they had Mintz's original remarks on videotape." (2nd link)

http://www.thesouthe...Liberty-43p.pdf

http://www.wrmea.org...r-cover-up.html

Len

I still haven't heard back. So did Ennes and/or other survivors make up the claim Mintz was on videotape and provide a fake transcript to Evans and Novak? If the tape really exists why hasn't it been posted on their websites or else where? Why didn't they send Evans and Novak a copy? Why did Ennes tell me he was “ not aware of such an interview” and not reply any further?