Mark Stapleton

Right on the money, John. The hidden costs of prohibition are enormous. Just the legal costs are staggering, when you consider the court costs, as you mentioned, which involve a vast investment of police resources, lawyers and judges to process the 'criminals' through the system, and the costs involved in keeping these people in jail. A few years ago, the NSW statistician Don Weatherburn estimated the cost of prohibition to the NSW taxpayer to be in the order of $7 billion per annum. It's no wonder the poor saps here get taxed and fined every time they stick their heads up--and yet the State Government is permanently broke. I'll try to dig up the Weatherburn article (which was buried at the bottom of one of the middle pages of the newspaper) and post it on the prohibition thread, although stories like this are shunned by the media and can be hard to find in the archives. When it comes to America, you can multiply the costs mentioned here by a factor of 20. The other things you mention are also right on the money. The shooting gallery here in Kings Cross, an anathema to conservative windbags with limited experience of real life, has caused assaults and robberies to plummet. Junkies get their shots for free in a discreet clinical environment (it costs something in the order of ten cents apiece), so they are not breaking into cars and houses, assaulting innocent people or leaving used syringes in parks or on beaches where children can step on them. The problem is that there are now so many vested interests which depend upon prohibition for their living that it has almost become a pillar supporting the economy. When Bob Carr first proposed the shooting gallery, the Police Union informed him that they would campaign against him in marginal seats. A lower crime rate is very bad for a police force determined to bolster its numbers. In the US, the California prison officers union (reportedly with the largest union membership in the world) campaigns actively against anyone proposing a change to the status quo. Here in Australia, the Salvation Army, whom I used to greatly respect, issues stern denunciations of any attempt to change the laws. However what they fail to mention is that they are paid between $800 and $1000 dollars by the Federal Government for every addict they place on their program (which apparently consists mainly of counselling and has an unimpressive success rate). The media also lives off prohibition. Plummeting crime rates and the absence of spectacular drug busts are a news editor's worst nightmare. Scandals involving sportpeople who have tested positive for banned substances are emblazened across newspapers. The media doesn't like the three strikes policy of some sporting bodies--it wants offenders named and shamed immediately and has even begun litigation in some instances to override those sporting bodies. The DEA, eagerly cheered on by the media, constantly attempts to widen the list of banned substances. The most absurd recent example is the effort to force the AFL to include cannabis as a performance enhancing substance, in conjunction with changing their three strike policy into a one strike (name and shame) policy. Pressure from the DEA forced Aussie PM John Howard to threaten the AFL's funding if they did not comply. So far, the AFL has held firm, responding with the perfectly logical argument of who uses cannabis to enhance sporting performance? Equally ridiculous, the DEA is pushing for a testing regime which detects metabolytes--compounds which attach to the fat cells and take months to leave the body--as opposed to a testing regime which solely detects intoxication from the drug, in conjunction with a 365 days a year random testing schedule. Therefore, if a player attends a party months after the season has ended and passively inhales smoke from a nearby cannabis user, which then cause trace elements of THC to be discovered in the player's system by a random test, his or her career can be terminated in the most humiliating and shameful manner. That's how insidious this issue is. When it's all said and done, it's not a crime--it's a vice. Unlike a robbery or assault, where there is an aggrieved party, the consumption of all consciousness altering substances, from alcohol to ecstacy, is voluntary. There's no aggrieved party. That's why the Volstead Act required an amendment to the US Constitution in order to change the consumption of alcohol from a vice to a crime. Of course, the noble experiment showed how dangerous a substance becomes when its production and distribution is handed over to the underworld (in addition to the massive corruption it causes). It looks like the powers that be want to keep repeating failed experiments ad nauseam. Sorry, Myra---I did it again.

Thanks for posting this, Sid. It's clear that Carter has a vast knowledge of the region and the forces at play, going back many years to his time in the Presidency, sponsoring the Camp David peace accords. If anyone should be Middle East envoy for the quartet, it is Jimmy Carter. Blair should be at home answering questions about his various scandals.

The Bank of International Settlements is warning of a possible global depression similar to that of the 1930's. I don't know how credible they are but from this article it appears to be a genuine warning. They speculate that China's economy could play a major part: http://www.newsmax.com/money/archives/st/2...154818.cfm?s=lh

Really interesting idea Robert. I don't think it would be the first time that a country is punished for refusing to turn over their monetary system to private central bankers. I read that the Rothschild banker Jacob Schiff retaliated against Russian Tsars, who spurned central banks & supported President Lincoln (who bypassed the central banks to print his own greenbacks), by spending $20 million through the firm, Kuhn, Loeb & Co. to finance the Russian Revolution. It's a very plausible idea, imo, given that the banking system finances wars just like they back any investment which will return a profit. I still haven't discarded the theory that the Fed was somehow mixed up in JFK's demise, either. It's in my 'do not discard this theory' file. Myra, sorry if my earlier post looked like a thread hijack--as well as a passable rendition of a raving lunatic. The prohibition issue gets me steamed, mainly because of the unnecessary damage it does to society, chiefly those at the lower end of society. Good luck with those books. A very worthwhile investment of time. p.s. I have at least ten of interest I've yet to read. There's no time.

Well he's gone. But he's back--as Middle East envoy for the quartet. Hmm...maybe they should be called a trio as Russia seems a little reluctant: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=...ec=Worldupdates I don't know how he'll possibly bring about a lasting peace in Palestine. Hamas don't want to know him and I suspect Israel will only accept a solution on their terms. It seems to be a problem with no solution. btw, a report on the BBC radio said that Cherie Blair cannot stand incoming PM Gordon Brown. This can be filed under U for useless information.

And what underpins the massive wealth and corruption associated with illicit drugs? The legislative framework in western nations (monitored closely by the US) of course. Anyone suggesting legislative changes which take the illegality and hence the massive black market profits out of these drugs must be howled down and vilified. Just think of who the big stakeholder's in this debate are--the DEA and its multi billion dollar budget, police, prison officors, the prison construction industry, the insurance industry, big pharma, the media and the politicians. Change the laws and the prosperity of the above groups is threatened. Disaster. Better for all concerned to have full jails, high crime rate, dead kids, billionaire drug barons and an ignorant public. Prohibition of alcohol was a smashing success, wasn't it? This time we have a full blown nanny state thrown in for our trouble. Guess who pays for it?

And what underpins the massive wealth and corruption associated with illicit drugs? The legislative framework in western nations (monitered closely by the US) of course. Anyone suggesting legislative changes which take the illegality and hence the massive black market profits out of these drugs must be howled down and vilified. Just think of who the big stakeholder's in this debate are--the DEA and its multi billion dollar budget, police, prison officors, the prison construction industry, the insurance industry, big pharma, the media and the politicians. Change the laws and the prosperity of the above groups is threatened. Disaster. Better for all concerned to have full jails, high crime rate, dead kids, billionaire drug barons and an ignorant public. Prohibition of alcohol was a smashing success, wasn't it? This time we have a full blown nanny state thrown in for our trouble. Guess who pays for it?

Did anyone catch this? I missed it. Part 2 is on Friday June 29 at 8pm. It will be interesting to see if the Liberty is mentioned and what angle the doco takes.

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 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. 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.

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). 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. 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. How horrible of me I said Sid is honest. 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 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.

From Dealey Plaza to Little Big Horn. That's a hell of a hijacking. (the discussion on LBH is still interesting, though.)

Very nice Lee--there's a lot of interesting other stuff there too. I assume that was the original Dinah Washington version of the song in the background. Are there copyright issues with this? Sorry if it's a silly question. YouTube is brand new for me. Great effort, Lee.

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. 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.

Len, Perhaps you might like to persuade your hero--A Jay Cristol--to join the Forum. I've got some questions for him.

Really. Does the handwritten letter support Cristol's conclusions? My interpretation is something along the lines of, "Dear A Jay, Thanks for the nice luncheon. Nothing you provided has been inconsistent with what we had to work with at the time. You have done a splendid job etc, etc." Where does the Admiral specifically state that he concurs with Cristol's view that the attack was unintentional? Sounds like spin to me. I concur there’s a lot of spinning going on here, you should stop before you make yourself dizzy. You summation of the note is reasonably accurate Kidd said “You have done a splendid job of pulling all those loose ends together” and that nothing Cristol told or wrote to him was inconsistent with the COI. You however, as is you custom, made a strawman. I never said or insinuated that “the Admiral specifically state(d) that he concurs with Cristol's view that the attack was unintentional”. I said that the note “indicat(ed) a certain level of friendship and support for his conclusions.” The note contradicts Boston sworn affidavit: "Shortly after my [1990] conversation with Cristol, I received a telephone call from Admiral Kidd, inquiring about Cristol and what he was up to. The Admiral spoke of Cristol in disparaging terms and even opined that “Cristol must be an Israeli agent.” I don’t know if he meant that literally or it was his way of expressing his disgust for Cristol’s highly partisan, pro-Israeli approach to questions involving USS Liberty. At no time did I ever hear Admiral Kidd speak of Cristol other than in highly disparaging terms.” http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html So according to Boston Kidd was disgusted with and didn’t trust Cristol and only spoke of him “in highly disparaging terms”. Either 1) Boston’s memory is faulty 2) He lied, and thus committed perjury (again) 3) Kidd was incredibly two faced. 4) Cristol forged the note. Maybe Kidd was two-faced. He wouldn't be the first. The note is also in line with Ennes’ recollection that the admiral ‘defended the COI’s investigation till the day he died’ (not an exact quote) In his affidavit (see above) Boston verified that the conversations took place but claims he “refused to discuss” the COI with the judge who he thinks lied. Funny that you find one more persuasive than the other when you don’t seem to be that familiar with the contents of either. You obviously haven’t read the affidavit in a while otherwise you wouldn’t have asked me about what Boston said about his conversations with Cristol. Excuse me, smartass, I have read the affidavit: http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Fro...Declaration.pdf but I'm not as obsessed as you are with the soap opera of gossip, innuendo and Chinese whispers that went on between Cristol, Boston and the late Admiral. So what if Kidd spoke disparagingly of Cristol behind his back? It's all about trying to discredit Boston, isn't it? 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? 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. Like Admiral Moorer, Boston has great credibilty. I've got strong doubts about the motives of A Jay Cristol, however. You make a big deal of the fact Boston made a sworn statement but his recollection of Kidd’s opinion of Cristol seems to have been highly inaccurate casting the rest in doubt. It also contradicts his signing of the COI in 1967. They were all forced to sign off on the COI 'investigation'. Don't be so bloody stupid. As for Cristol’s notes you’re right we do have to take word for it but your summery of them is highly inaccurate. 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”.Well Cristol's obviously full of it, isn't he? Boston believes no such things. July 23, 1990 conversation WB mentioned “one nitpicker legal type” (this was Merwin Staring) who bitched about typos in the transcript. WB remembered that when they got to London, they encountered “some idiot” at CINCUSNAVEUR who was trying to slow them up. “He had a long cigarette holder and Ike said he would take it from him and stick it up his ass”. He commented about Staring going through the record which was sort of rough and complaining about typos. WB was of the opinion that at that time Staring had only worked for McCain about a week. […] He said he was aware of the other side of the coin in regards to claims of whitewash and that he was offended by the allegations of coverup. He said “we put all the evidence we had available into that record.” […] WB said he read “Assault on the Liberty,” and that there were many errors in the book and that it misstated his name as Ward M. Boston, Jr. […] WB said that he told Admiral McCain that his JAG, Merwin Staring, did not think the record was smooth enough, although he, WB, thought all the facts were there.” From the December 10, 1996 conversation “He told me he knows how emotional Liberty people get about the incident, even in 1996, but that the guy (Jim Ennes) who wrote the book didn’t get it right.” Well, it comes down to whether you believe in the authenticity and accuracy of Cristol's 'personal notes'. Not me.

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). 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.

So you've pioneered a fearless, aggressive, impatient approach to debating these issues. Good for you, Lenny. Knucklehead. It amuses me to see that once again you are resorting to name-calling and insults rather than debating the facts of the case. I was thinking of responding in kind but I really want to avoid sinking to your level. In case you hadn’t noticed the forum’s software is imperfect sometimes a person is logged out shortly after having logged in. Other times a member posts once but the message appears 2 or even 3 times. And sometimes someone posts but the message but doesn’t register on the main page of the forum which will still show the previous post as being the most recent on the thread. In this case no one except the poster is likely to know the it has been updated. I am not the first nor am I likely to be the last member of this forum to bump the thread in such a situation, in fact Sid, your hero, IIRC has done this on more than one occasion. In case you'd failed to notice I bumped the thread 2 minutes after posting the previous message. Don't try taking the high moral ground--it's pathetic. Your posts on this thread and others are liberally sprinkled with insults. 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. 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. 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.

So you've pioneered a fearless, aggressive, impatient approach to debating these issues. Good for you, Lenny. Knucklehead.

Really. Does the handwritten letter support Cristol's conclusions? My interpretation is something along the lines of, "Dear A Jay, Thanks for the nice luncheon. Nothing you provided has been inconsistent with what we had to work with at the time. You have done a splendid job etc, etc." Where does the Admiral specifically state that he concurs with Cristol's view that the attack was unintentional? Sounds like spin to me. While I'm on the subject of Cristol's use of spin, why should we believe Cristol's allegation that Ward Boston concurred with Cristol in telephone interviews between the two in 1990 and 1996? (which you alluded to earlier). Were the telephone conversations recorded or are we forced to rely on Cristol's 'personal notes' of the conversations. Did Boston verify that these conversations took place, and more importantly, does he confirm the contents of the discussions? I find Boston's sworn affadavit of 2003 and his article of June 8, 2007 (reproduced by Sid Walker in post #79) much more persuasive than Cristol's 'personal notes' of the 1990 and 1996 telephone conversations. In fact, the notes of these conversations, posted by you Len in post #70, do not indicate that Boston believed the attack was an accident, do they? They seem to compliment Cristol on his research efforts re the Liberty, but certainly do not damage the credibility of Ward Boston--as you and Cristol are desperate to assert. More spin.

Readers can decide for themselves if the Liberty Memorial site takes Dallek out of context. The following is from Dallek's "Portrait of a President", pp 284-285, published by Penguin in 2004: The White House disputed Tel Aviv's version of events. To be sure, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) placed the Liberty closer to the coast than initially thought, acknowledged that the Israelis had not been informed of the ship's presence in the region of hostilities, and accepted that Israeli defense forces had misinformation about a coastal attack. The PFIAB also granted that Israeli forces had reason to think that the Liberty was an Egyptian supply ship. More important, the Board concluded that available information did not "reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American". Nor did evidence "support the theory that the highest echelons of the Israeli Government were aware of the Liberty's true identity or of the fact that an attack on her was taking place". So much for the official version of events, which was calculated to avoid a crisis with Israel in the midst of an all-out war against Arab states with ties to Moscow. Behind the scenes, the highest officials of the US Government, including the President, believed it 'inconcievable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error. They assumed that the Israelis saw their attack on the Liberty as an act of self-defense. Fearful that the American ship was monitoring and transmitting information about Israeli military preparations against Syria, the Israelis felt compelled to silence the Liberty. If its intelligence inadvertently fell into the hands of the Arabs, they could use it to inflict significant casualties on Israeli forces, and US Government forewarnings of Israeli military plans might make it difficult for Tel Aviv to secure its war aims. Watch for Len's rapid denunciation of yet another source who is 'not credible'.

His office indeed endorsed the COI's findings. But Admiral Moorer went to his grave saying this: http://www.realnews247.com/uss_liberty_betrayal_moorer.htm A great American, in a final public statement made just weeks before his death, urges that the truth finally be revealed about the attack that killed 34 crew members and wounded 172 others aboard the USS Liberty in 1967 US betrayal went hand-in-hand with Israel’s attack on USS Liberty during 1967 war by Admiral Thomas Moorer (USN, Ret.) (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974) Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (1912-2004, RIP) On Thursday, February 5th, this great patriot passed away, just four days shy of his 92nd birthday. It was also less than a month after the following column of his appeared in the Houston Chronicle on January 9, 2004 (it subsequently has disappeared, despite its obvious importance--more about that at the bottom of this page). We posted the column as a Latest News and Analysis feature on January 15th (the Chronicle link will be changed to this page), but felt that Admiral Moore's comments are of such great importance that they deserve to be preserved in the form of a Featured Story, to be more readily seen near the top of our homepage and so the title will later be prominently displayed in our archives. After his column, we have assembled numerous links concerning the USS Liberty and Admiral Moorer. This page is meant to serve in some small way as a memorial to them both. "I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to [israel] ... They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wouldn't write anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms." —Admiral Moorer, 1984, quoted by Richard Curtiss in A Changing Image: American Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Dispute After State Department officials and historians assembled in Washington, D.C., last week to discuss the 1967 war in the Middle East, I am compelled to speak out about one of U.S. history's most shocking cover-ups. On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked our proud naval ship -- the USS Liberty --killing 34 American servicemen and wounding 172. Those men were then betrayed and left to die by our own government. U.S. military rescue aircraft were recalled, not once, but twice, through direct intervention by the Johnson administration. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's (photo, right) cancellation of the Navy's attempt to rescue the Liberty, which I personally confirmed from the commanders of the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga, was the most disgraceful act I witnessed in my entire military career. To add insult to injury, Congress, to this day, has failed to hold formal hearings on Israel's attack on this American ship. No official investigation of Israel's attack has ever permitted the testimony of the surviving crew members. A 1967 investigation by the Navy, upon which all other reports are based, has now been fully discredited as a cover-up by its senior attorney. Capt. Ward Boston, in a sworn affidavit, recently revealed that the court was ordered by the White House to cover up the incident and find that Israel's attack was "a case of mistaken identity." What our investigation uncovered Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. They include: Israeli reconnaissance aircraft closely studied the Liberty during an eight-hour period prior to the attack, one flying within 200 feet of the ship. Weather reports confirm the day was clear with unlimited visibility. The Liberty was a clearly marked American ship in international waters, flying an American flag and carrying large U.S. Navy hull letters and numbers on its bow. Despite claims by Israeli intelligence that they confused the Liberty with a small Egyptian transport, the Liberty was conspicuously different from any vessel in the Egyptian navy. It was the most sophisticated intelligence ship in the world in 1967. With its massive radio antennae, including a large satellite dish, it looked like a large lobster and was one of the most easily identifiable ships afloat. Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels. Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most seriously wounded. As a result, our commission concluded that: There is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew. In attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States. The White House knowingly covered up the facts of this attack from the American people. The truth continues to be concealed to the present day in what can only be termed a national disgrace. What was Israel's motive in launching this attack? Congress must address this question with full cooperation from the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and the military intelligence services. The men of the USS Liberty represented the United States. They were attacked for two hours, causing 70 percent of American casualties, and the eventual loss of our best intelligence ship. These sailors and Marines were entitled to our best defense. We gave them no defense. Did our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own? If so, why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests? These are important questions that should be investigated by an independent, fully empowered commission of the American government. The American people deserve to know the truth about this attack. We must finally shed some light on one of the blackest pages in American naval history. It is a duty we owe not only to the brave men of the USS Liberty, but to every man and woman who is asked to wear the uniform of the United States. Admiral Moorer was joined in the independent commission of inquiry by Gen. Ray Davis (recently deceased); Rear Adm. Merlin Staring; former Judge Advocate General of the Navy and Ambassador James Akins. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------