Mark Stapleton

Mark, you raise a very good issue IMO.

Not only does criminalizing consenting adult private drug use support the drug trade, it also drives the problem underground and because of the tampering with drugs endanger the users and make them less likely to have easy access to speedy overdose responses and to rehab opportunities.

At the same time, the addiction to hard drugs and the drug trade accounts for a massive portion of crime to support said habits.

The solution is simple: registered, stigma free atmosphere, drug addicts with a guaranteed cost controlled quality sanctioned supply with accompanying exposure to treatment options.

Clean 'shooting galleries', and readily available counseling.

The ramifications to society would be enormous, with a dramatic drop in crime rates to supply money for illicit drug purchases.

The persons involved and their familes and friends would have access to support, and the police freed to deal with 'real' crimes.

Jail costs, court costs, and all attendant costs to society can be better spent.

The only looser would be the illegal drug trade as it is.

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.

At 83, Jimmy Carter evinces the freedom of wise elders with nothing to lose except their self-respect. Bravo!

Carter calls western rejection of Hamas's election victory criminal act

20/06/2007

From Khalid Amayreh and News Agencies

Former US president Jimmy Carter has called the rejection by the West of Hamas's election victory in 2006 a criminal act.

In a speech before Ireland's eighth annual Forum on human rights Tuesday, the 83-year-old former President said the US and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, sought to subvert the outcome of the Palestinian elections by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military power.

"That action was criminal," said Carter during a news conference.

Abbas who observed the elections said they were quite fair and democratic.

Carter said Hamas won a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, adding that the movement had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdown with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Muhammed Abbas.

Hamas fighters last week routed Fatah forces answerable to Muhammed Dahlan, the American-backed former Gaza strongman.

Dahlan, whose forces had been armed and financed by the United States, is rumored to have planned a coup in Gaza against the Hamas-led government.

Carter said the American-Israeli-European consensus to reopen direct aid to the new government in Ramallah, but to deny the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, represented an effort "to divide the Palestinian people into two peoples."

"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Fatah and Hamas."

Carter described US policy toward Fatah as a failure.

"The US and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would conquer Hamas in Gaza..but Hamas this month routed Fatah because of its superior skills and discipline."

Finally, Carter castigated western efforts to isolate the now Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, calling on the international community to treat both the West Bank and Gaza Strip equally.

"This effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples now is a step in the wrong direction. All efforts of the international community should be to reconcile the two, but there is no effort from the outside to bring the two together."

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

...

Robert Gaylon Ross offered a theory regarding the countries of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, which basically stated that a possible ulterior motive that these countries would have been targeted by the West is due to the fact that they are three of the small handfull of countries which, do not have a Central Bank, interesting idea......

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.

Rumours come and rumours go - but the prospect that Blair may become the "quartet's" Middle Eastern envoy seems to be growing.

Blair's skills in compiling accurate dossiers - and his most impressive track record while British PM of spreading peace and democracy throughout the middle eastern region - have clearly served him well.

I notice he recently dropped in to see the Pope and is contemplating becoming the 21st century's answer to Michael Muggeridge.

The conversation between them must have been inspiring.

Unfortunately, since the Vatican mafia took care of Paul John 1st, the Vicar of Christ has been rather muffled in his approach to middle eastern peace. Perhaps this was the occasion for a new start?

I hope the Pontiff advised Bliar that if he intends to make a real difference in that bedevilled part of the world, he must take public service to its ultimate limits.

The way to make a lasting impact is to be scourged and taunted while taking a stroll through occupied East Jeruslem, then affixed to a cross on the Mount of Olives.

I, for one, would purchase the DVD - a world-first collaborative venture between Spielberg and Mel Gibson?

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.

I've read almost nothing on this subject and am starting to wonder if that's an oversight.

Peter Dale Scott places great emphasis on the significance of the international drug trade in his book "Deep Politics."

However I haven't read his books that focus more directly on the subject, such as "Cocaine Politics" & "Drugs, Oil & War."

More specifically, no matter how much I read about the Vietnam war I can't find a satisfactory answer to the question "why indochina/why Vietnam?" (I know the war machine wanted a profitable war, but how did they settle specifically on Vietnam?) until I start factoring in drugs.

There's a good summary here:

"Perhaps the biggest secret of the Vietnam War is that our Central Intelligence Agency seized control of the infamous Golden Triangle during that time period, then, along with assistance from various elements of Organized Crime, shipped huge amounts of heroin out of that area into our country. Because piles of money were being made from this practice and many others, those who stood to profit from this horrendous war — the armament manufacturers, bankers, military men, and drug dealers — met any suggestion to withdraw from Vietnam with immediate consternation. But that's exactly what John F. Kennedy intended to do upon re-election. In fact, he had already planned on telling the American people that their troops would be back home by 1965. Think about this momentous decision for a moment. If we had exited Vietnam by 1965, EIGHT years of bloodshed in the jungles and civil unrest on America's streets and campuses could have been alleviated.

...

So, even though the above information is only the tip of the iceberg, now do you see why it was so important to the CIA/Mobster/international banker cabal that JFK didn't pull America out of Vietnam? The money (via illegal drug trafficking and for the War Machine) was incredible, while CONTROL of another area of the globe (the Golden Triangle) was secured.

..."

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/babel1/finaljudgment92.html

Obviously this drug angle is especially, potentially, important for those of us who think that President Kennedy's determination for peace was his undoing.

What do y'all think?

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?

I've read almost nothing on this subject and am starting to wonder if that's an oversight.

Peter Dale Scott places great emphasis on the significance of the international drug trade in his book "Deep Politics."

However I haven't read his books that focus more directly on the subject, such as "Cocaine Politics" & "Drugs, Oil & War."

More specifically, no matter how much I read about the Vietnam war I can't find a satisfactory answer to the question "why indochina/why Vietnam?" (I know the war machine wanted a profitable war, but how did they settle specifically on Vietnam?) until I start factoring in drugs.

There's a good summary here:

"Perhaps the biggest secret of the Vietnam War is that our Central Intelligence Agency seized control of the infamous Golden Triangle during that time period, then, along with assistance from various elements of Organized Crime, shipped huge amounts of heroin out of that area into our country. Because piles of money were being made from this practice and many others, those who stood to profit from this horrendous war — the armament manufacturers, bankers, military men, and drug dealers — met any suggestion to withdraw from Vietnam with immediate consternation. But that's exactly what John F. Kennedy intended to do upon re-election. In fact, he had already planned on telling the American people that their troops would be back home by 1965. Think about this momentous decision for a moment. If we had exited Vietnam by 1965, EIGHT years of bloodshed in the jungles and civil unrest on America's streets and campuses could have been alleviated.

...

So, even though the above information is only the tip of the iceberg, now do you see why it was so important to the CIA/Mobster/international banker cabal that JFK didn't pull America out of Vietnam? The money (via illegal drug trafficking and for the War Machine) was incredible, while CONTROL of another area of the globe (the Golden Triangle) was secured.

..."

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/babel1/finaljudgment92.html

Obviously this drug angle is especially, potentially, important for those of us who think that President Kennedy's determination for peace was his undoing.

What do y'all think?

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?

AS IT HAPPENED

Broadcast Date: Friday 22 June 2007

Channel: Free to Air / SBS

Broadcast Time: 8.30 pm

Classifications: Documentary, M (CC)

Timeslot Duration: 60 mins

(Part 1) Six Days In June - (The Six Day War)- The shooting lasted only six tense days in June 1967, but the Six Day War has never really ended. Every crisis that has ripped through this region in the ensuing decades had its roots in these fateful days. On the 40th anniversary of the war, the region remains trapped in conflict. This war has long been seen by Israel as the miraculous victory of their little state this enclave surrounded by an ocean of tens of millions of Arabs from all over the Middle East. For the Arab states, this was a humiliating defeat suffered at the hand of imperialistic plotters. Our two-part film tells the true story of the Six Day War beyond the images and propaganda clichés. (From France, in English, Hebrew and Arabic, English subtitles) (Documentary Series)

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.

“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.

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.

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.

“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.

From Dealey Plaza to Little Big Horn.

That's a hell of a hijacking. (the discussion on LBH is still interesting, though.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iThWExthtv0

About 30+ images appear to have gone unused - not bad though.

Thanks to other image contributors.

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.

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.

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.

Len,

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

I've got some questions for him.

7) Boston is not very credible, he claimed that Kidd disliked and distrusted Cristol but the latter has a letter from the admiral indicating a certain level of friendship and support for his conclusions. http://libertyincident.com/kidd.html

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

bump

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.

bump

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

Knucklehead.

7) Boston is not very credible, he claimed that Kidd disliked and distrusted Cristol but the latter has a letter from the admiral indicating a certain level of friendship and support for his conclusions. http://libertyincident.com/kidd.html

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.

5) Dallek – It would be nice to see the full quote, the site took Clifford and McGonagle out of context.

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'.

9) Moorer – There is no sign of the supposed quote in the Washington Post’s archives.

It also should be noted that when he was Chief of Naval Operations, his office endorsed the COI’s findings.

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.

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

Just when I thought popular retrospectives on Hitler couldn't get any sillier... here comes the Daily Mail, recycling an old story with the enthusiasm of an amnesiac.

It seems a handful of under-employed psychologists decided to get their heads around Hitler. The result: "Did Hitler unleash the Holocaust because a Jewish prostitute gave him syphilis?"

A delightfully lightweight collection of comments such as "Dr Habeeb said: "This disease can send you mad and it could be a horrible explanation for the obsession that led to the Holocaust" are rounded out by a sprinkling of ill-informed nonsense submitted by readers (along with occasional gems. such as 'Mark from Newcastle').

It's perfect modern media really, a classic of its kind. The recipe? Take a false premise (or one for which, at any rate, there is no evidence). Assemble a group of conformist windbags. Allow to simmer gently... then add a dash of affirmation from the public.

Certainly, it does amount to a strong argument for using condoms.

Why were their parents so careless?

____________

A footnote for Len.

I neglected to spoon feed you, Len, with the link to David Irving's download that you requested.

Here it is: Click This

You can even pick up a copy of 'The Secret Diaries of Hitler's Doctor' .

No need to believe a word of it, of course! (be especially wary of the footnotes and reproductions of medical records)

Never let tiresome documentation spoil a good story!