Sid Walker

Len I'm shorty of time today, so just a quick reply to one of your rebuttals. I wrote: It is also rather clear that the Israeli leadership's intention was to sink the ship with the loss of all the crew. You replied: The evidence doesn’t indicate that, as Evan and others have pointed out the MO of the attack and the types of weapons used does fit an attempt to sink the ship at least not a well planed one. If the ship disappeared without any survivors or a distress signal how would the “attackers” (Egypt) have been identified? Take another look at your last paragraph Len. Is that a Brazilian sense of humour? How was Lee Harvey Oswald identified? How were the "19 Arab hijackers (15 from Saudi Arabia)" identified? Did any of the above get a chance to plead innocent in a fair court of law? Did the real culprits come forward early to confuse matters with full and frank confessions? Don't insult my intelligence, Len. Had the scheme to sink the Liberty quickly succeeded, the world would have "known" that Eygpt dunnit, because the world would have been told that Eygpt dunnit - by the Johnson Administration ("We are shocked and angered"), by the Israelis ("we watched in horror"...) by the US mass media ("Arabs blow liberty out of the water horror!!!")... did I miss anyone significant? Of course, the Cairo press might well have denied it. But hey, who listens to those bums? Liberty Deniers, everyone!

Once again, Katzenbach was in the right place at the right time to help hose down untoward angst in Washington over the USS Liberty attack - see Notes of a Meeting of the Special Committee of the National Security Council, June 9, 1967.

Question about the War on Terror... Do they also hate us for our rigorous justice system, fearless, independent judiciary and inquisitive free mass media?

By 2005, concerns that the laws of nature had undergone an inexplicable shift gradually began to subside. Reporting on the day-long inferno in Madrid, CNN commented: No "pancaking", either: Lying to say it's impossible? Nicely put. It'll be interesting to see whether the forthcoming report on the collapse of WTC-7 borrows this quaint expression. Where is that report, BTW? Why does it take FIVE YEARS to produce a report on the apparently inexplicable (and unquestionably unexplained) collapse of a 47-story building in NYC? Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

Towering Inferno In Caracas "(Fire) burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, reaching the roof." Remarkably, the building did not collapse, nor did the BBC incorrectly report its collapse before it collapsed. This is indeed good news for city dwellers. The laws of nature appear to be recovering. Venezuelan Interior Minister Jesse Chacon said at the time: "There is a problem because the building is made of steel. Because of the high temperatures, the structure could collapse". Happily, he was wrong. Not enough scientific understanding. Too much CNN.

Definitely NOT worth reporting, this story. Congratulations to the mainstream media. Well done 'liberal' media! Great stuff 'progressive' media! Good show all round! How very interesting that from The Times to Salon.com, from The Guardian to the Village Voice, from The Nation to The Daily Telegraph, from the BBC to Fox News... ALL agree this is NOT a story worth reporting. Nothing to see here. Move on!

It was reported on the Australian news this morning that Blair has appealed to vioters not to use the forthcoming Local Government elections to "give him one last kicking". I am forced to conclude that Britain is now in a class of its own for absurdist politics. Meanwhile, it is reported from Palestine that "Israelis target Palestinians with weapons causing 'burns ... by heat so intense that many cases have required amputation'" I recall (former?) spook asset Blair mouthing platitudes, on more than one occasion during his ten years mismanagement of British foreign policy, to the effect that "solving" the "Palestine problem" must be a priority. Perhaps I can use what may be my last post in this thread before Blair's long-overdue retirement to give him one last kicking from the antipodes. Mr Blair: you have dishonoured your country, you have dishonoured British armed forces, you have dishonoured progressive politics, you have dishonoured the Party that helped you into power, you have dishonoured the notion of democracy, you have dishonoured Britain's role in the world, you have done NOTHING to fix the "Palestine problem" (except give more time to the occupying bullies to conduct protracted torture on the indigenous people), you have helped ruin two entire countries, you have acted out a sordid leading role in the bogus 'War on Terror', you are a pathetic poodle of Zionist mega-thugs, you are a venal lying shyster and you should be holed up in Brixton nick pending transfer to the International Criminal Court. Now, for God's sake man, GO!!!

Memo to David Talbot. Dear David, I understand that Salon.com may have an office in or near New York City? If so, you may be interested to know that a 47-storey steel-framed towerblock collapsed not far from your mailbox more than five years ago - and to this day, no-one can explain how it happened! Would Salon.com like to look into this? You may have a scoop on your hands! Incidentally, it would be worth calling your pals at the BBC. It's reportage on this mysterious event has been in decline since 9/11, but on the day itself, the Beeb actually announced the collapse 20 minutes early. Rumour has it they may have an explanation for this miracle - but they won't share it with licence-paying plebs.

David Talbot is founder, chairman and editor-in-chief of Salon.com, which I consider about the best progressive news site on the web. Based on that background, and things he's written (e.g., his review of Ultimate Sacrifice which I thought was spot on), I expect his book to be something very worthwhile for truth buffs. Me too, in terms of a US-based large news service providing a range of well-written pieces catering for a progressive audience that makes much of its material freely available on the web. Same with The Nation. In the British media, I also enjoy The Guardian and the New Statesman - for similar reasons. All the more disappointing, therefore, that these 'progressive' media all pull punches when it comes to what I'll summarise in one word as the cryptocracy. Had any of these organisations investigated the topic of 9/11 like serious journalists - and reported to their readers on controversial emerging facts - by March 2003 Bush would not have been about to invade Iraq. He - and his criminal coterie - would have been in deep doodoo. 9/11 is just one example. Where have any of these media been - over the years - on the JFK assassination story? Next to hopeless, from what I've seen. I am not particularly out to attack Mr Talbot, who I'm sure is charming company and whose views seem greatly preferable to those of a right wing Zionist fruit-loop like Bill Kristol. It's just that I'm on the side of the military wife who calls up Mr Kristol in this remarkable live to air 'reality TV'. I'm on the side of the Iraqis, slaughtered by the tens of thousands in a criminal war that was unecessary, unjust and entirely preventable had the 'liberal' wing of the elite not gone along for the war-ride. I'm on the side of the millions who marched against war but were scornfully ignored. The Iraq War - like so many others - was based on lies. It was not only 'right' wing establishment commentators who told us lies that rationalized an illegal invasion. It's time our gatekeeper 'liberals' are held to account as well.

Given a choice between trying to disarm Terry and self-immolation, I'd probably toss a coin.

Interesting that in Owen's lengthy and informative post, in which he refers to Eve-Anne Prentice on several occasions, he omits the piece of evidence she gave to the Milosevic trial that brought the house down. Read all about it: BRITISH JOURNALIST EYE-WITNESSED OSAMA BIN LADEN ENTERING ALIJA IZETBEGOVIC’S OFFICE IN SARAJEVO http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg020306.htm Sadly Milosevic was running out of time to explain anything to anyone. Just over a month later, he suffered a 'heart attack'. Strange the judges seemed so uninterested in hearing out Ms Prentice. I thought we had a War on Terror and that OBL was/is Public Enemy No. 1? Why wouldn't his earlier contacts have been of interest to an International Criminal Tribunal?

Ed Firmage, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Utah College of Law, sets out the historical background to the impeachment process - and the basic case for impeaching Bush and Cheney. According to Firmage, execution is not on the agenda. What a gentle society America is!

Probably. But what has that got to do with this book? Do people have to pass some litmus test in order to be credible? Should we apply that litmus test to yourself as well? I, for one, suspect the world did benefit from forcing Saddam from Kuwait, stopping Milosevic's reign of terror, and overthrowing the Taliban. Are you really defending these regimes, or are you merely questioning the U.S.' right to use force for any reason, good or bad? I visited Australia a few years back, by the way, and was surprised by the lack of Aborigines in the cities. Based on movies, I thought I'd see them everywhere. I asked a few locals. They told me that "abbos" were essentially a waste of flesh, and that they were lazy and no better than dingoes and roos. I heard this both in Queensland and Sydney. As a result, I'm always skeptical when an Australian complains about America's record on human rights. Pat I think you are comparing apples with oranges. Please understand that, whatever the views of others on this forum, I am NOT 'anti-American'. I spent time in the USA. I have American friends. I have a great deal of respect for many Americans, past and present. I love the continent itself and its amazing wildlife. My ancestral heritage is British. The British track record of exporting violence around the world is disgraceful. You will not find me extolling Britain without qualification either. I am not a nationalist. Nationalism leaves me cold (at best). Even sports tribalism turns me off. As for Australia, it has always - since 'independence' - served as a poodle to the interests of others. You won't find me bragging that Australia has it's policies right - foreign or domestic. Your points about the fate of the Aboriginal people are well taken. Don't get me started on what Anglo-Saxon culture has done to the biodiversity of this land... Yet in our spook-ridden world, where the notion of a "free media" has been turned into a travesty by corrupt, collusive interests - and when discussing a case like the snuffed-out Kennedy brothers, a case in which we know from long, long experience that dubious characters have muddied the waters since day one - is it really unfair to inquire about the full ideological background of an author, whose work is being discussed by some as though it may represent a significant breakthrough in the case? I don't think so, Pat. In 2002, even an iconoclast like me in a far-flung continent could see that we were being set up for war against Iraq, irrespective of the 'evidence' of WMDs (and so what anyway - since when do we invade countries just becasue they possess WMDs... what about Israel, for God's sake?) As for the alleged benefits of removing Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein from power... I would say that overall, the result has been disastrous. It came at massive loss of life in each case. Foreseeable and consequential chaos and bloodshed continues to this day in at least two of those places. By 2002, we already knew the Kosovo invasion was based on gross lies (remember the quarter million Albanians the Serbs were alleged to have massacred?). Did Talbot miss this? How could he make such a crass statement about Yugoslavia - let alone Iraq and Afghanistan. Was he unaware of the consequences of "success" in Iraq? Half a million kids died as a result of sanctions in the 1990s - a figure not disputed by Secretary of State Albright. Had Talbot missed that? Or did he also think the toll was "worth it"? The alleged 'crimes' of all three regimes, IMO, were never fairly assessed in the western media. These regimes had good points and bad points. So do our governments in western countries. What unspeakable arrogance on our part to think that we can attack them militarily to improve their lot, on our own say so. What kind of international justice is that? And if our mission in life is really to send in the military to turf out 'undemocratic' regimes, what about Burma? Of course, it was not really "on our say-so". That's where compliant politicians and orchestrated media commentators come in. They told us we should be terrified of Iraq. They lied to us. A wide spectrum, form left to right, colluded in a pack of lies and indulged in an orgy of bias. Let's attack a country in the middle east beginning with 'I' that has WMDs, regularly attacks its neighbours and constitutes a threat to the world... let's get Iraq! "The technique of infamy is to start two lies at once. and set people arguing which one is true" Having a right and left wing is useful if you control them both. That way, it all appears like a fair and open system to most participants and observers. Of course, not all major commentators on the "left" the "right" are "controlled". But the more I observe world politics, the more I notice more of them who seem to merit that term: Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, I.F. Stone, George Monbiot... it's a long list.. Smart minds with (apparently) inexplicable intellectual blind-spots. Pardon me if I keep my eyes open. I'd rather be a kill-joy than a fool.

Just so I'm clear, is this the same David Talbot , whose war-supporting views were discussed in antiwar.com in early 2002: David Talbot and the rise of Warrior Liberalism? I'd just like to get a sense of the author's credibility and track record for good judgment. The David Talbot I've heard about wrote: "From the Gulf War on, the hawks have been on the right side in all the major debates about U.S. intervention in the world's troubles. The application of American military power – to drive back Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, stop Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal campaigns in the Balkans, and destroy the terrorist occupation of Afghanistan – has not just protected US interests, it has demonstrably made the world safer and more civilized." Is that the same guy?

It's Impeachment Day! (No 1 in the series...) Here's the map of today's demonstrations: I'm shocked that neither CNN nor Fox appear to be covering the story. Meanwhile, the Baptists pray for a miracle: Despite the upswell for impeachment, there are still plenty of pessimists around. They represent a substantial market and as one would expect, the capitalist system caters for them as well.

I can't agree with that Len. Actually, I think Ron got the motive broadly correct in his earlier post: Before discussing motive, I wanted to see whether you - or anyone else - seriously wants to argue the attack was an accident. I suspected you'd want to hedge bets on that. The claim the attack was an "accident" is, after all, the tried and tested fallback position that has served the Israelis well until now.If you do want to claim the attack was an accident - a wholly untenable case to argue, in my opinion - I suggest we invite Mr Ennes and other Liberty survivors onto the forum. It would also be interesting to hear from any of the Israelis involved, if they are still alive. I think, however, that Ron (or his source) was probably not correct in suggesting that Israel wanted the USA to intervene in the Arab-Israeli War on Israel's side. Israel would certainly have known by the day of the Liberty attack that it had already won its latest war with its neighbours. American intervention wasn't needed. Israel's policy, from 1948 onwards, has been to avoid a "close entanglement" with foreign powers. There are no US bases on Israeli soil - that's for second-order colonies like Britain, Germany or Australia. When it goes to war (as it does often), Israel prefers freedom of action. It obtained no real benefits from Anglo-French participation in 1956. Better to be free to act alone. However, in mid-1967, Israel DID have a very strong motive for locking the USA - and especially US public opinion - into long-term strategic support. At that time, although it had supporters inside the White House and plenty of supporters in Congress, it still faced opponents - and/or potential opponents - in the USA Administration and Legislature. Massive US aid to Israel came later... in 1967, Israel Governments were still at the stage of working out how to orchestrate that. The Israeli leadership had a very strong motive for a false flag operation that would make Eygpt - then its major adversary - appear to the American public like uncivilized, liberty-hating villains. In a nutshell, I think the attack on the Liberty was clearly deliberate. What's more, this was no rogue operation. The attack was ordered at the highest level in the Israeli chain of military command. It is also rather clear that the Israeli leadership's intention was to sink the ship with the loss of all the crew. Had the Liberty gone down in the first hour, as might reasonably have been anticipated, it is hard to imagine how Egyptian denails would have cut much ice in Washington or the western media. The entire west would probably have locked quickly behind the official account - as it did after 9-11. After all, who would believe that the Israelis would be venal and wicked enough to murder their best allies? Denials by the Eygptians would have been taken as yet more prooof of Arab duplicity. They'd been caught red-handed slaughtering Americans just off the Eygptian shore - yet they still wouldn't admit it! Those perfidious Ay-rabs! Why didn't the Liberty go down as intended? I don't pretend to know for sure - nor may it be possible after all this time, absent a belated Truth and Reconcliation Commission where the surviving Israeli participants gave honest testimony. I suspect luck played a part. Many members of the Liberty crew clearly behaved with enormous courage. Their own determination to survive was important and probably crucial. However, I'm sure that's not the whole story. What follows is largely speculative, but after reading a variety of soruces on the Liberty assault, I've come to the conclusion that it failed partly because some of the Israeli military assigned to attack the vessel did not execute their orders. Many years afterwards, one of the Israeli pilots apparently came forward to say that the attack was no accident - and what's more, said that when he realised the Liberty was an American vessel, he returned to base (and presumably a carpeting from his superiors). There may have been others who acted with independence and integrity. What to make of three torpedo boats that are sent in for the kill - but manage to land only one torpedo hit out of a salvo of five? By that time, because it had already been savaged from the air, the Liberty was barely able to return fire. The torpedo launchers were firing at a sitting duck. They should have been able to finish off the stricken vessel without much difficulty. Yet they didn't. Perhaps some of the MTB crews couldn't bring themselves to do the job? After all, these were not, as far as we know, Mossad-trained killers or other Israeli intelligence operatives. The air force pilots and navy personnel were probably kept in the dark about their mission until the moment it was sprung upon them. It is quite plausible, I think, that some of them baulked at carrying out orders to murder - or did so with less than full enthusiasm. The Liberty crew would not have been aware this at the time. They experienced only attack after attack. They would have felt terrified of all Israelis who approached. Yet I speculate that the untold story of the Liberty attack is the bravery of some of the Israelis who refused to carry out orders to commit war crimes. In this context, there's an interesting footnote. James Ennes' own account of the Liberty attack mentions the bravery of the ship's Engineer: Golden is also mentioned in Paul Findley's book: So. at least one of the heroes of the attack on the Liberty was Jewish – a Jewish American, in fact. He performed what may be the most important act of courage - breaking the taboo on speaking the truth. Good on him! The very name 'USS Liberty' always seemed a strange co-incidence. How paradoxical, I used to think, that the Israelis just happened to attack a ship called 'Liberty'. I now believe the name was no accident. Like 9-11, this event was intended to have deep symbolic significance for a largely American ‘audience’. One can imagine a typical conversation between Americans circa 1970 had the false flag assault succeeded… (“Hate Arabs? Sure we do! Those bastards sank the Liberty!”) It would be interesting to know who sent the USS Liberty into the East Mediterranean at that crucial time. Who decided there should be no Hebrew-speaking personnel on board? In short... who set up the American end of this false flag operation?

Len Can we assume Mr Bernard Shapiro (New Zealand) is unrelated to Mr Bernard Shapiro (Canada)? I have not established a relationship... but as the New Zealand mass media is too busy to look into the case any more, and the police seem too busy also, I trust there's no harm in asking...

The mass media is unlikely to support Kucinich. However, his claims that there is massive popular support for impeachment may be accurate. This list of actions indicates an impressive grass roots upswell: Find an Impeachment Action Near You

The Washington Post reports that Kucinich has made the first moves from within Congress...

A pathetic, impotent 'European Community' watches and winces while the screw is tightened on Palestinians in the occupied territories and their plight deteriorates from dreadful to worse. See EU warns of worsening situation in Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, a superb article in Counterpunch elucidates the irreconcilable contradictions in the self-congratulatory Israeli slef-image as the "only democracy in the region". A State cannot be 'democratic' while denying full democratic and civil rights to large sectors of its citizens. Even (most) 'white' South Africans understood that by 1990.

Sure. This type of multiple repetition of the same story - without any effort by other media to conduct independent, additional reporting - is what I'd call 'hard wiring'. The December 2001 Fox News 4-part report on the 2000/1 200-strong US Israeli spy-ring followed a similar pattern. One remarkable, gobsmacking report. Then silence. No follow-up. No new angle. Just like dropping a stone into a deep pond. After a short while, not even a ripple to observe. The result is that a few people notice the story - folk who look out for that kind of stuff. Most don't notice. Even if shown it first hand, many refuse to believe it's a significant story, because the lack of mass media coverage suggests otherwise. That applies even in the case of a massive tale such as the 200 Israeli spies arrested in 2000/1. It is much more applicable in the case of a (presumably) much smaller story, such as Mr Shapiro's New Zealand weapon's cache. If you know what you're looking for on Google - in this instance "Bernard David Shapiro", you can find it (that is, the same story 15 times). If you don't, chances are you'll never encounter it. That's what I call a sophisticated system of information control. It doesn't rely on blatant censorship or telling unbelievable lies. It relies on subtle censorship and occasional, much more believable lies, communicated to a rather dummed down populace bemused by the complexities of life in a confusing world and enervated by incessant incitements to consume.

I am appalled at my own lack of discrimination. How on earth could I have mistaken Captain Bob's grovelling rubbish for Garter Sash's probing examination of our beloved Prime Minister? By way of atonement, I now expose my error for the travesty it was: “Dear Mr Prime Minister, you have been holding the highest political and state office in Britain for a decade, a fact for which we warmly congratulate you. What has — in your opinion — made you so popular with Britons?” Timothy Garter Sash. Blair: Builder of Modern Britain (Scarlett Press, 2007), p.147. “Nicolae Ceausescu bounds into the garden of the Palace of the People, looking as if he’s ready for another 18 years there…As for Rumania’s other pivotal alliance, what, I ask, has Rumania got out of its ‘special relationship’ with Moscow over the last decade? What was in it for us? The relationship itself, is his answer, and the influence it enables us to exert on other issues… ‘Time we had an independent foreign policy is the easiest applause-line in the world, but start distancing yourself from Moscow and see how your influence will be diminished.’” Robert Maxwell, “Like it loathe it, after 18 years Ceausescu knows exactly what he stands for,” The Daily Mirror, 15 December 1989, pp.1-32 A deeply ashamed Rigby Don't be too hard on yourself Paul. Yours was a mistake any reasonable person could make - although I understand Maxwell was not MI6 but Mossad (a related clan of murderous gangsters). Great quote from The Mirror, BTW. A gem.

Evan... a question. I understand you are a naval officer. My question is for someone who adeuqately understands the military technology of that time. Given what we know about the assault capability at Israel's disposal in the vicinty of the USS Liberty, how easy or hard was should it have been for the Israelis to sink the vessel in a daylight attack? If the Israeli leadership's intention was to sink the USS Liberty, could they have anticipated the vessel would be still be afloat after an hour or so of lethal bombardment?

By my count, that's at least one blatant lie, two regular lies, one non sequitor and one highly debatable assertion - all in one short paragraph. "After a deluded gunman (LIE) assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness (DECEPTIVE AT BEST). And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter (BLATANT LIE). Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it (NON SEQUITOR) and Jerry Ford’s word was always good." (LIE) Eulogy for Gerald R. Ford Jan 2 'Daddy' hasn't lost his knack.

If you restricted your research to sites that back the intentional attack theory most of the researchers you will be exposed to will back that theory. None of these theories makes sense either. Due to its location the Liberty would not have been able to have picked up signals from anywhere in pre-1967 Israel except PERHAPS areas bordering the Gaza Strip Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa would have been too far away let alone the more distant area surrounding the Golan Heights. It is even questionable if they could have picked up signals from the Gaza Strip or surrounding areas.Since radio signals work on line of sight (LOS), independent of the strengths of transmitter and receiver range is limited by the curvature of the earth because the waves will reach the horizon. Fortunately there is a simple formula for calculating the distance to the horizon, over water or level ground. It is the square root of the height of the antenna (or observer) in feet times 1.06 for nautical miles or times 1.22 for statue miles. Another words radio signals from an antenna 100 feet off the ground (or water) would cross the horizon 12.2 miles away (the sq. root of 100 = 10, 10 x 1.22 = 12.2) and the signals from an antenna 400 feet off the ground 24.4 miles away. But we have to combine the range of both the transmitter and the receiver so if a plane flying 200 above ground level would have to be with in 36.6 miles (24.4 + 12.2) of an airport whose antenna is 100 feet tall (or rather 100 above the altitude of the ground under the plane). This is a theoretical maximum assuming there are no intervening hills or other geographic features blocking the path and that the equipment is good enough. http://www.auf.asn.au/comms/vhfradio.html According to most sources the Liberty was 460 feet long. It appears that the height Liberty’s antenna (measured from the water line) was approximately 30% the ship’s length or about 140 feet high. The square root of 140 x 1.22 = 14.4 so the LOS from the top of antenna would have crossed the horizon 14 – 15 miles from the ship. The Liberty would have been about 95 miles from Tel Aviv, 110 from Jerusalem and 120 from Haifa (see map below). The antennas in those cities would had to have been tall enough to make up the difference. 95 – 15 = 80, 80 / 1.22 = 65.6, 65.6 x 65.6 = 4302. There would had to have been an antenna reaching 4300 above sea level for its signals to have been picked up by the Liberty’s antenna. The world’s tallest ever man-made structure was the Warsaw radio mast which was 2120 feet (646 meters) tall and it was only completed in 1974 (1). The highest point in Tel Aviv “is approximately 30 meters [100 feet - Len] above the Mediterranean Sea.” (2) 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_radio_mast , http://www.smeter.net/daily-facts/5/fact7.php 2) http://jnfeducation.co.uk/?page=topics_israel See if you can provide documentation for the date and time of this war crime and evidence that it was carried out with the foreknowledge of commanders high enough in the chain of command to have ordered an attack on the Liberty. The easiest thing to have done would have been to maintain radio silence or delayed the executions till the ship left the area. This incident seems to have taken place on June 5th and was discussed by the Security Council the next day.http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/cd0beba...2c?OpenDocument http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/f0e5cf0...36?OpenDocument Well now we’re back to no “plausible motive”. Len, Would it be fair comment to say that your major argument against the proposition that the attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate, is that you believe the suggested motives for a deliberate attack (that you've reviewed) are implausible? Do you have any other grounds for doubting the sworn testimony of so many US sailors, or the considered opinion of so many high-ranking US politicians and government officials?