Jump to content
The Education Forum

The USS LIBERTY Incident


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

2. During the surface attack, the pennant number and difference in hull size should have been apparent to to surface forces.

According to the Liberty’s captain the following sequence of events took place when around the time of the torpedo attack

1) With the Israeli boats and the Liberty approaching each other at high speed he ordered a crew member to fire a machine gun at them.

2) He noticed that the flag had been shot down and ordered a new one raised, it was raised sometime before the torpedo attack

3) When the Israelis were about 2000 yards (1800 meters) from the American ship they tried to signal it but it was impossible to understand the signal because the view was blocked by smoke and flames.

Around the same time they were signaling an Israeli flag was spotted. He gave a cease fire order but the gunner misunderstood and “fired a short burst at the boats” a second machine started firing on its own due to the fire despite being unmanned “fire from machine gun 53 was extremely effective and blanketed the area and the center torpedo boat”, he though the Israelis must have felt they were under attack.

4) Only at this point after having tried to signal without response and being fired on did the Israelis return fire first with their machine guns then torpedos.

5) He also testified that “immediately after” the torpedo hit the Israelis offered assistance but it was refused this was at 1427 the air attacks had begun around 1403, the ship had been under attack for less than half and hour not an hour as frequently stated.

6) A little after 1500 Israeli helicopters approached the Liberty but were waved away (not in quoted text below). According to the NSA intercepts, the CIA report and the main Hebrew linguist on the intercept plane the helicopter crew and their control tower were still trying to identify the nationality of the ship but thought it was Russian till they spotted the American flag:

[Emphasis mine, except for last names in original [39] refers to the page number source - http://www.ussliberty.org/ncitext.htm . The captain’s version of events was in close (but not exact) correlation to that given by the Israelis (http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/evidence/israel/idfhr.html ), it differs significantly from that of James Ennis but he (Ennis) was below deck due to injuries]

I told a man from the bridge, whose identity I do not recall, to proceed to mount 51 and take the boats under fire…When the boats reached an approximate range of 2,000 YARDS, the center boat of the formation was SIGNALING TO US. Also, at this range, it appeared that they were flying an Israeli flag. This was later verified. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO READ THE SIGNALS FROM THE CENTER TORPEDO BOAT BECAUSE OF THE INTERMITTENT BLOCKING OF VIEW BY SMOKE AND FLAMES. At this time, I yelled to machine gun 51 to tell him to hold fire. I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack had been conducted in error. I wanted to hold fire to see if we could read the signal from the torpedo boat and perhaps avoid additional damage and personnel injuries. THE MAN ON MACHINE GUN 51 FIRED A SHORT BURST AT THE BOATS before he was able to understand what I was attempting to have him do. INSTANTLY, ON MACHINE GUN 51 OPENING FIREMACHINE GUN 53 BEGAN FIRING AT THE CENTER BOAT. From the starboard wing of the bridge, 03 level, I observed that THE FIRE FROM MACHINE GUN 53 WAS EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE AND BLANKETED THE AREA AND THE CENTER TORPEDO BOAT. It was not possible to get to mount 53 from the starboard wing of the bridge. I sent Mr. LUCAS around the port side of the bridge, around to the skylights, to see if he could tell QUINTERO, whom I believed to be the gunner on Machine gun 53, to hold fire until we were able to clarify the situation. He reported back in a few minutes in effect that he saw no one at mount 53. AS FAR AS THE TORPEDO BOATS ARE CONCERNED, I AM SURE THAT THEY FELT THAT THEY

[39]

WERE UNDER FIRE FROM USS LIBERTY. At this time, they opened fire with their gun mounts and in a matter of seconds, one torpedo was noted crossing astern of the ship at about 25 yards. The time that this torpedo crossed the stern in believed to be about 1426. About 1427, without advance warning, the ship sustained a torpedo hit starboard side forward, immediately below the waterline in the vicinity of the coordination center… IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHIP WAS STRUCK BY THE TORPEDO, THE TORPEDO BOATS STOPPED DEAD IN THE WATER and milled around astern of the ship at a range of approximately 500 to 8?0 yards. ONE OF THE BOATS SIGNALED BY FLASHING LIGHT, IN ENGLISH, "DO YOU REQUIRE ASSISTANCE"? We had no means to communicate with the boat by light but hoisted code lima india. The signal intended to convey the fact that the ship was maneuvering with difficulty and that they should keep clear.

According to the captain his ship maintained a bearing of 283 degrees and the Israeli MTB’s approached at 135. If I’m not mistaken if the Israelis had been on a track of 103 degrees (283 – 180) they would have been heading head on in the Liberty’s direction and thus were approaching at 32 degrees. The letters ‘GTR’ were 4 feet (1.2 meters) high and the number ‘5’ eight feet (2.4 meters) high [ http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/arguments...llmarkings.html ].

Question for Evan could a combination of the angle, distance, fire and smoke made identification of the ship difficult? Is it reasonable to assume they would have stopped trying to identify ship after being fired upon?

5. Use of the Mystere IV, Super Mystere, and Ouragan aircraft made more sense in the 'deception' role as they had better surface attack capability and - due to their swept wing configuration - could have been mistaken for Arab-force MiGs.
And might use of captured MiG’s have been a better choice? Some had already been flown by Israeli pilots.
6. The fact that Israeli forces appeared to make positive identification of the LIBERTY prior to the attack lends weight to the deliberate attack theory, though similar mistakes in the 'fog of war' have happened.

According to the Israelis this information was “scrubbed from the board” after an 11:00 AM shift change. Question for Evan (or others) Does this sound reasonable to you? Perhaps you could check with some “old timers” I imagine such a practice would have been abandoned worldwide after June 1967.

7. LIBERTY was instructed not to approach more than 100nm to the Sinai Peninsula, and these instructions were apparently acknowledged - yet the vessel was somewhere about 13nm off the Sinai around the attack. It is conceivable that 'public' orders were given, but 'classified' orders countermanded them (for intelligence gathering purposes). Even so, the LIBERTY appears to have been in international waters when attacked. The normal limit for territorial waters is 12nm, so it is conceivable their may have been confusion as to whether the LIBERTY was inside international waters.
Slight correction the “official story” was that these orders only reached the Liberty AFTER the attack due to misrouting. The captain said that he took the dangers of being so close to a combat zone into consideration but decided stay close to shore to improve intelligence gathering. Might the location have added to the confusion? Is it common for neutral ships to be so close to combat area? Since the canal was closed I doubt any active shipping lanes would have been in the area.
I'm still open to the idea that it was a deliberate attack by the Israelis (in order to draw the US into the conflict), though I see increasing factors which suggest it was a mistaken attack by the Israelis which was "softened" by the US government in order to negate potential adverse repercussions with regard to the pro-Israeli factions.

Don’t forget that at this point the Egyptians (and Jordanians) had been vanquished and the Syrians (and Iraqis) had their air forces wiped out. The only assistance that would have been useful to the Israelis was ground troops against the Syrians, I don’t see how and “Egyptian” attack on an American ship could have used to justify deploy US ground forces against Syria especially during the Vietnam War. Even if it could I doubt they could have been deployed fast enough to be useful, the Israelis achieved their objective (capturing the Golan Heights) in two days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mark wrote:

Yes, I do have an indication that they placed Israel's interests ahead of those of the US. The awarding of gallantry medals was a secretive affair. LBJ didn't want American gallantry to be publicly celebrated in this instance, it appears. It would cause too much embarrassment to Israel. Very sensitive chap was Lyndon--to Israel that is.
Please cite evidence for this claim. Even IF true this could have been due to embracement over US errors or perceived errors (only ordering the defenseless ship away from a combat zone at the last minute, misrouting those orders, failure to provide an escort etc,)
Can I cite examples? Hersh quotes RFK stating, in regard to Myer Feldman, "His major interest was Israel rather than the United States".

LOL so now Hersh is a reliable source regarding the Kennedys? Normally he is pilloried by JFK researchers. What context was statement made in what lead RFK to say this? Who was the source of the quote? In any case Feldman as deputy assistant council to the White House wasn’t exactly a high official especially regarding military/intelligence/foreign affairs. Didn’t RFK say his brother liked Feldman?

And there's JFK's quip to a family gathering at Hyannisport, retold by close friend Charles Bartlett, "I imagine Mike's having a meeting of Zionists in the Cabinet room".
Citation I couldn’t find this supposed quote on the Net?

Who is/was “Mike”

Ditto the context question re: the Feldman quote

The question of Angleton's primary alliegance has been discussed on the Forum, as you are no doubt aware.

Yes and other than the fact that the Israelis placed a cardboard plaque with his name on it next to a garbage dump and the unelaborated comments of a single disgruntled ex-CIA agent I don’t remember seeing any evidence of such claims.

And what about LBJ himself?

What about him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote:
Yes, I do have an indication that they placed Israel's interests ahead of those of the US. The awarding of gallantry medals was a secretive affair. LBJ didn't want American gallantry to be publicly celebrated in this instance, it appears. It would cause too much embarrassment to Israel. Very sensitive chap was Lyndon--to Israel that is.
Please cite evidence for this claim. Even IF true this could have been due to embracement over US errors or perceived errors (only ordering the defenseless ship away from a combat zone at the last minute, misrouting those orders, failure to provide an escort etc,)
Can I cite examples? Hersh quotes RFK stating, in regard to Myer Feldman, "His major interest was Israel rather than the United States".
LOL so now Hersh is a reliable source regarding the Kennedys? Normally he is pilloried by JFK researchers. What context was statement made in what lead RFK to say this? Who was the source of the quote? In any case Feldman as deputy assistant council to the White House wasn’t exactly a high official especially regarding military/intelligence/foreign affairs. Didn’t RFK say his brother liked Feldman?
And there's JFK's quip to a family gathering at Hyannisport, retold by close friend Charles Bartlett, "I imagine Mike's having a meeting of Zionists in the Cabinet room".
Citation I couldn’t find this supposed quote on the Net?

Who is/was “Mike”

Ditto the context question re: the Feldman quote

The question of Angleton's primary alliegance has been discussed on the Forum, as you are no doubt aware.
Yes and other than the fact that the Israelis placed a cardboard plaque with his name on it next to a garbage dump and the unelaborated comments of a single disgruntled ex-CIA agent I don’t remember seeing any evidence of such claims.
And what about LBJ himself?

What about him?

As a matter of fact, I do believe there is evidence to suggest that certain areas of US policy have placed the interests of Israel ahead of those of the US, and analysis of the record of certain influential historical figures such as LBJ and JJA can support this argument. Since this argument is beginning to stray off topic, why don't you start a new thread so this can be explored further? You seem to react with great hostility to the suggestion that any favoritism towards Israel existed. Why don't we take a look and find out if Israel has been granted any special status or if it's just malicious gossip spread by nasty anti-semites.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote:
Yes, I do have an indication that they placed Israel's interests ahead of those of the US. The awarding of gallantry medals was a secretive affair. LBJ didn't want American gallantry to be publicly celebrated in this instance, it appears. It would cause too much embarrassment to Israel. Very sensitive chap was Lyndon--to Israel that is.
Please cite evidence for this claim. Even IF true this could have been due to embracement over US errors or perceived errors (only ordering the defenseless ship away from a combat zone at the last minute, misrouting those orders, failure to provide an escort etc,)

The Liberty website claims that Captain McGonagle's Medal of Honour was presented in a quiet ceremony at the Washington Naval Yard instead of at the White House by the President as is customary. Can you prove this is false?

Can I cite examples? Hersh quotes RFK stating, in regard to Myer Feldman, "His major interest was Israel rather than the United States".
LOL so now Hersh is a reliable source regarding the Kennedys? Normally he is pilloried by JFK researchers. What context was statement made in what lead RFK to say this? Who was the source of the quote? In any case Feldman as deputy assistant council to the White House wasn’t exactly a high official especially regarding military/intelligence/foreign affairs. Didn’t RFK say his brother liked Feldman?

Hersh is normally pilloried by JFK researchers? Can you list them? I'm all ears. Also, can you disprove the quote attributed to RFK? Yes, JFK reportedly liked Myer Feldman. However, how does this demolish the suggestion that Feldman's main interest was Israel rather than the US? According to Piper, Feldman is still used as the Kennedy family's attorney but, again, this doesn't demolish the suggestion either.

And there's JFK's quip to a family gathering at Hyannisport, retold by close friend Charles Bartlett, "I imagine Mike's having a meeting of Zionists in the Cabinet room".
Citation I couldn’t find this supposed quote on the Net?

Who is/was “Mike”

Ditto the context question re: the Feldman quote

Feldman was alternatively known by the christian name of 'Mike' or 'Myer'

The question of Angleton's primary alliegance has been discussed on the Forum, as you are no doubt aware.
Yes and other than the fact that the Israelis placed a cardboard plaque with his name on it next to a garbage dump and the unelaborated comments of a single disgruntled ex-CIA agent I don’t remember seeing any evidence of such claims.

So the memorial erected by Israel to honour Angleton was situated next to a garbage dump and featured a mere cardboard plaque? Can you cite a reference for this?

And what about LBJ himself?

What about him?

Well, he was a true friend of Israel. The funds and weaponry he provided for Israel allowed them to emerge as the regional superpower by the mid-sixties. Do you disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Liberty website claims that Captain McGonagle's Medal of Honour was presented in a quiet ceremony at the Washington Naval Yard instead of at the White House by the President as is customary. Can you prove this is false?

No that seems to be true. Produce evidence that this was due to the reason you proposed rather than the reasons I did

Hersh is normally pilloried by JFK researchers? Can you list them? I'm all ears.
He doesn’t seem too popular on this forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ghlite=%2Bhersh

Although not really part of the “mainstream” JFK community Fetzer listed him as a “special case” along with the likes of Specter, Posner and his “arch-enemy” our very own Josiah “Tink” Thompson http://assassinationscience.com/specialcases.html

Leading JFK researcher and history professor David Wrone in his review of his Kennedy book entitled “SHAME ON YOU, SY, FOR THAT AWFUL BOOK ON JFK” wrote:

“[Hersh] has prostituted his nation's history… Hersh does it with a corruption of scholarship perhaps unparalleled in recent times.

He uses not a single source note, but employs caption notes that refer to many books and no pages, so a reader cannot easily check his truthfulness. Hersh has corrupted the facts. On major issues he is coy, strongly using suggestive language with a statement of fact where none exists. Sources are often made up to fit his perceived beliefs…”

Wrone used words and phrases like “putative accounts” “Hersh's false presentation of his foreign policy” “bad…scholarship”, “subterfuge”, “Hersh's framing of JFK”, “falsifies the reality” “libel” in other parts of the review.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/wrone/Dark_Side_review.html

The Columbia Journalism Review (considered the most important academic journal of journalism in America) wrote:

“But Hersh's attributions generally fall short of normal journalistic yardsticks. More important, many of his conclusions are weakly substantiated by his research and highly questionable.”

http://archives.cjr.org/year/98/1/books-hersh.asp

Edward Jay Epstein one of the first people to challenge the LNT wrote:

“But how, even with his legendary investigative skills, did Hersh manage to recover these new memories from Robert Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1968? Hersh did not interview Robert Kennedy before his death, and Hersh does not list any source for these interior thoughts in his documentation. Nor could he have gotten it from Kennedy's own writings, since they don't contain them or even make reference to such matters. Hersh must have invented these facts.

Such license may serve to expand the universe of creative journalism, but it unfortunately does not produce credible history. When the pretensions of "helping the nation reclaim some of its history" fade away on scrutiny, this book turns out to be, alas, more about the deficiencies of investigative journalism than about the deficiencies of John F. Kennedy.”

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm

"This book is a fiction and we don't intend to comment any further on this maliciousness and innuendo."

Senator Ted Kennedy

“[Hersh is] the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."

Arthur Schlesinger

"[Hersh’s book is] a pathetic collection of wild stories."

Theodore Sorensen

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/coms...00405200943.asp

History professor Athan Theoharis in his review of the book for America’s leading history journal noted that “Little, if any, documentary evidence is cited.”

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

Also, can you disprove the quote attributed to RFK?

You’ve got the burden of proof backwards can you prove he said it? Considering the condemnation of Hersh’s scholarship on the book from so many sources I’d say the chances are about 50/50 that he said it. Who does Hersh claim told him this 30 years after RFK’s death or was another unverifiable anonymous source? How reliable was he (or she)? What was the context? What led Kennedy to (supposedly) say this?

Yes, JFK reportedly liked Myer Feldman. However, how does this demolish the suggestion that Feldman's main interest was Israel rather than the US?
It doesn’t seem that the President believed this or at least if he did felt that it prevented him from carrying his duties at the White House which had nothing to do with military or foreign affairs.
According to Piper, Feldman is still used as the Kennedy family's attorney but, again, this doesn't demolish the suggestion either.

If true it would undermine it, if he put another nation’s interests ahead of the US’s while serving under JFK that would have been a betrayal of trust. If I were one of the Kennedys and believed what RFK (supposedly) did I wouldn’t want him as my attorney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there's JFK's quip to a family gathering at Hyannisport, retold by close friend Charles Bartlett, "I imagine Mike's having a meeting of Zionists in the Cabinet room".

Citation I couldn’t find this supposed quote on the Net?

Who is/was “Mike”

Ditto the context question re: the Feldman quote

Feldman was alternatively known by the christian name of 'Mike' or 'Myer'

Thanks for filling me in but since the quote and even snippets of it get zero hits on Google it seems that no one else (besides you) claims Kennedy or Bartlett said this.

The question of Angleton's primary alliegance has been discussed on the Forum, as you are no doubt aware.

Yes and other than the fact that the Israelis placed a cardboard plaque with his name on it next to a garbage dump and the unelaborated comments of a single disgruntled ex-CIA agent I don’t remember seeing any evidence of such claims.

So the memorial erected by Israel to honour Angleton was situated next to a garbage dump and featured a mere cardboard plaque? Can you cite a reference for this?

Yes those famed Israel apologists Alexander Cockburn…

http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?Progr.../?ProgramID=106

…and Victor Marchetti.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p305_Marchetti.html

And what about LBJ himself?
What about him?

Well, he was a true friend of Israel. The funds and weaponry he provided for Israel allowed them to emerge as the regional superpower by the mid-sixties. Do you disagree?

I not that familiar with the details but I believe that weapons sales to Israel started under JFK, grew under LBJ but only became widespread under Nixon. The Israeli’s main arms suppliers at the time were France and the UK.

Even if true can you provide evidence that this is evidence of his putting ahead of the US’s. It was the height of the Cold War and it was SOP to back the enemies of countries backed by the Soviets.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len

I read the Marchetti article before as well.

Interesting to see you quoting from the Institute for Historical Review website.

I am deeply shocked. :unsure:

Anyhow, here's the extract:

For his trouble, James Angleton, who died last year, was honored by the Israelis, in the way that the Israelis customarily honor their Gentile helpers. They decided to plant a whole forest for Angleton in the Judean hills, and they put up a handsome plaque in several languages, lionizing Angleton as a great friend of Israel, on a nearby rock. Israeli's intelligence chiefs, past and present, attended the dedication ceremony. Later on, a television reporter of my acquaintance sought out Angleton's memorial during an assignment in Israel. After some difficulty, he was able to locate it, but something seemed odd about it. On closer inspection, Angleton's plaque turned out to be made, not of bronze, but of cardboard. Nor was the setting particularly flattering to Israel's late benefactor: the trees and plaque were at the edge of a garbage dump. My friend's British cameraman put it best "This guy sold out his country for the bloody Israelis, and this is the way they pay him back!"

Now, this does not seem to me in any way, shape or form to undermine claims that Angleton had allegiance to the Zionist cause, to the point of disloyalty, even treason.

All it suggests is that the Israeli State treated his memory in a less than dignified way.

Perhaps they had contempt for a traitor. Who knows?

Regarding the disparate policies of the JFK and Johnson Administrations to Israel, in relation to arms supplies and a raft of other key policies, do we really need to go over that ground again?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there's JFK's quip to a family gathering at Hyannisport, retold by close friend Charles Bartlett, "I imagine Mike's having a meeting of Zionists in the Cabinet room".

Citation I couldn’t find this supposed quote on the Net?

Who is/was “Mike”

Ditto the context question re: the Feldman quote

Feldman was alternatively known by the christian name of 'Mike' or 'Myer'

Thanks for filling me in but since the quote and even snippets of it get zero hits on Google it seems that no one else (besides you) claims Kennedy or Bartlett said this.

The question of Angleton's primary alliegance has been discussed on the Forum, as you are no doubt aware.

Yes and other than the fact that the Israelis placed a cardboard plaque with his name on it next to a garbage dump and the unelaborated comments of a single disgruntled ex-CIA agent I don’t remember seeing any evidence of such claims.

So the memorial erected by Israel to honour Angleton was situated next to a garbage dump and featured a mere cardboard plaque? Can you cite a reference for this?

Yes those famed Israel apologists Alexander Cockburn…

http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?Progr.../?ProgramID=106

…and Victor Marchetti.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p305_Marchetti.html

I couldn't find the Cockburn comments from the booknotes site. Maybe you could paste the passage.

As for the Marchetti link, the passage in question actually reinforces my point that Angleton was a bigger friend to Israel than he was to the US:

The man who handled that account, James Jesus Angleton, was extremely close to the Israelis. I believe that through Angleton the Israelis learned a lot more than they should have and exercised a lot more influence on our activities than they should have.

For his trouble, James Angleton, who died last year, was honored by the Israelis, in the way that the Israelis customarily honor their Gentile helpers. They decided to plant a whole forest for Angleton in the Judean hills, and they put up a handsome plaque in several languages, lionizing Angleton as a great friend of Israel, on a nearby rock. Israeli's intelligence chiefs, past and present, attended the dedication ceremony. Later on, a television reporter of my acquaintance sought out Angleton's memorial during an assignment in Israel. After some difficulty, he was able to locate it, but something seemed odd about it. On closer inspection, Angleton's plaque turned out to be made, not of bronze, but of cardboard. Nor was the setting particularly flattering to Israel's late benefactor: the trees and plaque were at the edge of a garbage dump. My friend's British cameraman put it best "This guy sold out his country for the bloody Israelis, and this is the way they pay him back!"

I'll have to check through the links that you post in support of your arguments more carefully. In this instance it supports my argument more than yours. And who is this television reporter of Marchetti's acquaintance? Name? It's just an anecdote. Marchetti may have made it up for all we know.

And what about LBJ himself?
What about him?

Well, he was a true friend of Israel. The funds and weaponry he provided for Israel allowed them to emerge as the regional superpower by the mid-sixties. Do you disagree?

I not that familiar with the details but I believe that weapons sales to Israel started under JFK, grew under LBJ but only became widespread under Nixon. The Israeli’s main arms suppliers at the time were France and the UK.

Even if true can you provide evidence that this is evidence of his putting ahead of the US’s. It was the height of the Cold War and it was SOP to back the enemies of countries backed by the Soviets.

You're right---you're not familiar with the details.

Aid to Israel ballooned under LBJ's Presidency. I don't have the figures handy but I can dig them up. Also, LBJ conveniently looked the other way while Israel developed nuclear weapons. JFK was not prepared to do this. LBJ helped coverup the Liberty incident in order to save Israel from embarrassment. The Liberty issue recieved some press but it warranted much more exposure than it recieved. It's no coincidence that Israel recieved a huge boost in weapons and financial aid under his Presidency. Importantly, much of this assisstance was given to Israel unconditionally, whereas JFK always wanted concessions from Israel as a quid pro quo. Cohen's 'Israel and the bomb' covers many of these matters in great detail. No wonder the Israeli's arrested him. I'm pretty sure this issue has been discussed elsewhere on the Forum, but if you wish to make LBJ's relationship with Israel the subject of a new thread, I think it could be quite revealing. It's getting a bit off topic here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read you post, Sid.

You were obviously as surprised by the content of Len's 'reference' as I was.

:unsure:B)

Gob smacked - at least I would have been, had I not observed the wily Brazilian perform many earlier feats of intellectual acrobatics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Liberty website claims that Captain McGonagle's Medal of Honour was presented in a quiet ceremony at the Washington Naval Yard instead of at the White House by the President as is customary. Can you prove this is false?

No that seems to be true. Produce evidence that this was due to the reason you proposed rather than the reasons I did

Unless some reliable documentary evidence is produced, the reason for LBJ's actions can't be determined with any certainty--obviously.

I conclude that he swept the entire affair under the carpet so as not to embarrass Israel, while you suggest he was trying to save the US Military from the embarrassment. My conclusion has company but yours is on its own. I've never heard that explanation before.

Hersh is normally pilloried by JFK researchers? Can you list them? I'm all ears.
He doesn’t seem too popular on this forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ghlite=%2Bhersh

Although not really part of the “mainstream” JFK community Fetzer listed him as a “special case” along with the likes of Specter, Posner and his “arch-enemy” our very own Josiah “Tink” Thompson http://assassinationscience.com/specialcases.html

Leading JFK researcher and history professor David Wrone in his review of his Kennedy book entitled “SHAME ON YOU, SY, FOR THAT AWFUL BOOK ON JFK” wrote:

“[Hersh] has prostituted his nation's history… Hersh does it with a corruption of scholarship perhaps unparalleled in recent times.

He uses not a single source note, but employs caption notes that refer to many books and no pages, so a reader cannot easily check his truthfulness. Hersh has corrupted the facts. On major issues he is coy, strongly using suggestive language with a statement of fact where none exists. Sources are often made up to fit his perceived beliefs…”

Wrone used words and phrases like “putative accounts” “Hersh's false presentation of his foreign policy” “bad…scholarship”, “subterfuge”, “Hersh's framing of JFK”, “falsifies the reality” “libel” in other parts of the review.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/wrone/Dark_Side_review.html

The Columbia Journalism Review (considered the most important academic journal of journalism in America) wrote:

“But Hersh's attributions generally fall short of normal journalistic yardsticks. More important, many of his conclusions are weakly substantiated by his research and highly questionable.”

http://archives.cjr.org/year/98/1/books-hersh.asp

Edward Jay Epstein one of the first people to challenge the LNT wrote:

“But how, even with his legendary investigative skills, did Hersh manage to recover these new memories from Robert Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1968? Hersh did not interview Robert Kennedy before his death, and Hersh does not list any source for these interior thoughts in his documentation. Nor could he have gotten it from Kennedy's own writings, since they don't contain them or even make reference to such matters. Hersh must have invented these facts.

Such license may serve to expand the universe of creative journalism, but it unfortunately does not produce credible history. When the pretensions of "helping the nation reclaim some of its history" fade away on scrutiny, this book turns out to be, alas, more about the deficiencies of investigative journalism than about the deficiencies of John F. Kennedy.”

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm

"This book is a fiction and we don't intend to comment any further on this maliciousness and innuendo."

Senator Ted Kennedy

“[Hersh is] the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."

Arthur Schlesinger

"[Hersh’s book is] a pathetic collection of wild stories."

Theodore Sorensen

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/coms...00405200943.asp

History professor Athan Theoharis in his review of the book for America’s leading history journal noted that “Little, if any, documentary evidence is cited.”

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

I'll consider Hersh to be well pilloried. :unsure:

However, it doesn't resolve the issue of the Kennedys' suspicions regarding Feldman's loyalty priorities. Or the suspicion that others within the Government and intelligence agencies wrestled with conflicting loyalties. Like JJA, for instance.

Also, can you disprove the quote attributed to RFK?

You’ve got the burden of proof backwards can you prove he said it? Considering the condemnation of Hersh’s scholarship on the book from so many sources I’d say the chances are about 50/50 that he said it. Who does Hersh claim told him this 30 years after RFK’s death or was another unverifiable anonymous source? How reliable was he (or she)? What was the context? What led Kennedy to (supposedly) say this?

Yes, JFK reportedly liked Myer Feldman. However, how does this demolish the suggestion that Feldman's main interest was Israel rather than the US?
It doesn’t seem that the President believed this or at least if he did felt that it prevented him from carrying his duties at the White House which had nothing to do with military or foreign affairs.
According to Piper, Feldman is still used as the Kennedy family's attorney but, again, this doesn't demolish the suggestion either.

If true it would undermine it, if he put another nation’s interests ahead of the US’s while serving under JFK that would have been a betrayal of trust. If I were one of the Kennedys and believed what RFK (supposedly) did I wouldn’t want him as my attorney.

Do you really believe a betrayal of trust is such a rare occurrence? If he was not loyal to Israel then Israel would feel betrayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read you post, Sid.

You were obviously as surprised by the content of Len's 'reference' as I was.

:unsure:B)

Gob smacked - at least I would have been, had I not observed the wily Brazilian perform many earlier feats of intellectual acrobatics.

Brazilians are famous for their acrobatic and highly creative goals.

Among other things. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read you post, Sid.

You were obviously as surprised by the content of Len's 'reference' as I was.

:unsure:B)

Gob smacked - at least I would have been, had I not observed the wily Brazilian perform many earlier feats of intellectual acrobatics.

Brazilians are famous for their acrobatic and highly creative goals.

Among other things. :D

It's called nimble footwork, Mark.

Hard to keep an eye on the ball as the Pele of logic twists, turns and dazzles us all with his ability.

But I think the IHR citation was an own goal.

Len must be panicking.

He might be arrested on his next trip to Germany or Israel :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about the problem with the Cockburn link, this one should work.

http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1067

Yes both Cockburn and Marcetti push the notion that Angleton put Israeli’s interests ahead of the US’s which makes their claims about his “memorial” all that more credible. They don’t cite any specifics or evidence. Anybody can claim anything they want. Cockburn is of course openly anti-Israeli and Marchetti had a few axes to grind with the CIA neither are neutral sources.

As for using the IHR website I googled about ‘Jesus’ and ‘his fabulous technicolor plaque by the garbage dump’ and that’s what came up.

Mark if you want to come up with evidence to back your claims and/or start a new thread go right ahead.

No “intellectual acrobatics” on my part, just trying to get you two to document your claims and citing evidence to back mine. Are there any famous contortionists from “down under”?

Hey, I found a few!

tabletwist1.jpg

http://members.iinet.com.au/~strov/contort.iiNet.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for using the IHR website I googled about ‘Jesus’ and ‘his fabulous technicolor plaque by the garbage dump’ and that’s what came up.

Try telling that to an Austrian judge in proceedings where truth is no defense, Len. :ph34r:

Incidentally, isn't Brazil as 'down-under' as Australia?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...