Jump to content
The Education Forum

The USS LIBERTY Incident


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

The only thing in doubt is if you knew of this meaning when you used the phrase. I asked various Australians and Englishmen as well as some Canadians and New Zeelanders and the near universal consensus was that it was hard to believe you didn’t.

Oh brother. A piece of advice for you len---get help.

Actually I did at one point consider hiring an assistant but couldn’t justify the expense ($ 250 - $ 600 / month) but if you want to help defray my costs I’ll PM you my PayPal address.

The phrase Sid used has only one meaning in American English. I asked people from other English speaking countries I know personally and on another forum about it and they told me it has another. But they were almost universal in their opinion that it's hard to believe an Englishman living in Australia wouldn’t have been aware of the American meaning which is well know in both countries.

Well, I guess that's it then. You've now admitted you cannot explain how Israel knew the identity of the USS Liberty and then 'forgot' about it just hours later. Just dismissing it as a screwup doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Better to admit you failed Len---once again. Israel's desperate claims of innocence are all froth and bubble.
No one claims that anyone “forgot” about the Liberty it was removed from the board and then there was a shift change. Screw-ups happen especially in high-pressure situations like war. You said such a explanation can not be believed, I imagine your war room experience/expertise is zero, people with experience/expertise in these matters have found it plausible
There's little point continuing this debate unless something new comes in. You've come unstuck on this key issue and this debate will go downhill from here, degenerating into insults. Better luck next time, Len.

You: “I agree with Sid Walker. You're a sad case Len.”

You: “A piece of advice for you len---get help.”

The insults have only been emanating from one person on this thread - you. If you refrain from doing so in the future there is no reason for it to so ‘degenerate’, self-fulfilling prophesy if it does. If you want something to discuss on this subject rather than insult me you can respond to the numerous points that I have raised that neither Sid nor you have replied to so far.

Sid wrote:

There is a precedent for this type of thing. In the 1950s, the Lavon Affair - ironically named after the hapless Mr Lavon who was most definitely outside the decision-making loop - was a plot in which the formal chain of command was clearly subverted. The nominal leadership was left to shoulder the embarrassment of a very evil and unsuccessful false-flag operation.
Not a very good analogy for what you think led to the attack on the Liberty. No one was hurt nor was anyone meant to be hurt, even property damage was minor, no essential services were targeted. The intention of the plan was to prevent Britain from relinquishing control of the Suez canal. The Australian, British, French, American, Iraqi, Syrian and Israeli governments etc have done far more evil things.

The munitions used by the planes couldn't have been expected to sink a ship. They were designed to be used against ground forces or other planes. The descision to attack the Liberty seems to have been made at the last minute with whatever planes were available. If you want to argue the attackers knew the ship was American you need to come up a senario in which the attack wasn't planned in advance.

Also if the plan was to sink the ship why did the MTB's offer assistence immediately after the torpedo attack? The captain, Ensign Lucas and Harold Thompson, the ship's communications chief, all testified they did http://www.ussliberty.org/ncitext.htm

I encountered an article by former BBC-journalist Alan Hart that I'd reproduced in full on the forum in a previous post.

I came across this paragraph:

In June 1967 Israel’s prime minister of the time, the much maligned Levi Eshkol, did NOT want to take his country to war. It, war, was imposed upon him by the generals, led by Dayan. As I explain in Volume Two of my book, what really happened in Israel in the final countdown to that war was something very close to a military coup in all but name

The cause(s) of the 6 Day War is a subject far outside the scope of this thread. He might have presented evidence for this in his book but he didn’t cite any during his talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The only thing in doubt is if you knew of this meaning when you used the phrase. I asked various Australians and Englishmen as well as some Canadians and New Zeelanders and the near universal consensus was that it was hard to believe you didn’t.

Oh brother. A piece of advice for you len---get help.

Actually I did at one point consider hiring an assistant but couldn’t justify the expense ($ 250 - $ 600 / month) but if you want to help defray my costs I’ll PM you my PayPal address.

The phrase Sid used has only one meaning in American English. I asked people from other English speaking countries I know personally and on another forum about it and they told me it has another. But they were almost universal in their opinion that it's hard to believe an Englishman living in Australia wouldn’t have been aware of the American meaning which is well know in both countries.

Well, I guess that's it then. You've now admitted you cannot explain how Israel knew the identity of the USS Liberty and then 'forgot' about it just hours later. Just dismissing it as a screwup doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Better to admit you failed Len---once again. Israel's desperate claims of innocence are all froth and bubble.
No one claims that anyone “forgot” about the Liberty it was removed from the board and then there was a shift change.

Hold it right there. "It was removed from the board and then there was a shift change".

You always try to dance past this inconvenient little problem. There's no way I can buy that explanation.

Some of your points are plausible, such as the apparent lack of motive, although a false flag operation designed to conceal Israeli war crimes can't be discounted. Also, questions about the visibility of the hull number, why the IDF didn't attack under cover of darkness and why the ship wasn't sunk are all valid, imo, but not conclusive.

However, the issue--the key issue--of why the board marker was removed and the nonsense concerning the shift change is not plausible or believable, despite your eagerness to dangle the Sheffield incident as an analogy, pretty pictures and all.

They identified the ship.

.

Sid wrote:

There is a precedent for this type of thing. In the 1950s, the Lavon Affair - ironically named after the hapless Mr Lavon who was most definitely outside the decision-making loop - was a plot in which the formal chain of command was clearly subverted. The nominal leadership was left to shoulder the embarrassment of a very evil and unsuccessful false-flag operation.
Not a very good analogy for what you think led to the attack on the Liberty. No one was hurt nor was anyone meant to be hurt, even property damage was minor, no essential services were targeted. The intention of the plan was to prevent Britain from relinquishing control of the Suez canal. The Australian, British, French, American, Iraqi, Syrian and Israeli governments etc have done far more evil things.

The munitions used by the planes couldn't have been expected to sink a ship. They were designed to be used against ground forces or other planes. The descision to attack the Liberty seems to have been made at the last minute with whatever planes were available. If you want to argue the attackers knew the ship was American you need to come up a senario in which the attack wasn't planned in advance.

Also if the plan was to sink the ship why did the MTB's offer assistence immediately after the torpedo attack? The captain, Ensign Lucas and Harold Thompson, the ship's communications chief, all testified they did http://www.ussliberty.org/ncitext.htm

I encountered an article by former BBC-journalist Alan Hart that I'd reproduced in full on the forum in a previous post.

I came across this paragraph:

In June 1967 Israel’s prime minister of the time, the much maligned Levi Eshkol, did NOT want to take his country to war. It, war, was imposed upon him by the generals, led by Dayan. As I explain in Volume Two of my book, what really happened in Israel in the final countdown to that war was something very close to a military coup in all but name

The cause(s) of the 6 Day War is a subject far outside the scope of this thread. He might have presented evidence for this in his book but he didn’t cite any during his talk.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing in doubt is if you knew of this meaning when you used the phrase. I asked various Australians and Englishmen as well as some Canadians and New Zeelanders and the near universal consensus was that it was hard to believe you didn’t.

Oh brother. A piece of advice for you len---get help.

Actually I did at one point consider hiring an assistant but couldn’t justify the expense ($ 250 - $ 600 / month) but if you want to help defray my costs I’ll PM you my PayPal address.

The phrase Sid used has only one meaning in American English. I asked people from other English speaking countries I know personally and on another forum about it and they told me it has another. But they were almost universal in their opinion that it's hard to believe an Englishman living in Australia wouldn’t have been aware of the American meaning which is well know in both countries.

Well, I guess that's it then. You've now admitted you cannot explain how Israel knew the identity of the USS Liberty and then 'forgot' about it just hours later. Just dismissing it as a screwup doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Better to admit you failed Len---once again. Israel's desperate claims of innocence are all froth and bubble.
No one claims that anyone “forgot” about the Liberty it was removed from the board and then there was a shift change. Screw-ups happen especially in high-pressure situations like war. You said such a explanation can not be believed, I imagine your war room experience/expertise is zero, people with experience/expertise in these matters have found it plausible
There's little point continuing this debate unless something new comes in. You've come unstuck on this key issue and this debate will go downhill from here, degenerating into insults. Better luck next time, Len.

You: “I agree with Sid Walker. You're a sad case Len.”

You: “A piece of advice for you len---get help.”

The insults have only been emanating from one person on this thread - you.

Len (post 103): "Spare us your smug sarcasm and feigned pity"--to Sid.

Sid wrote:

There is a precedent for this type of thing. In the 1950s, the Lavon Affair - ironically named after the hapless Mr Lavon who was most definitely outside the decision-making loop - was a plot in which the formal chain of command was clearly subverted. The nominal leadership was left to shoulder the embarrassment of a very evil and unsuccessful false-flag operation.
Not a very good analogy for what you think led to the attack on the Liberty. No one was hurt nor was anyone meant to be hurt, even property damage was minor, no essential services were targeted. The intention of the plan was to prevent Britain from relinquishing control of the Suez canal. The Australian, British, French, American, Iraqi, Syrian and Israeli governments etc have done far more evil things.

The munitions used by the planes couldn't have been expected to sink a ship. They were designed to be used against ground forces or other planes. The descision to attack the Liberty seems to have been made at the last minute with whatever planes were available. If you want to argue the attackers knew the ship was American you need to come up a senario in which the attack wasn't planned in advance.

Also if the plan was to sink the ship why did the MTB's offer assistence immediately after the torpedo attack? The captain, Ensign Lucas and Harold Thompson, the ship's communications chief, all testified they did http://www.ussliberty.org/ncitext.htm

I encountered an article by former BBC-journalist Alan Hart that I'd reproduced in full on the forum in a previous post.

I came across this paragraph:

In June 1967 Israel’s prime minister of the time, the much maligned Levi Eshkol, did NOT want to take his country to war. It, war, was imposed upon him by the generals, led by Dayan. As I explain in Volume Two of my book, what really happened in Israel in the final countdown to that war was something very close to a military coup in all but name

The cause(s) of the 6 Day War is a subject far outside the scope of this thread. He might have presented evidence for this in his book but he didn’t cite any during his talk.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold it right there. "It was removed from the board and then there was a shift change".

You always try to dance past this inconvenient little problem. There's no way I can buy that explanation.

Perhaps you can spell out to us your military especially war room experience to us all. People with such experience who bought that explanation include:

· William L. McGonagle –captain of the USS Liberty at the time it was attacked

· Clark M. Clifford – presidential advisor at the time the attack, wrote a memo for LBJ about the incident. Later Secretary of Defense previously (1944 – 46) and officer in the US Navy reaching the rank of Captain.

· Admiral Issac M. Kidd – head of the COI

· Adm. John McCain Jr. 4 star admiral USN, himself the son of an admiral. Entered the navy in 1941. Commander of the USN in Europe at the time of the attack.

· Robert McNamara – Secretary of Defense 1961 – 68, served in the US Army-Airforce 1940 – 6 rising to the rank of Lt. Coronel

· SEN. JOHN McCAIN III – Son (obviously) of John McCain Jr. 23 year veteran of the USN

· SEN. BOB GRAHAM - Chair, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

· ADM. DAVID E. JEREMIAH, USN (Ret.) - former vice chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

· NORMAN POLMAR - naval analyst and author of The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet

· ADM. JERRY JOHNSON, USN (Ret.) - former vice chief of naval operations

· Rear ADM. T. A. BROOKS, USN (Ret.) - Former Director of Naval Intelligence

· REAR ADM. PAUL TOBIN,

· CDR. PETER B. MERSKY, USNR (Ret.)

· CDR. DOUG SIEGFRIED, USN (Ret.)

· CAPT. ERNEST E. CASTLE, USN (Ret.) - United States Naval Academy Alumni Association

For most of the above see - http://libertyincident.com/book.html#comments

· J.B. Colwell – Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (in 3/1968)

http://libertyincident.com/docs/usncoi/CNO-7.pdf

· Admiral Stansfield Turner – 30 USN veteran, commander of U.S forces in Japan and Korea, commander in chief Allied Forces Southern Europe ( NATO), president of Naval War College, Commander, United States Second Fleet. Director of Central Intelligence 1977 - 81

· Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1967)

· House Armed Services Committee Investigation (1971)

· House Armed Services Committee Investigation (1991-2)

http://libertyincident.com/documents.html

Presumably most of the members of the Armed Services committee were military veterans.

Call me crazy but I put a little bit more weight in the opinion of anyone of the above than yours. I don't rememberany of the people with similar backgrounds who said they though the attack was no accident saying that this part of the Israeli's story was implausible. Even our own Evan Burton seems to think it was 'unbelievable' but plausible.

Some of your points are plausible, such as the apparent lack of motive, although a false flag operation designed to conceal Israeli war crimes can't be discounted.
The exact details of what happened to the Indian peacekeepers in the Gaza Strip on the first day of the war is unclear, as noted in an earlier post one report indicated they were caught in “crossfire”. In any case it was already old news when the Liberty was attacked having been discussed by the Security Council and widely reported in the media days earlier.

As for the supposed mass execution of Egyptian POW there is no evidence it happened on the scale Bamford alleges (i.e. thousands). The Egyptians claim to have found 30 – 60 bodies in El Arish. Two former Yugoslavian army officers who were in a UN peacekeeping base near El Arish doubt the story http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

The issue is covered well in a Wikipedia article with numerous references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#A...risoners_of_war

For your theory to make sense you’d have to have some one who was aware of the Liberty’s identity and the killings before the attack began. This is unlikely because the officers involved in the killing were probably low ranking army officers in the Sinai and presumably one outside of the Navy’s operations center in Haifa and a few IDF pilots knew about the Liberty.

The insults have only been emanating from one person on this thread - you.

Len (post 103): "Spare us your smug sarcasm and feigned pity"--to Sid.

Let look at that in context. I said that in response to this

Sorry Len. I'm sorry for you. That is a really pathetic fit-up. The evidence against the Birmingham 6 constituted a stronger case than that.

It's like the way you once harped on about one of my exasperated expletives and claimed it had lurid implications. Sad.

Sid obviously was feigning pity and being sarcastic, the only thing debatable is whether his sarcasm was smug or not. In any case my comments were directed at Sid’s comments not at him an don’t really qualify as an insults but calling some one a “sad case” or insinuating they are crazy do. Should I have been any more polite to Sid than he was to me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold it right there. "It was removed from the board and then there was a shift change".

You always try to dance past this inconvenient little problem. There's no way I can buy that explanation.

Perhaps you can spell out to us your military especially war room experience to us all.

And perhaps you could spell out yours, Len.

People with such experience who bought that explanation include:

· William L. McGonagle –captain of the USS Liberty at the time it was attacked

· Clark M. Clifford – presidential advisor at the time the attack, wrote a memo for LBJ about the incident. Later Secretary of Defense previously (1944 – 46) and officer in the US Navy reaching the rank of Captain.

· Admiral Issac M. Kidd – head of the COI

· Adm. John McCain Jr. 4 star admiral USN, himself the son of an admiral. Entered the navy in 1941. Commander of the USN in Europe at the time of the attack.

· Robert McNamara – Secretary of Defense 1961 – 68, served in the US Army-Airforce 1940 – 6 rising to the rank of Lt. Coronel

· SEN. JOHN McCAIN III – Son (obviously) of John McCain Jr. 23 year veteran of the USN

· SEN. BOB GRAHAM - Chair, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

· ADM. DAVID E. JEREMIAH, USN (Ret.) - former vice chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

· NORMAN POLMAR - naval analyst and author of The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet

· ADM. JERRY JOHNSON, USN (Ret.) - former vice chief of naval operations

· Rear ADM. T. A. BROOKS, USN (Ret.) - Former Director of Naval Intelligence

· REAR ADM. PAUL TOBIN,

· CDR. PETER B. MERSKY, USNR (Ret.)

· CDR. DOUG SIEGFRIED, USN (Ret.)

· CAPT. ERNEST E. CASTLE, USN (Ret.) - United States Naval Academy Alumni Association

For most of the above see - http://libertyincident.com/book.html#comments

· J.B. Colwell – Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (in 3/1968)

http://libertyincident.com/docs/usncoi/CNO-7.pdf

· Admiral Stansfield Turner – 30 USN veteran, commander of U.S forces in Japan and Korea, commander in chief Allied Forces Southern Europe ( NATO), president of Naval War College, Commander, United States Second Fleet. Director of Central Intelligence 1977 - 81

· Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1967)

· House Armed Services Committee Investigation (1971)

· House Armed Services Committee Investigation (1991-2)

http://libertyincident.com/documents.html

Presumably most of the members of the Armed Services committee were military veterans.

Call me crazy but I put a little bit more weight in the opinion of anyone of the above than yours. I don't rememberany of the people with similar backgrounds who said they though the attack was no accident saying that this part of the Israeli's story was implausible. Even our own Evan Burton seems to think it was 'unbelievable' but plausible.

Well I couldn't find anything from Polmar, Parker, Tobin, Brooks, Witty, Kinsolving, or Sherwood where they explicitly stated that the attack was not deliberate. Some of them gushingly praise Cristol's 'work' but hey, maybe they knew the ADL would be reading the reviews. Anyway, once again, here's the list of those who claim otherwise:

"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous "

-- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk

"...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."

-- CIA Director Richard Helms

"I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship."

-- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby

"That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable"

-- Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson

"The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it 'inconceivable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error."

-- Lyndon Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31)

"A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted]."

-- Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack.

"Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers.

-- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor

"The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.... It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident.... I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American."

-- Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry

That the attack was deliberate "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the National Security Agency

-- Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings (So he didn't join the NSA till 1977--big deal--MS.)

Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident

-- 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings (as above, he didn't join till 1977--big deal-- MS)

Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate

-- David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings

"It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity."

-- Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery, June 8, 1997

"To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument."

-- Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14

Pretty impressive list I think.

As for the COI in 1967, it was no inquiry at all. It was held in secret (like the WC), sailors who were on board were forbidden from talking to the press and the whole thing was designed to cover Israel's ass. How effective was the Warren Commission 'inquiry'? How effective was LBJ's sham nuclear inspection regime in forestalling Israel's nuclear ambitions? LBJ was a crook--all his 'inqiries' were designed to place himself and his friends in the clear. Fact. All the subsequent 'inquiries' prove is that the Israel lobby's hold on the US has remained as strong as it was in 1967.

For your theory to make sense you’d have to have some one who was aware of the Liberty’s identity and the killings before the attack began. This is unlikely because the officers involved in the killing were probably low ranking army officers in the Sinai and presumably one outside of the Navy’s operations center in Haifa and a few IDF pilots knew about the Liberty.

So you're saying that in order for the theory (a deliberate attack) to make sense, I must 'have someone' who was aware of the Liberty's identity and the killings before the attack? I assume from this clumsy paragraph of yours that a confession from an Israeli officer is required before the theory 'makes sense'? LOL. Any IDF officer who said that would probably be court-martialed--or worse.

Sometimes I think (I'm sure), you don't realise what you're saying. So, by your reasoning, the theory that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy would require a confession from one of the assassins or plotters before it would 'make sense'! LOL (again).

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold it right there. "It was removed from the board and then there was a shift change".

You always try to dance past this inconvenient little problem. There's no way I can buy that explanation.

Perhaps you can spell out to us your military especially war room experience to us all.

And perhaps you could spell out yours, Len.

People with such experience who bought that explanation include:

· William L. McGonagle –captain of the USS Liberty at the time it was attacked

· Clark M. Clifford – presidential advisor at the time the attack, wrote a memo for LBJ about the incident. Later Secretary of Defense previously (1944 – 46) and officer in the US Navy reaching the rank of Captain.

· Admiral Issac M. Kidd – head of the COI

· Adm. John McCain Jr. 4 star admiral USN, himself the son of an admiral. Entered the navy in 1941. Commander of the USN in Europe at the time of the attack.

· Robert McNamara – Secretary of Defense 1961 – 68, served in the US Army-Airforce 1940 – 6 rising to the rank of Lt. Coronel

· SEN. JOHN McCAIN III – Son (obviously) of John McCain Jr. 23 year veteran of the USN

· SEN. BOB GRAHAM - Chair, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

· ADM. DAVID E. JEREMIAH, USN (Ret.) - former vice chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

· NORMAN POLMAR - naval analyst and author of The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet

· ADM. JERRY JOHNSON, USN (Ret.) - former vice chief of naval operations

· Rear ADM. T. A. BROOKS, USN (Ret.) - Former Director of Naval Intelligence

· REAR ADM. PAUL TOBIN,

· CDR. PETER B. MERSKY, USNR (Ret.)

· CDR. DOUG SIEGFRIED, USN (Ret.)

· CAPT. ERNEST E. CASTLE, USN (Ret.) - United States Naval Academy Alumni Association

For most of the above see - http://libertyincident.com/book.html#comments

· J.B. Colwell – Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (in 3/1968)

http://libertyincident.com/docs/usncoi/CNO-7.pdf

· Admiral Stansfield Turner – 30 USN veteran, commander of U.S forces in Japan and Korea, commander in chief Allied Forces Southern Europe ( NATO), president of Naval War College, Commander, United States Second Fleet. Director of Central Intelligence 1977 - 81

· Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1967)

· House Armed Services Committee Investigation (1971)

· House Armed Services Committee Investigation (1991-2)

http://libertyincident.com/documents.html

Presumably most of the members of the Armed Services committee were military veterans.

Call me crazy but I put a little bit more weight in the opinion of anyone of the above than yours. I don't rememberany of the people with similar backgrounds who said they though the attack was no accident saying that this part of the Israeli's story was implausible. Even our own Evan Burton seems to think it was 'unbelievable' but plausible.

Well I couldn't find anything from Polmar, Parker, Tobin, Brooks, Witty, Kinsolving, or Sherwood where they explicitly stated that the attack was not deliberate. Some of them gushingly praise Cristol's 'work' but hey, maybe they knew the ADL would be reading the reviews. Anyway, once again, here's the list of those who claim otherwise:

"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous "

-- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk

"...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."

-- CIA Director Richard Helms

"I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship."

-- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby

"That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable"

-- Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson

"The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it 'inconceivable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error."

-- Lyndon Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31)

"A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted]."

-- Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack.

"Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers.

-- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor

"The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.... It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident.... I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American."

-- Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry

That the attack was deliberate "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the National Security Agency

-- Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings (So he didn't join the NSA till 1977--big deal--MS.)

Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident

-- 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings (as above, he didn't join till 1977--big deal-- MS)

Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate

-- David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings

"It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity."

-- Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery, June 8, 1997

"To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument."

-- Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14

Pretty impressive list I think.

As for the COI in 1967, it was no inquiry at all. It was held in secret (like the WC), sailors who were on board were forbidden from talking to the press and the whole thing was designed to cover Israel's ass. How effective was the Warren Commission 'inquiry'? How effective was LBJ's sham nuclear inspection regime in forestalling Israel's nuclear ambitions? LBJ was a crook--all his 'inqiries' were designed to place himself and his friends in the clear. Fact. All the subsequent 'inquiries' prove is that the Israel lobby's hold on the US has remained as strong as it was in 1967.

For your theory to make sense you’d have to have some one who was aware of the Liberty’s identity and the killings before the attack began. This is unlikely because the officers involved in the killing were probably low ranking army officers in the Sinai and presumably one outside of the Navy’s operations center in Haifa and a few IDF pilots knew about the Liberty.

So you're saying that in order for the theory (a deliberate attack) to make sense, I must 'have someone' who was aware of the Liberty's identity and the killings before the attack? I assume from this clumsy paragraph of yours that a confession from an Israeli officer is required before the theory 'makes sense'? LOL. Any IDF officer who said that would probably be court-martialed--or worse.

Sometimes I think (I'm sure), you don't realise what you're saying. So, by your reasoning, the theory that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy would require a confession from one of the assassins or plotters before it would 'make sense'! LOL (again).

Although we don't expect to beat Brazil at soccer, I'd score that exchange that 1-nil to Australia.

Nice one Mark! (I am a rather biased observer, admittedly). B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An extract from Alfred Lilienthal's The Zionist Connection II, page 568, 569.

Lilienthal is a remarkable and now very old anti-Zionist American Jew, who knew JFK personally and whose entire adult life has been primarily devoted to seeking justice in the middle east.

I presume these extracts (sourced here) are accurate?

"After President Nasser exposed an illegal American arms deal to Israel in 1965, James Angleton and several Mossad officers decided to oust Nasser by forcing Egypt to confront Israel. The fiery threats of the ill-starred Palestinian leader Ahmed Shukiary helped them. Following a series of secret meetings in Tel Aviv and Washington, CIA officers, the Israeli general staff, certain Israeli politicians, and inner members of Johnson's administration agreed to promote a contained war between Israel and Egypt, which would not affect territorial lines between Israel, Syria, and Jordan . . .

"The Israelis assured the Americans that the ensuing war would be fought to the predesigned American plan of containment. . .

"Knowing that American intelligence from Israel came through the Mossad, Evron believed that he could tell the American government what he wished, and he assured all his Washington contacts right up to the outbreak of war that Israeli troop movements were simply precautionary. Evron did not know about the Liberty, but as the war began, the spy ship's listening devices tuned in to transmissions from both the Arabs and the Israelis. Its presence off the battle zone was to make sure that Israel did not overstep the objectives of the containment plan.

"The observers on the Liberty discovered that while the Arabs failed to crack Israeli codes, the Israelis had penetrated Egyptian and Jordanian codes as soon as the war began. Somewhere between Amman and Cairo, according to Pearson, the messages between King Hussein and President Nasser were intercepted, reconstructed, and passed on by the Israelis without detection, a process called 'cooking'.

Lilienthal goes on to say that the false information being passed on was that the war was going badly for the Israelis, making the Arab leaders think things were going well for them. This emboldened them to continue the war.

"The Egyptians were likewise misled; thinking that the Jordanians had made a successful attack in Hebron, they counterattacked during the early hours of June 8, ignoring a U.N. call for a cease-fire. Thus, the Israelis gained enough time to seize all of the West Bank they wanted, to consolidate their gains in Sinai, and to move their troops right up to the east bank of the Suez Canal.

"On June 7 Eugene Rostow called Avraham Harman to the State Department and warned him that the Israeli attack must stop immediately; he informed Harmon that the Americans knew about the 'cooking' of communications. Four hours later in Tel Aviv the Minister of Defense and the Commander of the air force's offices ordered surveillance of the American communications ship operating off Sinai. Four hours after that, the same sources ordered that the ship be sunk."

Lilienthal then concludes on page 570:

"Alternatively, if indeed the U.S. had been party to a conspiracy to unseat Nasser, the Liberty had gathered definite proof that Washington had been double-crossed and that Jordan, whose territories were to remain untouched, had been sucked into the war through Israel's code-breaking and 'cooking' of false messages."

On page 572 Lilienthal makes the following statement as well:

"The congressional hearings remained secret, but one or two small leaks revealed that two of the pilots in the attack were Americans. Doubtlessly, Washington had connived with the Israelis to hush things up. . . All reference to the nationality of the attackers was deleted." [since many have dual citizenship, it is likely that these were American-Jewish pilots, trained in America, who participated in the attack on the Liberty.]Finally, Lilienthal states on page 574,

"UPI reported on September 18, 1977, that the American Palestine Committee had obtained CIA documents through the Freedom of Information Act revealing that Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had himself ordered the attack on the Liberty."

Well, that dispelled for all time the myth of mistaken identity. But because of President Johnson’s complicity in the plot, there was no way he could come forth with the truth, because then the public would discover his own role in planning the war! So here we are, 40 years later, still paying the price for the Johnson Administration's belief that the Israeli government could be trusted.

This is the only reference I can find to what, if it is accurate, is a most extraordinary UPI report.

Can anyone verify this or otherwise?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An extract from Alfred Lilienthal's The Zionist Connection II, page 568, 569.

Lilienthal is a remarkable and now very old anti-Zionist American Jew, who knew JFK personally and whose entire adult life has been primarily devoted to seeking justice in the middle east.

I presume these extracts (sourced here) are accurate?

"After President Nasser exposed an illegal American arms deal to Israel in 1965, James Angleton and several Mossad officers decided to oust Nasser by forcing Egypt to confront Israel. The fiery threats of the ill-starred Palestinian leader Ahmed Shukiary helped them. Following a series of secret meetings in Tel Aviv and Washington, CIA officers, the Israeli general staff, certain Israeli politicians, and inner members of Johnson's administration agreed to promote a contained war between Israel and Egypt, which would not affect territorial lines between Israel, Syria, and Jordan . . .

"The Israelis assured the Americans that the ensuing war would be fought to the predesigned American plan of containment. . .

"Knowing that American intelligence from Israel came through the Mossad, Evron believed that he could tell the American government what he wished, and he assured all his Washington contacts right up to the outbreak of war that Israeli troop movements were simply precautionary. Evron did not know about the Liberty, but as the war began, the spy ship's listening devices tuned in to transmissions from both the Arabs and the Israelis. Its presence off the battle zone was to make sure that Israel did not overstep the objectives of the containment plan.

"The observers on the Liberty discovered that while the Arabs failed to crack Israeli codes, the Israelis had penetrated Egyptian and Jordanian codes as soon as the war began. Somewhere between Amman and Cairo, according to Pearson, the messages between King Hussein and President Nasser were intercepted, reconstructed, and passed on by the Israelis without detection, a process called 'cooking'.

Lilienthal goes on to say that the false information being passed on was that the war was going badly for the Israelis, making the Arab leaders think things were going well for them. This emboldened them to continue the war.

"The Egyptians were likewise misled; thinking that the Jordanians had made a successful attack in Hebron, they counterattacked during the early hours of June 8, ignoring a U.N. call for a cease-fire. Thus, the Israelis gained enough time to seize all of the West Bank they wanted, to consolidate their gains in Sinai, and to move their troops right up to the east bank of the Suez Canal.

"On June 7 Eugene Rostow called Avraham Harman to the State Department and warned him that the Israeli attack must stop immediately; he informed Harmon that the Americans knew about the 'cooking' of communications. Four hours later in Tel Aviv the Minister of Defense and the Commander of the air force's offices ordered surveillance of the American communications ship operating off Sinai. Four hours after that, the same sources ordered that the ship be sunk."

Lilienthal then concludes on page 570:

"Alternatively, if indeed the U.S. had been party to a conspiracy to unseat Nasser, the Liberty had gathered definite proof that Washington had been double-crossed and that Jordan, whose territories were to remain untouched, had been sucked into the war through Israel's code-breaking and 'cooking' of false messages."

On page 572 Lilienthal makes the following statement as well:

"The congressional hearings remained secret, but one or two small leaks revealed that two of the pilots in the attack were Americans. Doubtlessly, Washington had connived with the Israelis to hush things up. . . All reference to the nationality of the attackers was deleted." [since many have dual citizenship, it is likely that these were American-Jewish pilots, trained in America, who participated in the attack on the Liberty.]Finally, Lilienthal states on page 574,

"UPI reported on September 18, 1977, that the American Palestine Committee had obtained CIA documents through the Freedom of Information Act revealing that Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had himself ordered the attack on the Liberty."

Well, that dispelled for all time the myth of mistaken identity. But because of President Johnson’s complicity in the plot, there was no way he could come forth with the truth, because then the public would discover his own role in planning the war! So here we are, 40 years later, still paying the price for the Johnson Administration's belief that the Israeli government could be trusted.

This is the only reference I can find to what, if it is accurate, is a most extraordinary UPI report.

Can anyone verify this or otherwise?

A most interesting post, Sid.

If it is anywhere close to being accurate, it renders the argument for a case of mistaken identity laughable.

The fog begins to clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold it right there. "It was removed from the board and then there was a shift change".

You always try to dance past this inconvenient little problem. There's no way I can buy that explanation.

Perhaps you can spell out to us your military especially war room experience to us all.

And perhaps you could spell out yours, Len.

Zero, just like you. You said you couldn’t “buy” the explanation that the marker was removed, numerous people with military and war room experience disagree

Call me crazy but I put a little bit more weight in the opinion of anyone of the above than yours. I don't remember any of the people with similar backgrounds who said they though the attack was no accident saying that this part of the Israeli's story was implausible. Even our own Evan Burton seems to think it was 'unbelievable' but plausible.

Well I couldn't find anything from Polmar, Parker, Tobin, Brooks, Witty, Kinsolving, or Sherwood where they explicitly stated that the attack was not deliberate. Some of them gushingly praise Cristol's 'work' but hey, …

If you were paying attention you would have noticed that I didn’t cite “Parker… Witty, Kinsolving, or Sherwood”. If Polmar and Tobin’s comment’s weren't specific enough for you fine, cut them from the list and it still is a very impressive collection of people far more knowledgeable than you on the subject and thus infinitely more qualified than you to determine whether the explanation that the marker was removed from the board was plausible or not. Please try and pay attention it makes it much easier to move the debate forward.

Brook’s full review if you’re interested can be read here http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/Brooksreview.pdf

“…maybe they knew the ADL would be reading the reviews.”

Oh yeah ‘da Jooz’ run the world. They (Polmar etc) could simply have chosen not to review the book. How do you explain Ennes and Bamford getting their books published and the former getting interviewed by Larry King and the former’s spin on the NSA tapes being reported on CNN, the History Channel showing a documentary saying the attack was intentional etc?

Anyway, once again, here's the list of those who claim otherwise:
LOL You got your list, I got mine they are roughly equivalent (if anything “my” list is more impressive). But you weren’t paying attention again. The issue at hand was the plausibility of the explanation that the marker was removed. None of them addressed it directly. There are problems with your list that several of which have already discussed (remember what I said about paying attention?):

1) Clark Clifford and Liberty Captain McGonagle were quoted out of context. Both said the attack was gross negligence but concluded it was an error. You really should pay better attention!). The ship’s captain was friendly with Cristol which would be quite odd if he believe the attack had been intentional. http://libertyincident.com/mcgonagle.html

2) Rusk admitted he hadn’t studied the reports. http://libertyincident.com/docs/rusktranscript.pdf

3) Helms - I know of no evidence the CIA convened a board of inquiry over the episode. It seems odd they would since the matter didn’t directly concern them. 1967 CIA memos released in 2004 contradict him. http://www.libertyincident.com/CIAreports.html

4) Kirby is contradicted by the CIA memo (see above) and NSA* both of which said there were no intercepts of the aircraft attacking the ship. Rather all the NSA recorded 2 helicopter pilots, sent to rescue the crew of the still unidentified ship, and their ground controllers. One of the pilots spotted the US flag, perhaps he got confused. Also the quote doesn’t appear in the cited source. Kirby is only mentioned in a footnote and nothing of the kind is said.**

* http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/nsa/summary.pdf **http://web.archive.org/web/20051127110722/www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles03/PROwalsh06-3.htm

5) Dallek – It would be nice to see the full quote, the site took Clifford and McGonagle out of context. Dallek’s snippet is similar to Clifford’s, could he also have meant unbelievable but true? If not Dallek is contradicted by Clifford, McNamara and McGeorge Bundy*. You can add Bundy to the list of experts who don’t believe the attack was intentional**.

* http://libertyincident.com/docs/Bundy3.pdf pg. 2

** ibid pg. 3

AFAIK Rusk and Helms are the only LBJ advisers to say anything along those lines publicly.

6) Tordella – I agree the Israeli’s decision not to punish any of the people responsible was unconscionable, nothing in there about him thinking the attack was intentional.

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

8) Inman claimed no direct knowledge of the attack but based his opinion on the “four former NSA/CIA seniors”. Ennes was guilty of ‘double dunking’ essentially citing the same source as two separate ones. These accounts are all double hearsay (see Kirby ** link above)

9) Moorer – There is no sign of the supposed quote in the Washington Post’s archives. The quote doesn’t make much sense presumably the Liberty was a ship the Israeli pilots had never seen or even heard of before how should the have been able to identify it? They had nothing to compare it to. Presumably they didn’t have copies of Jane’s Fighting Ship’s in their cockpits. Moorer was an experienced naval aviator, they were air force pilots presumably with little if any ship identification training or experience.

In this case the Sheffield incident is very apropos, experienced Royal Navy aviators mistook a ship in their own battle group for their target - the much larger very different looking Bismarck. It should be noted that the planes which attacked the Sheffield were Swordfish biplanes resembling something out of WW1* presumably their top speed especially when firing torpedoes would have been below the speeds flown by the Israeli pilots.

* Swordfish photo http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Devastator/...s/Swordfish.jpg

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

10) As for Kiepfer and Odom they are entitled to their opinions.

You can add one more expert to “my” list (2 counting Bundy). Notra Trulock who worked for the NSA in the 70’s and later became Director of Intelligence at the Department of Energy http://libertyincident.com/docs/Trulockreview.pdf

“As for the COI in 1967, it was no inquiry at all. It was held in secret (like the WC), sailors who were on board were forbidden from talking to the press and the whole thing was designed to cover Israel's ass.”

I suppose you have citations to support these claims? Several crew members did talk to the press http://www.libertyincident.com/gag-orders-debunked.html

“How effective was the Warren Commission 'inquiry'? How effective was LBJ's sham nuclear inspection regime in forestalling Israel's nuclear ambitions? LBJ was a crook--all his 'inqiries' were designed to place himself and his friends in the clear. Fact. All the subsequent 'inquiries' prove is that the Israel lobby's hold on the US has remained as strong as it was in 1967.”

I already responded to your false WC analogy in a previous post.

For your theory to make sense you’d have to have some one who was aware of the Liberty’s identity and the killings before the attack began. This is unlikely because the officers involved in the killing were probably low ranking army officers in the Sinai and presumably one outside of the Navy’s operations center in Haifa and a few IDF pilots knew about the Liberty.

So you're saying that in order for the theory (a deliberate attack) to make sense, I must 'have someone' who was aware of the Liberty's identity and the killings before the attack? I assume from this clumsy paragraph of yours that a confession from an Israeli officer is required before the theory 'makes sense'? LOL. Any IDF officer who said that would probably be court-martialed--or worse.

What an absurd strawman. The ‘theory’ I was referring to, which should have been clear from context, was that the Liberty was attacked to cover up the killings of the POW’s. The low level field commanders who would have been aware of the killings would have been very unlikely to have know there were any ships in the area let a signals gathering one, the people who could be expected to have know the ships identity the staff of navy’s war room were unlikely to have known about the killings. Even if both pieces of the puzzle are the way you imagine no one is likely to have had both.

It sounds to me like you mixed up replies to two different points. Half of your reply makes more sense as a response to my point that there is no hard evidence killings on the scale Bamford suggests took place.

If true the Egyptians should be able to produce a very long list of soldiers who are MIA and units (battalions, companies, platoons, squads) that simply disappeared. Witness and forensic evidence would be helpful too.

“Sometimes I think (I'm sure), you don't realise what you're saying. So, by your reasoning, the theory that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy would require a confession from one of the assassins or plotters before it would 'make sense'! LOL (again).”

Sometimes I think (I'm sure), you don't understand what you're reading or aren’t paying attention.

“So, by your reasoning, the theory that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy would require a confession from one of the assassins or plotters before it would 'make sense'! LOL (again).”

Wrong again! LOL!

As for the supposed CIA memo and UPI story they are presumably apocryphal or quoted out of context. If they really existed and said what they are claimed to why don’t we have PDF’s of them or at least copies of their text on the various sites pushing the intentional attack theory? Why are they cited on the home pages of those sites? In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

EDIT - typos fixed

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either Dallek is mistaken or McNamara, Bundy and Clifford were all liars. Clifford reaffirmed that he believed the attack was due to gross negligence in his autobiography. Some direct quotes or sources would make his claim more credible. Perhaps he took Helms’ or Rusk’s word for it that everyone agreed with them.

Funny if the Israeli’s had such pull that they could force a cover-up of the attack why would they care about the US discovering they would attack Syria? I doubt the move was unexpected by the Syrians or the Americans. I remember reading that they told the US about the plan beforehand. I’ll try and find the reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either Dallek is mistaken or McNamara, Bundy and Clifford were all liars. Clifford reaffirmed that he believed the attack was due to gross negligence in his autobiography. Some direct quotes or sources would make his claim more credible. Perhaps he took Helms’ or Rusk’s word for it that everyone agreed with them.

Funny if the Israeli’s had such pull that they could force a cover-up of the attack why would they care about the US discovering they would attack Syria? I doubt the move was unexpected by the Syrians or the Americans. I remember reading that they told the US about the plan beforehand. I’ll try and find the reference.

I agree with this, FWIW. That's one of the reasons why I believe the Liberty attack was a false flag operation - not an attempt to cover for embarrassment elsewhere. The intention was to blame Egypt. It would have worked so well (for the Israelis), if only...

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...