Mark Stapleton Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 (edited) 7) Boston is not very credible, he claimed that Kidd disliked and distrusted Cristol but the latter has a letter from the admiral indicating a certain level of friendship and support for his conclusions. http://libertyincident.com/kidd.html Really. Does the handwritten letter support Cristol's conclusions? My interpretation is something along the lines of, "Dear A Jay, Thanks for the nice luncheon. Nothing you provided has been inconsistent with what we had to work with at the time. You have done a splendid job etc, etc." Where does the Admiral specifically state that he concurs with Cristol's view that the attack was unintentional? Sounds like spin to me. While I'm on the subject of Cristol's use of spin, why should we believe Cristol's allegation that Ward Boston concurred with Cristol in telephone interviews between the two in 1990 and 1996? (which you alluded to earlier). Were the telephone conversations recorded or are we forced to rely on Cristol's 'personal notes' of the conversations. Did Boston verify that these conversations took place, and more importantly, does he confirm the contents of the discussions? I find Boston's sworn affadavit of 2003 and his article of June 8, 2007 (reproduced by Sid Walker in post #79) much more persuasive than Cristol's 'personal notes' of the 1990 and 1996 telephone conversations. In fact, the notes of these conversations, posted by you Len in post #70, do not indicate that Boston believed the attack was an accident, do they? They seem to compliment Cristol on his research efforts re the Liberty, but certainly do not damage the credibility of Ward Boston--as you and Cristol are desperate to assert. More spin. Edited June 22, 2007 by Mark Stapleton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now