Jump to content
The Education Forum

The USS LIBERTY Incident


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Really. Does the handwritten letter support Cristol's conclusions?

My interpretation is something along the lines of,

"Dear A Jay,

Thanks for the nice luncheon. Nothing you provided has been inconsistent with what we had to work with at the time. You have done a splendid job etc, etc."

Where does the Admiral specifically state that he concurs with Cristol's view that the attack was unintentional? Sounds like spin to me.

I concur there’s a lot of spinning going on here, you should stop before you make yourself dizzy. You summation of the note is reasonably accurate Kidd said “You have done a splendid job of pulling all those loose ends together” and that nothing Cristol told or wrote to him was inconsistent with the COI.

You however, as is you custom, made a strawman. I never said or insinuated that “the Admiral specifically state(d) that he concurs with Cristol's view that the attack was unintentional”. I said that the note “indicat(ed) a certain level of friendship and support for his conclusions.” The note contradicts Boston sworn affidavit:

"Shortly after my [1990] conversation with Cristol, I received a telephone call from Admiral Kidd, inquiring about Cristol and what he was up to. The Admiral spoke of Cristol in disparaging terms and even opined that “Cristol must be an Israeli agent.” I don’t know if he meant that literally or it was his way of expressing his disgust for Cristol’s highly partisan, pro-Israeli approach to questions involving USS Liberty.

At no time did I ever hear Admiral Kidd speak of Cristol other than in highly disparaging terms.”

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html

So according to Boston Kidd was disgusted with and didn’t trust Cristol and only spoke of him “in highly disparaging terms”.

Either

1) Boston’s memory is faulty

2) He lied, and thus committed perjury (again)

3) Kidd was incredibly two faced.

4) Cristol forged the note.

The note is also in line with Ennes’ recollection that the admiral ‘defended the COI’s investigation till the day he died’ (not an exact quote)

While I'm on the subject of Cristol's use of spin, why should we believe Cristol's allegation that Ward Boston concurred with Cristol in telephone interviews between the two in 1990 and 1996? (which you alluded to earlier). Were the telephone conversations recorded or are we forced to rely on Cristol's 'personal notes' of the conversations. Did Boston verify that these conversations took place, and more importantly, does he confirm the contents of the discussions?
In his affidavit (see above) Boston verified that the conversations took place but claims he “refused to discuss” the COI with the judge who he thinks lied.
I find Boston's sworn affadavit of 2003 and his article of June 8, 2007 (reproduced by Sid Walker in post #79) much more persuasive than Cristol's 'personal notes' of the 1990 and 1996 telephone conversations.

Funny that you find one more persuasive than the other when you don’t seem to be that familiar with the contents of either. You obviously haven’t read the affidavit in a while otherwise you wouldn’t have asked me about what Boston said about his conversations with Cristol. You make a big deal of the fact Boston made a sworn statement but his recollection of Kidd’s opinion of Cristol seems to have been highly inaccurate casting the rest in doubt. It also contradicts his signing of the COI in 1967. As for Cristol’s notes you’re right we do have to take word for it but your summery of them is highly inaccurate.

In fact, the notes of these conversations, posted by you Len in post #70, do not indicate that Boston believed the attack was an accident, do they? They seem to compliment Cristol on his research efforts re the Liberty, but certainly do not damage the credibility of Ward Boston--as you and Cristol are desperate to assert.

According to Cristol, Boston reaffirmed his faith in the COI’s investigation saying “all the facts were there” and “was offended by the allegations of coverup” etc and that Ennes and other survivors were “emotional” and “wrong”.

July 23, 1990 conversation

WB mentioned “one nitpicker legal type” (this was Merwin Staring) who bitched about

typos in the transcript.

WB remembered that when they got to London, they encountered “some idiot” at

CINCUSNAVEUR who was trying to slow them up. “He had a long cigarette holder and Ike said he would take it from him and stick it up his ass”.

He commented about Staring going through the record which was sort of rough and

complaining about typos
. WB was of the opinion that at that time Staring had only worked for McCain about a week.

[…]

He said he was aware of the other side of the coin in regards to claims of whitewash and

that he was offended by the allegations of coverup. He said “we put all the evidence we had available into that record.”

[…]

WB said he read “Assault on the Liberty,” and that there were many errors in the book

and that it misstated his name as Ward M. Boston, Jr.

[…]

WB said that he told Admiral McCain that his JAG, Merwin Staring, did not think the

record was smooth enough, although he,
WB, thought all the facts were there.”

From the December 10, 1996 conversation

“He told me he knows how emotional Liberty people get about the incident, even in 1996, but that the guy (Jim Ennes) who wrote the book didn’t get it right.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bump

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

Knucklehead.

It amuses me to see that once again you are resorting to name-calling and insults rather than debating the facts of the case. I was thinking of responding in kind but I really want to avoid sinking to your level.

In case you hadn’t noticed the forum’s software is imperfect sometimes a person is logged out shortly after having logged in. Other times a member posts once but the message appears 2 or even 3 times. And sometimes someone posts but the message but doesn’t register on the main page of the forum which will still show the previous post as being the most recent on the thread. In this case no one except the poster is likely to know the it has been updated. I am not the first nor am I likely to be the last member of this forum to bump the thread in such a situation, in fact Sid, your hero, IIRC has done this on more than one occasion. In case you'd failed to notice I bumped the thread 2 minutes after posting the previous message.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bump

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

Knucklehead.

It amuses me to see that once again you are resorting to name-calling and insults rather than debating the facts of the case. I was thinking of responding in kind but I really want to avoid sinking to your level.

In case you hadn’t noticed the forum’s software is imperfect sometimes a person is logged out shortly after having logged in. Other times a member posts once but the message appears 2 or even 3 times. And sometimes someone posts but the message but doesn’t register on the main page of the forum which will still show the previous post as being the most recent on the thread. In this case no one except the poster is likely to know the it has been updated. I am not the first nor am I likely to be the last member of this forum to bump the thread in such a situation, in fact Sid, your hero, IIRC has done this on more than one occasion. In case you'd failed to notice I bumped the thread 2 minutes after posting the previous message.

Don't try taking the high moral ground--it's pathetic.

Your posts on this thread and others are liberally sprinkled with insults. Your insult to me this time is 'Sid, your hero'. Well, I happen to agree with a lot of what Sid says actually but does that make Sid my hero? No.

Why are you so obsessed with the postings and opinions of Sid Walker? Why do you attack him on a regular basis? Are people entitled to their opinions on this Forum? Your obsession with and pursuit of Sid is, like your moral sermanising, pathetic.

btw, who are you trying to fool? You use the bump to express hubris. Other Forum members usually use it to resurrect old threads which have been dormant for some time. This thread has not been dormant, at least not in recent weeks. However, I don't mind if you bump your posts immediately after making them. Only a knucklehead would behave like that so you're just proving me right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

I notice you have failed to respond to my post which referred to the late Admiral Moorer's opinion of Israel's actions in sinking the Liberty (post #117).

The late Admiral believed with great conviction that the attack was deliberate, yet like Kidd, McGonagle and the others he was forced to tow the official line of mistaken identity forced on them by LBJ.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Really. Does the handwritten letter support Cristol's conclusions?

My interpretation is something along the lines of,

"Dear A Jay,

Thanks for the nice luncheon. Nothing you provided has been inconsistent with what we had to work with at the time. You have done a splendid job etc, etc."

Where does the Admiral specifically state that he concurs with Cristol's view that the attack was unintentional? Sounds like spin to me.

I concur there’s a lot of spinning going on here, you should stop before you make yourself dizzy. You summation of the note is reasonably accurate Kidd said “You have done a splendid job of pulling all those loose ends together” and that nothing Cristol told or wrote to him was inconsistent with the COI.

You however, as is you custom, made a strawman. I never said or insinuated that “the Admiral specifically state(d) that he concurs with Cristol's view that the attack was unintentional”. I said that the note “indicat(ed) a certain level of friendship and support for his conclusions.” The note contradicts Boston sworn affidavit:

"Shortly after my [1990] conversation with Cristol, I received a telephone call from Admiral Kidd, inquiring about Cristol and what he was up to. The Admiral spoke of Cristol in disparaging terms and even opined that “Cristol must be an Israeli agent.” I don’t know if he meant that literally or it was his way of expressing his disgust for Cristol’s highly partisan, pro-Israeli approach to questions involving USS Liberty.

At no time did I ever hear Admiral Kidd speak of Cristol other than in highly disparaging terms.”

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html

So according to Boston Kidd was disgusted with and didn’t trust Cristol and only spoke of him “in highly disparaging terms”.

Either

1) Boston’s memory is faulty

2) He lied, and thus committed perjury (again)

3) Kidd was incredibly two faced.

4) Cristol forged the note.

Maybe Kidd was two-faced. He wouldn't be the first.

The note is also in line with Ennes’ recollection that the admiral ‘defended the COI’s investigation till the day he died’ (not an exact quote)

While I'm on the subject of Cristol's use of spin, why should we believe Cristol's allegation that Ward Boston concurred with Cristol in telephone interviews between the two in 1990 and 1996? (which you alluded to earlier). Were the telephone conversations recorded or are we forced to rely on Cristol's 'personal notes' of the conversations. Did Boston verify that these conversations took place, and more importantly, does he confirm the contents of the discussions?
In his affidavit (see above) Boston verified that the conversations took place but claims he “refused to discuss” the COI with the judge who he thinks lied.
I find Boston's sworn affadavit of 2003 and his article of June 8, 2007 (reproduced by Sid Walker in post #79) much more persuasive than Cristol's 'personal notes' of the 1990 and 1996 telephone conversations.

Funny that you find one more persuasive than the other when you don’t seem to be that familiar with the contents of either. You obviously haven’t read the affidavit in a while otherwise you wouldn’t have asked me about what Boston said about his conversations with Cristol.

Excuse me, smartass, I have read the affidavit:

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Fro...Declaration.pdf

but I'm not as obsessed as you are with the soap opera of gossip, innuendo and Chinese whispers that went on between Cristol, Boston and the late Admiral. So what if Kidd spoke disparagingly of Cristol behind his back? It's all about trying to discredit Boston, isn't it? When a person of historical significance speaks out against Israel and its past behaviour, then it's all about destroying that person's credibility, isn't it Len?

Boston's affidavit (and article, see post #79) are an indictment of the 'official inquiries' and proof that a coverup was ordered by LBJ to protect Israel's ass. Like Admiral Moorer, Boston has great credibilty. I've got strong doubts about the motives of A Jay Cristol, however.

You make a big deal of the fact Boston made a sworn statement but his recollection of Kidd’s opinion of Cristol seems to have been highly inaccurate casting the rest in doubt. It also contradicts his signing of the COI in 1967.

They were all forced to sign off on the COI 'investigation'. Don't be so bloody stupid.

As for Cristol’s notes you’re right we do have to take word for it but your summery of them is highly inaccurate.

In fact, the notes of these conversations, posted by you Len in post #70, do not indicate that Boston believed the attack was an accident, do they? They seem to compliment Cristol on his research efforts re the Liberty, but certainly do not damage the credibility of Ward Boston--as you and Cristol are desperate to assert.
According to Cristol, Boston reaffirmed his faith in the COI’s investigation saying “all the facts were there” and “was offended by the allegations of coverup” etc and that Ennes and other survivors were “emotional” and “wrong”.

Well Cristol's obviously full of it, isn't he? Boston believes no such things.

July 23, 1990 conversation

WB mentioned “one nitpicker legal type” (this was Merwin Staring) who bitched about

typos in the transcript.

WB remembered that when they got to London, they encountered “some idiot” at

CINCUSNAVEUR who was trying to slow them up. “He had a long cigarette holder and Ike said he would take it from him and stick it up his ass”.

He commented about Staring going through the record which was sort of rough and

complaining about typos
. WB was of the opinion that at that time Staring had only worked for McCain about a week.

[…]

He said he was aware of the other side of the coin in regards to claims of whitewash and

that he was offended by the allegations of coverup. He said “we put all the evidence we had available into that record.”

[…]

WB said he read “Assault on the Liberty,” and that there were many errors in the book

and that it misstated his name as Ward M. Boston, Jr.

[…]

WB said that he told Admiral McCain that his JAG, Merwin Staring, did not think the

record was smooth enough, although he,
WB, thought all the facts were there.”

From the December 10, 1996 conversation

“He told me he knows how emotional Liberty people get about the incident, even in 1996, but that the guy (Jim Ennes) who wrote the book didn’t get it right.”

Well, it comes down to whether you believe in the authenticity and accuracy of Cristol's 'personal notes'. Not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote:

"Your posts on this thread and others are liberally sprinkled with insults."

Perhaps you can cite examples of where I have ever insulted you anywhere on this forum or insulted anyone on this thread. I don’t claim to be a saint but I usually wait to be provoked before insulting someone. I have done nothing to provoke your insults on this or other threa

"Your insult to me this time is 'Sid, your hero'. Well, I happen to agree with a lot of what Sid says actually but does that make Sid my hero? No."

I don’t see how referring to a forum member you regularly come to the defense of and agree with 95% of the time or more as “your hero” constitutes an insult especially since you called me a “knucklehead”, previously insinuated I was crazy, insinuated I was stupid on previous occasions and now say I’m “bloody stupid”.

"Why are you so obsessed with the postings and opinions of Sid Walker? Why do you attack him on a regular basis? Are people entitled to their opinions on this Forum? Your obsession with and pursuit of Sid is, like your moral sermanising, pathetic."

“Obsession” and “attack him” are exaggerations my positions are diametrically opposed to his on most issues that come up on this forum. I find some of his views offensive. Just as he has the right to express his views here I have the right to challenge them and ask him about them. If he finds my behavior abusive he is free to complain to a moderator about it. If he doesn’t want to answer questions about his views on certain issues he shouldn’t bring them up.

"btw, who are you trying to fool? You use the bump to express hubris. Other Forum members usually use it to resurrect old threads which have been dormant for some time. This thread has not been dormant, at least not in recent weeks. However, I don't mind if you bump your posts immediately after making them. Only a knucklehead would behave like that so you're just proving me right."

It would be a waste of my time to debate this question any futher with you. If you aren’t the only active member of this forum who doesn’t know about the software glitch I referred to you are one of the few. Like I already said it is not uncommon for members to bump a thread when they notice their most recent post hasn’t registered on the forum board. See this recent post made by Sid for example http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=106563

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

I've got some questions for him.”

Moderators please take note of this extremely offensive insult by Mr. Stapleton! LOL

If you want to ask him some questions or get him to join here you are free to contact him yourself

“Maybe Kidd was two-faced. He wouldn't be the first.”

If he was there is no reason to take his opinions seriously. I think options 1) or 2) far more likely

“Excuse me, smartass, I have read the affidavit:”

I never said you didn’t just that you weren’t familiar with it

“So what if Kidd spoke disparagingly of Cristol behind his back?”

I find it very hard to believe that anyone but a snake would speak so disparagingly of someone being their back then choose to socialize with them and send him a note like the one Kidd sent the judge.

“When a person of historical significance speaks out against Israel and its past behaviour, then it's all about destroying that person's credibility, isn't it Len?”

No, I qnly question people’s credibility when I see evidence they are dishonest or have bad memories. Though he can be evasive at times I don’t think Sid is dishonest.

“Boston's affidavit (and article, see post #79) are an indictment of the 'official inquiries' and proof that a coverup was ordered by LBJ to protect Israel's ass.”

They aren’t proof of anything they are simply his uncolaborated statements.

“Like Admiral Moorer, Boston has great credibility”

I have no reason to doubt the admiral’s credibility though I disagree with him. Mr. Boston is another story. Other than the fact he backs your position what do you think makes this confessed perjurer credible?

“I've got strong doubts about the motives of A Jay Cristol, however.”

This doesn’t have anything to do with his ethnicity does it? If you have any other reasons to have “strong doubts about [his] motives” tell us what they are.

“They were all forced to sign off on the COI 'investigation'.”

Do you have any evidence of this? One of the other members of the court denies this. http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/AtkinsonInterview.pdf

“Don't be so bloody stupid”

Remember what I said about sinking to your level

I wrote: “According to Cristol, Boston reaffirmed his faith in the COI’s investigation saying “all the facts were there” and “was offended by the allegations of coverup” etc and that Ennes and other survivors were “emotional” and “wrong”.”

Mark replied “Well Cristol's obviously full of it, isn't he? Boston believes no such things.”

You missed the point. Boston seems to have changed his views 180 degrees in a few years. Funny that he waited for the admiral to die to speak up. Ennes’ recollection of Kidd’s position regarding the COI is much closer to Cristol’s than to Boston’s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the question of the machine-gunning of the lifeboats it is often brought up as if it were established fact and as if they could have been used by crewmembers preparing to abandon ship. None of this is clear from the evidence available.

1) It’s not clear that a ‘prepare to abandon ship’ order was ever given. At the COI the captain denied ever giving such an order. (*pg 30). And if I’m not mistaken lifeboats would only be placed in the water once a actual ‘abandon ship’ order had been given.

2) Lt. Painter however claims to have received a ‘prepare to abandon ship’ order over the “DC central” (*pg. 42) and then said he later gave orders on his own authority to “prepare” and “standby to abandon ship.”(*pg 43). After getting the order through “DC central” he testified that he gave orders to “knock(ed) most of [the unusable life rafts] over the side”.

Although several men who were below deck said the heard from others that the life rafts were shot up only two members of the crew so far claim to have seen this, Painter and Glenn Oliphant. No mention of this was made at the COI, Painter claims that he testified about it and “the Captain's mental State” but this part of his testimony was “not recorded”**. Ward Boston gave a different version in his 2004 affidavit saying that this part was included in the original COI transcript but “is now missing and has been excised.” http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html.

3) But even based on Painter and Oliphant’s accounts it doesn’t sound like the rafts could still have been used. Recently Oliphant recounted:

“After some time, I heard no more explosions so I went back onto the main deck… I then remember looking behind the ship and seeing three life rafts floating in the water, I would say about 150 yards behind the ship. Then I saw spurts of water around the rafts I heard machine gun fire and then I saw the rafts deflating.”***

Note that he did not claim to actually have seen the rafts get shot hair splitting I admit but he said nothing about seeing what shape they were in before hand. Might he have seen the damaged rafts that Painter testified he had ordered tossed overboard?

More importantly Oliphant said nothing about them being tethered to the ship. In his later account Painter said he (emphasis added)

“personally observed an Israeli MTB methodically machine gun ONE of the Liberty's EMPTY life rafts THAT HAD BEEN CUT LOOSE and was floating in the water” being shot. Remember that according to Oliphant they were about 450 feet (120 meters) behind the ship. Painter said at the COI that the Liberty was traveling at “approximately five to six knots” (*pg. 43). That works out to 6 – 7 mph or 10 – 11 kph or about 10 feet/second (600 feet/minute). The ships wake of course would have been sending the rafts even further away. Though Painter said he interpreted the shooting of the raft as meaning “the thrust of the IDF attack was to kill every American sailor on board” I doubt that very many of even the uninjured sailors would have been able to swim to the raft or rafts

4) There are problems with Painter’s account given decades after the fact. He did not spend very much time on the bridge during or after the attacks being instead on other parts of the deck or below decks. At the COI he testified that he was called to the bridge probably because the captain was close to passing out but by the time he got there he was lying down but “had regained consciousness” (*pg 42). This doesn’t differ too much from the captain’s own recollection of events:

“I lost considerable blood and attempts to stem the flow of blood by self-help were unsuccessful, I noticed myself beginning to lose consciousness. I immediately laid down on the deck flat on my back on the port wing and raised the bleeding leg as high as possible, resting it on my port bridge chair, and there a first class communications technician by the name of Carpenter and other persons who I don't recall at this time, applied a tourniquet to my right leg which effectively stopped the flow of blood. I, at no time, lost consciousness and had my full faculties at all times.”(* pg 65)

However in his later statement Painter** said:

“I was summoned to the Bridge by one of the Petty Officers of the Watch.

When I arrived, I found the Captain severely wounded and in/out of consciousness. In a delirious state…”

This not only at variance with his and the captain’s testimony in the released COI transcript but contradicts that of the officers who were in the bridge none of whom said anything along those lines except that he felt “dizzy” at times and laid down.

Including all the testimony about the captain’s actions during and after the attack would be excessive but the excerpts below give a good idea what everyone else said about them.

According to Ensign Lucas’s COI testimony at about the same time Painter decades later claimed the CO was “in/out of consciousness in a delirious state”:

“The Commanding Officer had been injured in his right leg on what must have been the first aircraft pass. He was bleeding profusely. The Captain had been administered first aid and he had a belt tourniquet around his leg. He insisted on being everywhere that he could. He was on both wings, in and out of the pilothouse, taking pictures. I believe at the time I was giving orders to after steering the bleeding had started again on the Captains leg wound. I'm just theorizing that the shell fragment that was lodged in the leg had been discharged by his movement. We called the corpsman, and the Captain was stretched out on the port wing, being administered first aid. He was still calling orders in to me to relay on to after steering. Bleeding did stop and the Commanding Officer once again was, well…” (*pg 14)

“…it would have taken ten people the doctor's size to even begin to get him off the bridge…He had lost a considerable amount of blood. At several times felt dizzy. He would not leave, but if he started to get dizzy, he would turn to me, or if Mr. BENNETT or Mr. PAINTER were there, he would say this to what course were on, what speed to make. He would give instructions… How he managed to stay up on the bridge and keep on his feet, to keep the cool head the way that be did, is beyond me. He was giving orders to us in the pilothouse, he was taking photographs of the aircraft, the patrol craft, attempting to identify them with his binoculars, giving orders to the gun mounts when they were still manned, was directing the fire fighting parties, seemed like he was everywhere at one time. Also giving commands to get the ship out of the area, away from land as fast as we could.”
(*pg 16)

Dr. Richard F. Pfeiffer, the ship’s doctor said the following at the COI:

“The Commanding Officer at that time was like a rock upon which the rest of the men supported themselves. To know that he was on the bridge grievously wounded, yet having the con and the helm and through the night calling every change of course, was the thing that told the men, "we're going to live." When I went to the bridge and I saw this, I should say that I knew that I could only insult this man by suggesting that he be taken below for treatment of his wounds. I didn't even suggest it.” (*pg 65)

I read through several later accounts by Liberty survivors but found nothing remotely like Painter’s recent account but rather are consistent with the testimonies of the captain, ensign and doctor at the COI. Ennes for example wrote:

“Captain McGonagle, although badly wounded early in the attack, ignored his own wounds. He raced around the bridge defending the ship, directing messages to our seniors, and coordinating the efforts to survive. Once I saw him walk through a wall of flame, ignoring rocket and cannon fire and even napalm as he fought to protect his ship. His performance earned him a well-deserved Medal of Honor.” http://www.ussliberty.org/sdunion.txt

* COI Report http://www.ussliberty.org/nci.pdf

** Painter statement http://ussliberty.org/report/exhibit%252010.pdf

*** Oliphant statement http://ussliberty.org/report/exhibit%252011.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

I notice you have failed to respond to my post which referred to the late Admiral Moorer's opinion of Israel's actions in sinking the Liberty (post #117).

I just did partially in my post about the life rafts. Yes he believed the attack was no accident (or believes I think he's still alive), but he didn't have any direct knowledge of what happened. There are highly qualified people on both sides of this debate. I previously replied to Moorer's comment about being able to ID the Liberty.

The late Admiral believed with great conviction that the attack was deliberate, yet like Kidd, McGonagle and the others he was forced to tow the official line of mistaken identity forced on them by LBJ.

When and if you have any evidence other than the word of an admited purjurer let us know. AFAIK he never said this.

As for McGonagle he reaffirmed his belief the attack was due to negligence 30 years after the fact in a ceremony with other survivors long after he had retired from the Navy.

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.

It ocurred to me that Helms' and Rusk's comments actually undermine Dallek's claim because they only spoke of their personal views and AFAIK never claimed that others shared them.

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...

It would have worked so well (for the Israelis), if only...

...if only they had really tried to sink the ship which they didn't

- The munitions used by the planes weren’t really appropriate for sinking a ship, this suggests whatever else you believe about the attacks that the first available planes were used and were called from the air without returning to base to change their munitions. I.E. the attack was ordered at the spur of the moment and wasn't planned.

- The MTB’s signaled the Liberty (but the signals could not be understood due to smoke and fire) before either side fired a shot. The Liberty signaled the Israelis who seem to have not understood either.

- The MTB’s didn’t fire on Liberty till it fired on them

- The MTB’s stopped firing torpedoes after one hit the Liberty and shortly after this they offered assistance to the American ship

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...