← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust

Thread 8213

Thread ID: 8213 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2003-07-18

Wayback Archive

Okiereddust [OP]

2003-07-18 09:36 | User Profile

[url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_crime&Number=764359#Post764359]Liberty Forum - Arab News[/url]

WASHINGTON, 16 July 2003 — Nearly every former senior government and military official who has examined Israel’s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty agrees it was deliberate. Now, thanks to the publication of Judge A. Jay Cristol’s book “The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Attack on a US Navy Spy Ship”, they are going public. Cristol’s book tour included a December 2002 presentation at the Naval Historical Center in Washington, DC, where he touted his version of the attack which, based primarily on Israeli sources, he says was unintentional.

Ironically, it looks as though what actually was unintentional is that Cristol’s efforts to quell the debate have had exactly the opposite effect.

Reading reports of Cristol’s whitewash of the devastating attack, which killed 34 American crewmen and wounded 172 others, was the last straw for Capt. Ward Boston, senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry. The Commander-in-Chief Naval Forces Europe, Boston and the late Rear Adm. Isaac “Ike” Kidd were given just one week by Adm. John McCain (father of Sen. John McCain) to investigate the attack and gather testimony from survivors still on board the crippled ship. Capt. Boston asked each witness to tell his story for a court stenographer.

“There is no question in my mind that those people tried to kill every one on board,” Boston told Arab News. “I was the counsel. I put witnesses on. I talked to kids never exposed to combat who’d seen their friend’s head blown off. Kids who were crying as they told me what they’d gone through. Those boys who had their heads blown away were not out fighting [the Israelis]. They were sunbathing. They weren’t even given a chance to get to their machine guns.”

Boston also watched the bodies of the dead carried out of the hold and saw boys throw up as they retrieved body parts and mopped up after the shelling and torpedo attack. He recalled seeing the shot-up US flags that had clearly marked the ship as an American vessel.

Boston flatly dismisses the claims of Cristol and Israel that Israeli fighter pilots mistook the electronically advanced spy ship, complete with an 18-foot-wide satellite dish, a microwave dish, and antennae, for the El Quseir, a 1920s-era Egyptian horse transport ship.

The Navy captain heard survivors’ testimonies that the Israelis even shot up the Liberty’s lifeboats after they were lowered into the waters to save the crew.

That testimony was excised from the official record at some point after it left Boston’s hands. (The tattered rafts now are proudly displayed in an Israeli museum.) Boston recalls shaking hands with Liberty skipper Cmdr. William McGonagle, who had a big hole in his leg. “He thanked me later for that handshake,” Boston recalled, “because it made some shrapnel pop out of his hand.”

When Boston suggested going to Tel Aviv to have the Israelis tell their side of the story, he was told: “You can’t do it. Come on home and present the evidence you have.”

Armed with a gun to protect the evidence, which he had attached to himself with handcuffs, Adm. Kidd, along with Capt. Boston took the records to London.

As the week allotted for gathering testimony came to an end, the team gathered 20 people to type up the report, which ended up being three inches thick. After all the evidence was turned over to the US Embassy there, the report may have been altered. “I made lots of corrections which are no longer in the report,” Capt. Boston told Arab News. “There are even pages missing.”

A US Embassy official in London told Kidd that he and his men must keep quiet. Ten days after the attack, the Navy’s Court of Inquiry, despite all the evidence to the contrary, somehow exonerated Israel and ruled the attack was a case of mistaken identity. Following the Court proceedings in London, Adm. Kidd returned to Washington, DC and called Boston, to whom he was close. “We have to be quiet,” he said. “We can’t talk to the media.”

President Lyndon B. Johnson “had ordered us to put the lid on it,” Boston said. “And after 35 years of active duty, when I get an order, I follow those orders. All this time I’ve kept quiet until this [Cristol] book came out.”

After years of obeying those orders, Capt. Boston broke his silence on June 26, 2002, when he told Marine Corps Times reporter Bryant Jordan the attack was deliberate.

Boston said he just had to speak out after reading Cristol’s claim that Kidd, in interviews conducted in the early 1990s, had said Israel’s attack was not intentional. The captain told Arab News that he finds it hard to believe Cristol’s version of interviews with the now deceased Adm. Kidd, a man Boston greatly admired. “Adm. Kidd called me two hours after an interview with Cristol,” Boston related, “and said, ‘I think Cristol’s an Israeli agent.’”

According to Boston, both he and Adm. Kidd always believed that, despite the Court’s official conclusion, the Israelis knew the ship was American. “I have strong patriotic feelings,” he explained. “I believe the CIA slogan, ‘the truth will out,’ and hate the Israeli Mossad’s motto ‘win by deception.’”

“Cristol now says I recanted my interview with the Navy Times. That makes me madder than hell,” Boston said. “I have not recanted one thing. If anything, now I’m going to speak out louder than before and tell people what Adm. Kidd told me. He and I were very close.

He said: ‘Those guys knew what they were doing when they killed innocent sunbathing kids. They tried to sink that ship.’”

Cristol may now be kicking himself for waxing so eloquently about Boston’s qualifications and skills, and calling him a “man of integrity” on page 149 of his book.

Liberty survivor James Ennes, author of the groundbreaking book “Assault on the Liberty”, also had numerous conversations with Adm. Kidd over the years. Kidd never characterized the attack as an accident. In fact, Ennes says Kidd told him many times: “You are on the right track, Jim. Just keep on probing. Keep on doing what you’re doing.”

When asked why he thought the US government has covered up the attack for 36 years, Capt. Boston replied: “Iraq, Vietnam, the Liberty — it’s the same old story. When people are in power they don’t want to upset people who may help them get re-elected. Maybe people didn’t want the world to see that Israelis were slaughtering Egyptian prisoners of war. Maybe Johnson was afraid of upsetting potential voters.”

As a captain and staff legal officer in London, retired Adm. Merlin Staring reviewed the Court of Inquiry’s report in 1967.

Before he could finish, however, the report was taken away. Based on what he read, however, Staring, who later became the Navy’s top JAG officer, has said the evidence did not support the “accidental” attack contention.

Last year Richard Helms, CIA director at the time of the attack, agreed that “it was no accident.” Helms also told Marine Corps Times correspondent Jordan on May 29, 2002, “I’ve done all I can. I don’t want to spend the rest of my life in court testifying about the incident.”

Helms’ book “A Look Over My Shoulder”, written in collaboration with William Hood, describes the Liberty attack as “one of the most disturbing incidents in the six days [war]. Israeli authorities subsequently apologized for the accident, but few in Washington could believe that the ship had not been identified as an American naval vessel.”

Adm. Rufus Taylor, Helms’ deputy, told his boss: “To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway.”

An article by David Walsh was released in the Naval Institute Proceedings on June 3, 2003, (available on the USNI website at [url=http://www.usni.org)]http://www.usni.org)[/url]. Walsh’s well-documented article notes that even Clark Clifford, chairman of President Johnson’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a great supporter of Israel, called Israeli claims that the attack was accidental “unbelievable.”

Clifford told the president: “Something had gone terribly wrong and then it had been covered up. I never felt the Israelis had made adequate restitution or explanation for their unprovoked actions.”

US Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Walsh’s article adds, had said there was “every reason to believe that the USS Liberty was identified, or at least her nationality determined, one hour before the attack.”

Finally, Walsh notes, former NSA and CIA director Adm. Bobby Ray Inman, based on his talks with NSA seniors at the time, “flatly rejected” the Cristol/Israel thesis.

Former Chief of Naval Operations and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Thomas Moorer has been on the record for some time as saying the attack on the Liberty was deliberate.

Among those agreeing with him are then-NSA Director Marshall Carter, Carter’s deputy, Louis Tordella, NSA “Liberty Incident” analyst Walter Deeley, and Hayden Peake, professor of intelligence history at the Joint Military Intelligence College and a retired CIA officer.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence John Stenbit told an audience at a conference on “Transforming National Security and Protecting the Homeland,” held April 15 to 17 in Vienna, VA, that the Israelis had warned the US to move the USS Liberty or they would sink it.

His comments appeared in the Israeli daily Jerusalem Post and elicited a letter to the editor in the online section of the magazine. Both the letter and the article have mysteriously vanished from the website.

In addition to the many Americans noted above, Israelis and even Russians are adding to the public record on the attack. Nikolay Cherkashin, who has spent years investigating the Liberty tragedy, quoted a recently published Russian translation of Joseph Daichman’s History of the Mossad, which states that it was perfectly clear to Israelis that the Liberty was an American ship and that the attack was committed to deprive the US “of its eyes and ears.”

Daichman also argues that Israel had every right to attack the American ship. If the Liberty had reported that Israeli troops had moved from the Egyptian borders to the Syrian front, the Soviets, if they were eavesdropping on the US, could have warned the Arabs. Eliminating any eyes and ears, Israel was able to attack Syria and capture the Golan Heights.

Daichman also speculates that Israel may have tried to sink the ship and blame Egypt, and thus provoke a lethal US response. That theory is the theme of the documentary “Dead in the Water” and the new book “Operation Cyanide” by Peter Hounam.

Despite overwhelming new testimony, however, Cristol’s version of the attack on the Liberty is gaining fame. Michael Oren’s “Six Days of War” won an award for best history book at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books. According to Ennes, Oren’s chapter on the treacherous attack echoes Cristol’s version, which Ennes describes as “pure Israeli spin.”

In his book’s acknowledgments Oren thanks the Shalem Center, where he is a senior fellow and “under whose auspices this book was researched and written.”

The center describes its senior fellows program as “promoting the research and writing of agenda-shaping work.” Its journal, Azure, with editorial offices in Jerusalem and Washington, DC, “champions a strong, free and Jewish State of Israel for the future of the Jewish people.”

“Cristol, though discredited at every turn, continues to hawk his book,” Ennes says, “arguing endlessly that the attack was a tragic accident and that we who say otherwise are simply either anti-Semites or blinded by blood and what he calls the fog of war. “Cristol will be promoting his book in August and speaking at a large veterans’ forum in Pigeon Forge, TN,” Ennes told Arab News. “Knowing the views of most veterans who know about the Liberty, I cannot imagine that Cristol will be well received.”

“Will the Liberty remain a sort of Flying Dutchman, sailing forever around her poor men’s souls?”” Walsh concludes his Liberty article by asking. Until a congressional investigation gives survivors the opportunity to tell their stories before they die, and Americans can examine top-secret reports still shrouded in secrecy, the Liberty’s ghost will not rest.

*clayman writes: "

“Cristol, though discredited at every turn, continues to hawk his book,” Ennes says, “arguing endlessly that the attack was a tragic accident and that we who say otherwise are simply either anti-Semites or blinded by blood and what he calls the fog of war. “Cristol will be promoting his book in August and speaking at a large veterans’ forum in Pigeon Forge, TN,” Ennes told Arab News. “Knowing the views of most veterans who know about the Liberty, I cannot imagine that Cristol will be well received.”*

Recluse

2003-07-18 13:42 | User Profile

From CNN's "LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER:

BLITZER: All right, let me bring back Mr. Bamford.

Mr. Bamford, if you listen to the Israeli pilots in the declassified audiotapes that were released by the NSA this week, they do suggest that they thought they were going after an Egyptian vessel.

BAMFORD: Well, they weren't the -- the helicopter pilots weren't the people that shot at it. It was the fighter pilots and the members of the torpedo boats that fired five torpedoes at the ship. Those are the people that need to be questioned, not the helicopter pilots. They came up after the incident.

And the helicopter pilots said -- one of the first things they said was, "There's the American flag. We see the American flag." If they saw the American flag, then why didn't the torpedo boat sailors and also the pilots on the Israeli fighter jets?

And in comment to Mr. Cristol's allegations, there has never been an investigation of this. There never has. And the reason is because the Israeli lobby, which echoes basically what Judge Cristol says, has put enormous pressure on the government not to look into this.

[url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/13/le.00.html]http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/13/le.00.html[/url]

edward gibbon

2003-07-18 14:08 | User Profile

Previously I had written on the USS Liberty and lying by the American media. Once again.> **edward gibbon (Posted: [color=blue]May 23 2002[/color], 20:04)

The Attack on the USS Liberty

During the Middle Eastern war in 1967 the most under-reported and dishonestly reported event in American history since the end of the Second World War occurred. The American Navy ship, the USS Liberty, was attacked by the Israeli Air Force. The American Navy lost 34 men dead and had 171 wounded. What multiplied the disgrace and moral cowardice on the American side was the behavior of the United States Congress. A reading of the Congressional Record showed that not once in the year following the treacherous attack did any of the 535 senators and congressmen bring up the attack by Israel. The power of the Jewish lobby was never more convincingly displayed. The assault soon lost the interest of the American press. Not only did the mainstream press lose interest, the magazine of the Veterans of Foreign Wars refused to do a long article on the attack. They succumbed to financial pressure of cancellation of advertising pages and did not print the piece. The USS Liberty newsletter published by their crew claimed one of the goals of the Jewish War Veterans was to prevent hearings on the attack.

In 1989 when the village of Grafton, Wisconsin accepted a donation of $400,000 to finance the construction of a local library with the condition it be named in memory of the USS Liberty, a clamor arose. Jewish organizations in Milwaukee protested the name as an insult to Israel, and the director of the Milwaukee Jewish Council argued the USS Liberty had become "a symbol of anti-Semitism". As rather indicative of the attitudes of the established American press, the Milwaukee Journal chided the village elders for not seeing their errors and asked that the rest of the community "make the needed mid-course correction". Affluent white America with no stake in placing themselves or their children in harm's way had made their case very strongly.

A year earlier in 1988 a writer challenged an assertion that Israel had made adequate restitution for killing American sailors and noted the number of wounded had been dramatically understated in a newspaper article. This letter provoked a response by Mr. Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, an organization for American Jewry anxious to protect their claim to righteousness and innocence. Mr. Foxman asserted Israel did not attack the Liberty deliberately, but rather it was all a mistake.

On November 6, 1991 in the Washington Post newspaper columnists, Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, gave a much different version of this sordid affair. After 24 years of silence American Ambassador Dwight Porter unburdened himself and revealed the truth. Porter, who was in the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, chose to make public the intercepts of radio communications between Israeli pilots circling the USS Liberty and Israeli Defense Force headquarters. The pilot of the Israeli Mirage fighter-bomber had radioed "It's an American ship". The reply from the Israeli headquarters told him to disregard the identification and attack the ship. Again the pilot pleaded, and again he was instructed to attack. He did so. The account of Ambassador Porter was substantiated by American-born Seth Mintz, who was a Major in the Israeli forces. Mintz, one of those who claim dual citizenship, was living in Houlton, Maine in 1991.

[color=red]One of the attack dogs of the Israeli lobby, Abe Rosenthal of the New York Times, within two days had written a rebuttal. Mr. Rosenthal stated he had tried to get Ambassador Porter to give his version, but Porter did not return his call. However, the civilianized Mr. Mintz, a salesman of chemicals in the United States, did deny virtually everything attributed to him by Evans and Novak. Mr. Mintz denied stating the attack was "an outrage" and further stated: "I was misquoted, quoted out of context, used, abused and screwed". Mr. Rosenthal, using Mr. Mintz's testimony, then challenged the validity of the column by Evans and Novak. Some six months later it was revealed Ambassador Porter had not been home when the "one and only call" came from Mr. Rosenthal. Within three days of reading the column by Mr. Rosenthal Ambassador Porter had sent a letter confirming the essential facts as set down by Evans and Novak. Neither the New York Times nor Mr. Rosenthal in characteristic duplicity chose to publish the letter disputing Mr. Rosenthal's wild and dishonest defense of Israel. This treacherous, cowardly and dishonest behavior long has been the norm for adverse reporting about Israel.[/color] What forced the public repudiation of Mr. Rosenthal's accusation was that it was coupled with a charge by Evans and Novak that Israel was illegally selling American military technology to China.

On November 9, 1991 the Washington Post published a letter by Mr. Mintz in which he denied corroborating any of the charges by the columnists Evans and Novak. That a letter could be published within three days of a published column clearly indicated the gravity and concern by the Washington Post about the charges made. This had to have been a decision made at a minimum the editor's level and probably much higher, at the publisher's level. Presidents of the United States and United States Senators would have great difficulty in having a letter published within three days rebutting a charge in a newspaper. Within two days on November 11, 1991 on what was once remembered as Veteran's Day, Evans and Novak once again took the offensive and repeated the charge that the Israelis knew. They mentioned the news story dated November 7, 1991 in Ha'aretz, a prominent Israeli newspaper. This dispatch from Washington mentioned the grave concern Mr. Mintz had for all the media interest in him. Mr. Mintz told Ha'aretz he did not need the Mossad or Shin Bet, the Israeli intelligence services, knocking on his door.

Three letters to the New York Times of November 20, 1991 shed more light on what could be considered news and what was not. Evans and Novak, who were not published in the New York Times, had a videotape of a June 1991 reunion of the survivors of the USS Liberty during which Mr. Mintz appeared and confessed to the men of the USS Liberty that the Israeli Self Defense Force knew it was an American ship. Later Mr. Mintz repeated his assertion that Israel knew. What was somewhat more curious was the letter immediately below was signed by Mr. Mintz in which he denied making these remarks and stated the real truth lay with his remarks to Mr. Rosenthal. The revelation was the third letter by a member of the crew of the USS Liberty. Mr. John Hrankowski told of how he and other crew members within two hours of the attack were forbidden to talk about it. Then he mentioned Mr. Mintz, whom he claimed he first met along with his wife in Washington in 1987, when 12 crew members including himself were invited by a film documentary company from London to comment on the attack. Mr. Hrankowski met Mr. Mintz again on June 8, 1991 at the USS Liberty reunion where Mr. Mintz confessed to the survivors the same tale he told Evans and Novak. The production company had Mr. Mintz's story on film.

What has been so obvious was the consideration given by the powers in the American press to minimize any story which would lessen the image of Israel in the American media, or failing that to give a more forgiving spin. One must not forget that Mr. Rosenthal, once editor of the New York Times, did that sort of thing on a daily basis. It must not be thought he was alone.

Casually mentioned was Mr. Mintz's entry into the Israeli Self-Defense Force in 1965. One should be allowed to ask why he did not join the American army which was then engaged in Vietnam. Dual-citizenship does not mean dual loyalty. Mr. James Ennes, retired from the US Navy after 27 years, has pointed out the attack followed nine hours of close surveillance by the Israelis during which Israeli pilots circled the ship 13 times on eight different occasions before attacking. Radio operators in Spain, Germany, Lebanon and aboard the Liberty heard the Israeli pilots describe the ship as American, but they attacked regardless. Some fifteen years later one of the Israeli pilots held extensive interviews with then Congressman Pete McCloskey about his role. This pilot refused to obey orders to attack, and after he returned to base, he was arrested. One of the more intriguing sub-plots of the entire affair was that when the Liberty radioed for help, US Navy planes were dispatched, but ordered to return by Robert McNamara. Years later when accounting for his behavior during the war in Vietnam, McNamara failed to mention the attack on the Liberty. Establishment reviewers did not notice. Thirty years later McNamara told the American Legion he had no recollection of recalling American aircraft. Yitzhak Rabin then commander of Israeli forces denied his planes knew the ship was American. When Rabin died, President Clinton ordered American flags to fly at half-mast. Aside from ex-chief of Naval Operations Thomas Moorer, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and precious few others, the Israelis and their bonded liars and spokesmen in the American media have gone unchallenged. The worst exhibition of American cowardice and duplicity has been in the American Congress where blood money of Jews has purchased allegiance to their cause and to the cause of Israel over concern for the lives of American servicemen. **

I suspect very little will be done. The power and influence of the Israeli lobby overwhelms any concern for American lives and interests.

Okiereddust

2003-07-18 15:47 | User Profile

Originally posted by Recluse@Jul 18 2003, 13:42 * *From CNN's "LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER:

BLITZER: All right, let me bring back Mr. Bamford.

Mr. Bamford, if you listen to the Israeli pilots in the declassified audiotapes that were released by the NSA this week, they do suggest that they thought they were going after an Egyptian vessel.

BAMFORD: .........And the helicopter pilots said -- one of the first things they said was, "There's the American flag. We see the American flag." If they saw the American flag, then why didn't the torpedo boat sailors and also the pilots on the Israeli fighter jets?

**

Just Curious BTW, is Wolf Blitzer Jewish?

In any event, the whole argument, when juxtaposed against the comstant reminder that the American flag on the vessel was prominent and seen throughout the whole attack by all parties, is patently ridiculous. I think the Israeli lobby must use this as a test case to see how far they can manipulate the truth, the same way totalitarian countries have always used farcical/comical propoganda stories as a way of testing who the true believers are.

I doubt Israel has been unpleasantly surprised. I bet if they blew up Washington D.C. with a hundred nukes they would say it was just a few missiles targeted for Al Queda suprters that went awry, and the Zionist lobby would obediently fall in line.

weisbrot

2003-07-18 16:28 | User Profile

All excellent finds, and thanks for posting them.

Okie hits on something that I noticed while reading the CNN transcript. Not only is Blitzer Jewish, but so is Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. John Kerry (allegedly/admittedly), Henry Kissinger, Jay Cristol, Jonah Goldberg. And at least by professional association, Michelle Cottle and Stephen Hayes could be characterized the same way. Many if not most of the topics revolve around Israel in some way. For a population that makes up a tiny minority of CNN's broadcast audience, that's quite a bit of exposure to the Levantine. Then again, we stopped watching TV around the time Seinfeld started to break loose; maybe this is TV SOP these days.

Is there any way a white Christian could catch a break?

Okiereddust

2003-07-18 17:01 | User Profile

Originally posted by weisbrot@Jul 18 2003, 16:28 * ** Okie hits on something that I noticed while reading the CNN transcript. Not only is Blitzer Jewish, but so is Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. John Kerry (allegedly/admittedly), Henry Kissinger, Jay Cristol, Jonah Goldberg. And at least by professional association, Michelle Cottle and Stephen Hayes could be characterized the same way. Many if not most of the topics revolve around Israel in some way. For a population that makes up a tiny majority of CNN's broadcast audience, that's quite a bit of exposure to the Levantine. Then again, we stopped watching TV around the time Seinfeld started to break loose; maybe this is TV SOP these days.* That's one argument both for and against "naming the Jew". When you're talking about media a public life, it get's a little redundant. Maybe it would make more sense, and be a little easier to "name the gentile". Usually it's the gentiles (both religiously and not congenitically attached to Jewish organizations) who are the odd men out in public life. Its some presumed by those in the know even if not stated as such all the time.

**Is there any way a white Christian could catch a break? **

:lol:

Actually, even on this forum it can get a little tough for white Christians :rolleyes:

Recluse

2003-07-18 17:35 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jul 18 2003, 09:47 * *Just Curious BTW, is Wolf Blitzer Jewish?

**

Yes, he is:

[url=http://www.bradley.edu/campusorg/aepi/FamousAepis.html]http://www.bradley.edu/campusorg/aepi/FamousAepis.html[/url]

[url=http://www.aepi.org/]http://www.aepi.org/[/url]

They're being forced to address the Liberty incident only because it's been retrieved from the memory hole by the internet. Frankly, telling the truth wouldn't harm their agenda at all, the lemmings are too far gone, but I guess they have so much contempt for us that they're convinced that they can feed us anything and we'll swallow it.

Ragnar

2003-07-18 18:32 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Recluse@Jul 18 2003, 17:35 * ** Frankly, telling the truth wouldn't harm their agenda at all, the lemmings are too far gone... **

I think that's the main point also.

My time in the Navy started just over a year after this attack and that the story was "buried" in the fleet is an understatement. Before I got out I spent nearly a year of my service at the staff of the admiral of the Atlantic fleet air corps (COMNAVAIRLANT for fans of military jargon) and even communications officers who did know the truth said nothing and contradicted nothing long after Johnson had left office. Anything I knew was either from inference or from civilians; the American military even then had career civilian contractors for things like naval electronics, communications, etc. They were not bound by an oath of enlistment or an officer's commission.

The military culture is a world of its own and if military men were ordered to keep silent -- the article above tells me for the first time from the horses mouth that some of them were -- they would have kept silent.

The book is causing a backfire. Men who would have taken that secret to the grave are outraged enough to break with one of the most primal and powerful cultures in the world. Unfortunately they are all aging and, yes, the lemmings do not care.

edward gibbon

2003-07-18 19:31 | User Profile

(Okiereddust @ Jul 18 2003, 09:47 )

Just Curious BTW, is Wolf Blitzer Jewish?

Of course this contemptible creature is Jewish. He not only fled this country during the Vietnam War, but served in the Israeli military. Trusting this thug would be a huge mistake. His loyalty is not to the United States, but to his country in the Middle East, Israel.

Enkidu

2003-07-18 23:01 | User Profile

As the Israeli jets first approached the Liberty they were engaged in friendly conversation with the American radiomen aboard the Liberty. The jets made one pass over the Liberty and dipped their wings in friendly salute to put the crew at ease. They then made a wide turn back and began the slaughter. The supposed rescue helicopters mentioned in the tapes was packed with Israeli commandoes. Their purpose was to methodically proceed through the ship and murder every surviving American sailor, then sink the ship. The Israelis only called off the attack because they did not know that the filth traitor Johnson had ordered American fighters to return to the USS Saratoga.

The following is a typical quote from just about any web site on the subject, this particular quote from, [url=http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=833]http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=833[/url] .

"A message from the USS Liberty got to the USS Saratoga 9 minutes into the attack. The USS Saratoga launched a flight of fighters immediately and they were called back. This happened three different times throughout the attack. Robert MacNamara called them back twice, and President Johnson called them back once, saying his thoughts were not for the USS Liberty. He did not want to embarrass his ally Israel. That act did leave us to get murdered, and what it actually is called is abandonment. "

I was stationed in Rota, Spain, as a CTR from 1969, March to 1971, March. This was about a year and a half after the attack on the Liberty. Oddly enough, even though the bulk of personal aboard the Liberty were also CTs, among the old timers in my rate, the subject was not discussed---ever. Strangely, the Pueblo, an almost identical ship, was discussed a lot among old timers.

Only once did I meet a sailor, General Service, not Naval Security Group, who was on the Liberty during the attack. He told me about the 'friendly radio contact," and wing dipping. The mission of the helicopters is somewhat conjecture among those who write about the attack, but seems obvious to me. My god, the fu**ers strafed the lifeboats. They didn't send helicopters to rescue anyone.

Enkidu

Okiereddust

2003-07-19 03:17 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 19 2003, 01:24 * *Round and round it goes . . . which Jew's in charge . . . nobody knows!

Okie, I would have to say that the "Naming all the Jews" as a cornerstone of strategy, no matter how tedious. I once pushed a potential convert over the edge by mentioning Karl Marx's Jewishness . . . of which he had no idea.

Remember, for most people, this stuff is all brand spankin' new. Try anything that you might think will work, and a few you're doubtful about. The results will surprise you. Well basically I don't think any of us disagrees. Its a question of what do you name the jew, and how often**.

I consider there's a fairly simple rule to follow. Anyone who is criticized not just for "anti-semitism" but for "racism" "intolerance" "xenophobia" etc. to some extent is naming the jew, or his interests, in some form. I think most criticism I hear past this point is gratuitus.

I'll give you an example, even Revilo Oliver, when he was with the JBS, said > when we talk about the international communist conspiracy, everyone will know who we really mean . And of course he was criticized for it, by Gottfried no less. But by Franco/Linder's criteria Oliver would be the enemy, and we would be without any of his work.

Ditto for "squinty Pat"Buchanan and "canny Sammy"Francis

**As to giving Christians a break, you'll find a nice big peace offering on page one of this site today. I believe that you are listed by name . . .

Wintermute

**

Just as long as its not a pagan human sacrifice and we're in it ;)

Avalanche

2003-07-20 05:43 | User Profile

I'll give you an example, even Revilo Oliver, when he was with the JBS, said "when we talk about the international communist conspiracy, everyone will know who we really mean" But see -- that is SO wrong!!! Until I was 42, and married to NeoNietzsche, I would NEVER have assumed, known, or GUESSED that jews were in ANY WAY associated with communism -- except that they were persecuted by evil russkie commies and hence NEEDED their beloved state of Israel!!

Remember just how BLIND most Americans are! It would NEVER occur to most people that jews were in any way involved in ANY of the ills besetting "our" country!

Naming the jew (TM Franco) over and over again, in every venue and as related to every instance IS necessary! Because the vast vast majority of people have NO IDEA!