Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

The USS Liberty and the McCain Presidential Bid

liberty.jpg

Could the USS Liberty surface as a campaign issue?

The latest news on the Liberty, the Navy spook ship attacked by Israel on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War, is that recently released National Security Agency documents are backing up what many -- including the survivors of Liberty -- have been saying for 40 years: that Israel knew full well that it was attacking -- with aerial strafing, napalm and torpedoes -- an American vessel.

You may have read it on Military.com, one of the few news sites to run the piece in total. Other than The Chicago Tribune, which came out with the story, only The Baltimore Sun picked up the piece, according to a Google search.

It will be interesting to see is whether any presidential candidates address the latest revelations, since those from both parties frequently tout longstanding ties and mutual loyalty between the U.S. and Israel.

One candidate with a real interest in this story is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who five years ago endorsed a book, The Liberty Incident, that concluded it was a mistake. McCain's interest stems from the fact that his father, the late Adm. John S. McCain, was commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Europe, at the time, and ordered the official court of inquiry to investigate the attack.

Based on the court's findings, Adm. McCain concluded it was a case of mistaken identity. But five years ago the legal advisor to the court broke his own silence in an interview with me, calling the final report a sham, a cover-up. It was about that same time that The Liberty Incident, by A. Jay Cristol, a former Navy pilot and retired judge, hit the bookshelves.

Sen. McCain praised the book and its findings in a blurb that appeared on the back cover.

In recent months there have been more revelations about the attack and immediate aftermath, however. In June, I reported that the Navy already was calling the attack accidental in its casualty notification telegrams to next of kin even before the court of inquiry convened for the first time.

Then came the Tribune story last week, reporting that the National Security Agency's deputy director of operations in 1967 now confirms that transcripts of U.S. intercepts of Israeli communications show the Israelis knew exactly who they were attacking.

Oliver Kirby is quoted in the Trib story as recalling the Israeli pilots several times identifying the ship as American but being told to attack anyway. While some of the original transcripts and intel have disappeared, the story reports that some of it is still in U.S. government archives.

So far, calls to McCain's senate and campaign offices have not been returned.

-- Bryant Jordan

Comments

I would think that if a report was filed in a court of law, along with a request, then the report could be progressed through simple filings offered by the court of law. Legal Motions to expedite are available to anything filed within the frame of law - but, military law doesn't exactly follow the same rules as the civilian courts - the UCMJ is treated as a separate entity altogether and is unique to the constitution with certain "civic demands."

If that upsets Jonah - or anyone else from another country who is just a little too critical and curious of how we Americans run our military, then I would submit that "it" be all the more reason to further investigate ... in other words Jonah, reading your bull shit on this site has proven one thing to the general public...that you defeat your protectionist need with your attitude alone and you project your want for cover up too much, lending credence for the need for an open investigation altogether.

Why is it so hard to get entities to answer simple questions, withstanding national security points of interests?

Anyone who presupposes that the US government acts without honor, nor integrity ought to know better as well - just when you think you know why something may have been, more information comes to bear fruit on the subject putting it in new light...and most often times that information is Classified for good reason - it may connect or lay claim to a whole separate subject outside of relevance to the primary question.

Demonizing "big brother" is to assume that your brother is not acting in our best interest - especially regarding any foreign country's interest in the US and our society or way of life.

As for now - our open source intelligence is very strong indeed - but its unique relevance without all information is of no consequence other than fodder for pop culture (to feed the beast, so to speak).

In other words Jonah, don't for a minute think that the US doesn't have information already...after all everything has a price - money is only a tool, almost as effective as "technology."

Why certain things are "covert" (or covered up) are of no concern to everyday citizens and the "need to know" perquisite exists for good reason - that is unless an individual has something to hide which is not covered under the constitution which lay all rights and responsibilities out for every private citizen, as well as foreign.

Signed
Intelligence

"the anti-jonah"

ps - jonah, if the israeli's are responsible for 911 - as a type wake up call I suppose - would you blame them? Is Bin Laden a Sharon cronie now? Is he Jewish? Are you one of those who believes that is father was CIA? Explain his taped confession and need for jihad. Who benefited the most of all from the attacks - what country?

Posted by: Airman Read at October 11, 2008 11:50 AM


Jonah is obviously a Troll, working overtime for his Zionist Thug Murdering Masters. USS Liberty Survivors have exposed him for the Coward and Troll he is. Jonah, go tell your Masters the Jig is up. You are doomed to fail in any and all assinine attempts at covering for such a vile bunch of Criminal murdering bastards. Warmest Regards you SOB!

Posted by: Shadow at September 22, 2008 05:07 PM


Jonah: You are a chuckle head. Joe is way to kind. You need to take your israeli passport and go back to your home country. McCain has israel so far up his asss he's shittting bagels. He is a tool. Sadly Obama is worse....but I will not lower myself to vote for Mccain...I'll hit Barr and walk out with my integrity.

stanford

Posted by: Stanford at August 14, 2008 09:43 PM


End the occupation of Palestine, Iraq and Capital Hill.

PLEASE ASSIST IN CIRCULATION OF THESE TWO BOOKS.
THANKS,

1.


2.







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

FINAL REPORT & DECEPTION: TWO BOOKS BY

RETIRED OFFICER RONALD L. WALDRON

These controversial new books written by a retired Police officer are fact-loaded tableaus exposing the inner-workings of our government in relation to foreign policy, nuclear armament, and political corruption.

We call for a literal reprisal of our government though a return to " by the people" democracy.

Who, What, Where, When, Why & Wake-up !!

Order & Read : FINAL-REPORT.ID# 49149.

&

DECEPTION. ID# 53223

The easiest way to place an order is to go to the Author House Bookstore. You can also call our Book Order Hotline,

at 888.280.7715.(Book ID# 49149 ) Also, orders can be accepted via email at bkorders@authorhouse.com.

OR: Web. site

http://www.authorhouse.com/bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=49149

http://www.authorhouse.com/bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=53223

A second book: Titled DECEPTION; ID # 53223 is now available through the same outlets.

Both books also available at Barnes & Noble, and Amazon.com.

The books are written in support of Obama, and change.

A revolution is well on the way, the people will unite,how-ever will it be constructive or destructive?

That my fellow Americans is up to us, you and me.

DUE to the FISA bill, BUSH administration is now

reading all your E-mail. How do you like it ?

With McCain you will have more of the Mc same !!

Posted by: Allen D. Post at July 24, 2008 02:16 PM


Can anybody tell me where I can get a photocopy that I can download of the transcript of the intercept where Israelis identified the ship as being an American ship?

Posted by: Herb Schaffler at July 7, 2008 08:00 AM


Reasons why the attack on the Liberty try the following

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/aug/08/israel

Posted by: Jack Edwards at July 2, 2008 05:33 AM


American citizens are easily duped by their government. U.S. history is cluttered with examples of government feeding false information to forward their own agenda. It's amazing how it happens over and over with citizen acceptance. Most Americans are sheep and will not question authority. Most of them do not want to be labeled "unpatriotic" or "unamerican" and go with the status quo. Even when it is against their own self interest. The attack on the USS Liberty by the state of Israel over 40 years ago is evidence that we were never allies. This relationship has been destructive to America and will continue as long as its citizens do not question its leadership.

Posted by: Joe at June 4, 2008 11:34 PM


I have been reading about the USS Liberty for years now. I feel so sad that our patriotic soldiers are being annoyed and harassed -- for trying to get the TRUTH out, trying to PROTECT AMERICANS from other possible attacks by our "ally". If the truth does not come out all over the media now, how can we prevent history from repeating itself? We can't.

I was surprised to read about the Israeli pilot at the scene who reported back to base that the vessel was American, and when he was commanded to continue the attack he chose not to, facing arrest on his return to base.

For the pilot's story to have come out some 25 years ago, corroborated by the fact that the whole radio exchange was overheard by the US Embassy in London as well as by other radio operators... it's just amazing that people still refuse to acknowledge this intentional slaughter of US military personnel.

My heart goes out to the victim's families who still have not seen justice done 40 years later... and to those survivors who have been brave in standing up for their country, even though our politicians will not stand by them.

Posted by: Susannah at May 26, 2008 02:36 PM


israel is expendable as far as I am concerned.....G-D

Posted by: G-D at May 25, 2008 05:25 PM


I have reviewed as much as possible relating to the USS Liberty incident based on as many sources as possible, and tried to challenge sources where I can.

I do not believe that the attack could have been an error or a mistake. I believe it was a deliberate attempt to sink a US Navy ship and bring the US into the war on the part of Israel. Or rather, if there were mistakes, it was simply that the ship wasn't successfully sunk with all hands aboard. It was therefore nothing short of cold-blooded murder.

What we don't know is who was responsible and where the blame should be laid. That is why we need a full Congressional investigation. We did this when another ally of ours at the time fired rockets at the USS Stark. Why not now? What are people afraid of?

Fear of the truth is the surest way to create fear of others based on lies.

Posted by: Chris Travers at March 23, 2008 04:45 PM


dont let the uss liberty be forgoten just because 40 yrs has gone by

Posted by: ron west at March 20, 2008 11:02 PM


Johan:
I've skimmed through some of the messages prior to this and am astounded at the things you have said and the syntax used to express them.
I dedicated twenty years of my life to the service of my country and my principal mission was eavesdropping.
Israel attacked the USS Liberty to prevent the United States knowing they were going beyond agreed to boundries. Where would Israel be without the unmitigated support of the Super Power? I don't think you want a picture such as that to become reality.
For another government (?) to slap a benefactor in the face in such a manner is shameful. Consider the loss of life (fathers. brothers, sons and husbands) from this incident, it really puts an ugly face on Israel.
I will gurantee you that the intelligence gathered was not passed to your opposition, as you stated. If that is so, you really have a super 'inside' source that governments would kill for so, watch out, someone wants you for some reason.
Lynn

Posted by: Lynn at March 18, 2008 10:43 PM


Jonah, it seems to me that you are asking for an awful lot of *evidence* while submitting very little of your own. Now, as a historian, I have to agree that evidence is never too much to ask for. A researcher must investigate all facets of something before coming to a decision. I have to say that I do not see a lot of that going on in this discussion, from either side. But, back to the point. Where do you think these other sources get their information from? I will give you a hint, any historian worth their salt begs for it. Ding, ding, ding--- Eyewitness accounts. Why would anyone pass over primary source material,ie eyewitness accounts, in order to focus on secondary source information? You are asking for secondary source information instead of giving any credibility to primary sources. And yet, primary sources are the most important source material in any investigation.

On another note, there is one thing about Israel's excuse that bugs me to no end. Israel wants the US to believe that they did not know the USS Liberty was a US Naval vessel. Israel has some of the best, if not the best, intel on the planet, and did then too. How am I suppose to take them seriously when they say, *oops, we didn't know?* I do not know about any mass killings of Egyptians. I do not know about any cover ups of said mass killings. But, I do know that Israeli intelligence does not make these kinds of mistakes.

Posted by: SylvreWolfe at February 23, 2008 12:00 PM


2 ans the 2 dopes ques above
1.why
this was a false flag op to suck usa into a war and blame egypt for the attack on liberty. this way just like iraq the zionists sit back as we waste our treasure and blood
and they reap all the rewards free. 2.its never time too move on cause when we did they exec. 911.

google - ZIONIST CRIMES -

THESE ROTTEN ZIONIST TRAITORS EXEC. 911
ZAKHEIM,WOLFASHIT,SILVERSTIEN,ZOMBIE SHARON.
BUT THERE DATE WITH DESTINY IS COMING AS

" THE BLOOD OF OUR COMRADES WILL FUEL THE ROCKETS THAT END THE ZIONIST REGIME. "

Posted by: 3000 killed on 911 at February 13, 2008 01:14 AM


jonah, are you a hasbara-sayanim internet patroller? your sources have been exposed many times. the author of the "liberty incident" was totally discredited for lies you are repeating here. you and your comrades have no regard for truth, humanity, the people of united states or even israeli people. you can't conceal the truth with your veil of fraud over here in the usa forever bub. stay in israel where you are probably better off. your propaganda will be obliterated every time in the comapny of usa veterans and active duty personnel. we americans (jews and non-jews alike) trust dozens of usa naval veterans (jews and non-jews alike) and conscientious israeli pilots, over the agents of a nation that committed false flag terror missions and espionage against our country over the decades. some of us already know how your mossad and idf agents are undermining our guys over in iraq and afghanistan. just like you did in lebanon in '83. most people don't know about that, but the usa state dept knows and so does the cia and some in the pentagon. one more thing, you israeli agents have a way of acting like israel represents judaism. but it's not even close. learn COMPASSION, JUSTICE and TRUTH before you lay claim to any holy land on my behalf or in the name of G-D!

Posted by: j.eban at January 27, 2008 09:52 PM


Sounds like U.S. Citizens should follow the zionist advice and take out all sources of spying in the U.S. Which are mostly Israeli.

When Zionists find God the world will love them again. Maybe.

Posted by: Jew Lover at January 27, 2008 02:38 AM


reviewing various myths, stories and tales
surrounding the USS Liberty incident

"...one photo, two different tales – what a concept

The inability of the LVA to get its story straight is nicely demonstrated by the attempt to take the same IAF Mirage gun-camera photo and tell two completely different tales as to what it supposedly represents..."

http://members.aol.com/libertyincident/JEJMpage3.html


Posted by: Jonah at October 30, 2007 02:46 PM


Oh. You mean like the doctored photo's that regularly appear on the LVA website?

To wit;

"...While the narration is full of various types of misrepresentations it is the doctored USN photo which jumps right out at the viewer, and pretty much sums up how ridiculous has become the LVA story. The below doctored photo is displayed by the LVA as supposedly representing how easy it would have been for the Israeli jet pilots to have seen Liberty's flag (as if the attacking jets flew that low and that close.) The quote is:


"D) The big AMERICAN FLAG."

http://members.aol.com/libertyincident/RGxxfakephoto.html

Posted by: Jonah at October 30, 2007 02:13 PM


Another website that offers interesting analysis and insight is: ussliberty-inquiry.us

I believe folks will find the "forensic essays" revealing -- especially the ones about fraudlent gun camera photographs published in the IDF's history report.

Posted by: Ken at October 29, 2007 02:04 PM


Anybody who is interested in somewhat more objective viewpoints re. The Libert Incident other than that of John Loftus or James Ennes, I would recommend this website;

http://members.aol.com/libertyincident/index.html

I found this gentleman's cynicism, incredulousness, and acerbic wit refreshing after all the half-assed patriotism and flag waving that has apparently become par for the course everytime Mr Ennes and his buddies beg you to put aside critical thinking and logical thought and just take their unassailable word for it.

Posted by: Jonah at October 22, 2007 04:49 PM


"Deeming the documents you mentioned to be investigations does not mean they are. They are not."

Oh but they are sir. You just didn't like the outcome so you and your associates refuse to recognize them as such. I suspect that any outcome of any investigation, whether that be in the past, present, or future will not meet with your approval or that of your associates unless it is an outcome in which Israel is declared the culprit, regardless of whether the truth bears this out or not.


Posted by: Jonah at October 20, 2007 10:35 PM


Not a neat trick at all. Unfortunately a mode of behavior that has been replicated way to many times in the last 50 years by various elements of the american defense establishment.

Can we prove it? "It" being the fact that the Israelis used unmarked aircraft and jammed our radios on both US Navy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies?

Of course.

Well then do so, or do you expect the rest of us to take your word for it on the basis of your title(Director of Operations USS Liberty Veterans Association) and "survivor" status?

Oh and by the way, heres a tactic WE'RE you used to. When all else fails begin to make oblique remarks about your opponents cultural heritage( such as the one that Mr. Ennes employed earlier re Mr. Cristol) while simultaneously making dark allusions as to the loyalties of these individuals. This is completely understandable. As a concept, this is preferable to the public spectacle of attempting to rebutt arguments with heresay and innuendo, and then subsequently failing miserably in the endeavour.

Posted by: Jonah at October 20, 2007 10:15 PM


Jonah,

Can we prove it? "It" being the fact that the Israelis used unmarked aircraft and jammed our radios on both US Navy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies?

Of course.

I "have assumed a position that holds that it is permissible to commit war crimes" by actively pursuing a course that would result in a complete and comprehensive public investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty?

Neat trick.

Warmest regards,

Joe

Posted by: Joe Meadors at October 20, 2007 09:59 PM


"You have assumed a position that holds that it is permissible to abandon an American military unit while that unit is under fire."

I have done nothing of the sort. Your gov't assumed that position. The fact that you ever expected them to do otherwise means you're an idiot,who has no understanding of the country, society, or the world you live in. The very idea that you ever thought that were anything but expendable as far as the US Navy, The Office of Naval Intelligence, or the NSA was concerned is pathetic and laughable.

Posted by: Jonah at October 20, 2007 09:52 PM


"I cannot speak for anyone else but the reason I responded is because you have assumed a position that holds that it is permissible to commit war crimes against the American military with impunity."

And conversely I suggest that you sir, "have assumed a position that holds that it is permissible to commit war crimes against all other nations with equal impunity and then to wage a 40 year disinformation campaign against the nation of Israel for no other reason than for the United States of America to evade responsibility for its duplicitous and treacherous behaviour on 8 June 1967.

"the Israelis initiated their attack by jamming our radios and using unmarked aircraft. You're just continuing the tactic the Israelis started.'

Can you prove this?(And I mean chapter and verse. No third party conjecture or bullshit) When you can let us know. Until then your a liar and defamer.

Posted by: Jonah at October 20, 2007 09:42 PM


Jonah,

Since you characterize the documents you referred to as "investigations" I can see how you can be confused and consider this to be a "debate." It is not.

If your goal is to prove the attack on the USS Liberty was not deliberate and that it has been investigated many times by the US government I'm afraid you've lost before you begin.

Deeming the documents you mentioned to be investigations does not mean they are. They are not.

Why do we persist and reply to anonymous posters in some innocuous and virtually unknown forum?

I cannot speak for anyone else but the reason I responded is because you have assumed a position that holds that it is permissible to commit war crimes against the American military with impunity. You have assumed a position that holds that it is permissible to abandon an American military unit while that unit is under fire.

The fact that those war crimes were committed against me and that I was assigned to the military unit that was abandoned under fire requires that I reply and allow others who read these postings to understand exactly what you are advocating.

Please don't misunderstand me. In no way do I advocate you change your position without a thorough review and analysis of all of the evidence available.

Having said that I know you will not. You will continue your inane banter protected by the comfort of anonymity while we -- the victims of the war crimes you condone -- are willing to conduct our discussions in the open. It's a tactic we're used to. Remember -- the Israelis initiated their attack by jamming our radios and using unmarked aircraft. You're just continuing the tactic the Israelis started.

Warmest regards,

Joe

Posted by: Joe Meadors at October 20, 2007 09:30 PM


What with time running out and everybody rushing to cover their ass before the Christmas rush, you guy's ought to step into the 21st century and learn how to google.

1967 Hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Declassified transcripts of dozens of closed hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1967 have now been published.

The hearings feature testimony by Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms and other Johnson Administration officials on Soviet nuclear weapons policy, anti-ballistic missiles, Vietnam, the Middle East, and other topics of contemporary concern.

See "Executive Sessions of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Together with Joint Sessions with the Senate Armed Services Committee (Historical Series)," Volume XIX, 1967, made public in 2007.

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/04/1967_hearings_of_the_senate_fo.html

Posted by: Jonah at October 20, 2007 06:02 PM


S. Prt. 110-20

EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
TOGETHER WITH JOINT SESSIONS WITH THE
SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
(HISTORICAL SERIES)
=======================================================================

VOLUME XIX

__________

NINETIETH CONGRESS

first session

1967


MADE PUBLIC 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

31-436 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DEAN RUSK, SECRETARY OF STATE--
RESUMED

Secretary Rusk. The information we have this morning is
that along the Syrian frontier there is fighting. Each side has
charged the other one with violations, and the Syrians have
asked for an emergency meeting of the Security Council.
We do not have the facts in detail.
One of the complications might have been there is an Iraqi
brigade on the Syrian-Jordan frontier, and Iraq has refused to
accept a cease-fire.
We do believe that the Syrians have been throwing artillery
shells across from the high ground to their side of the border
into the valley of Israel territory and shelling some of those
villages there.
But, quite frankly, we just do not know enough to give me a
chance to take an official position on just what has occurred.
The Chairman. Yes.
Secretary Rusk. Mr. Chairman, on the boat incident
yesterday, which brought our meeting to a conclusion, I may say
that as soon as I found out the real facts, I came on back
down, but the committee had adjourned.
The situation--the incident was extremely distressing, not
only because of the dead and the wounded which were involved,
but because it was a very reckless act.
Senator Hickenlooper. It seems to me it was completely
inexcusable.
Secretary Rusk. It was a vessel configured as a merchant
vessel. It was a U.S. Navy ship flying the U.S. flag,
relatively unarmed with 450 caliber machine guns. It was ninety
miles off Port Said, 14 miles off of the Gaza Strip territory,
and was attacked by six strafing runs by aircraft and by motor
torpedo boats.
Now, when I left here, I thought that it might well be an
Egyptian attack. You can imagine that would have raised the
most serious problems. But suppose it had been an Israeli
attack on a Russian ship.
The Chairman. Yes.

ISRAELI APOLOGY

Secretary Rusk. I called in the Israeli ambassador and
protested in the strongest possible terms and pointed out to
him the dangers that were involved in this kind of an operation
in that area. He had no explanation. We have had nothing but an
apology from the Israeli Government. But there it is, and we
will be in touch with Israelis further about it.
After all, there are some damages and there are dead and
wounded, and we will follow up on that with them.
Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman, on that very point, one of
the families in our state is affected, and, of course, that
will be true of many others because of the dead and injuries.
They are not happy with just an apology. They are really
complaining. Is there anything more that can be done on this?
Secretary Rusk. I understand.
Senator Carlson. It was, I imagine, as I understand,
surface PT boats.
Secretary Rusk. Plus six strafing runs by aircraft.
Senator Carlson. I cannot understand it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think we should file for
reparations. We should press for them, for the families, the
people that were killed, and I am not sure but what I am
impressed with the cavalier attitude of--it looks like a
cavalier attitude--of Israel on this thing. They can do that
with impunity.
Secretary Rusk. Well, the next move is at the moment up to
them to come back with a better statement of fact than they
have given us thus far. I will say this. We were very pleased
that Israel immediately notified us that they had done it, and
here in this room I can say that we did use the ``Hot Line''
for the purpose for which it was invented on this one, to flash
a message to Moscow to inform Cairo, because at that moment we
thought that the probabilities were it was an Egyptian attack
and we would take the steps necessary to defend the ship. We
were able to use the ``Hot Line'' to cancel that, and inform
the Soviets immediately that it was an Israeli attack, and
that--but in any event, as far as the international side of it
is concerned, it proved not to be the kind of crisis that could
have caused far greater trouble, either Egyptian attack or a
Russian victim.
Senator Hickenlooper. Has the Israeli Government indicated
any real sorrow about this thing, or is it a perfunctory
apology?
Secretary Rusk. Oh, yes, they have been profuse.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have they said whether any
disciplinary action will be taken against the stupidity of this
crew or----
Secretary Rusk. I asked for that yesterday.
Senator Hickenlooper [continuing]. Or the commanding
officers of the area or anything?
Secretary Rusk. We have not heard any more except what I
have told you.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/1967executive.html

It would appear, Mr. Ennes, contrary to your assertion, that The United States Congress was not completely unaware of the goings-on of 8 June 1967


Posted by: Jonah at October 20, 2007 05:56 PM


The fact that no less personages than;

Joe Meadors
USS Liberty Survivor
Director of Operations
USS Liberty Veterans Association
Website: http://www.ussliberty.com
Email: joe@ussliberty.com

and

the great, unimpeachable, James Ennes himself felt obliged to come to this site and debate a largely anonymous and powerless voice in the wilderness leads me to believe that somebody, somewhere, is worried about something.

Posted by: Jonah at October 20, 2007 05:40 PM


You may find this hard to belive, but I've yet to peruse Mr. Cristol's writings on the subject.

"Who are we to believe? Jonah? Israeli spokesmen such as Jay Cristol? Or eyewitness survivors and the Library of Congress which tells us there has never been a Congressional investigation"

The fact sir, that you felt it necessary to label Mr.Cristol an "Israeli spokesman"(it's my understanding that Mr. Cristol is in fact an American, not Israeli)leads me to believe that you are more concerned with scapegoating the Israeli's and pointing out Mr. Cristol's Hebraic heritage rather than actually discovering what happened and who is responsible. So much for objectivity. Speaking of objectivity, again I must query what make's you believe that your status as an "eyewitness"(eyewitness to what exactly?) does not leave your interpretations of the event open to question. You were serving aboard an intelligence gathering vessel sir. That fact above all others inpugns the credibilty of your account.

Seeing something and then giving me your narrative of what happened doesn't prove your telling the truth about anything.

Posted by: Jonah at October 20, 2007 05:32 PM


Jonah, blindly quoting from Israeli spokesman Jay Cristol, that there have been multiple investigations, all exonerating Israel.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.

Cristol lies. See www.ussliberty.org/thebiglie.htm. The only US investigation was the US Navy Court of Inquiry, and that has been repudiated by its own legal counsel as fakery which reported a directed verdict.

The other "investigations" were either summaries of the fraududlent Navy Court of Inquiry Report, or were inquiries into narrow aspects of the attack such as communications or the performance and training of the crew. No US inquiry has ever examined whether it was deliberate.

Who are we to believe? Jonah? Israeli spokesmen such as Jay Cristol? Or eyewitness survivors and the Library of Congress which tells us there has never been a Congressional investigation:

From: hssref@loc.gov
Date: Jul 25, 2006 12:06 PM
Subject: Library Question - Answer [Question #1727003]
To: joe@ussliberty.com

Dear Patron:

Thank you for your query.

After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty.

Posted by: James Ennes at October 20, 2007 04:50 PM


Mr.Meadors,

"For decades Phil and the rest of the USS Liberty survivors have actively advocated for a complete and comprehensive public investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty."

I beg to differ sir. To wit;

American investigations
Ten official American investigations are claimed regarding the Liberty incident, including:

The CIA Report of 1967
The Clark Clifford Report of 1967
The Joint Chief of Staff's Report, on U.S. communications failures.
The NSA Report of 1981 including recordings of intercepted Israeli military radio transmissions and translated transcripts of post-attack helicopter pilots.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony of 1967
The U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry as released under FOIA (see below)
Critics -- including an active group of survivors from the ship -- assert that five U.S. congressional investigations and four other U.S. investigations were not investigations into the attack at all, but rather reports using evidence only from the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, or investigations unrelated to the culpability of the attack but rather discussing issues such as communications. In their view, the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry is the only investigation on the incident to date. They claim it was hastily conducted, in only 10 days, even though the court’s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to conduct properly[citation needed].

The incident exposed possible weaknesses in the military capabilities of the U.S., in that the USA was apparently unable to reliably transmit orders from Washington to its naval ships in the field and count on them being received and promptly obeyed. [13] The USS Liberty was a highly sophisticated electronics eavesdropping ship with the best radio equipment in the fleet, yet it claimed not to have received orders to leave the battle zone. Investigations threatened to expose publicly and emphasize either an inability of U.S. warships to receive orders from Washington dependably or else a failure of a U.S. naval captain to follow orders. One possibility is that the U.S. Navy sought to avoid embarrassing discussions of its operational deficiencies.

The National Archives in College Park, Md., includes in its files on casualties from the Liberty copies of the original telegrams the Navy sent out to family members. The telegrams called the attack accidental. The telegrams were sent out June 9, the day before the Navy court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

If you don't trust the findings of your own military and intelligences services, where does logic indicate that the rest of us will? You are survivors of the USS Liberty. Very well. Nevertheless, you are also formers members of a military organization whom you and your shipmates apparently distrust. With all due respect sir, How you think that somehow confers credibilty upon you and your association is beyond me.

Posted by: Jonah at October 20, 2007 03:44 PM


To Jonah,

In your response to Phil Tourney you wrote, "Until then you're a former member of the U.S. Navy, who has a vested interest in covering up and obfuscating the activities of your shipmates and political masters."

For decades Phil and the rest of the USS Liberty survivors have actively advocated for a complete and comprehensive public investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty.

Given that, how can you support them implication that Phil and the survivors are trying to cover-up the activities of their shipmates?

Getting back to the subject of the article, don't you think that Senator McCain has a vested interest in refusing to support an investigation of the attack on our ship?

I'll throw out a few facts about the attack on the USS Liberty that you are free to accept or reject depending on whatever you use to determine the veracity of what I write. I know they are true and that's good enough for me.

1. The attack on the USS Liberty included the first torpedoing of a US Navy ship since the end of World War II.

2. The attack on the USS Liberty was initiated by unmarked aircraft and included the deliberate machine gunning of American life rafts in the water.

3. Two flights of rescue aircraft that had been dispatched from Sixth Fleet aircraft carriers were recalled while the ship was still under attack. This is the first time in American history that a US Navy ship was ordered to be abandoned while still under fire. This is also a capital violation of Article 99 of the UCMJ.

4. According to the Legal Advisor to the US Navy Court of Inquiry the findings of the Court were predetermined and the Report of the Court of Inquiry is, in fact, a forgery.

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors
USS Liberty Survivor
Director of Operations
USS Liberty Veterans Association
Website: http://www.ussliberty.com
Email: joe@ussliberty.com

Posted by: Joe Meadors at October 20, 2007 03:20 PM


"jonah.....if you repeat a lie often enough those that are too busy to check the facts may believe the lies and you are a zionist who obviously follows the dictum that the ends justafies the means. it is a shame that so many christians and jewish people cannot see through the mists of lies put forth by a few zionist leaders that have become the thugs and truely primary terrorists of the world."

Boy, talk about run on sentences. Haven't you ever heard of punctuation?
To Stephen Coyle,

You are entitled to believe or disbelieve anything you want. I am not trying nor would I try to disabuse you of any of of your fantasies. I'm simply stating an opinion and supporting that opinion by citing various websites and publications. You on the other hand obviously feel that your opinion should be taken as the Holy Writ with out supplying any evidence to support it. I wonder why?

Posted by: Jonah at October 20, 2007 01:34 PM


To Phillip F Tourney
Survivor USS Liberty AGTR 5,

When you can cite independent sources(ie-more than one, along with the accomanying corroborating evidence) that have nothing to do with the NSA, the crew of the USS Liberty, James Ennes, etc. please let me know. Until then you're a former member of the U.S. Navy, who has a vested interest in covering up and obfuscating the activities of your shipmates and political masters. As I stated before, you and your shipmates got EXACTLY what was coming to you, and you only have your superiors to blame for putting you in harms way in the first place.

Posted by: Jonah at October 20, 2007 01:23 PM


Lests start with a bought a and paid for congress.USS Liberty lives don"t mean shit to them they are to busy getting on and off of there kness kissing Israels ass.Jhon Mc Cain is a tratior to this cournty if only to protect his Daddys ass. Jhon Mc Cain Sr is a pig and guilty of MURDER of US service men just as the Isralies are. His so called hero son is more of a pig than his sell out father.The Jews tell him what to do and he will do what ever they order him to do with his mouth open wide two or three at a time what ever he can put in his mouth. The Liberty Veterans heros not a bunch of cowards like this congress.The lie is out that you scumb bags have been hiding for the last forty YEARS PAY BACKS ARE A BITCH.Tell the trurh you bought and paid by for Isralie cowards.Prove me wrong you can"T
Phillip F Tourney

Survivor USS Liberty AGTR 5

Posted by: Phillip Tourney at October 20, 2007 03:46 AM


jonah.....if you repeat a lie often enough those that are too busy to check the facts may believe the lies and you are a zionist who obviously follows the dictum that the ends justafies the means. it is a shame that so many christians and jewish people cannot see through the mists of lies put forth by a few zionist leaders that have become the thugs and truely primary terrorists of the world. go to you tube and search RING OF POWER part2....als try the ussliberty web site at www.ussliberty.com. Try TRUTH for a change.

Posted by: stephen coyle at October 20, 2007 12:13 AM


So now that we all understand each other, why don't you save the smarmy anti-semitism thats trying pass itself off as some sort of scholarly endeavour, for someone who might me more like-minded. You know, an imbecile.

Posted by: Jonah at October 15, 2007 09:50 PM


vicious Zionist

OK, that explains it.

Posted by: TB at October 15, 2007 06:42 PM


Woa guys, time to cool things down. It's exactly these kinds of emotional arguments that shut down honest debate whether it's about the Mid-East, Global Warming, 9/11 or Dragon Skin armor.

Didn't know the story about Loftus's firing - that is a big oops and backs up my feeling that Loftus is weak on fact checking (if he was left leaning he could work for the NY Times!). I'll be reading his book with a skeptical eye.
The problems with Bamford have been discussed earlier. I'd like to add that it's foolish to be dazzled by fancy acedemic degrees. Hey even the UFO kidnapping crowd has a Harvard doctor in their ranks.

Jonah Goldberg? - gee I didn't know Lucianne's kid made a career out of the Lewinsky thing.

I prefer to follow thw line of another media star: Joe Friday. His motto: "Just the facts (ma'am), just the facts"

Posted by: Mitch S. at October 15, 2007 09:57 AM


"Gee Jonah, 5 straight posts over the course of 3 hours with more than 1800 words.

How do you type so fast with all that cheeto dust on your fingers?"

How do you breathe with your head up your ass? Perhaps you haven't noticed. Word processing and written communications in general took a great leap forward with the advent of the late 20th Century and the invention of the personal computer. Microsoft was intrsumental in that they created a program called, hmmmmm.....what was that again? Oh yes... "Word". Within that program there is a reveolutionary time saving device called "cut & paste". When you manage to extricate your cranium from your rectal orifice, you should give it a whirl. Oh by the way, Jackass, I'm a libertarian and a vicious Zionist. You can take your two-party artificial political construct, all the accompanying nattering nabobs(thank you Spiro Agnew)like Jonah Goldberg or Alexander Cockburn, and when you finally make room you can shove them up your ass too.

Posted by: Jonah at October 14, 2007 09:32 PM


Gee Jonah, 5 straight posts over the course of 3 hours with more than 1800 words.

How do you type so fast with all that cheeto dust on your fingers?

BTW, you wouldn't be Jonah Goldberg would you?

That would explain a lot

Posted by: TB at October 14, 2007 06:26 PM


"James Bamford is a national lecturer and a distinguished visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley."

"...John Joseph Loftus (born February 12, 1950, in Boston, Massachusetts) is an American author, former US government prosecutor and former Army intelligence officer. He is a president of The Intelligence Summit and a president of the Florida Holocaust Museum, the first Irish Catholic president of that institution. Loftus serves on the Board of Advisers to Public Information Research. He is a resident of St. Petersburg, Florida."

"...Son of a Boston firefighter,[2] Loftus was a graduate of Boston College (BA, 1971) and Suffolk University (JD, 1977). He served in the US Army from 1971 to 1974, attaining the rank of First Lieutenant. He began working for the US Department of Justice in 1977 and in 1979 joined their Office of Special Investigations, which was charged with prosecuting and deporting Nazi war criminals in the US."

"Those who can do, do. Those who can't,...teach."

Posted by: Jonah at October 14, 2007 02:05 PM


Oh and BTW. There is a chasm of difference between making an error based on obsolete intel and simply fabricating entire details of history.
I wonder if you or Mr. Bamford know the difference.

"...Whatever the explanation for Bamford’s willingness to deceive, a comparison shows that his characterization of the review is no more credible that his writing on Israel. Here is Bamford’s version of the review:

BAMFORD: The New York Times as a matter of fact reprinted almost verbatim a lot of my information on the Liberty just two weeks ago without any critical comment whatsoever. The New York Times just this past Sunday had my book on the front cover of the ... Book Review. I don’t think that’s an indication that they have some worries about my credibility. And the review was actually very, very good, saying that it was an extraordinary work of investigative journalism. That doesn’t sound critical to me. (The Connection, May 3, 2001)

Now, compare that with the relevant portion of the Times review:

Where "Body of Secrets" is weakest, I think, is in its account of the most horrific incident in the N.S.A.'s history, the assault on the spy ship Liberty a few miles off the Sinai peninsula during the 1967 Middle East war. On orders from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the N.S.A. had sent the Liberty into the war zone to collect intelligence on the presence of Soviet troops and weapons in Egypt. On the afternoon of June 8, 1967, the Liberty was attacked by Israeli forces; 34 Americans were killed, 171 wounded. Was it, as Israel maintained, a "tragic accident"? Or was it, as conspiracy theorists and some of the ship's survivors insist, a coldblooded and deliberate action by the Israelis in order to eliminate evidence of damaging information the Liberty had intercepted?

Rather too credulously, Bamford sides with the conspiracy theorists. He argues that the Israelis were attempting to cover up a gruesome mass murder by Israeli soldiers of some 400 Egyptian P.O.W.'s at the Sinai town of El Arish. Israel, Bamford claims, acted because it was convinced that the N.S.A. ship was recording intelligence on this massacre. "Israeli soldiers were butchering civilians and bound prisoners by the hundreds," he writes, "a fact that the entire Israeli Army leadership knew about and condoned." He charges, too, that the White House and Congress "covered up" the facts of the attack. But is it really possible that such an explosive secret could have been kept under wraps for so long by the Johnson administration, the United States Congress and all of the famously fractious Israeli Army leadership?

And what serious evidence is there that a massacre of 400 Egyptians really took place? Bamford's own proof seems rather slender. He cites, for instance, the eyewitness testimony of an Israeli journalist, Gabi Bron. Bamford writes: "Bron saw about 150 Egyptian P.O.W.'s sitting on the ground, crowded together with their hands held at the backs of their necks. 'The Egyptian prisoners of war were ordered to dig pits and then army police shot them to death,' Bron said." The implication here is that 150 Egyptians were slaughtered. Yet the journalist's full account actually states, "I saw five prisoners killed this way" -- a brutal war crime if true, yes, but of quite a different magnitude.

It hardly seems plausible that Israel would deliberately attack an American ship, killing dozens of American sailors, risking a confrontation with a superpower and its only ally -- in short, perpetrating one massacre in order to cover up another. Perhaps Bamford's analysis has been skewed by his palpable distaste for the Israeli state: "Throughout its history, Israel has hidden its abominable human rights record behind pious religious claims," he writes. "Critics are regularly silenced with outrageous charges of anti-Semitism." And: "No one in the weak-kneed House and Senate wanted to offend powerful pro-Israel groups and lose their fat campaign contributions." (excerpted from New York Times Book Review, April 29, 2001)

This, according to Bamford, is an endorsement of his credibility and his allegations concerning Israel. In other words, not only can’t Bamford be trusted about what happened in 1967, he can’t even be trusted about what happened a week ago."

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x;_nameinnews=3&x;_article=181#arish1

Apparently, not.

Posted by: Jonah at October 14, 2007 01:29 PM


TB,
"..don't expect anyone to take you any more seriously then the attendees at a UFO convention."

It would appear that we are lisening to the bloviations of someone who speaks from a position borne out of foreknowledge and experience. When you show up at these things, do you wear a costume? What do you call yourself; Darth Moron?

Posted by: Jonah at October 14, 2007 11:53 AM


"And you DO realize that James Bamford is a national lecturer and a distinguished visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley. In addition to being a published author since 1982 He was also the first author to write a book with the full cooperation of the NSA."

And yet, with all these credentials, Mr. Bamford still felt it necessary to lie and obfuscate.

To wit;

"...Bamford cites two sources for the second paragraph, an article from the New York Times and one from Newsday, which according to Newsday’s archives was actually an AP story. Neither article mentions anything at all about the “El Arish mosque,” neither mentions anything at all about prisoners with their “hands tied behind their backs,” and neither mentions anything at all about how the “pale desert sand turned red.” All this is apparently straight from Mr. Bamford’s overheated imagination, making one wonder what else he made up.

The New York Times story, by Youseff Ibrahim and dated September 21, 1995, does contain the quote from Abdelsalam Moussa, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the killing of 30 to 60 POWs. But – and this is crucial – the report does not indicate when the killings described by Moussa took place, before the Liberty arrived, or while it was on station off El Arish. However, a Reuters dispatch published in the Jerusalem Post (September 21, 1995), reports Moussa as saying that the killings he claims to have seen took place on June 7, which was before the Liberty arrived! Thus, contrary to Bamford’s charge, the attack on the Liberty could not have been to prevent the ship from discovering the Israeli slaughter alleged by Moussa.

Mr. Bamford also takes from Ibrahim’s report the story of the Israelis supposedly gunning down 30 more prisoners and then ordering some Bedouins to bury them. According to Ibrahim however, these episodes took place on June 6 and June 7, two days and one day before the Liberty even arrived off El Arish. So, again, Bamford deceptively cites this episode even though it clearly offers no support for his thesis."

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x;_nameinnews=3&x;_article=181#arish1

It should come as no surprise, that a country that has no problem placing a C student in the white house for eight years, should place such a high value on chicanery and mediocrity of the worse sort. I also find it fascinating that Mr. Loftus( a life-long Democrat and liberal)is being exorciated for having his views rejected by that paragon of conservative journalistic integrity, Fox News by what appears to be other democrats. What could be the reason for these individuals to break party ranks in such an overt fashion? What overwhelming need could there have been to attack one of their own? Apparently Jew hatred and Israel bashing trumps honest debate every time.

Re.this despicable attempt to smear Mr. Loftus;

"...John Loftus was fired by Fox News, right? And that he's the same guy that somehow still gets writing gigs for such luminaries as WorldNetDaily and doing articles about the connections between the Nazis and the Bush family."

"...John Joseph Loftus (born February 12, 1950, in Boston, Massachusetts) is an American author, former US government prosecutor and former Army intelligence officer. He is a president of The Intelligence Summit and a president of the Florida Holocaust Museum, the first Irish Catholic president of that institution. Loftus serves on the Board of Advisers to Public Information Research. He is a resident of St. Petersburg, Florida."

"...Son of a Boston firefighter,[2] Loftus was a graduate of Boston College (BA, 1971) and Suffolk University (JD, 1977). He served in the US Army from 1971 to 1974, attaining the rank of First Lieutenant. He began working for the US Department of Justice in 1977 and in 1979 joined their Office of Special Investigations, which was charged with prosecuting and deporting Nazi war criminals in the US."

"...Loftus is the author and co-author of several books on Nazis, espionage, and similar topics including The Belarus Secret (1982), Unholy Trinity: How the Vatican's Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets (1992), The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People (1994), Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, the Nazis, and the Swiss Banks (1998)"

"...Loftus serves as a media commentator, appearing regularly on ABC National Radio and Fox News. On August 7, 2005, he provided the United States address of a suspected terrorist named Iyad K. Hilal on Fox News. Only afterwards was it revealed that Hilal had left the address three years previously and the home was now owned by a family that was subjected to threats and vandalism and required police protection as a result of Loftus' words.[4][5] Fox fired Loftus after the event.[6] Loftus said "I thought it might help police in that area now that we have positively identified a terrorist," but he did not say why he did not contact police in a more direct manner. Loftus APOLOGIZED for the mistake and expressed frustration about FBI inaction on an earlier tip.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Loftus

I wonder if Mr. Bamford will show the same good grace, adherence to journalistic and academic ethics, and genoristy of spirit when he decides to apologize for his "mistakes"

Posted by: Jonah at October 14, 2007 11:38 AM


"He was also the first author to write a book with the full cooperation of the NSA."

Gee, well obviously case closed. As we all well know, the NSA would never lie to the American people or the world about its activities. The very idea that they would use a former US Navy officer to whitewash their activities is beyond the pale. As long as you're in the market, I have a bridge in Brooklyn and some swamp land in Florida that I would be willing to let go for a song.

Posted by: Jonah at October 14, 2007 10:50 AM


OK, you guys DO realize that John Loftus was fired by Fox News, right? And that he's the same guy that somehow still gets writing gigs for such luminaries as WorldNetDaily and doing articles about the connections between the Nazis and the Bush family.

And you DO realize that James Bamford is a national lecturer and a distinguished visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley. In addition to being a published author since 1982 He was also the first author to write a book with the full cooperation of the NSA.

See, one of these guys is a total hack that even the knuckle-dragging limbic cases at Fox couldn't put up with, and the other guy is James Bamford.

Now, feel free to go ahead and pay attention to, and quote whoever you want to, but if you go around holding up guys like John Loftus as some sort of paragon of thought and journalistic integrity, don't expect anyone to take you any more seriously then the attendees at a UFO convention.

Posted by: TB at October 13, 2007 10:37 PM


Read about "Foxbats..". USSR pushed Nasser to attack Israel so the USSR could take out Dimona. Geez, the theories never end.

Jonah, I ordered the Loftus book.
If you want to continue the conversation drop me a note at topsmaps@verizon.net (others welcome too).

As I noted earlier the Bamford theory makes no sense - "Let's blast a US ship so we don't get in trouble for killing Egyptians..." huh?!!?

Posted by: Mitch S. at October 13, 2007 04:51 PM


There may be more to this episode:

Recently on a BookTV program during a discussion of the book "Foxbats Over Dimona", in which the Soviets tried to provoke the Israelis by overflying the Dimona complex and also by landing Speznav forces on Israeli soil, it was revealed that there was a Soviet fleet in the eastern Mediterranean.

To avoid a military confrontation, the U.S. fleet pulled back to the western Med.

HOWEVER, the USS Liberty stayed in the eastern Med.

It is possible that the Israeli's may have attacked the Liberty thinking that it was NOT a U.S. vessel and thinking it was operating under a false flag.

If you get a chance to view the bookTV discussion of "Foxbats over Dimona, see if you can watch it or record it.

Some of the shows are available for direct viewng on www.booktv.org

Posted by: Thom Paine at October 12, 2007 04:18 PM


"...Actually, hiding “behind a carefully constructed curtain of lies” is about as self-descriptive a phrase as Bamford could have written. And the crux of Bamford’s new curtain is an explosive charge sure to grab headlines and drive book sales, especially in certain circles. For, according to Bamford, among the secrets the Israelis were desperate to hide from the prying eyes of the USS Liberty were alleged war crimes against Egyptian POWs near the coastal town of El Arish, not far from the ship’s position on June 8th. Bamford charges that Israel turned El Arish into a “slaughterhouse, systematically butchering their prisoners” (p 202), and attacked the Liberty to prevent these crimes from being discovered.

Again, there is a devastating flaw in Bamford’s logic – the “slaughter” never occurred. But even if it had, the reports Bamford cites offer no support for his claim that Israel attacked the Liberty and murdered US soldiers to cover-up its murder of Egyptian soldiers.

That said, there were press reports in 1995 alleging that Egyptian POWs were murdered during the 1967 Six Day War, and Bamford cites some of these to support his charges. However, a number of the reports cited by Bamford also note that Israeli eyewitnesses denied any such thing occurred. Bamford keeps this from his readers. These same reports also indicate that Israeli POWs were killed by their Arab captors. Again, Bamford never mentions this, intent on painting a one-sided portrait of bloodthirsty Israelis. Finally, Bamford also ignores the fact that later investigations refuted the claim that the alleged massacres of Egyptian POWs ever took place.

Beyond omitting such relevant information, Bamford also invents information not in the references he cites. Nothing could be more revealing of Bamford’s shoddy research and irrational animus towards Israel than to compare his charges with the sources he cites, and with the facts. Bamford’s key charges concerning the alleged Israeli massacre as the reason for attacking the Liberty appear in four consecutive paragraphs on pages 201 – 202 (for convenience the paragraphs are numbered):

1. By June 8, three days after Israel launched the war, Egyptian prisoners in the Sinai had become nuisances. There was no place to house them, not enough Israelis to watch them and few vehicles to transport them to prison camps. But there was another way to deal with them.

2. As the Liberty sat within eyeshot of El Arish, eavesdropping on surrounding communications, Israeli soldiers turned the town into a slaughterhouse, systematically butchering their prisoners. In the shadow of the El Arish mosque, they lined up about sixty unarmed Egyptian prisoners, hands tied behind their backs, and then opened up with machine guns until the pale desert sand turned red. Then they forced other prisoners to bury the victims in mass graves. "I saw a line of prisoners, civilians and military," said Abdelsalam Moussa, one of those who dug the graves, "and they opened fire at them all at once. When they were done, they told us to bury them." Nearby, another group of Israelis gunned down thirty more prisoners and then ordered some Bedouins to cover them with sand.

Of course, contrary to Bamford’s charges here and elsewhere in the book, Israel did not “launch” the war. Egypt’s blockade of Eilat, Israel’s southern port, and its blockade of the Straits of Tiran, an international waterway, were both acts of war under international law. And prior to the major outbreak of shooting on June 5th, there were numerous incidents of Egyptian fire against Israeli positions, any one of which justified retaliation in force. Bamford ignores this, just as he ignores relevant evidence in order to charge in the second paragraph that Israel turned El Arish “into a slaughterhouse.”

Bamford cites two sources for the second paragraph, an article from the New York Times and one from Newsday, which according to Newsday’s archives was actually an AP story. Neither article mentions anything at all about the “El Arish mosque,” neither mentions anything at all about prisoners with their “hands tied behind their backs,” and neither mentions anything at all about how the “pale desert sand turned red.” All this is apparently straight from Mr. Bamford’s overheated imagination, making one wonder what else he made up.

The New York Times story, by Youseff Ibrahim and dated September 21, 1995, does contain the quote from Abdelsalam Moussa, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the killing of 30 to 60 POWs. But – and this is crucial – the report does not indicate when the killings described by Moussa took place, before the Liberty arrived, or while it was on station off El Arish. However, a Reuters dispatch published in the Jerusalem Post (September 21, 1995), reports Moussa as saying that the killings he claims to have seen took place on June 7, which was before the Liberty arrived! Thus, contrary to Bamford’s charge, the attack on the Liberty could not have been to prevent the ship from discovering the Israeli slaughter alleged by Moussa.

Mr. Bamford also takes from Ibrahim’s report the story of the Israelis supposedly gunning down 30 more prisoners and then ordering some Bedouins to bury them. According to Ibrahim however, these episodes took place on June 6 and June 7, two days and one day before the Liberty even arrived off El Arish. So, again, Bamford deceptively cites this episode even though it clearly offers no support for his thesis."

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x;_nameinnews=3&x;_article=181#arish1

Posted by: Jonah at October 12, 2007 01:58 PM


False Israeli "Massacre" Story Resurrected

"...Did Israeli forces massacre hundreds of Egyptian POW's during the Six Day War? According to Israeli press reports a new documentary, "Ruah Shaked," broadcast on Israel's Channel 1 alleges that such a massacre did take place, and attributes the killings to the elite Shaked reconaissance unit, then led by Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, the Labor MK and retired General who heads the National Infrastructures Ministry (for details see Egypt wants probe into 'IDF massacre'.)

But this particular massacre charge was first reported – and then thoroughly debunked – more than 10 years ago.

In followup reports, Ran Ederlist, the documentary producer, claims he never charged a massacre. According to Ha'aretz: "He said the dead were not Egyptian POWs, but Palestinian fedayoun fighters, and that they were killed in battle, not executed." The Jerusalem Post quotes him saying: "During this battle, you could say there was excessive use of force, (but) it was all in the context of war - not prisoners, not prisoner-of-war camps, not people who put their hands up." Click here for these updated stories in the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz. In a further update on March 8th the Jerusalem Post reported that poor editing and an inaccurate choice of photos could have led viewers to falsely believe that unarmed fighters were killed by IDF soldiers.
The facts of the incident, in brief, are as follows. After initial stories alleging a massacre ran in 1995, the Jerusalem Post reported that “transcripts of orders from the Six Day War … clearly indicate that the alleged mass murder of Egyptian POWs near El-Arish never occurred …” Instead, what actually happened according to the Post was a full-fledged battle between armed combatants:

... several hundred armed Palestinian soldiers, in Egyptian Army uniforms, were trying to escape from the Gaza Strip towards Port Said – not knowing that the area was already under IDF control – on the last day of the war [with Egypt]. They exchanged fire with Nahal soldiers and most were later killed by soldiers from the Shaked reconnaissance unit. (August 17, 1995)

In addition, Israeli journalist Gabi Bron, who was serving with the IDF near El Arish at the time, and who is sometimes cited in reports as a witness to a massacre, has stated publicly that no massacre took place. Asked about the issue by Israeli historian Michael Oren, Bron replied:

The one hundred and fifty POWs were not shot, and there were no mass murders... In fact, we helped prisoners, gave them water, and in most cases just sent them in the direction of the Suez Canal. (New Republic, July 23, 2001)

Another supposed source for these massacre stories, according to press reports (including the Ha'aretz article cited above), is Israeli historian Aryeh Yitzhaki. But he too has denied that any such massacre took place; this is how Oren recounted their correspondence:

"In no case did Israel initiate massacres," Yitzhaki wrote me. "On the contrary, it did everything it could to prevent them." Yitzhaki admits that hundreds of Palestinian commandos were killed around El Arish. But that was in combat, he says, after they ambushed the IDF supply columns.

Supporting these statements by Bron and Yitzhaki is a 1967 account from the New York Times, which reported battles, but no massacres. Datelined El-Arish, June 7, 1967, the Times article reported that:

... pockets of Egyptian troops in Sinai and Palestinian troops in the Gaza Strip continued desperate resistance...

The army base here was also in Israeli hands yesterday evening after a three hour battle. Heavy casualties were inflicted, more than a thousand prisoners surrendered and some Egyptian soldiers fled into the desert.

At dawn today an Egyptian commando company struck back. An officer told reporters that the enemy had stormed the camp at daybreak with submachine guns blazing. They inflicted casualties, but were gunned down.

Later this morning, when a battalion commander went toward the home of the governor to arrange for a formal surrender, fire was opened from several houses in the town. The Israelis withdrew, and orders were given to subdue the enemy by shelling.

Brief and sporadic bursts of machinegun fire were heard between mortar blasts. Reporters were told that Egyptians were being flushed out of stone-lined trenches around the town. (New York Times, June 8, 1967; emphasis added)

Perhaps as important as the corroborating details offered by this account, is the affirmation that in El Arish on June 7th Israeli forces were accompanied by reporters who evidently neither saw nor heard even a hint of any alleged massacre.

And not just reporters; photographers also accompanied the Israeli troops throughout their advance into the Sinai. Indeed, an American photographer for Life Magazine, Paul Schutzer, was killed while riding with Israeli troops in a half-track that came under Egyptian attack. Despite the dangers, these news photographers, both Israeli and foreign, filed numerous battle images, as well as photos of the war’s immediate aftermath, such as Israeli soldiers dealing with Arab POWs in El Arish during the very time that some now charge an ongoing slaughter"

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x;_issue=66&x;_article=1291

Posted by: Jonah at October 12, 2007 01:53 PM


"...Key aspects of author James Bamford's recent account of the 1967 Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty are being disavowed by some of his own sources.

The Liberty, an American spy ship, was sailing in the Mediterranean Sea off the Sinai coast when it was attacked on June 8, 1967 by Israeli air and naval forces towards the end of the 1967 war. There were 34 Americans killed and 171 wounded. The Israeli government claimed the attack was an "error"; some U.S. officials, and surviving Liberty crew members, have contended that the attack must have been deliberate. But why?

In his new bestseller Body of Secrets, Bamford proposes a motive for the attack: Israel, he says, was in the process of murdering several hundred Egyptian prisoners of war at nearby El Arish and wanted to prevent the Liberty from preserving recorded evidence of the massacre.

But there appears to be no verifiable evidence that such a massacre ever took place, and Bamford's description of events at El Arish doesn't hold up. Thus, he attributes to Israeli journalist Gabi Bron a claim that 150 prisoners were executed there. But Bron himself denies that and says "there were no mass murders."

"...These and other disputed points in Bamford's account are presented in a fierce critique by Michael Oren in the latest issue of The New Republic ("Unfriendly Fire," 23 July). That article is not available online, but an earlier article by Oren entitled "The U.S.S. Liberty: Case Closed" appeared in the Israeli neoconservative journal Azure (Spring 2000) and may be found here:

http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/9-Oren.htm

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2001/07/071701.html


Posted by: Jonah at October 12, 2007 01:48 PM


"...Mr. Bamford's first book, The Puzzle Palace (1982), was the first book published about the National Security Agency (NSA). The book was researched through extensive use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). As a super-secret agency, the NSA was quite concerned about their unveiling to the world and accordingly, the government acted to stop publication. He published Body of Secrets (also about the NSA, 2001), and A Pretext for War (2004)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bamford

In regards to;

"...For a great account of this incident see James Bamford's [i]Body of Secrets[/i]. Bamford says that the Israelis went after the Liberty because the Liberty was eavesdropping within 12 miles of a town in which the IDF was committing war crimes (i.e., executing Egyptian soldiers who had surrendered)."

It would appear that Mr. Bramfords reasearch rests soley on the information and unsubstantiated allegations cherry picked for popular consumption by the NSA.

Posted by: Jonah at October 12, 2007 12:52 PM


Mitch,

Sorry. Didn't mean to be so abrupt with you in my last post. I got caught up in my own hyperbole. Please accept my apologies.

Re. Loftus. I would agree with you that when Loftus starts waxing poetic about present day intelligence and defense matters, he appears a little out of his element. That being said, his book, "The Secret War Against The Jews", is a well researched and referenced tome, with a complete and comprehensive bibliography. The fact that his refrences were so well documented is what lends the book its credibility.

Out of the 3 books that I mentioned, Loftus's book is a must, but "Ropes of Sand" and "The Political Dictionary of The State of Israel" provided compelling corroborating evidence for much of Loftus's and Aaron's research.

Posted by: Jonah at October 12, 2007 11:57 AM


BTW I checked out the Wikipeda article on the Liberty. Yeah, I know Wikipedia, still it has a good gathering of various theories, claims and conflicting opinions.

Posted by: Mitch S. at October 12, 2007 11:47 AM


Jeff, the Liberty was in the Mediterranean off the northern coast of the Sinai. BTW the north Sinai coast is only approx 110mi from the canal to Gaza. Don't know the Libery's recording capabilities, but with a ship's hold of space and 30+ technicians it ought to have been considerable.

Jonah, I've always believed the State dept was run by arabists, DOD not so much (there is more US - Israeli military cooperation than commonly known). US mideast policy was (is) generally one of insuring stable oil supplies. During the cold war that meant blocking Soviet efforts in the area. Isreal's place in this policy varied over the years. It's really not a matter of whether we were friends of Israel of friends of the Arab nations.
If, Jonah you could recommend me one of those 3 books I'll check it out.
BTW about Loftus. I listened to his reports on the "John Batchelor Radio Show" from 9/11 thru last year. Almost every piece of "solid inside info" he passed on from his "contacts in US agencies" was completely wrong (WMD's, status of BinLaden and Saddam, state of affairs in Iraq, terrorist threats etc.). He seems like a nice guy, but he seems willing to swallow and regurgitate every piece of crap "intel" fed to him.

Posted by: Mitch S. at October 12, 2007 11:42 AM


It's not about Israel doing right or wrong. It's about holding Israel to the same standard of behaviour to which you hold yourselves.I love it when American exceptionalism rears its ugly head. One of the more fascinating aspects of American society is the collective belief that when America does wrong, it's for the greater good(you know, like when we bombed and napalmed a small asian country for 15 years in order to "save" them from communism. When other countries have to do what is in their best interests it's always for some nefarious reason. Please. Get over your self-righteous selves and stop behaving as if your sh*t doesn't stink.

Posted by: Jonah at October 12, 2007 11:18 AM


I am amazed at how many people support Israels attack on an American vessel and their killing of American military personnel.

Truly, Israel can do no wrong.

Posted by: zak822 at October 12, 2007 10:03 AM


Mitch S. wrote,
"The Liberty was off the coast of the Sinai, where Israeli and Egyptian forces were doing battle."

It was my understanding that the Liberty was off of the southern border of Israel at the Sinai border. Even if it was further west, this is still a far cry from being off of the Nile Delta, or at the mouth of the Suez Canal.

Lets put one final set of observations into the "mix."? Radio and recorder technology was still in the "stone age." Radios (like the HF R-390) were the size of a medium sized microwave ovens, and multitrack recorders (7-16 tracks) were the size of refrigerators. Tuning radios back then, the old "spin and grin," took time. You do not dedicate valuable and very limited resourses to recording your "friends."

As for how the U.S. has treated Israel. I hear that Benjamin Netanyahu’s book is excellent and very revealing.
And Again, in 1973 it was Kissinger (a Jew!) who first rejected Israel’s requests/pleas for assistance with the response, “Let them bleed alittle.�? It was only after Golda Mayer personally called Nixon that we sent support.

Posted by: Jeff at October 11, 2007 09:05 PM


Don't expect Senator McCain to say or do squat. For all his hot air about political contribution reform, he and the rest of the Hill Dwellers fill their pants at the thought of being cut off by AIPAC. At the time of the attack, no senior navy officers were willing to fall on their sword and stand up to the King of the Whiz Kids, the Secretary of Defense, and President Johnson when they twice recalled US carrier aircraft launched to prevent additional attacks on the Liberty.

Such a disloyal act on the part of the Commander-in-Chief deserves ex-post-facto impeachment. Don't expect Israel to ever tell the truth about why they made the attack. We now know it was no accident.

The US Navy will never forget what happened, and they will never again fail to respond to comrads in peril.

When we have an idiot or coward in the White House, we have a real problem. Has anyone noticed that?

Posted by: Vet at October 11, 2007 02:36 PM


"John Loftus?

Now there's an unimpeachable source".

Posted by: TB at October 11, 2007 11:43 AM

As opposed to what? Some half-assed web-site that contains "transcripts" that we are to take as being unabridged and unadulterated? Why? Is their "truth" anymore credible than that of Mr. Loftus? Why? Because the cannon fodder on board the Liberty say so and are loathe to place the blame or any blame for that matter at the feet of their superiors and political masters? Why? Because its so hard for them to believe that their goverment would operate in such a criminal and duplicitous manner? Please.

Mitch,

Re."What was the goal of the US in providing the Egyptians with intel? Is there any indication the Egyptians made use of such info?"

As to the first question, I find it interesting that the same people who have no problem believing that Jewish Neo-Cons are manipulating US foreign policy are suspicious when it is claimed that Arabists(ie-The Oil Lobby) at the Dept of Defense and State have had a stranglehold on Mid-East policy in this country for better part of the last 50 years. This being evidenced by our support over the years for such stalwart friends of the US such as Saddam Hussein, The house of Saud, Muammar Quaddafi(of late)and yes, the Shah of Iran.

As to the second question, I gave you a more or less comprehensive bibliography. Go read.

Posted by: Jonah at October 11, 2007 12:34 PM


John Loftus?

Now there's an unimpeachable source.

Posted by: TB at October 11, 2007 11:43 AM


Jeff wrote:
"U.S. Navy had an intel ship off of the coast of Israel, not Lebanon, not Egypt"...
..."What was the U.S. doing with all of that wonderful intel ... they were collecting?"

The Liberty was off the coast of the Sinai, where Israeli and Egyptian forces were doing battle. I don't think it suspicious that the US would be interested in direct knowledge of what was happening between Israel and the Arab states. While Israel was not closely allied with the US at the time, it was generally allied with the west, while the Arab states (particularly Syria, with the exception of Jordan) were more in the Soviet sphere. The Soviets were meddling in the area (some reports state the USSR was even providing the Egyptians with distorted intel to encourage them to attack) so I'd expect the US to want active intel assets in the area (US did fly SR71s over the region during the 73 war).

Jonah, Interesting theory, it does answer some questions but raises others. What was the goal of the US in providing the Egyptians with intel? Is there any indication the Egyptians made use of such info? Weren't the Egyptians and Syrians getting intel from the Soviets? Are all the US tapes and transcrips fabrications and the witnesses dupes or liars? If the reports of Israeli communications are true then why were the Israeli forces not observing radio silence or disinfo tactics (tell the pilots to radio they think it's an Egyptian ship)?

Does strengthen the argument that it is worth trying to get the facts out.

Posted by: Mitch S. at October 11, 2007 11:15 AM


The USS Liberty was a US Navy/NSA Intelligence gathering vessel (much like the USS Pueblo that "wandered" into North Korean waters). The Liberty was tapping into the IDF’s communication net at the height of the advances into the Sinai & the Golan in 67`. It was then passing that information(including the IDF Order of Battle) to Israel’s enemies. The Israelis subsequently became aware of this because they had thouroughly infiltrated the intelligence services of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. "Our Man" in Cairo was reading the raw intelligence as it came across his desk. By passing this information to co-belligerents in time of war, the USS Liberty became a legitimate military target. The Liberty, The US Navy, and its political masters got exactly what was coming to them. The fact that the ship was American was actually the only thing that saved it from complete destruction. Had it been Russian or otherwise they would’ve simply blown it out of the water. As it was, the attack was mainly centered on the communications and radar array atop the bridge. This was attacked with napalm and rockets, unfortunately with heavy loss of life. As far as I’m concerned, the responsibility for this tragedy lies squarely at the feet of the American Government. The on-going AMERICAN cover story of mistaken identity and it’s Israeli collusion, has been the US government’s attempt to hide its sole culpability in this affair

My sources for this information are:

"The Secret War Against the Jews" by John Loftus and John Aaron. Chapter 12; "The Liberty Incident"; pg. 265(Thanks Sam)

"Ropes of Sand" by Wilbur Crane Eveland; New York: Norton (1980)

"The Israeli Secret Service" by Richard Deacon; London: Sphere (1979)

"Political Dictionary of the State of Israel" by Susan Hattas Rolef; New York: Macmillan (1987); pg. 280, confirming that the Egyptians resisted a cease fire untl after the Liberty incident in June 67`

BTW, Critisizing Israel in of itself is not anti-semitic. What is anti-semetic, is promoting lies and unsubstantiated innuendo re. Israel and its motives as facts, inorder to whitewash American involvement in this affair. The 67' war was not a war of expansion. It was a war for strategic depth and defensible borders against countries that had made no secret of their desires to "wash the Jews into the sea". That being said, once the Israelis became aware that the Liberty was compromising its war plan, it became understood what had to be done.

Posted by: Jonah at October 11, 2007 09:51 AM


Body of Secrets. Get the NSA to relese the EC-121 tapes. Let the truth be told.

Posted by: Joe at October 11, 2007 03:55 AM


James

They did apologize buddy. Thats all they ow us, as I said before the 34 dead is the cost we paid for spying on them. I'm not saying we should just forget about 34 dead Americans, but every action has a price. Heck ill bet Israel wasn't to happy about the whole incident either, but you do what you have to do. They had a reason to attack, and we had a reason to be there, so the blame is on both party's. If anyone needs to apologize to the family's today it is the US, they need to say what they were doing.

Posted by: 22lr at October 10, 2007 08:53 PM


This story contains all the necessary clues for those capable of seeing them.
1) Israel was at war.
2) The U.S. Navy had an intel ship off of the coast of Israel, not Lebanon, not Egypt, . . . but Israel.
3) We were recording the Israeli Aircraft and ground control. In intelligence you monitor your friends, but record your enemies.

Can anyone out there add two plus two.
4) Now lets ask the $10 dollar question. What was the U.S. doing with all of that wonderful intel on Israel's communications and troop movements that they were collecting?

The Liberty was not "a friendly American ship." The U.S. was not a hard and fast ally of Israel at the time. The U.S. forced Israel to do what was necessary for their survival.

As for James Bamford. He should have been tried and executed for treason back in the early 80's. The joke used to be that NSA stood for No Such Agency. After Bamford it became No Secrets At all.

Posted by: Jeff at October 10, 2007 08:32 PM


It is important to settle this matter. Not only for the survivors and their families but for our understanding of history (and that "our" includes Israeli citizens too - they should know what their gov't did or didn't do).
The Liberty event is important and puzzling. Important because of the light it can shed on the relationships bet (and within) the US, Israel, and the USSR at the time. Puzzling as to what happened and why.
It seems fairly clear that there are conflicts between "official" and reasonably verified reports. It's hard to accept Israel had no idea it was an American ship (unless they thought it was an Arab ship with a false flag - not something I've heard Israel claim).
But why attack? If it were to prevent the Liberty from reporting on Israeli crimes against prisoners then it seems like a strange plan "We don't want the Americans to get mad at us for abusing Egyptians so we'll sink a US warship and kill it's sailors" Hmm doesn't sound like a way to win US support.
If pro-Israeli's in the US had enough influence to cover a deliberate attack on a US ship, surely they'd have enough influence to cover atrocities against Egyptians. Besides the attack on the Liberty failed - the info Israel would have been trying to hide should have been revealed.
If the Liberty attack were planned/cleared by top Israeli officials wouldn't it have been better planned/executed? Pilots surprised to see a US flag, radioing back to headquarters on open airwaves, the failure to sink the ship - doesn't sound like typical Israeli competence.
I wonder if this was a screwup by someone on a lower level who had enough pull that the higher-ups covered for him. Just a guess.
Whatever the case, the principals involved (Eshkol, Dayan, Johnson etc) are dead, time to reveal the facts. It's better for both the US and Israel to know what happened rather that leaving us with serious evidence of a coverup.

Posted by: Mitch S. at October 10, 2007 07:50 PM


what worries me and makes me want to see at least israeli politicos apologize to the family members/us navy for those deaths if they did accure is this
1)did israeli officers know what they where attacking(a friendly american ship)
2)where there any warnings to pull out of the area or be boreded or fired upon
3)if when the israelis found out the ships identity did they make a effort to destroy the ship and kill the surviving crew to cover it up?

look before anybody on here goes and accuses me of being mel gibson i like israel have alot of respect for them. however i do think the israelis have done alot of screwed up crap sence they went to israel. they seem to have developed a notion there beyond justice cause well there israel gods chosen whatever
point is israel is hated all over the world by lots of ppls..heck i knew a muslim guy here in TN who was nice as crap said he liked jews.but hated israel
have may middle eastern countries commited attrocities? hell yes does this give israel a free pass card no.


if we give up and say oh well who cares its in the past we betray the crew of the liberty, the families of the crew, and every man who has died for freedom JUSTICE and the american ppl as these men did

last of all god be with the souls of the crew of the liberty and the israeli ships and jets

Posted by: James at October 10, 2007 07:12 PM


And why do I care about Israel killing there prisoners 40+ years ago. Honestly, if America wanted to do something about that they should have. Why did they hide what happened for so long, why not expose what they found. Maybe the Prisoners had committed War crimes, ever think about that. No one in the middle east is a saint. My only concern is this whole thing could destroy a good friendship.

Also im going to open a pack of C4 here. What if Israel had been killing there prisoners, what if they deliberately attacks the USS Liberty. What if America had been in the wrong, what if, what if, what if, what if. This is a case were we should learn from history and not read to much into this event. Israel felt threatened somehow and they eliminated that treat, how many times have we done that? 34 Americans died, and im not just saying its no big deal that they died, but that is the price you sometimes pay for spying on another country.

Ever stop and just think about why Israel has such a reputation as a country that doesn't put up with any c**p, maybe it is because they have guts, where as American polititions have to have help standing on there own 2 feet. They take a stand and they rarely ever back down.

Honestly if you were president of Israel would you trust anyone? I know I wouldn't.

Posted by: 22lr at October 10, 2007 05:07 PM


For a great account of this incident see James Bamford's [i]Body of Secrets[/i]. Bamford says that the Israelis went after the Liberty because the Liberty was eavesdropping within 12 miles of a town in which the IDF was committing war crimes (i.e., executing Egyptian soldiers who had surrendered).

Posted by: firehat at October 10, 2007 04:53 PM


1: It happened 40 years ago. I want to now what happened because I believe "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

2: Would a truthful answer one way or the even other matter? Heck it was 40 years ago in a political environment that mean nothing today.

3: neither side is to be blamed 100%. at the most it is a 50 50 on who's fault.

4: 34 people murdered, or killed in self defense. Does it really matter in todays world.

5: The last thing we need is to lose a great parter in the middle east like Israel.

6: This is history, not something that happened yesterday. Why does it matter, both nations were at a very different political landscape than were they are today.

7: It happened over 40 years ago.

8: It happened over 40 years ago

Posted by: 22lr at October 10, 2007 04:19 PM


You want to talk Holocaust (not to down play the WW2 genocide) but probably the most successful holocaust was the US expansion through the west and into Mexico. Many native Americans died.

Also,
During that time in history wasn't the US and Russia Gobbling up Allies in a mad feeding frenzy of Global Nuclear fear? It's possible the US was monitoring Israel for Russian infiltration... or communications or anything. Also.. there are so many countries in that area... they could have been monitoring anyone (Palestine even).

Lastly,
This is just history repeating... my friend is now my enemy is now my friend.

Look at Russia (WW1 & WW2 Ally. Then cold war (enemy). Fall of the wall end of cool war (Friendly)).
Japan (US Colonial Wars expansion into pacific Islands (Occupation of Japan), WW1(?) & WW2, Modern day friendly-Ally)

Posted by: Foreign.Boy at October 10, 2007 02:59 PM


The US Congress is about to pass a resolution on the Armenian Holocaust that happened nearly a century ago in another part of the world. There aer Jewish Holocaust museums all over the United States, remembering evil that took place more than 60 years ago. Why bother? Because if we don't remember evil and fight it, evil will return.

In the case of the AMERICAN sailor on USS Liberty who were murdered by Israel, we need to remember what was done to them and make the Israelis accept responsibility for their evil acts.

I realize that the pro-Israeli partisans in this country would like to sweep this under the rug, butthose of us who are loyal to this country demand accountability.

Posted by: Roger at October 10, 2007 02:45 PM


Yawn, history and conspiracy theories, a perfect storm of irrelevance...In related news, the British used to kidnap American sailors and the Indians would scalp and sometimes burn Colonists alive. Did we catch Pancho Villa yet? Or the one-armed man in the grassy knoll?

Posted by: Vercingetorix at October 10, 2007 02:28 PM


A similar incident took place during the Iran-Iraq War in 1987, when an Iraqi Mirage F1 using Exocet missiles scored two direct hits on the US Navy Oliver Hazard Perry class Stark.

Posted by: Mark Pyruz at October 10, 2007 02:19 PM


It has been a while since I read about this, so forgive me if I am off a bit. But here is the background to this incident....
In 1956, the US and the USSR forced Israel and the French out of Egypt, making them give back the most important strategic asset in the region: The Suez canal. The Egyptians had nationalized it.
Thus grabbing Economic and strategic victory out of their hands....
If they felt that the US was going to stop them from Victory in the seven Day war, it makes sense to try and destroy the Intel ship and claim it was "a mistake". Things happen in a war zone...
At this time we were not giving the Israelis weapons like we do now.
I think that started happening after the Egyptians invited the Soviets to have a Navy/air force base in their country.....
Once the countries in the region started buying weapons by the boatload from, and snuggling up to the Soviets, we started treating Israel as a counter balance.
Plus Israel got a lot of good press and Popular movies made about it after the Seven Day War....
Curt Douglas, Frank Sinatra...Fighting for the freedom of Israel in movies...
Asking the soviets to come in was one of the stupidest moves Egypt ever made. They threw them out a couple of years later.
However the Soviets did help them make the Aswan Dam. Which made Egypt a economic power house...for about ten years.
On an interesting note, I asked an egyptian Friend of mine once why Egypt Made peace with Israel. He said with the nuclear bomb Israel has, they could blow up the dam, and wipe the entire Egyptian civiization out in one swoop.
What a tangled mess it is.....


Posted by: Dennis at October 10, 2007 01:25 PM


"But, jeez. 40 years later? How many of the direct participants on either side are still alive even?"

34 less then would otherwise be?

Posted by: Siconik at October 10, 2007 01:02 PM


I think, given it was 40 years ago, I won't be the only one to yawn and think "Yeah, okay...And the relevance to now is...what?"

If all this was reported somewhat more contemporaneously, perhaps it would have mattered.

But, jeez. 40 years later? How many of the direct participants on either side are still alive even?

Posted by: Penta at October 10, 2007 11:49 AM


I think it is clear they were trying to sink the ship but were unsuccessful in their attempt to murder the crew. The essentially ran out of time. What intriques me the most about this event is the lack of media coverage. This past June was the 40th anniversary of the attack yet you wouldn't know it from the MSM. I mean, who benefits? The media constantly run "on this day in history" pieces yet the assault on the USS Liberty seemed to merit no coverage.

To see just how extraordinary their circumstances were, check out this VFW article: http://www.ussliberty.org/pdf/vfw_ussliberty.pdf

Posted by: LanceThruster at October 10, 2007 10:43 AM


Nothing will come of this because criticism of Israel is easily spun into being anti-Semitic. Until we can get beyond this, Israel will always get a pass, no matter what they do.

It's interesting to see the number of comments that take the "what were we doing there?" and "We wouldn't be spying" tack.

Read 'Inside The Puzzle Palace' and 'Body of Secrets' by James Bamford.

We were spying (eavesdropping). It's something we do, and have done for nearly a hundred years.

We had evidence, gathered by the Liberty, that Israel not only moved first in the Six Day War, but also slaughtered several hundred Egyptian prisoners in the Sinai.

Oh, and Nessuno: "Pearl Harbor was 1981. Do you think in 1982 many people thought it was rational to get worked up over Japanese and German atrocities from WW2?"

I know some Jewish people who are plenty worked up over German atrocities. And likewise some American soldiers who were experimented on by the Japanese; or Comfort Women from Korea that still can't even get an acknowledgment from the Japanese government, let alone a simple apology for what happened to them.

It is NOT time to move on.

Justice knows no timeline, there is no statute of limitations on atrocities.

It is endemic upon functioning democracies to pursue justice until justice is done.

Posted by: TB at October 10, 2007 10:39 AM


Take a look at James Ennes' book "Assault on the liberty". All this was outed years ago, but no one seemed to care. At least it can now been seen that Ennes wasn't the nutcase some argued he was.

Posted by: Tod Glenn at October 10, 2007 09:42 AM


HMM I just found that the commander was awarded the MOH for his actions during the attack.The citation, interesting. Official body count is 34 dead, 170 wounded.

Medal of Honor citation of Captain William L. McGonagle:

"For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as Commanding Officer, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) in the Eastern Mediterranean on 8-9 June 1967. Sailing in international waters, the Liberty was attacked without warning by jet fighter aircraft and motor torpedo boats which inflicted many casualties among the crew and caused extreme damage to the ship. Although severely wounded during the first air attack, Captain (then Commander) McGonagle remained at his battle station on the badly damaged bridge and, with full knowledge of the seriousness of his wounds, subordinated his own welfare to the safety and survival of his command. Steadfastly refusing any treatment which would take him away from his post, he calmly continued to exercise firm command of his ship. Despite continuous exposure to fire, he maneuvered his ship, directed its defense, supervised the control of flooding and fire, and saw to the care of the casualties. Captain McGonagle's extraordinary valor under these conditions inspired the surviving members of the Liberty's crew, many of them seriously wounded, to heroic efforts to overcome the battle damage and keep the ship afloat. Subsequent to the attack, although in great pain and weak from the loss of blood, Captain McGonagle remained at his battle station and continued to conn his ship for more than seventeen hours. It was only after rendezvous with a United States destroyer that he relinquished personal control of the Liberty and permitted himself to be removed from the bridge. Even then, he refused much needed medical attention until convinced that the seriously wounded among his crew had been treated. Captain McGonagle's superb professionalism, courageous fighting spirit, and valiant leadership saved his ship and many lives. His actions sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

Posted by: 22lr at October 10, 2007 09:21 AM


I just looked up a bunch of photos of the attack, and the after math. It got really banged up. It was struck by airplanes, helos, PT boats, you name it. Something was up, to much damage for it to be an accident, but not enough that they tried to sink it (in my mind). HMMMM someone needs to find out that the Liberty was doing there in the first place. Loads of rocket and cannon fire, but nothing really big (save a few torpedoes) like bombs hit her. I think I remember 38 (give or take 2-3)were killed, and a good numbered wounded. Very interesting, although I really don't think we would be spying or anything, we would have had no need. Maybe it started as an accident, but they had to have known what they were attacking.

Posted by: 22lr at October 10, 2007 09:15 AM


The US wasn't even "allies" with Israel at the time. In fact, we were courting a relationship with Arabs and trying to walk a real fine line there.

Given that fact and the fact that Israel probably viewed the outcome of the Six Day War as an existential threat, why is it so shocking that they might have bombed our intelligence gathering vessel if they thought we might pass the info to the Arabs?

It's been 40 years since the incident, and geopolitics have changed considerably. 40 years after Pearl Harbor was 1981. Do you think in 1982 many people thought it was rational to get worked up over Japanese and German atrocities from WW2?

It's time to move on.

Posted by: Nessuno at October 10, 2007 09:02 AM


Dido to what Coolhand said. Why was it there? But Israel isn't dumb enough to try and attack us, heck they ain't stupid. Both sides seem to be at fault.

Posted by: 22lr at October 10, 2007 09:00 AM


you have to remeber, we are "allies" not friends. If Israel thought that the US was spying on them, and deemed it a threat to their national security, they might just take out the instrument of that spying. The question I would like answered is, why did the Israelies think the Liberty was a threat, and what was it really doing there? They don't waste jet fuel, cannon ammo, and napalm for no reason.

Posted by: Coolhand77 at October 10, 2007 08:41 AM


For the most part people don't attack other people for no reason, even less likley to go after one of your friends. So I have to ask, why would Israel do this? If this really happened (And it looks more and more like it did) that is the real question.

Posted by: The Cenobyte at October 10, 2007 07:39 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.