Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty
Wed Oct 22, 8:47 PM ET Add U.S. Government - AP to My Yahoo!
By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.
In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
Boston was senior legal counsel to the Navy's original 1967 review of the attack. He said in the sworn statement that he stayed silent for years because he's a military man, and "when orders come ... I follow them."
He said he felt compelled to "share the truth" following the publication of a recent book, "The Liberty Incident," which concluded the attack was unintentional.
The USS Liberty was an electronic intelligence-gathering ship that was cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast on June 8, 1967. Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty at what became known as the outbreak of the Israeli-Egyptian Six-Day War.
In addition to the 34 Americans killed, more than 170 were wounded.
Israel has long maintained that the attack was a case of mistaken identity, an explanation that the Johnson administration did not formally challenge. Israel claimed its forces thought the ship was an Egyptian vessel and apologized to the United States.
After the attack, a Navy court of inquiry concluded there was insufficient information to make a judgment about why Israel attacked the ship, stopping short of assigning blame or determining whether it was an accident.
It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said Ret. Adm. Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other former military officials. The panel also included a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins.
"Why would our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own?" Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack.
Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a deliberate act, wants Congress to investigate.
Israeli Embassy spokesman Mark Regev disputed any notion that Israel knowingly went after American sailors.
"I can say unequivocally that the Liberty tragedy was a terrible accident, that the Israeli pilots involved believed they were attacking an enemy ship," Regev said. "This was in the middle of a war. This is something that we are not proud of."
Calls to the Navy seeking comment were not immediately returned.
In Boston's statement, he does not say why Johnson would have ordered a cover-up. Attempts were made to reach Boston at his home in Coronado, Calif., but he did not return calls seeking comment.
Moorer's panel suggested several possible reasons Israel might have wanted to attack a U.S. ship. Among them: Israel intended to sink the ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States into the 1967 war.
[/quote]
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.
This reminds me of Comical Axi posting a bunch of news quotes from
Clinton et al after he got asspounded by everyone else.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
That's lovely, but believe it or not, the fact that Johnson ordered the attack to be classified as an accident doesn't debunk the theory that the attack was in fact an accident.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
This reminds me of Comical Axi posting a bunch of news quotes from
Clinton et al after he got asspounded by everyone else.
Come on now, he was still stressed out.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
This reminds me of Comical Axi posting a bunch of news quotes from
Clinton et al after he got asspounded by everyone else.
At least you've shown your true colors. With all your military wanking and jingoism is now obvious that you you really don't give a damn whether or not American servicemen were deliberatly killed in cold blood by an "ally".
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.
That's lovely, but believe it or not, the fact that Johnson ordered the attack to be classified as an accident doesn't debunk the theory that the attack was in fact an accident.
Read carefully, He ordered a court of inquiry to conclude that the attack was an accident, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:I really hate this shit. What would Isreal have to gain by attacking an American ship?
A motive is required whether you like it or not. Answer me this what motive has been determined?
Two have been given in two seperate threads.
1. Israel intended to sink the ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States into the 1967 war.
2. Why try to sink a vessel of a benefactor and ally? Most likely because Liberty's intercepts contradicted Israel's claim, made at the war's start on June 5, that Egypt had attacked Israel,and that Israel's air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl Harbor-style attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their air forces
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.
That's lovely, but believe it or not, the fact that Johnson ordered the attack to be classified as an accident doesn't debunk the theory that the attack was in fact an accident.
Read carefully, He ordered a court of inquiry to conclude that the attack was an accident, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
At least you've shown your true colors. With all your military wanking and jingoism is now obvious that you you really don't give a damn whether or not American servicemen were deliberatly killed in cold blood by an "ally".
Yeah yeah yeah, blow me, bitch tits.
I'm tired of the subject, it's been brought up so many times, so blow me.
At this point, I don't care any more. Come back to me when you have something concrete, other than a news release which is as worthless
as the paper it's printed on.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Kamakazie Sith wrote:I really hate this shit. What would Isreal have to gain by attacking an American ship?
A motive is required whether you like it or not. Answer me this what motive has been determined?
Two have been given in two seperate threads.
1. Israel intended to sink the ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States into the 1967 war.
2. Why try to sink a vessel of a benefactor and ally? Most likely because Liberty's intercepts contradicted Israel's claim, made at the war's start on June 5, that Egypt had attacked Israel,and that Israel's air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl Harbor-style attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their air forces
1 - If that was the plan then they would have needed to jam the ships communications, or destroy it immediately to prevent it from reporting it's attackers. That's an extremely risky and fool hardy way of bringing an ally into a war.
2 - Most likely? How would sinking the vessel erase what it had already reported? Do you think Israel is stupid?
Even if Johnson gave this order, is it relevant whatsoever? It just means he was covering his ass diplomatically. Unless this "overwhelming evidence" appears somewhere the balance is still in favour of it being a case of mistaken identity. Essentially this guy is trying to get us to believe that the Liberty was attacked intentionally because Johnson gave an order which sounds very typical for the diplomatic niceties of the day--look what happened with the Pueblo in regard to a far more hostile country in the same rough time period--on the basis of supposed "overwhelming evidence". Now, if this overwhelming evidence was produced, that would do it.
But of course it isn't produced.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
I'm tired of the subject, it's been brought up so many times, so blow me.
At this point, I don't care any more. Come back to me when you have something concrete, other than a news release which is as worthless
as the paper it's printed on.[/quote]
As has been stated many times, by many people, your a fucking idiot. A signed affidavit by the head of the board of inquiry and the testimony of a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is evidence that would hold up in ANY criminal proceding.
1 - If that was the plan then they would have needed to jam the ships communications, or destroy it immediately to prevent it from reporting it's attackers. That's an extremely risky and fool hardy way of bringing an ally into a war.
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
As has been stated many times, by many people, your a fucking idiot. A signed affidavit by the head of the board of inquiry and the testimony of a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is evidence that would hold up in ANY criminal proceding.
Have you ever considered why he isn't a member of the Joint Chiefs any longer?
And his testimony is not evidence because he wasn't there!
1 - If that was the plan then they would have needed to jam the ships communications, or destroy it immediately to prevent it from reporting it's attackers. That's an extremely risky and fool hardy way of bringing an ally into a war.
This kind of evidence doesn't help your case. IIRC the official website created by the victims doesn't even claim that the planes were unmarked.
Also, if they were unmarked then why would Israel admit to it?
Why would Israel need to sink this ship if they already had the US government in their back pocket, there would be no point...such a plan of action is retarded..which means that it is most likely conspiracy theorist bullshit.
Think about it....the moon landing hoax has the same sort of attitude...
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
As has been stated many times, by many people, your a fucking idiot. A signed affidavit by the head of the board of inquiry and the testimony of a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is evidence that would hold up in ANY criminal proceding.
*yawn*
Give me a call if this goes anywhere, idiot.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Kamakazie Sith wrote:I really hate this shit. What would Isreal have to gain by attacking an American ship?
A motive is required whether you like it or not. Answer me this what motive has been determined?
Whatever the motive was, whether it was a deliberate attack or not is a seperate issue. The question is *intent*, not endless tail-chasing about reason for that intent anyone cares to advance. These appeals that any question of something afoul must first have a motive attached is patent bullshit. Stick to the facts, not this annoying subjective rubbish about "the Israelis aren't stupid, how can you suggest such a thing!" People are fucking stupid all the time.
I'm not expressing any view in regards to this matter, as I've read the other thread on the subject, but this "explain why they would" crap has gotta stop.
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:1. Israel intended to sink the ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States into the 1967 war.
I ask you again: what need did Israel have of bringing the US into the Six Day War?
Moreover, what need did Israel have that outweighed the very real possibility that it would only piss off Uncle Sam?
Israel has depended on the US for it's existence since the beginning. By bringing the US to fight for itself Israel could have totaly defeated the Arabs once and for all. There was no way the Arabs could have repelled an US invasion of the middle east.
I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.
Israel has depended on the US for it's existence since the beginning.
Buuuuuuuuuuuulshit. You're quite ignorant of Israeli history if you believe that.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Durran Korr wrote:
Buuuuuuuuuuuulshit. You're quite ignorant of Israeli history if you believe that.
Jeez dude all those u's and you missed out an l
Irrespective of the truth of this statement (I'm not interested enough to care) I'd say that Israel would be in a more ... uncomfortable position if the US didn't shield it from the ire of the international community on so many issues and provided it with billions per year in military aid.
Of course they would be. Saying the U.S. has aided Israel is a bit different from saying "Israel his historically been dependent on the U.S."
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
That article says nothing except that there was a cover-up and that Red. Adm. Moore came up with some reasons Israel may have wished to attack.
Come back when you can counter that essay that Mr. Slade wrote, as much as you demanded that I did for Mr. Stinnett's article. Turnabout is fair play, no?
