Extreme semitism in washington [W:15]

[Thoreau72]

I don't care how long it went on for. That it happened at all shows how criminal the Israelis are.

I read once that the US Navy had its revenge sometime later. Any stories?

 

[Sadling]

and they clearly didn't recognize the ship even after the aerial attack.

Yeah, but what about the radio transcripts of just before and during the attack? Do you have that?

 

[quantumechanic]

And what about what I said - when they're supported by some of the most senior and respected figures in the military/intelligence/diplomatic community?

Not that it really matters given that the opinions of people who can't testify to the events of the attack can't very well be considered evidence, but who are these people?

I didn't think they were difficult to find on the site. But anyway:

Captain William McGonagle writes to President Clinton

"... the Government of Israel's armed forces (air and naval) deliberately attacked USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5) (A Technical Research Ship) on June 8, 1967 ... When the attack began about 2:00 p.m. (local time) the ship was subjected to relentless and repeated murderous fire from the attacking aircraft (which were unmarked - a violation of international law) ... This is the only US Navy ship attacked by a foreign nation, involving a large loss of life and so many personnel injured that has never been accorded a full Congressional hearing."

That link will also give you the original letter signed by him, as a pdf.

This in itself is pretty damning.

I'd hardly call this damning. McGonagle's testimony in itself easily absolves Israel of an intentional attack and I don't see how this letter contradicts it. No one is disputing that the attack was deliberate (those bullets didn't shoot themselves), I'm not sure what he's basing the claim that the planes were unmarked on (particularly given that he testified himself in the NCOI that it was "extremely difficult to make out any distinguishing characteristics" on the planes [see previous post]) and as for the claim about congressional investigations, I thought we agreed you were going to give that a rest until you can actually prove they occurred (and no, people saying they happened doesn't mean they happened. For the umpteenth time, If there were congressional investigations there'd be reports - where are they?
Also, after a bit more digging I found this letter which was sent to Cristol by McGonagle two months before the letter you quoted. In it he speaks rather warmly to Cristol and even admits to being wrong in his "long held erroneous beliefs that the president had presented 12 medals of honor at the whitehouse on the same day I received my medal", this to the man that wrote a book about how the attack was a case of mistaken identity. Now, not to make too fine a point about it (as it isn't really that important), but surely a conspiracy-theorist such as yourself would find such a warm letter to Cristol two months before the one you quoted to be, at the very least, odd.

If you compare the two, you see the text version is a condensed one. So what's the problem?

The one I pointed out - namely, that he didn't say that the attack lasted for 75 minutes, he said that it lasted for over two hours. So, back to the original question I posed in #379 - other than Jim Ennes, who claimed that the attack lasted for 75 minutes?

What's your source for the 14 crewmen as I must've missed it?

The NCOI report. Also, see previous post.

That is the war crimes report submitted to the "Secretary of the Army in his capacity as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense" on the 2005 anniversary and contains the findings of the Moorer Commission.

Call it what you want, but that link is still just a report made by ussliberty.org, not a statement by Moorer.

The Moorer Commission came to that conclusion based on "eyewitness testimony from surviving crewmembers, a review of naval and other official records, an examination of official statements by the Israeli and American governments, a study of the conclusions of all previous official inquiries, and a consideration of important new evidence and recent statements from individuals..."

That's not evidence?

What eyewitness testimony? By which witnesses? A review of what records? An examination of what official statements?
You honestly don't realize how ridiculous it is to call what Moorer did an "investigation" when you don't even know what evidence he reviewed?! If the NCOI had stated that "after reviewing eyewitness testimony from surviving crewmembers, a review of naval and other official records and an examination of official statements by the Israeli and American governments the NCOI concludes that the attack was a case of mistaken identity" you wouldn't have been laughing your ass off at the so-called "evidence" and called it all a made-up hoax and\or conspiracy? Really??

Sorry, source again please.

See previous post.


Continued next post

 

[quantumechanic]

In addition to the captain's above:

Statement of Lloyd Painter

"1435 Hours: The ship sustained a direct torpedo hit on the starboard side from one of the three Israeli MTBs (The three naval contacts I had seen on the radar scope earlier).

1500 Hours: IDF MTBs continue to fire armor piercing projectiles through the skin of the ship in the hopes of killing as many sailors as they could and maybe even hitting our boilers.

...

I personally observed an Israeli MTB methodically machine gun one of the Liberty's empty life rafts that had been cut loose and was floating in the water. I knew at that split second that the thrust of the IDF attack was to kill every American sailor on board. There were to be no survivors that day.

I testified for over two hours at the Court of Inquiry. I testified to the Captain's mental state; the firing of armor piercing projectiles through the skin of the ship; and, to the machine-gunning of our life rafts (I was the only officer to witness the machine gunning of our life rafts). None of this testimony was recorded. The damning information I provided was purposefully omitted by the US Navy's Court of Inquiry."

Wow, where to start?
For one thing, his own testimony from the NCOI (see previous post) clearly contradicts these claims, as he stated (under oath):

the DC central passed the word to prepare to abandon ship. We then filed out to our life rafts which were no longer with us because they had been strafed and most of them were burned, so we knocked most of them over the side. At this time the torpedo boats, three of them, that had torpedoed us, were laying off, waiting for us to sink, I believe. Anyway, they didn't come near us at this time.

It also strikes me as ridiculous that after this testimony he'd say:

I climbed the ladder and opened the hatch to the main deck. I wanted to see if it was safe enough to bring the wounded sailors out onto the main deck. What I saw sent ice running through my veins. The life rafts were either destroyed or had been cut loose and had floated away.

Seriously? Ice was "running through his veins" at noticing that the burned life-rafts he'd thrown overboard were... -still- burnt?

Also, the claim that they were gunning lifeboats at 15:15 contradicts the testimony made by several others in the NCOI (which you yourself admitted were not liars) that no attack was made by the MTBs after the first signalling at 15:03.
Furthermore, in his testimony to the NCOI he stated that:

After I went back there, after the torpedo attack, we waited for what seemed like many, many hours but I imagine it was only 20 or 30 minutes; and in that time we were checking out the torpedo hit midships and doing what was necessary to prevent further flooding. About 30 minutes later we had word from the Captain that torpedo boats were approaching us again and to prepare for another torpedo attack starboard side. And I know that if another torpedo had hit us, it would have sunk us, so I told the men to standby to abandon ship.

Now, assuming that the warning from the captain about the MTBs' approach is what he's referring to at 15:15 in his new statement, I'd like to know how he can nail the time to a minute many years after the incident when at the investigation, several days after the event, he could only "imagine it was 20 or 30 minutes after the torpedo attack" (which was at precisely 14:35 according to his new statement and "I can't say exactly what time it was, maybe 1435" according to his NCOI statement) and how he can claim that 20-30 minutes after 14:35 comes to 15:15.
By the by, didn't it occur to him that if one more torpedo would have sunk the Liberty (as he himself stated) and that "the thrust of the IDF attack was to kill every American sailor on board. There were to be no survivors that day" (which he also stated), all the MTBs had to do was fire another torpedo and have had their thirst for American blood quenched?

Anyway, just to recap and make things clearer, here's a timeline of events according to his (conflicting) testimonials:

14:35 - Liberty is hit by torpedo. According to the old statement, at this time "the DC central" orders to prepare to abandon ship so Painter knocks the burned out rafts over the side. No mention of this is made in the new statement.
14:50 (time according to new statement, no time referenced in old statement) - Painter is called to the bridge by a petty officer and is ordered back to his post by McGonagle. For the next 30 minutes, according to the old statement, Painter was "checking out the torpedo hit midships and doing what was necessary to prevent further flooding".
15:00 (consistent with other survivors' testimony) at this time, according to the old statement, the Captain issues a warning of a possible torpedo attack because of the MTBs approach. Note that this is after the MTBs realized their mistake, at which time they were approaching to signal the Liberty if they needed assistance and several crewmembers testified that there was no firing from the MTBs from this point.
15:10 - according to the new statement, at this time McGonagle orders to prepare to abandon ship. In the old statement he states that when McGonagle warned of the approaching MTBs and ordered to prepare for a torpedo attack, Painter also ordered his crew to prepare to abandon ship on his own volition. As a sidenote, McGonagle said he never ordered to prepare to abandon ship and if you'll look at the NCOI report you'll see that no other survivor testified that he had.
15:15 - according to new statement, at this time he "wanted to see if it was safe enough to bring the wounded sailors out onto the main deck" and saw the MTBs gunning the lifeboats.

Speaks for itself, I think.

For one thing, the NCOI was severely limited in it's scope, being given only one week to conclude, when the experts said it should've been six months - as I've already shown.

For one thing, you haven't shown this to be true, you've shown that Boston claimed this to be true. For another, how does this reflect on some regular Schmoe's credibility as a forensic scientist?

That he was considered reliable and trustworthy.

By Moorer, who cooked up an "investigation" with no evidence or reports (at least, none he actually presented), why should that make us believe him?

Read them ages ago.

I don't understand, if you've read the Israeli investigation reports how could you possibly say they weren't investigations? They were quite thorough, particularly the Ram-Ron report.

Yet McGonagle clearly states (above) the attack was deliberate.

Yeah, well, as I pointed out, that the attack was deliberate is undisputed. The question is if it was made due to mistaken identity or due to malevolent intentions.

I seldom quote Cristol, it's usually the ones attacking the vets who do.

Nevertheless, you can't say "Cristol is lying\wrong when he states that A is true" when you can't actually quote him as saying "A is true".

That may be true but doesn't prove they're lying here.

True enough, but given their preconceptions it's not particularly damning. That's why I asked for another source.



I'd like to (respectfully) ask for your patience again as it's high time for me to go to bed (and Goldberry is waiting). There's not much more I'd like to say so it shouldn't take me too long to write my next post.
Incidentally, are you a fellow Brit? It occurs to me vaguely that I ran across you using some limey phrases.

 

[quantumechanic]

I've given Capt. Boston's testament and others that the inquiry was a farce.

Bostons' claims can't be so easily dismissed but I still wouldn't say they're enough to convict the entire NCOI of miscarriage of justice and of a huge plot with dozens of wrongdoers involved. As for Painter, he contradicts his own previous testimony as I've shown.

Both Admiral Moorer and Capt. McGonagle state otherwise.

See post #453.

Held in secret.

Hmm, good to know.

As I said in #347, if you can prove Cristol's claim is true, then go ahead - you'll be $10 grand richer.

:shrug:
Sorry, but I don't see how Cristols' claims are relevant to this discussion. I never said they were true, in fact, I never even heard him make those claims and am still waiting for you to show he did.
Also, I'm not quite sure why the blogger on ussliberty.org is making such a big whoop out of this issue. For one thing, even if Cristol was wrong about this, it's not as if it actually proves anything and\or disproves any other claims he made, and for another, it's not as if people on your side of the fence never got things wrong. As one example, there's the issue I've pointed out in the previous post about the claim that on the same day that McGonagle received his medal of honor in the navy yard, 12 other recipients received their medals of honor in the white house. A claim that McGonagle himself admitted to be untrue (see here), but is still being displayed on the ussliberty.org website (see here and here) so I'm not quite sure why the ussliberty.org blogger thinks he has a right to get up on a pedestal here.

Incidentally, where I said,

That is the war crimes report submitted to the "Secretary of the Army in his capacity as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense" on the 2005 anniversary and contains the findings of the Moorer Commission

Under US law the govt is required to investigate all and any reports of war crimes. Not only have they not done that, but last I heard, they haven't even acknowledged receipt of the submission of this report!

Now what does that tell you?

As I pointed out, as much as the title "war crime report" sounds official, it's still just a memo written by some guys who run a website. Can you source your claim about the US govt. being required to investigate any and all reports of war crimes? Also, would that apply to alleged crimes which had already been investigated? In any case, a thorough source with lots of information would be appreciated.

And that's where he's had the advantage over the NCOI investigators - much more time to investigate the attack. Also, serving "six years (1968 to 1974) in the U.S. Navy, as a Communications/Cryptologic Technician (CT) working at duty stations within the Naval Security Group command" would make him suitably qualified.

How would six years as a communications technician qualify him to be a forensic investigator?!

This author calls him "a leading forensic expert":

"For any of you who just raised eyebrows about Ken Halliwell’s credentials, consider the following: Halliwell is the first person who presented overwhelming evidence that Jay Cristol relied upon fake photographs to argue the attack on the Liberty was one of mistaken identity ... So one can safely describe Ken Halliwell as a leading forensic expert. And he has penned an essay in which the title alone fully reveals what Senator Webb so eloquently termed “irregularities and inequities”. It reads, “The Navy Court of Inquiry: Evidence of Negligence”. And the title of Halliwell’s second recommended essay hits the mark as well, ‘Smoking Gun’ for Claims of NCOI Testimony Tampering."


The USS Liberty Incident -- Truly a National Disgrace

So if a self-proclaimed anti-Israeli blogger calls Haliwell a "leading forensic expert", that makes him one although Haliwell himself stated this to be untrue (see here)?

Wouldn't you agree with me that the only people whose opinions and\or testimony we address should be of those who are, in fact, related to the incident?

In the meantime you might like to find another source for that NSA stuff as the English transcripts don't appear to exist there:

1. Audio Recording Labeled 104, dated 8 June 1967, 1229Z-1244Z
Transcript (in English) PDF Format - 8,076KB, which takes you to this link: Error Notice - NSA/CSS

2. Audio Recording Labeled 105, dated 8 June 1967, 1247Z-1319Z
Transcript (in English) PDF Format - 2,866KB : Error Notice - NSA/CSS

3. Audio Recording Labeled 130, dated 8 June 1967, 1307Z-1311Z
Transcript (in English) PDF Format - 821KB : Error Notice - NSA/CSS

Neither do ones under the headings, Follow-up Reports and DIRNSA Messages.

As for the others, I just randomly selected several lower down and none of them work either.

Yeah, the page was rather messy and it took me some time to figure it out myself. The correct links are at the top of the page and the rest are just repeats and are dead. Incidentally, I found that if you type in the filename you're looking for in the search bar of the website which gives the error message you can also find the "dead" links.
I'm pretty sure you figured this out already but wanted to point it out in case anyone else hadn't.


Thanks for your patience, I'm (finally) done!

 

[Sababa]

I never said Israel did 911. I did say that Israeli Mossad agents were driving around with vans full of explosives on 911.

No there were not.

One van exploded on King st. - I also said that all of this got covered up by the White House.

You have real evidence of this?

Driving vans on the morning of 911 with murals of a plane hitting the towers.....it's suspicious.

No it is a plane flying by he towers, the image is old and a coincidence.

I started the thread because I think the Israel lobby exerts too much influence over American foreign policy. Your average american does not care to have a nuclear war with Iran because of Israel.

and they are not why would you think they would?

There's nothing wrong with a dual Israeli citizen holding a position within the US government, but when you start to see policies which can be viewed as in direct opposition to the interests and security of the American people, but exclusively beneficial to Israel......that's when it becomes a problem.

Since that is not happening I thin you concern is unfounded.

It's cause for great concern.

IN a fantasy world.

 

[shanners]

Thanks for your patience, I'm (finally) done!

Righto, I'll get back when I'm not so busy.

 

[shanners]

Not that it really matters given that the opinions of people who can't testify to the events of the attack can't very well be considered evidence

Expert witnesses can give evidence. This is known, unsurprisingly, as expert evidence.

but who are these people?

I gave them much earlier. Again:

USS Liberty Conspiracy Theorists, unmasked

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

Dean Rusk, US Secretary of State

Richard Helms, CIA Director

Admiral Rufus Taylor, CIA Deputy Director

Lieutenant General William Odom, Former NSA Director

Admiral Bobby Inman, Former NSA/CIA Director

Louis W. Tordella, NSA Deputy Director

General Marshall Carter, former director, National Security Agency

Lucius Battle, former presidential advisor

Major General John Morrison, US Air Force, Chief of NSA Operations

Oliver Kirby, former deputy director for operations/production, National Security Agency

Paul C. Warnke, Undersecretary of the Navy

Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, President of the Navy Court of Inquiry

US Senator Adlai E. Stevenson

George Ball, under Secretary of State

Walter L. Jacobsen, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy

Admiral Merlin Staring, Staff Legal Office for Commander in Chief, US Naval Forces

Dwight Porter, Former US Ambassador to Lebanon

David G. Nes, Deputy Head, US Embassy, Cairo

All of whom state that the attack cannot have been a case of mistaken identity and that there's been a massive coverup.

And, "Nearly every former senior government and military official who has examined Israel's 1967 attack on the USS LIBERTY agrees it was deliberate"

http://ussliberty.org/washr703.txt

I'd hardly call this damning. McGonagle's testimony in itself easily absolves Israel of an intentional attack and I don't see how this letter contradicts it.

It's clear from the context that he's saying "deliberately attacked USS LIBERTY" with the knowledge it was a US ship.

Also, "James R. Gotcher, a former general counsel to the Liberty Veterans Association, called the telegrams "further evidence that there was undue command influence in the structuring and conduct of the court of inquiry, and that the political decision had been made to cover this up within hours of the attack...

"Gotcher was an Air Force intelligence analyst assigned to Da Nang, Vietnam, in 1967, and said he saw the original military message traffic on the Liberty assault and that it showed the attack was deliberate. He has provided his own testimony to the Liberty association for its efforts to get the attack investigated, and also helped the group draft a war crimes report in 2005, which it submitted to the Pentagon."

http://www.ussliberty.org/navytimes607.htm

More here: The Smoking Gun

What eyewitness testimony? By which witnesses? A review of what records? An examination of what official statements? You honestly don't realize how ridiculous it is to call what Moorer did an "investigation" when you don't even know what evidence he reviewed?

See the war crimes report I gave earlier and follow the links from the notes. That will take you to much of the testimony which the Commission no doubt examined.

This Israeli source says '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.'

If this was any other civil or criminal trial you would unreservedly accept the court's verdict. If you said, "Show me all the evidence. I won't accept the findings until I see every single piece of evidence" - which is what it sounds like you're saying - you'd be laughed out of town.

They spent a year investigating the attack and you want know every single detail? I'll come back to this.

 

[shanners]

Can you source your claim about the US govt. being required to investigate any and all reports of war crimes?

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION

Directive current as of 29 March 2004
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DOD LAW OF WAR PROGRAM

3 All reportable incidents committed by or against members of
(or persons serving with or accompanying) the US Armed Forces are
promptly reported, thoroughly investigated and, where appropriate,
remedied by corrective action.

http://ussliberty.org/report/exhibit%201.pdf

By Moorer, who cooked up an "investigation"

I'll stop right there.

Do you actually realize who Admiral Moorer was? Not only was he the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest military position in the country) and Chief of Naval Operations but he was the only naval officer to have commanded both the Pacific and Atlantic Fleets. The F-14 Tomcat, the US Navy's main jet fighter for many years, was named after Admiral Tom Moorer. That's how highly regarded by the military he was.

To suggest that he and his distinguished colleagues - General Raymond G. Davis, USMC, MOH, Former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps; Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, USN, Ret., Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy; and James Akins, Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia - spent a year lying, fabricating and falsifying evidence and testimony, and everything else that the term "cooked up" implies, is, well, way beyond the absurd and I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

eace