Re: USS Liberty Challenge/Reward [Archive]

Issac Goldberg

June 28th 04, 07:55 AM

(Mike Weeks) wrote:

> http://libertyincident.com/documents.htm

Finally! After lots of name calling, changing the
subject and non sequiturs, Weeks gives a source
which he alleges contains information concerning
Congress investigating the Liberty and concluding
that the attack was an accident.

First, rather that 5 or 6 Congressional investigations,
there are only two alleged investigations into the USS
Liberty. But, as we will see, these two committees did
not conduct conclusive investigations into the major
points of controversy concerning the USS Liberty.

1) House Armed Services Committee Investigation

Lo and behold, rather than "A Report on the attack on the
USS Liberty," the link takes you to a report on "Review of
Department of Defense Worldwide Communications."

The only connection with the attack on the Liberty was
the misrouted message ordering the Liberty to leave the
area due to the hostilities. No other aspect of the
attack on the Liberty was looked at. The topics
not looked at included:

a) Whether the attack was intentional,

b) Whether Israel had previously identified
the Liberty,

c) Whether rescue aircraft were recalled,

d) Whether an American intelligence plane
recorded conversations between the attacking
Israeli aircraft and their controllers, and
what those conversations were.

In fact the only issue considered in the report
deals with problems with DOD communications.

If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was a
Congressional investigation of the Liberty which
exonerates the Israelis, Cristol is a failure.

2) Senate Foreign Relations Committee Investigation

Lo and behold, rather than "An Investigation into the
attack on the USS Liberty," the link takes you to
hearings on the "Foreign Assistance Act of 1967."

It is not a report giving conclusions of an
investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty;
it is merely hearings. They are two different things.

However, there are some comments by Senators which
indicate their feelings on the assault on the USS
Liberty:

Senator Hickenlooper: "I think it was a deliberate
assault on [the USS Liberty.] ... I think they had ample
opportunity to identify it as an American ship. ...
It is inconceivable to me that the ship could not
have been identified."

Senator Aiken: "I think, not only the committee, but the
public wants better information than they have had so far."

Senator Mundt also expresses doubts about the failure of
the attacking Israeli pilots to identify the ship "in
broad daylight."

So, based on the only three Senators who were quoted, the
conclusion of the Committee, if there had been a report,
would have been the rejection of the contention that
the attack was accidental.

If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was an
investigation of the Liberty which exonerates the
Israelis, Cristol is a failure.

Cristol is 0 for 2. Cristol is a failure.

There was no Congressional investigation of the
USS Liberty which concluded that the Israeli
attack was an accident. And this was from the
link that Weeks provided. Maybe Weeks will
continue to provide other links which disprove
his contentions.

[email protected]

June 28th 04, 07:36 PM

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:

> > http://libertyincident.com/documents.htm

> Finally! After lots of name calling, changing the
> subject and non sequiturs, Weeks gives a source
> which he alleges contains information concerning
> Congress investigating the Liberty and concluding
> that the attack was an accident.

Mike had given his sources in the past, quite a few times.
You feel that Mike had a duty to spoon-feed you, and treat you
with respect, even though you had no idea what you were talking
about. I don't really care about your hurt feelings.

> First, rather that 5 or 6 Congressional investigations,
> there are only two alleged investigations into the USS
> Liberty. But, as we will see, these two committees did
> not conduct conclusive investigations into the major
> points of controversy concerning the USS Liberty.

It is not the job of Congress to investigate everything.
The US Navy's Court Of Inquiry did a pretty good job establishing
the facts. (And please read those 727 pages before you claim
your "facts." Mike did it, no reason why you can't.)

Congress trusted the Navy investigation, which seems to be pretty
professional and unbiased. There was no point taking the 158 pages
of testimony, under oath, and have the same witnesses repeat the same
testimony in front of Congress.

> 1) House Armed Services Committee Investigation

> Lo and behold, rather than "A Report on the attack on the
> USS Liberty," the link takes you to a report on "Review of
> Department of Defense Worldwide Communications."

That was the one point that, from a military point of view was not clear.
How, a couple of years after Tonkin, the US Navy sent a ship into a
war zone? Did the Navy officers have no clue what a mess another
Tonkin could cause?

There were two explanation, a communication error from home, or an error
by the crew. Congress did a pretty good job checking that. (IMO the
commander of the ship had to realize the danger of going to a war zone
and protest, loud, to highers up. The US Navy appreciates "follow the
orders" much more than I do, and does not share my opinion.)

In your opinion, what data, not in the Navy's Court Of Inquiry
report, could Congress find? Which witnesses should have been
called? What documents could they request?

> a) Whether the attack was intentional,

The US Navy decided that it was not.

> b) Whether Israel had previously identified
> the Liberty,

Israel admitted indentifying the ship earlier, but losing its
position later. I don't think that the US notification
that none of its ships were near the war zone helped much.

> c) Whether rescue aircraft were recalled,

Why is that important?

> d) Whether an American intelligence plane
> recorded conversations between the attacking
> Israeli aircraft and their controllers, and
> what those conversations were.

The US government has this data, and the Navy's Court had the power
to subpoena it. The US government wants to keep the data secret,
just like it keeps plenty of other military data secret. If you think
that the *US* government, in the last eight adminstrations (Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush), is a part of a cover-
up then you need a better story to explain that.

> In fact the only issue considered in the report
> deals with problems with DOD communications.

Because that seemed, to Congress, like a major issue that can end
up in another Tonkin. Pueblo shows that Congress had a clue.

> 2) Senate Foreign Relations Committee Investigation

> However, there are some comments by Senators which
> indicate their feelings on the assault on the USS
> Liberty:

> Senator Hickenlooper: "I think it was a deliberate
> assault on [the USS Liberty.] ... I think they had ample
> opportunity to identify it as an American ship. ...
> It is inconceivable to me that the ship could not
> have been identified."

I wonder why those Monday morning quarter-backs never talk that way
when US forces attack US forces...

Talk is cheap, having a clue how to prevent "friendly fire" incidents
is not.

> Senator Aiken: "I think, not only the committee, but the
> public wants better information than they have had so far."

The committee could subpoena the information. Choosing not to do so,
and then whining about missing information, is what I would expect
Senators to do. Would not you?

> Senator Mundt also expresses doubts about the failure of
> the attacking Israeli pilots to identify the ship "in
> broad daylight."

And how much experience does Senator Mundt have flying jets?
(BTW Israeli pilot had little training in attacking
ships, and they used the wrong bombs for sinking ships.)

> So, based on the only three Senators who were quoted, the
> conclusion of the Committee, if there had been a report,
> would have been the rejection of the contention that
> the attack was accidental.

Again, talk is cheap; making a case is much harder. To make a case
you have to explain most data, not just pick and choose. The
senators did not want to sign their names on a report that made
claims without proof; it could be a long term liability.

> If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was an
> investigation of the Liberty which exonerates the
> Israelis, Cristol is a failure.

Have you read Cristol book?
Yes or No?

(I did not read most of the book BTW; I wait to the consipracy
guys to make a real case before I'll bother disproving it.)

Hillel

"That the Congress approves and supports the determination of
the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary
measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the
United States and to prevent further aggression."

Issac Goldberg

June 28th 04, 11:43 PM

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...

For some reason, I cannot reply directly to Hillel's post.

The main point, which Hillel does his best to avoid is:

Congress never conducted an investigation solely concerning
the USS Liberty affair, and Cristol's web page does not refute
that.

> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
>
> > http://libertyincident.com/documents.htm
>
> Finally! After lots of name calling, changing the
> subject and non sequiturs, Weeks gives a source
> which he alleges contains information concerning
> Congress investigating the Liberty and concluding
> that the attack was an accident.
>
> First, rather that 5 or 6 Congressional investigations,
> there are only two alleged investigations into the USS
> Liberty. But, as we will see, these two committees did
> not conduct conclusive investigations into the major
> points of controversy concerning the USS Liberty.
>
> 1) House Armed Services Committee Investigation
>
> Lo and behold, rather than "A Report on the attack on the
> USS Liberty," the link takes you to a report on "Review of
> Department of Defense Worldwide Communications."
>
> The only connection with the attack on the Liberty was
> the misrouted message ordering the Liberty to leave the
> area due to the hostilities. No other aspect of the
> attack on the Liberty was looked at. The topics
> not looked at included:
>
> a) Whether the attack was intentional,
>
> b) Whether Israel had previously identified
> the Liberty,
>
> c) Whether rescue aircraft were recalled,
>
> d) Whether an American intelligence plane
> recorded conversations between the attacking
> Israeli aircraft and their controllers, and
> what those conversations were.
>
> In fact the only issue considered in the report
> deals with problems with DOD communications.
>
> If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was a
> Congressional investigation of the Liberty which
> exonerates the Israelis, Cristol is a failure.
>
> 2) Senate Foreign Relations Committee Investigation
>
> Lo and behold, rather than "An Investigation into the
> attack on the USS Liberty," the link takes you to
> hearings on the "Foreign Assistance Act of 1967."
>
> It is not a report giving conclusions of an
> investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty;
> it is merely hearings. They are two different things.
>
> However, there are some comments by Senators which
> indicate their feelings on the assault on the USS
> Liberty:
>
> Senator Hickenlooper: "I think it was a deliberate
> assault on [the USS Liberty.] ... I think they had ample
> opportunity to identify it as an American ship. ...
> It is inconceivable to me that the ship could not
> have been identified."
>
> Senator Aiken: "I think, not only the committee, but the
> public wants better information than they have had so far."
>
> Senator Mundt also expresses doubts about the failure of
> the attacking Israeli pilots to identify the ship "in
> broad daylight."
>
> So, based on the only three Senators who were quoted, the
> conclusion of the Committee, if there had been a report,
> would have been the rejection of the contention that
> the attack was accidental.
>
> If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was an
> investigation of the Liberty which exonerates the
> Israelis, Cristol is a failure.
>
> Cristol is 0 for 2. Cristol is a failure.
>
> There was no Congressional investigation of the
> USS Liberty which concluded that the Israeli
> attack was an accident. And this was from the
> link that Weeks provided. Maybe Weeks will
> continue to provide other links which disprove
> his contentions.

Issac Goldberg

June 29th 04, 08:40 AM

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:

[snip]

> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> >
> >> http://libertyincident.com/documents.htm
> >
> >Finally! After lots of name calling, changing the
> >subject and non sequiturs, Weeks gives a source
> >which he alleges contains information concerning
> >Congress investigating the Liberty and concluding
> >that the attack was an accident.
>
> Idiot;

Weeks does what he does best, he resorts to childish
name calling. If he had a strong case, there would
be no reason for his constant insults, his arguments
alone would carry the day. But, considering how often
he engages in name calling, his case must be very,
very weak.

He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an
investigation devoted solely to the Liberty affair.

Congress did investigate a single aspect of the
Liberty incident, relating to DOD communications,
which did not look at the question of whether the
attack by Israel was intentional. In fact, none of
the links provided by Cristol is to a Congressional
investigation into the question, "was that attack
on the USS Liberty intentional?"

Weeks, if I am wrong, please provide a link to a
Congressional investigation which looked into whether
the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional. You can't,
because Congress never conducted such an investigation.

To say that Congress never found evidence that the attack
was intentional is being disingenuous. If there was no
investigation, then there was no conclusion. But to imply
that Congress thoroughly investigated the Liberty affair,
and to further imply that this investigation exonerated
Israel, is the kind of dishonesty recently practiced by
President Bush in convincing our country to invade Iraq.
Bush can accurately say that he never directly accused
Saddam of being behind 9/11, but his implications were
so strong that a majority of U.S. citizens were convinced
at the beginning of the assault on Iraq that Saddam was
directly responsible for 9/11. Bush is an expert in
using weasel words, just like Weeks. Maybe Bush went to
the same disinformation school that Weeks attended.

[snip]

Issac Goldberg

June 29th 04, 08:50 AM

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> >
> >> http://libertyincident.com/documents.htm
> >
> >Finally! After lots of name calling, changing the
> >subject and non sequiturs, Weeks gives a source
> >which he alleges contains information concerning
> >Congress investigating the Liberty and concluding
> >that the attack was an accident.
>
> Idiot;

Weeks does what he does best, he resorts to childish
name calling. If he had a strong case, there would
be no reason for his constant insults, his arguments
alone would carry the day. But, considering how often
he engages in name calling, his case must be very,
very weak.

He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an
investigation devoted to whether the attack on the
USS Liberty was intentional.

Congress did investigate a single aspect of the
Liberty incident, relating to DOD communications.
This investigation by the House Armed Services
Committee did not consider the question of whether
the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel was
intentional. In fact, none of the links provided
by Cristol is to a Congressional investigation
into the question, "was that attack on the USS
Liberty intentional?"

To say that Congress never found evidence that
the attack was intentional is being disingenuous.
If there was no investigation into whether the
attack was intentional, then there could be no
conclusion. But to imply that Congress thoroughly
investigated the Liberty affair, and to further
imply that this investigation exonerated Israel,
is the kind of dishonesty recently practiced by
President Bush in convincing our country to invade
Iraq. Bush can accurately say that he never
directly accused Saddam of being behind 9/11, but
his implications were so strong that a majority of
U.S. citizens were convinced at the beginning of
the assault on Iraq that Saddam was directly
responsible for 9/11. Bush is an expert in
using weasel words, just like Weeks. Maybe Bush
went to the same disinformation school that Weeks
attended.

[snip]

[email protected]

June 29th 04, 06:14 PM

#It is not the job of Congress to investigate everything.
#The US Navy's Court Of Inquiry did a pretty good job establishing
#the facts. (And please read those 727 pages before you claim
#your "facts." Mike did it, no reason why you can't.)
#
#Congress trusted the Navy investigation, which seems to be pretty
#professional and unbiased.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> The main point, which Hillel does his best to avoid is:

> Congress never conducted an investigation solely concerning
> the USS Liberty affair, and Cristol's web page does not refute
> that.

Congress never conducted an investigation of *MOST* affairs. Congress
usually investigates only if there is a high profile case or there
are indications that the executive branch lied; e.g. Joseph McCarthy
communists' hunt, Iran-Contra affair, Watergate.

Unless you can show some good reasons why US Navy's Court Of Inquiry
can't be trusted in the Liberty case, I don't see why Congress should
waste its time duplicating the court's job.

[email protected]

June 29th 04, 06:40 PM

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> > Idiot;

> Weeks does what he does best, he resorts to childish
> name calling.

What Mike does best is finding the facts and presenting
his conclusions based on the facts; e.g. you are an idiot.

> He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an
> investigation devoted solely to the Liberty affair.

What makes "Congress" more qualified to run an investigation than
the CIA? Can Congress get more data? Does Congress have deeper
understanding of Israel? Does Congress have better exprerts in
navies-at-war issues than the US NAvy?

In other words, why should Congresss investigate the Liberty
incidence after the CIA concluded that the Israeli explanation
is reasonable. (See http://libertyincident.com/cia.htm
@The Central Intelligence Agency completed an Intelligence
@Memorandum titled The Attack on the USS Liberty on 13 Jun
@1967. It was declassified on 31 Aug 1977. On page 4, in
@paragraph 5, the report concludes that the Liberty could
@easily be mistaken for the Egyptian transport El Quesir.)

Jim Watt

June 29th 04, 11:12 PM

On 29 Jun 2004 10:40:04 -0700, wrote:

>What Mike does best is finding the facts and presenting
>his conclusions based on the facts;

The fact which remains that the Liberty was attacked by the
Government of Israel and they have never apologized for it,
although there are ample apologists +for+ Israel.

--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

Theodore Herzl

June 30th 04, 01:26 AM

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> > (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> > >
> > >> http://libertyincident.com/documents.htm
> > >
> > >Finally! After lots of name calling, changing the
> > >subject and non sequiturs, Weeks gives a source
> > >which he alleges contains information concerning
> > >Congress investigating the Liberty and concluding
> > >that the attack was an accident.
> >
> > Idiot;
>
> Weeks does what he does best, he resorts to childish
> name calling. If he had a strong case, there would
> be no reason for his constant insults, his arguments
> alone would carry the day. But, considering how often
> he engages in name calling, his case must be very,
> very weak.
>
> He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an
> investigation devoted to whether the attack on the
> USS Liberty was intentional.
>
> Congress did investigate a single aspect of the
> Liberty incident, relating to DOD communications.
> This investigation by the House Armed Services
> Committee did not consider the question of whether
> the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel was
> intentional. In fact, none of the links provided
> by Cristol is to a Congressional investigation
> into the question, "was that attack on the USS
> Liberty intentional?"
>
> To say that Congress never found evidence that
> the attack was intentional is being disingenuous.
> If there was no investigation into whether the
> attack was intentional, then there could be no
> conclusion. But to imply that Congress thoroughly
> investigated the Liberty affair, and to further
> imply that this investigation exonerated Israel,
> is the kind of dishonesty recently practiced by
> President Bush in convincing our country to invade
> Iraq. Bush can accurately say that he never
> directly accused Saddam of being behind 9/11, but
> his implications were so strong that a majority of
> U.S. citizens were convinced at the beginning of
> the assault on Iraq that Saddam was directly
> responsible for 9/11. Bush is an expert in
> using weasel words, just like Weeks. Maybe Bush
> went to the same disinformation school that Weeks
> attended.
>
> [snip]

You sure have Mike "the Mole" Weeks pegged right. He cannot back up
Cristols lies as he knows they are lies and still cannot explain why
his is so vehemently opposed to a new investigation such that he
spends so much time trying to prevent it. It seems rather reasonable
to investigate anew the events surrounding the USS Liberty attack in
public investigation that settles this once and for all.

I also believe that Weeks is nothing but a Zionist mole working to
undermine the security of United States of America. An investigation
into Mike Week's past should also be conducted as Weeks "claims" to
have served in the US Navy (hard to believe I know) so what secrets he
may have stolen is also in question.

Steve Richter

June 30th 04, 01:29 AM

wrote in message >...
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> > (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> > > Idiot;
>
> > Weeks does what he does best, he resorts to childish
> > name calling.
>
> What Mike does best is finding the facts and presenting
> his conclusions based on the facts; e.g. you are an idiot.
>
> > He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an
> > investigation devoted solely to the Liberty affair.
>
> What makes "Congress" more qualified to run an investigation than
> the CIA? Can Congress get more data? Does Congress have deeper
> understanding of Israel? Does Congress have better exprerts in
> navies-at-war issues than the US NAvy?

1st, Congress has the legal authority to place witnesses under oath.
2nd, as an equal branch of government to the executive, can demand
full access to all information known by the GOUS. Thirdly, and most
important, the US Congress owns Israel from the perspective that it
authorizes the billions of $$ each year that the US gives to Israel to
conduct its brutal occupation of the palestinian territories. The
Congress could, if it wanted, force Israel to release what it knows.

To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on
the American ship. A simple item like the flight path of the initial
Kursa attack jets as they approached the Liberty is unknown. It is
important to know because Micha Limor, a blabbermouth crewman of the
attacking MTBs, wrote an article contemporaneous to the attack that
reports the jets flew over the MTBs then went on to attack the
Liberty. The testimony of the captain of the Liberty, CDR McGonagle
indicates strongly to that flight path. ( Hillel, Mike Weeks, who you
think highly of, was very disengenous in a past online discussion of
this issue. He posted that the Liberty's radar readings of the
approaching jets as they passed overhead of the MTBs at 32,000 yds
distance was not possible because the Liberty radar was for surface
contacts only. He was immediately corrected by a poster knowledgeable
on the subject who informed the readership that the verticle beam of
the Liberty's radar would have reached the height of those jets at the
32000 yd distance as they passed over the approaching MTBs. )

This is just an example of the little pieces of information that
Israel will not release to the American public to explain its attack.
Israel says the first attack jets circled the Liberty twice before
going in for the kill. The IAF controller transcripts indicate that
only a few minutes elapsed between the time that the Kursa lead pilot
is talking to the MTB crew and correcting their course to the Liberty
and the time the Israeli jets complete their first attack. The immed
pre attack timeline drawn from the NCOI, which matches up with what
Micha Limor reported in his article, does not come close to matching
the one drawn from the IAF controller transcripts. Add to this the
assertion that the Israelis are lieing about the attack jets first
circling the Liberty and there are credible grounds to suspect that
the IAF controller tapes and transcripts have been doctored, that is
conversations have been removed from those tapes.

This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer
legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal
radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty? Israel's
shills like Jay Cristol parrot the Israeli explanation that the MTBs
measured the Liberty's speed at 30 knots, "warship" speed. ( Micha
Limor, our man on the MTB, writes that the measured speed of the
Liberty was much less! ) But at jet attack time, the IAF controllers
are using the very capable coastal radar net to direct the Kursa jets
from whereever they were coming from to the Liberty. The Israeli
coastal radar could see the Liberty fine. Why was it not used to find
the ship that was supposedly shelling El Arish instead of the crappy
radar onboard the MTBs?

The public has been told how the Israeli Naval command forgot it knew
of the American spy ship Liberty the morning of 8 June, hours before
it ordered the attack. But what about what the Israeli air force
command knew? IDF COS Rabin and IAF CDR Hod were both in on the
attack, communicating with the Kursa flight leader as he approached
the Liberty. Did they know the Liberty had been identified as an
American spy ship hours before also? If so, why did those highest
ranking Israeli commanders not question their subordinates as the
attack was developing as to the obvious question of was the ship that
was going to be attacked the American ship? ( And if not, why not?
The presence of an American spy ship possibly means the Russians are
in the area. Are the Russians organizing a counterattack in the
Sinai? That would be the most important news of the day for
Rabin/Hod/Dayan to be aware of. ) And if Rabin and Hod were talking to
Kursa flight leader Spector immed pre attack ( as per well connected
SDW historian Michael Oren ), why are their conversations not present
on the IAF controller transcripts?

So yes, Hillel, a congressional investigation is long overdue and
worthwhile to the American public. The fact that American Jews appear
to be the only entity opposed to such an investigation is very
upsetting. Americans have been very loyal and friendly to Israel.
Israel should return that goodwill in kind.

-Steve

Issac Goldberg

June 30th 04, 03:48 AM

Issac Goldberg

June 30th 04, 04:40 AM

wrote in message >...

[snip]

> (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> > The main point, which Hillel does his best to avoid is:
>
> > Congress never conducted an investigation solely concerning
> > the USS Liberty affair, and Cristol's web page does not refute
> > that.
>
> Congress never conducted an investigation of *MOST* affairs. Congress
> usually investigates only if there is a high profile case or there
> are indications that the executive branch lied; e.g. Joseph McCarthy
> communists' hunt, Iran-Contra affair, Watergate.

Congress has thoroughly investigated every disaster involving
the US Navy EXCEPT for the USS Liberty.

[snip]

Issac Goldberg

June 30th 04, 05:40 AM

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
> >From: (Issac Goldberg) wrote:

[snip]

> >Congress never conducted an investigation solely concerning
> >the USS Liberty affair, and Cristol's web page does not refute
> >that.
>
> LOL: Well it does appear this poster believes only what's available on the net
> counts for anything and there's nothing else; what a strange world it must be.

Note: Weeks does not refute my statement. He can't.

He just muddies the waters with another of his typically
inane arguments.

Nowhere on Cristol's web page is there any evidence that
Congress conducted a thorough investigation of the
Liberty attack, nor is there any evidence of a
Congressional report which exonerates Israel.

Cristol's web page does link to the following
Congressional events:

1) An investigation of DOD communication failures, and

2) Hearings into the 1967 Foreign Aid Bill.

To say that Congress conducted a thorough investigation
of the attack on the Liberty based on the two events
cited by Cristol is a complete fabrication.

Since the two above Congressional events did not
concentrate on the question to whether the attack
on the Liberty was intentional, it is not
surprising that they "found no evidence that
the Israeli attack was intentional." One could
have just as easily said that Congress "found
no evidence that the Israeli attack was an
accident," since the attack itself was never
thoroughly investigated by Congress.

> Let's see; still too lazy to actually read a book? If not, try "The Liberty
> Incident",

Cristol's book incorrectly implies that Congress
conducted a thorough investigation of the Liberty
affair and exonerated Israel. However, since
there was no thorough investigation by Congress,
then there was no report stating that the attack
was an accident. To imply so is the kind of
dishonest truth bending that Bush used to
convince the American people to support the
invasion of Iraq. Bush implied that Saddam
was directly responsible for 9/11, without
actually saying it. Bush was so successful in his
deceit that a majority of the American people,
at the time of the last invasion of Iraq,
believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
[Bush poll numbers continue to hit new lows,
now that his lies and half-truths have become
public knowledge.]

Q: If there had been a thorough Congressional
investigation of the attack on the Liberty which
produced a report exonerating the Israelis, then
why didn't Cristol include a link to that report?

A: There was no such report or investigation.

[email protected]

June 30th 04, 12:02 PM

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> wrote in message >...

> > What Mike does best is finding the facts and presenting
> > his conclusions based on the facts; e.g. you are an idiot.

> Another poster whose arguments are so weak that
> he feels the need to resort to childish name calling.

> > > He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an
> > > investigation devoted solely to the Liberty affair.

> > What makes "Congress" more qualified to run an investigation than
> > the CIA?

> Ah, it's the old 'move the goalposts' ploy. When
> confronted with the fact Congress did not conduct
> a thorough investigation of the Liberty affair,
> some people denigrate Congress.

So what?
To make an investigation you need the power of subpoena and
people who can ask the right questions. a Navy court of inquiry
has those powers, and it is the standard tool for the US Navy to
find the facts.

Do you think that Congress should double check every Navy inquiry,
or just the Liberty? If just the Liberty then please explain what
the Navy's court did wrong and how Congress may be able to fix.

IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the
facts than Congress. If you reject this claim then please give
examples of Navy courtof inquiry making mistake, and Congress fixing
them.

> > Can Congress get more data?

> A Congressional investigation can ask the CIA
> to testify on all of the data that has been
> collected.

A Navy court of inquiry can subpoena the CIA just like Congress can.
And since the Navy is better than Congress in keeping secrets, the
CIA will probably be more willing to coopertae.

> > Does Congress have deeper understanding of Israel?

> A non sequitur with regard to the question of
> whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional
> or not.

You claim that Congress investigation will be "better."
I claim that for better investigation you should either have
the ability to collect more data, or the ability to understand
the data better. Do you reject my claim, yes or no?
And if yes then what is your counter-claim?

> > Does Congress have better exprerts in
> > navies-at-war issues than the US Navy?

> Congress can request the testimony of the US Navy's
> finest experts, who are then obligated to give
> truthful answers, or face jail terms.

You assume that in short time Congressmen can become better experts
than people who spent years in sea commanding ships. I don't know
what is the base of your assumption, but I can tell you that you
can force people to tell you what they know, but knoweldge and
understanding is very different thing. E.g. a clueless person
like you who has access to all the data and still has no clue.

> > In other words, why should Congresss investigate the Liberty
> > incidence after the CIA concluded that the Israeli explanation
> > is reasonable.

> Believe it or not, the CIA is not always right.

Believe it or not, Congress is not always right.
Believe it or not, Joseph McCarthy "investigations" did not catch
a single Russian spy.

Again, do you want to Congress to double-check everything that the
CIA say, or just the Liberty? And if just the Liberty then please
explain why the CIA can't be trusted in that case.

Make a case why the executive branch can't be trusted or shut up.

> Also, the CIA is subject to political pressure which
> may cause them to change their correct conclusions to
> something else. Kind of like when Vice President
> Cheney made his visits to CIA HQ at Langley, and the
> CIA then started to find reasons to invade Iraq.

You make two baseless assumptions:
1) The Johnson adminstration put pressure on the CIA to lie
about Liberty.
2) Under eight different administrations, over 37 years, nobody in
the CIA discovered that their conclusions were baseless.

Again, make a case why the CIA can't be trusted in it Liberty
conclusions, or shut up.

> The President can replace anyone at the CIA,
> including the director, whenever he wants.

Yes.
You can make a case that Johnson had enough power to force the CIA
to lie about Liberty, but you still have to supply a motive. You
also have to explain how such a cover-up, invloving so many people,
can remian secret for 37 years.

> But the
> President cannot replace members of Congress,
> since only the voters choose members of Congress.
> Therefore, Congress should investigate because
> they do not serve at the pleasure of the President.

I see.
We should get rid off Grand Juries, Court of Inquiries, and all that
jazz, and let just Congress investigate because only Congress can
be trusted.
> > (See http://libertyincident.com/cia.htm
> > @The Central Intelligence Agency completed an Intelligence
> > @Memorandum titled The Attack on the USS Liberty on 13 Jun
> > @1967. It was declassified on 31 Aug 1977. On page 4, in
> > @paragraph 5, the report concludes that the Liberty could
> > @easily be mistaken for the Egyptian transport El Quesir.)
>
> Common sense refutes this.
>
> The El Quesir was not outfitted with a large
> and uniquely identifying antenna dish.
>
> The first target attacked by the Israeli pilots
> was Liberty's communications, and the large and
> uniquely identifying antenna dish was quickly
> put out of action.
>
> If the El Quesir by some miracle had been
> converted to an intelligence vessel with a
> large and uniquely identifying antenna dish,
> it would have been targeted and destroyed on
> the first day of the war.
>
> It sounds like there may have been some
> political pressure put on the CIA to
> produce the results that LBJ wanted.

[email protected]

June 30th 04, 12:35 PM

(Steve Richter) wrote in message >...
> wrote in message >...

> > What makes "Congress" more qualified to run an investigation than
> > the CIA? Can Congress get more data? Does Congress have deeper
> > understanding of Israel? Does Congress have better exprerts in
> > navies-at-war issues than the US NAvy?

> 1st, Congress has the legal authority to place witnesses under oath.

Other branches of government also have the right to place witnesses
under oath. E.g. a Grand jury and a Court of Inquiry.

> 2nd, as an equal branch of government to the executive, can demand
> full access to all information known by the GOUS.

Having information, and using the information, are two different issues.
IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding
of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree
then please explain why.

> Thirdly, and most
> important, the US Congress owns Israel from the perspective that it
> authorizes the billions of $$ each year that the US gives to Israel to
> conduct its brutal occupation of the palestinian territories. The
> Congress could, if it wanted, force Israel to release what it knows.

Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving
so many people for 37 years?

Anyway, treating a client state like **** is not always the best
course of action. See France before the 6-Days-War for example.
You may end up saving $3 billion per year on Israel, and spending
$50 billion extra to save pro-US regimes in Iraq,
Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

> To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on
> the American ship.

And the source of your information is...?
How do you know what deals Israel made with the US?
Do you want Congress also to publish other information that the
US promised to keep secret? (E.g. the condition to US inspections
is Dimona was that the US would keep the information secret.
Should the US ignore its promise just because it will serve
better your political agenda?)

> This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer
> legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal
> radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty?

What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?!
Where did you get that idea?
Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection
of WWII quality small ships?
Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy
bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could
look over the horizon.

> The public has been told how the Israeli Naval command forgot it knew
> of the American spy ship Liberty the morning of 8 June, hours before
> it ordered the attack.

What an *IGNORANT* like you can't get is simple navy fighting facts.
If you want to sink a ship using 1967 airplanes then you used
half iron bombs, just like the US did in Midway. If you want to
sink a ship, and cover your ass, then you use submarines, not
torpedo boats that display your flag.

If Israel tried to sink a US ship, knowing that it was a US ship,
then this is a case of gross incompetence. The "cover-up" before
the attack was pretty bad. You claim that the same people who
did everything wrong before the attack have done everything
right in the cover-up. I wonder if you really believe in
your high quality bull****.

> So yes, Hillel, a congressional investigation is long overdue and
> worthwhile to the American public.

So write to your Congressman and ask of an investigation.
You may find one as stupid as you are, even though it is
not that easy.

[email protected]

June 30th 04, 06:27 PM

#Congress never conducted an investigation of *MOST* affairs. Congress
# usually investigates only if there is a high profile case or there
# are indications that the executive branch lied; e.g. Joseph McCarthy
# communists' hunt, Iran-Contra affair, Watergate.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> Congress has thoroughly investigated every disaster involving
> the US Navy EXCEPT for the USS Liberty.

Really?!
Would you like to compare the The USS Stark Incident
(see http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm), with
37 American seamen dead, to the Liberty?

Can you please tell us what special investgation Congress did about
the Stark and not about the Liberty? Come on, you made a claim now
prove it.

BTW my impression is that Congress usually accepts the Navy's Court
of inquiry conclusions; e.g. USS Greeneville. If you have some
counter examples, where Congress rejected the Navy's Court
of inquiry conclusions, then please post them.

Issac Goldberg

June 30th 04, 07:37 PM

(Mike Weeks) wrote in message >...
> >From: (Theodore Herzl)
> >Date: 6/29/2004 17:26 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >It seems rather reasonable
> >to investigate anew the events surrounding the USS Liberty attack in
> >public investigation that settles this once and for all.
>
> The challenge for the conspiracy loons

Weeks knows all, sees all. Since he is omniscient, anyone
who disagrees with him is a 'conspiracy loon.' QED

> running around on the net is to actually
> produce anything which can be considered credible.

So, according to Weeks:

1) the crew members of the USS Liberty are not credible,

2) Captain Boston is not credible,

3) Secretary of State Rusk is not credible,

4) CIA director Helms is not credible,

and the list goes on and on. Weeks is always right,
everybody else is always wrong.

> Instead what we continue to
> see is simply hot stale air.

All of the hot stale air is being produced
by Weeks. This is demonstrated by his
repeated need to resort to name calling.
If he had a valid argument, there would
be no need to engage in name calling.

> Oh, BTW clueless, what's available to be investigated is indeed public,

A nice tautology. It's the material which is not public which
should be investigated. Why, after 37 years, is so much
information about the attack on the Liberty still classified
by the US and Israeli governments?

> and the
> last really solid piece of material came out of the NSA in July 2003 and State
> Dept. in Jan. 2004, and once again as in the other examples, it doesn't support
> the claims of the conspiracy loons.

We'll just have to take Weeks word for it, since he doesn't tell
use exactly what the 'really solid' material is. This is natural
for Weeks, since he sees all, knows all. Weeks is omniscient,
and he does not need to provide any evidence. Weeks just knows.

> Besides, all we hear from the nuts ...

Anyone who disagrees with Weeks is a nut.

> Remaining nonsense snipped.

It is Weeks' arguments that are nonsense. He is so extreme
in his opposition to an honest investigation that one must
ask why? If the attack was truly an accident, an honest
independent investigation would confirm what Weeks says.
But he opposes a new investigation with every ounce of
energy he possesses. Why?

[email protected]

July 1st 04, 06:47 AM

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> A nice tautology. It's the material which is not public which
> should be investigated.

Here you go wrong.
*All* material, no matter if it is public record or not,
should be investigated. But, before you demand to see
the secret records, I'd suggest you to read the public records
first. Only then you will have some clue what questions to ask.

> Why, after 37 years, is so much
> information about the attack on the Liberty still classified
> by the US and Israeli governments?

Why don't you ask LVA. I am sure that they know what the
mission of the Liberty was. May be one of the old guys will
be willing to risk jail time just to prove your conspiracy
theory...

Issac Goldberg

July 1st 04, 10:27 AM

(Mike Weeks) wrote:

[snip]

> Narrator: Did Johnson order a cover up?
>
> [then-CIA director] Helms: No, that I'm aware of.

Any other answer by Helms would have resulted in
his immediate termination from government service.

After Helms finished his government service, he
was free to speak his mind, and his true feelings
were that there was a cover-up.

Issac Goldberg

July 1st 04, 10:42 AM

wrote in message >...
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...

[snip]

> > Why, after 37 years, is so much
> > information about the attack on the Liberty still classified
> > by the US and Israeli governments?
>
> Why don't you ask LVA.

Are they in charge of both American and Israeli classification
of secret documents?

> I am sure that they know what the
> mission of the Liberty was.

Are you omniscient? How can you be 'sure' what LVA knows?

Why would the entire crew be told the details of a top
secret mission, instead of only those with a 'need-to-know?'

And if you know so much, would you like to tell us the
details of Operation Cyanide?

Steve Richter

July 1st 04, 04:35 PM

> > wrote in message >...
>
> > > What makes "Congress" more qualified to run an investigation than
> > > the CIA? Can Congress get more data? Does Congress have deeper
> > > understanding of Israel? Does Congress have better exprerts in
> > > navies-at-war issues than the US NAvy?
>
> > 1st, Congress has the legal authority to place witnesses under oath.
>
> Other branches of government also have the right to place witnesses
> under oath. E.g. a Grand jury and a Court of Inquiry.
>
> > 2nd, as an equal branch of government to the executive, can demand
> > full access to all information known by the GOUS.
>
> Having information, and using the information, are two different issues.
> IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding
> of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree
> then please explain why.

You call me names and then ask me questions. Hillel, is that a
typical Israeli way of interacting with others?

Naval operations are not the issue. It is the question of whether
Israel intentionally attacked the American ship, whether the GOI
withheld evidence of war crime actions by members of the IDF, and
whether some in the GOUS were complicit in the withholding of that
information.

There is good evidence the US DOS acted to prevent Adm Kidd from going
to Israel to investigate the attack as he wished. You have well
founded confidence in the Admiral. Why would the US DOS, acting
presumably without objection by LBJ and McNamara, act to overrule the
Admiral's judgement and not allow the NCOI to go to Israel?

The coverup of the coverup continues to this day. Last year at the
DOS sponsored seminar re: the history of the SDW, DOS historian Marc
Susser does not appear to have released any documents regarding DOS
involvement in the NCOI proceedings. Susser then limited to mere
minutes the time for questions from the audience to the Liberty
panelists. He said he had to go to lunch! When Liberty crewman
Lentini was trying to ask Michael Oren about his assertion that the
initial attack jets first circled the Liberty before Yahweh sent them
in for the kill, Susser cut him off!

>
> > Thirdly, and most
> > important, the US Congress owns Israel from the perspective that it
> > authorizes the billions of $$ each year that the US gives to Israel to
> > conduct its brutal occupation of the palestinian territories. The
> > Congress could, if it wanted, force Israel to release what it knows.
>
> Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving
> so many people for 37 years?

Heck, Hillel. I am of the opinion that Israel has kept secret the
full extent of its planning to take the WB from Jordan as part of the
inevitable conflict between Israel and the arab states. Israel must
have anticipated the marked increase in terror attacks from pratically
zero before the occupation to what has occured after. There must have
been some in the GOI who did not think that more land for Israel was
worth the price of those killed by insurgent attacks.

> > To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on
> > the American ship.
>
> And the source of your information is...?
> How do you know what deals Israel made with the US?
> Do you want Congress also to publish other information that the
> US promised to keep secret? (E.g. the condition to US inspections
> is Dimona was that the US would keep the information secret.
> Should the US ignore its promise just because it will serve
> better your political agenda?)
>
> > This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer
> > legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal
> > radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty?
>
> What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?!
> Where did you get that idea?
> Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection
> of WWII quality small ships?
> Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy
> bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could
> look over the horizon.

How were the IAF controllers able to direct the Kursa attack jets to
the Liberty? Was it Yahweh or radar?

1353
KURSA: Homeland, keep on directing me to the place
Homeland: 045[o], 20 miles. Ah, can you see them at the moment?

1354
KURSA: Affirmative, it looks longer by eyesight.

1354
Kislev: Does he see more torpedo boats north of him?

> > The public has been told how the Israeli Naval command forgot it knew
> > of the American spy ship Liberty the morning of 8 June, hours before
> > it ordered the attack.
>
> What an *IGNORANT* like you can't get is simple navy fighting facts.
> If you want to sink a ship using 1967 airplanes then you used
> half iron bombs, just like the US did in Midway. If you want to
> sink a ship, and cover your ass, then you use submarines, not
> torpedo boats that display your flag.

Hillel, you can call me all the names you want, ( according to Israel
Shahak, the Talmud instructs Jews to have all sorts of hostility
toward Gentiles ) but if you are going to respond to my post, you
should not waste time by skipping my central assertions and questions.
First, no one knows for sure what the Israelis intended to do with
the Liberty. Maybe they just wanted to drive the ship away, maybe it
was just a local operation by IDF commanders concerned their killing
of Egyptian prisoners was being witnessed by the American spy ship.
It appears no one knows for sure. That is why Israel has to release
its evidence. ( and why Adm Kidd was justified in wanting to bring the
NCOI to Israel )

I notice you did not respond to my question re: the involvement of IDF
COS Rabin and IAF CDF Hod. According to Israel friendly SDW historian
Michael Oren, those two were in on the conversations with the Kursa
jets as they approached the Liberty. Yet surely, hours prior, they
must have been told of the 0800 identification of the American spy
ship. Hillel, who cares what your opinion is. Why does Jay Cristol,
author of the book "their blood in the water", ignore and gloss over
the entire subject of how the IAF knew of the presence of the Liberty
at 0800 on 8 June but collectively forgot this knowledge 6 hours later
at 1400 attack time?

-Steve

[email protected]

July 1st 04, 07:11 PM

> > > Why, after 37 years, is so much
> > > information about the attack on the Liberty still classified
> > > by the US and Israeli governments?

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> wrote in message >...
> > Why don't you ask LVA.

> Are they in charge of both American and Israeli classification
> of secret documents?

The Liberty had two groups of people on board:
1) Navy people who were in charge of moving the ship around
according to commands from the Pentagon.
2) NSA people who were in a mission to listen to...?

The Navy people have a pretty good understanding of what happened
because they know something about naval operations. The Navy's
Court of Inquiry conclusions are good enough for most of them.
E.g. the skipper gave his detailed testimony in court, (Mike posted
it in Message-ID: >),
and he has not changed his story.

The NSA guys are the ones who make the big noise. One explanation is
that they are pretty ignorant about naval issue. Another explanation
is that they believe, rightly or wrongly, that their secret mission
was the reason for the Israeli attack. But none of them has the guts,
in his old age, to just expose the mission and force the US government
to take him to court. Yes, they believe that there was a cover-up but
they don't have the guts to spend time in jail just to force the
US government to show its hand.

Issac Goldberg

July 1st 04, 11:21 PM

wrote in message >...

> > > > Why, after 37 years, is so much
> > > > information about the attack on the Liberty still classified
> > > > by the US and Israeli governments?
>
> > > Why don't you ask LVA.
>
> > Are they in charge of both American and Israeli classification
> > of secret documents?
>
> The Liberty had two groups of people on board:
> 1) Navy people who were in charge of moving the ship around
> according to commands from the Pentagon.
> 2) NSA people who were in a mission to listen to...?
>
> The Navy people have a pretty good understanding of what happened
> because they know something about naval operations. The Navy's
> Court of Inquiry conclusions are good enough for most of them.

Wrong. Name one living Liberty survivor who agrees with the
conclusions of the Court of Inquiry. Cristol handles this by
not interviewing any of the Liberty survivors.

> E.g. the skipper gave his detailed testimony in court, (Mike posted
> it in Message-ID: >),
> and he has not changed his story.

According to Captain Boston, he and Admiral Kidd were
ordered in advance of the inquiry to conclude it was an
accident by President Johnson and Secretary of Defense
McNamara. That is, the Court of Inquiry was a sham which
produced a whitewash. This helps explain the threats
made to the Liberty crew to cooperate with the Inquiry
or face reprisals which could include jail.

> The NSA guys are the ones who make the big noise. One explanation is
> that they are pretty ignorant about naval issue. Another explanation
> is that they believe, rightly or wrongly, that their secret mission
> was the reason for the Israeli attack. But none of them has the guts,
> in his old age, to just expose the mission and force the US government
> to take him to court. Yes, they believe that there was a cover-up but
> they don't have the guts to spend time in jail just to force the
> US government to show its hand.

The fact is that most, if not all, of the NSA guys on the
Liberty died when the Liberty was struck by the Israeli
torpedo. Kindly explain how you know that they believe there
was a cover-up, when they were killed during the attack. Is
it because, like Weeks, you are omniscient?

This also explains why 'none of them has the guts' to
expose their mission. Their 'guts' were splattered in an
instant after the Israeli torpedo exploded.

[email protected]

July 1st 04, 11:56 PM

(Steve Richter) wrote in message >...

> > Having information, and using the information, are two different issues.
> > IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding
> > of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree
> > then please explain why. [Hillel]

> You call me names and then ask me questions.

Why should not I ask an idiot some questions?
It amuses me.

> Hillel, is that a typical Israeli way of interacting with others?

Only when they are as clueless as you. (Not an easy thing to do.)

> Naval operations are not the issue.

Israel's Naval operations are the issue. A rear admiral may have
some understanding of how foreign navies work in time of war because
he learned that in school and had some first hand experience.
Such an admiral may also have some understanding of friendly fire;
e.g. the bombing of Grayling by B-17s or losing 25 men in the attack
on Kiska, Alaska.

> It is the question of whether
> Israel intentionally attacked the American ship,

No.
The job of the court is to:
1) Establish the facts.
2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even
decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which
one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case
is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena
more data.

> whether the GOI
> withheld evidence of war crime actions by members of the IDF, and
> whether some in the GOUS were complicit in the withholding of that
> information.

....and if Saturan has five rings or six.

The court had to find the best explanations to the facts and it
accpeted most of the Israeli version because it fits well with the facts.

> There is good evidence the US DOS acted to prevent Adm Kidd from going
> to Israel to investigate the attack as he wished.

Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and
a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following
data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that
somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*,
to write such a comment.

> You have well founded confidence in the Admiral. Why would the US DOS,
> acting
> presumably without objection by LBJ and McNamara, act to overrule the
> Admiral's judgement and not allow the NCOI to go to Israel?

That's between the admiral and the DoS. It is quite possible that the
DoS offered him a "good enough" replacement. E.g. it could suggest
that Ernest Castle, the United States Naval Attache at the U.S. Embassy
in Tel Aviv, will collect the data he needed. The admiral could reject
such a suggestion, and insist on running the show himself, but he
did not see the benefit in that.

> The coverup of the coverup continues to this day.

And next week we will start with the coverup of the coverup of the coverup.

> Last year at the
> DOS sponsored seminar re: the history of the SDW, DOS historian Marc
> Susser does not appear to have released any documents regarding DOS
> involvement in the NCOI proceedings.

Even if the DoS will release all its documents, you will still
continue to shout "cover up." So why even bother?

Anyway, every four years or so the US has a new Secretary of State.
Just write to each one when he takes office, explain why those
documents are so important, and hope that some secretary, who is
not a part of the conspiracy, will release them.

> > Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving
> > so many people for 37 years?

> Heck, Hillel. I am of the opinion that Israel has kept secret the
> full extent of its planning to take the WB from Jordan as part of the
> inevitable conflict between Israel and the arab states.

....and therefore suggested Jordan on June 5, 1967 to stay out of the
war and promised "no harm" in such a case.
....and therefore the paratroopers who attacked Jerusalem had to unload
all their equipment from the airplanes that had been supposed to
drop them in Sinai.

Eshkol's working assumption was that Jordan would stay out,
like in 1956. He was wrong.

> Israel must
> have anticipated the marked increase in terror attacks from pratically
> zero before the occupation to what has occured after. There must have
> been some in the GOI who did not think that more land for Israel was
> worth the price of those killed by insurgent attacks.

What all of that has to do with the ability of Israel to cover up?!

> > > To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on
> > > the American ship.

> > And the source of your information is...?
> > How do you know what deals Israel made with the US?
> > Do you want Congress also to publish other information that the
> > US promised to keep secret? (E.g. the condition to US inspections
> > is Dimona was that the US would keep the information secret.
> > Should the US ignore its promise just because it will serve
> > better your political agenda?)

BTW and the source of your information is...?

> > > This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer
> > > legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal
> > > radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty?

> > What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?!
> > Where did you get that idea?
> > Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection
> > of WWII quality small ships?
> > Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy
> > bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could
> > look over the horizon.

> How were the IAF controllers able to direct the Kursa attack jets to
> the Liberty? Was it Yahweh or radar?

Arial radar or observations.
Welcome to 1967, when some airplanes had radars!

> > What an *IGNORANT* like you can't get is simple navy fighting facts.
> > If you want to sink a ship using 1967 airplanes then you used
> > half iron bombs, just like the US did in Midway. If you want to
> > sink a ship, and cover your ass, then you use submarines, not
> > torpedo boats that display your flag.

> Hillel, you can call me all the names you want,

I just describe your state.
You have no clue about the proper use of airplanes against ships, and
so you draw the conclusion that it was a well planed attack. Somebody
who knows something about the subject, e.g. an admiral, may reach
the opposite conclusion.

> ( according to Israel
> Shahak, the Talmud instructs Jews to have all sorts of hostility
> toward Gentiles )

So Shahak is your source. LOL.

> First, no one knows for sure what the Israelis intended to do with
> the Liberty.

After 37 years of conspiracy theory you can't even agree about that?!

> Maybe they just wanted to drive the ship away,

Firing accross the bow, or bombing nearby, could achieve that.

> maybe it
> was just a local operation by IDF commanders concerned their killing
> of Egyptian prisoners was being witnessed by the American spy ship.

Assuming that the POWs murder was done, Liberty could see through
the cloud of dust that the war caused (BTW have you ever been on
the dunes near El -Arish? I was), and the US embassy could not
listen to their communication back to base asking to bomb
liberty to help with the cover up.

Seriously, how do you think that the forces in Al-Arish communicated home?
There was no phone line and smoke signals have a limited range.

> It appears no one knows for sure.

It is much more interesting to see you build your theory first,
and every year release just few documents that blow up your
theory.

> That is why Israel has to release its evidence.

The evidence will be released because nothing remains secret forever.
But I hope that you will commit to some theory first, so the data
will make look pretty silly.

>( and why Adm Kidd was justified in wanting to bring the
> NCOI to Israel )

So why the admiral dropped that?

> I notice you did not respond to my question re: the involvement of IDF
> COS Rabin and IAF CDF Hod. According to Israel friendly SDW historian
> Michael Oren, those two were in on the conversations with the Kursa
> jets as they approached the Liberty.

Why would two generals talk over radio, knowing that some other
country probably records it, if their goal is a cover-up?
Your data contradicts your own theory. (No big surprise here.)

> Yet surely, hours prior, they must have been told of the 0800
> identification of the American spy ship.

Have you ever managed a war on three fronts?
Do you really believe that the general gets *ALL* the data?

> Hillel, who cares what your opinion is. Why does Jay Cristol,
> author of the book "their blood in the water", ignore and gloss over
> the entire subject of how the IAF knew of the presence of the Liberty
> at 0800 on 8 June but collectively forgot this knowledge 6 hours later
> at 1400 attack time?

Because in war **** happens and when you switch shifts some data is lost.

BTW the first pilot to attack the Liberty, Yiftah Spector, moved to the
Israeli far left lately. Why don't you try to convince him to
change his story?

Hillel

"When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When you don't
have the facts, argue the law. And when you have neither the facts
nor the law, pound the table." -- L.A. Weekly

Theodore Herzl

July 2nd 04, 01:46 AM

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> (Mike Weeks) wrote in message >...
> > >From: (Theodore Herzl)
> > >Date: 6/29/2004 17:26 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> > >It seems rather reasonable
> > >to investigate anew the events surrounding the USS Liberty attack in
> > >public investigation that settles this once and for all.
> >
> > The challenge for the conspiracy loons
>
> Weeks knows all, sees all. Since he is omniscient, anyone
> who disagrees with him is a 'conspiracy loon.' QED

He is also not very bright if he believes that tactic works. Try to
get him to explain what motivates him to work so hard to block an
investigation that he believes will prove himself and Cristol correct.
What does Weeks fear?

> > running around on the net is to actually
> > produce anything which can be considered credible.
>
> So, according to Weeks:
>
> 1) the crew members of the USS Liberty are not credible,

Weeks believes he knows more than those who witnessed first hand the
events of that day.

> 2) Captain Boston is not credible,

Of course not, he was only the captain of the ship that was attacked
and lived through the whole thing, while Mike Weeks was probably still
playing with Tonka trucks at the time.

> 3) Secretary of State Rusk is not credible,

Of course not, being in the Presidents cabinet and privy to top secret
information is not as good as being Cristol cabin boy.

> 4) CIA director Helms is not credible,

Of course not, why would anyone think that the CIA directory would be
better informed than Mike Weeks. Just look at Week's qualification
listed below.

1. His name is Mike Weeks.
2. He has watched every episode of MASH
END

>
> and the list goes on and on. Weeks is always right,
> everybody else is always wrong.

He is a legend in his own mind.

> > Instead what we continue to
> > see is simply hot stale air.
>
> All of the hot stale air is being produced
> by Weeks. This is demonstrated by his
> repeated need to resort to name calling.
> If he had a valid argument, there would
> be no need to engage in name calling.

Name calling is a typical Zionist tactic. A very predictable one at
that.

> > Oh, BTW clueless, what's available to be investigated is indeed public,
>
> A nice tautology. It's the material which is not public which
> should be investigated. Why, after 37 years, is so much
> information about the attack on the Liberty still classified
> by the US and Israeli governments?
>
> > and the
> > last really solid piece of material came out of the NSA in July 2003 and State
> > Dept. in Jan. 2004, and once again as in the other examples, it doesn't support
> > the claims of the conspiracy loons.
>
> We'll just have to take Weeks word for it, since he doesn't tell
> use exactly what the 'really solid' material is. This is natural
> for Weeks, since he sees all, knows all. Weeks is omniscient,
> and he does not need to provide any evidence. Weeks just knows.
>
> > Besides, all we hear from the nuts ...
>
> Anyone who disagrees with Weeks is a nut.

When you have nothing to say, insult your opponent. Zionist
indoctination manual page 235.

> > Remaining nonsense snipped.
>
> It is Weeks' arguments that are nonsense. He is so extreme
> in his opposition to an honest investigation that one must
> ask why? If the attack was truly an accident, an honest
> independent investigation would confirm what Weeks says.
> But he opposes a new investigation with every ounce of
> energy he possesses. Why?

It is pretty obvious to me that a cover-up occured and that Israel
intentionally attacked the USS Liberty to bring the US into the
Israeli side in the 1967 war against Egypt. I believe Israel inteded
to sieze the Sinai settlements from Egypt and needed US support to
counter Soviet support for Egypt. To that end, like the Lavon Affair,
they needed to frame Egypt to get the US on thier side. When after
repeaded attacks they could not sink the ship or kill all the US
servicemen aboard the Liberty, they were forced to stop the attack and
begin the coverup. That cover-up continues today and I believe that
Mike Weeks opposition to a public investigation demonstrates only that
he would sell out the United States at the drop of a nickel for the
Israeli regime.

[email protected]

July 2nd 04, 03:00 AM

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> According to Captain Boston, he and Admiral Kidd were
> ordered in advance of the inquiry to conclude it was an
> accident by President Johnson and Secretary of Defense
> McNamara. That is, the Court of Inquiry was a sham which
> produced a whitewash.

And you believe that the admiral just rolled-over, played
dead, and did not protest.

You have a pretty low opinion of your Navy's commanders.

Issac Goldberg

July 2nd 04, 11:15 AM

wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> > wrote:

[snip]

> Do you think that Congress should double check every Navy inquiry,
> or just the Liberty? If just the Liberty then please explain what
> the Navy's court did wrong and how Congress may be able to fix.
>
> IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the
> facts than Congress.

But in a high profile case, leaders of a Navy Court of
Inquiry are subject to pressure of the President if that
President wants it to reach a certain conclusion.

> If you reject this claim then please give
> examples of Navy courtof inquiry making mistake, and Congress fixing
> them.

See the LA Times article below to see how the executive branch
may try to ‘manipulate' intelligence. .

> > > Can Congress get more data?
>
> > A Congressional investigation can ask the CIA
> > to testify on all of the data that has been
> > collected.
>
> A Navy court of inquiry can subpoena the CIA just like Congress can.
> And since the Navy is better than Congress in keeping secrets, the
> CIA will probably be more willing to coopertae.

There was a Navy employee a number of years back who
made copies of 500,000 classified government documents
and provided them to a foreign government. Your
assertion about the Navy being better at keeping secrets
is suspect.

> > > Does Congress have deeper understanding of Israel?
>
> > A non sequitur with regard to the question of
> > whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional
> > or not.
>
> You claim that Congress investigation will be "better."
> I claim that for better investigation you should either have
> the ability to collect more data, or the ability to understand
> the data better. Do you reject my claim, yes or no?
> And if yes then what is your counter-claim?

You, like Weeks, seek to muddy the waters. Congress
has been successfully investigating the executive
branch of government for 200 years. Your suggestion
that the executive branch investigate itself violates
the 'separation of powers' principle which has worked
so effectively since our Constitution was adopted.

> > > Does Congress have better exprerts in
> > > navies-at-war issues than the US Navy?
>
> > Congress can request the testimony of the US Navy's
> > finest experts, who are then obligated to give
> > truthful answers, or face jail terms.
>
> You assume that in short time Congressmen can become better experts
> than people who spent years in sea commanding ships. I don't know
> what is the base of your assumption, but I can tell you that you
> can force people to tell you what they know, but knoweldge and
> understanding is very different thing. E.g. a clueless person
> like you who has access to all the data and still has no clue.

One again, your arguments are so weak that you feel the need
to resort to name calling. Why has every previous Naval disaster
been investigated by Congress?

> > > In other words, why should Congresss investigate the Liberty
> > > incidence after the CIA concluded that the Israeli explanation
> > > is reasonable.
>
> > Believe it or not, the CIA is not always right.
>
> Believe it or not, Congress is not always right.

But they are independent and they do not serve
at the pleasure of the President.

> Believe it or not, Joseph McCarthy "investigations" did not catch
> a single Russian spy.

Maybe because he saw Communist spies under every bed?

Let's face it, when McCarthy accused President
Eisenhower's Secretary of the Army of supporting
Communism, it indicated a serious flaw in the
Senator's judgment. Not only did McCarthy fail
to prove the alleged leftist tendencies of the
Army Secretary, but McCarthy's bizarre behavior
was condemned by his Senate colleagues, after
which nobody took McCarthy seriously.

In fact, it was the Army-McCarthy investigation
itself which not only ended McCarthy's influence,
but it also ended the national witch hunt known
as McCarthyism.

Believe it or not, the Senate Watergate investigation
was partially responsible for the first Presidential
resignation in our country's history. If we had
adopted your suggestion of letting the executive
branch investigate itself, there is a good chance
Nixon would not have resigned.

> Again, do you want to Congress to double-check everything that the
> CIA say, or just the Liberty? And if just the Liberty then please
> explain why the CIA can't be trusted in that case.

CIA Felt Pressure to Alter Iraq Data, Author Says

Agency analysts were repeatedly ordered to redo
their studies of Al Qaeda ties to Hussein regime,
a terrorism expert charges.

by Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2004

WASHINGTON — In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, CIA analysts were
ordered repeatedly to redo intelligence assessments concluded that Al
Qaeda had no operational ties to Iraq, according to a veteran CIA
counter-terrorism official who has written a book that is sharply
critical of the decision to go to war with Iraq.

Agency analysts never altered their conclusions, but saw the pressure
to revisit their work as a clear indication that Bush administration
officials were seeking a different answer regarding Iraq and Al Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden, the CIA officer said in an interview with The
Times.

"We on the Bin Laden side [of the agency's analytic ranks] were
required repeatedly to check, double-check and triple-check our files
about a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq," said the officer, who
spoke on condition that he be identified only by his first name, Mike.

Asked whether he attributed the demands to an eagerness among
officials at the White House or the Pentagon to find evidence of a
link, he said: "You could not help but assume that was the case. They
knew the answer [they wanted] before they asked the question."

The officer is the author of a forthcoming book titled, "Imperial
Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror," published by
Brassey's Inc. of Dulles, Va. He is listed as "Anonymous" on the book,
which describes him as a "senior U.S. intelligence official with
nearly two decades of experience in national security issues."

The author has held a number of high-ranking agency positions,
including serving from 1996 to 1999 as head of a special unit tracking
Bin Laden.

The book was approved for publication by the CIA after a four-month
review — creating an unusual situation in which one of the secretive
agency's senior officers was offering public criticism of
administration policies and the prosecution of the war on terrorism.

CIA spokesman Bill Harlow emphasized that the opinions in the book
were those of the author, not the agency. He acknowledged that the
book's publication was awkward for an agency that sought to be
apolitical, but that the CIA found no classified material in it, and
therefore allowed its release.

Some have questioned the author's motives, noting that he was removed
as head of the Bin Laden unit in 1999 over concerns about his
performance. An intelligence official who has worked with the author
at the CIA said that he might have been embittered by his removal, but
that "people tend to think of him as a straight shooter."

Mike said he was removed from the post because agency leaders "thought
I was too myopic, too intense, too aggressive." He declined to
elaborate. But he insisted that he did not write the book to settle
scores.

"The important thing to me is that we're missing the boat on this
issue," he said.

The book has created a stir in intelligence and policymaking circles
for its scathing critique of U.S. efforts after the Sept. 11 attacks.
In the book, Mike writes that the war in Afghanistan was in many
respects a failure because the United States waited nearly a month to
launch the invasion — allowing Al Qaeda operatives to flee — and
relied heavily on proxy Afghan forces that were not always loyal to
the U.S. cause.

The book asserts that invading Iraq has inflamed anti-American
sentiment to such a degree that it is minting a new generation of
terrorists.

"We have waged two failed half-wars and, in doing so, left Afghanistan
and Iraq seething with anti-U.S. sentiment, fertile grounds for the
expansion of Al Qaeda and kindred groups," he writes.

In an interview this week, Mike, who has close-cropped hair and a
beard, said Monday's transfer of authority to Iraq was likely to do
little to curtail insurgent attacks.

"Iraq, with or without a transfer of power, will be a mujahedin magnet
as long as whatever government is there is dependent on America's
sword," he said, adding that he thought his view was widely shared
among counter-terrorism officials at the CIA and other intelligence
agencies.

The stealth manner in which sovereignty was transferred this week in
Iraq — in a surprise ceremony two days ahead of schedule involving L.
Paul Bremer III, the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, and the
country's interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi — also sent a weak
signal, he said.

"From Bin Laden's perspective, we were afraid they were going to
attack us and we left like a thief in the night, with Bremer throwing
the keys to Allawi," he said. "They can only see this as a victory."

Mike's criticism of the war in Iraq echoes that of other prominent
counter-terrorism officials, including former White House aide Richard
A. Clarke. But he is the first active CIA official to make the
criticism publicly, albeit anonymously. Mike, however, faulted Clarke
and others who served in the Clinton administration for failing to
mount operations to capture or kill Bin Laden when the CIA had
intelligence on his whereabouts.

He said he thought Bin Laden would have been extremely reluctant to
enter a collaborative relationship with Hussein, in part because he
saw Iraq's military and spying services as inferior, incapable of
protecting the security of Al Qaeda plans and operations.

Mike said that because he did not work in the agency's Iraq section,
he could not assess the accuracy of claims that analysts were
pressured by the White House to tailor their assessments of Iraq's
alleged illicit weapons programs to help make the case for war.
Despite being forced to redo their work several times, he said,
counter-terrorism analysts never altered their conclusion that Iraq
was not working with Al Qaeda.

"There was pressure to perform. But to its credit, the intelligence
community as a whole said there was nothing" to suggest a
collaborative relationship, he said. "The director on down insisted we
call it straight."

Mike still serves in the agency's counter-terrorism center, but
acknowledges that he has been marginalized. "I get invited to speak"
on counter-terrorism at the Defense Department, the FBI and the
National Security Agency, he said, "but not within my own building."

He wrote an earlier book, also anonymously, on Bin Laden and Islamic
terrorism that was titled, "Through Our Enemies' Eyes."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel1jul01,1,4236086.story

Steve Richter

July 2nd 04, 03:12 PM

wrote in message >...
> (Steve Richter) wrote in message >...
>
> > > Having information, and using the information, are two different issues.
> > > IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding
> > > of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree
> > > then please explain why. [Hillel]
>
> > You call me names and then ask me questions.
>
> Why should not I ask an idiot some questions?
> It amuses me.

Is that the same attitude of the Jews in pre enlightenment Poland who
as the tool of the nobility oppressed the peasants? I am glad you are
in Israel Hillel. You and the arabs deserve each other. Praise
Allah, praise Yahweh! Death to idolators!!

> > It is the question of whether
> > Israel intentionally attacked the American ship,
>
> No.
> The job of the court is to:
> 1) Establish the facts.
> 2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even
> decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which
> one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case
> is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena
> more data.

Capt Boston on his and Adm Kidd's impression of the evidence heard by
the NCOI:

"... Each evening, after hearing testimony all
day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen
and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli
forces responsible for the attack as "murderous *******s." It was our
shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we
received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and
deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident. ..."

> > There is good evidence the US DOS acted to prevent Adm Kidd from going
> > to Israel to investigate the attack as he wished.
>
> Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and
> a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following
> data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that
> somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*,
> to write such a comment.

and officers of the IDF, are they obligated to report criminal acts
like the intentional crushing of young American protestors in Gaza?

Capt Boston writes that Kidd was ordered by his superiors to suppress
the evidence.

"...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to
interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd
telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd
later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to
travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter. ..."

"...I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that
President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of "mistaken
identity" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ..."

"...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the
White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the
court's findings. ..."

"...I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know
that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the
public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to
Washington. ..."

"... Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate
machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews,
which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and
included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been
excised. ..."

> > You have well founded confidence in the Admiral. Why would the US DOS,
> > acting
> > presumably without objection by LBJ and McNamara, act to overrule the
> > Admiral's judgement and not allow the NCOI to go to Israel?
>

> That's between the admiral and the DoS. It is quite possible that the
> DoS offered him a "good enough" replacement. E.g. it could suggest
> that Ernest Castle, the United States Naval Attache at the U.S. Embassy
> in Tel Aviv, will collect the data he needed. The admiral could reject
> such a suggestion, and insist on running the show himself, but he
> did not see the benefit in that.

( Hillel, you dont have to use a lowercase "o" in DOS. After all, its
an abbreviation. LoL! )

and who in Israel did Castle interview? Capt Boston writes
"...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to
interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. ..."

> > The coverup of the coverup continues to this day.
>
> And next week we will start with the coverup of the coverup of the coverup.

hey, your country is the entity that is harmed by its refusal to
release information.

> > > Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving
> > > so many people for 37 years?
>
> > Heck, Hillel. I am of the opinion that Israel has kept secret the
> > full extent of its planning to take the WB from Jordan as part of the
> > inevitable conflict between Israel and the arab states.
>
> ...and therefore suggested Jordan on June 5, 1967 to stay out of the
> war and promised "no harm" in such a case.
> ...and therefore the paratroopers who attacked Jerusalem had to unload
> all their equipment from the airplanes that had been supposed to
> drop them in Sinai.

From what I gather reading the Oren book on the SDW, Jordan never
moved onto Israeli territory. But it does not really matter. Because
of the occupation Israel has a never ending and likely escalating
conflict on its hands. Are you asserting that these very unfavorable
facts on the ground were forced on Israel by Jordan? How stupid are
Israelis to fall for such a trick!

> > Israel must
> > have anticipated the marked increase in terror attacks from pratically
> > zero before the occupation to what has occured after. There must have
> > been some in the GOI who did not think that more land for Israel was
> > worth the price of those killed by insurgent attacks.
>
> What all of that has to do with the ability of Israel to cover up?!

It has to do with the motive for the attack on the Liberty. If those
making the decisions in Israel would endanger Israel's security by
expanding its borders to include a large number of arabs, then they
could similarly motivated to attack their benefactor.

> > > > This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer
> > > > legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal
> > > > radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty?
>
> > > What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?!
> > > Where did you get that idea?
> > > Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection
> > > of WWII quality small ships?
> > > Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy
> > > bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could
> > > look over the horizon.
>
> > How were the IAF controllers able to direct the Kursa attack jets to
> > the Liberty? Was it Yahweh or radar?
>
> Arial radar or observations.
> Welcome to 1967, when some airplanes had radars!

Good to know! So Israel had a kind of first generation AWACS system in
place during the SDW. The arial radar the IAF controllers used to
track the Liberty, was it airborne all morning or just at attack time?
Those mysterious repeated overflights of the Liberty the morning of 8
June, were they also augmented by arial radar observations not
observed by the Liberty's crew?

Why does Israel continue to suppress so much information re the
attack? Were IDF COS Rabin and IAF CDR Hod told of the identification
of the American spy ship the morning of 8 June? Why are their
conversations with the Kursa attack planes missing from the IAF
controller transcripts? Why will Israel not release the detailed
testimony from its aftermath investigations?

-Steve

ZZBunker

July 2nd 04, 06:48 PM

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> wrote:
> > (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> > > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Do you think that Congress should double check every Navy inquiry,
> > or just the Liberty? If just the Liberty then please explain what
> > the Navy's court did wrong and how Congress may be able to fix.
> >
> > IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the
> > facts than Congress.
>
> But in a high profile case, leaders of a Navy Court of
> Inquiry are subject to pressure of the President if that
> President wants it to reach a certain conclusion.
>
> > If you reject this claim then please give
> > examples of Navy courtof inquiry making mistake, and Congress fixing
> > them.
>
> See the LA Times article below to see how the executive branch
> may try to ?manipulate' intelligence. .
>
> > > > Can Congress get more data?
>
> > > A Congressional investigation can ask the CIA
> > > to testify on all of the data that has been
> > > collected.
> >
> > A Navy court of inquiry can subpoena the CIA just like Congress can.
> > And since the Navy is better than Congress in keeping secrets, the
> > CIA will probably be more willing to coopertae.
>
> There was a Navy employee a number of years back who
> made copies of 500,000 classified government documents
> and provided them to a foreign government. Your
> assertion about the Navy being better at keeping secrets
> is suspect.
>
> > > > Does Congress have deeper understanding of Israel?
>
> > > A non sequitur with regard to the question of
> > > whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional
> > > or not.
> >
> > You claim that Congress investigation will be "better."
> > I claim that for better investigation you should either have
> > the ability to collect more data, or the ability to understand
> > the data better. Do you reject my claim, yes or no?
> > And if yes then what is your counter-claim?
>
> You, like Weeks, seek to muddy the waters. Congress
> has been successfully investigating the executive
> branch of government for 200 years. Your suggestion
> that the executive branch investigate itself violates
> the 'separation of powers' principle which has worked
> so effectively since our Constitution was adopted.
>
> > > > Does Congress have better exprerts in
> > > > navies-at-war issues than the US Navy?
>
> > > Congress can request the testimony of the US Navy's
> > > finest experts, who are then obligated to give
> > > truthful answers, or face jail terms.
> >
> > You assume that in short time Congressmen can become better experts
> > than people who spent years in sea commanding ships. I don't know
> > what is the base of your assumption, but I can tell you that you
> > can force people to tell you what they know, but knoweldge and
> > understanding is very different thing. E.g. a clueless person
> > like you who has access to all the data and still has no clue.
>
> One again, your arguments are so weak that you feel the need
> to resort to name calling. Why has every previous Naval disaster
> been investigated by Congress?
>
> > > > In other words, why should Congresss investigate the Liberty
> > > > incidence after the CIA concluded that the Israeli explanation
> > > > is reasonable.
>
> > > Believe it or not, the CIA is not always right.
> >
> > Believe it or not, Congress is not always right.
>
> But they are independent and they do not serve
> at the pleasure of the President.
>
> > Believe it or not, Joseph McCarthy "investigations" did not catch
> > a single Russian spy.
>
> Maybe because he saw Communist spies under every bed?
>
> Let's face it, when McCarthy accused President
> Eisenhower's Secretary of the Army of supporting
> Communism, it indicated a serious flaw in the
> Senator's judgment. Not only did McCarthy fail
> to prove the alleged leftist tendencies of the
> Army Secretary, but McCarthy's bizarre behavior
> was condemned by his Senate colleagues, after
> which nobody took McCarthy seriously.
>
> In fact, it was the Army-McCarthy investigation
> itself which not only ended McCarthy's influence,
> but it also ended the national witch hunt known
> as McCarthyism.

> Believe it or not, the Senate Watergate investigation
> was partially responsible for the first Presidential
> resignation in our country's history. If we had
> adopted your suggestion of letting the executive
> branch investigate itself, there is a good chance
> Nixon would not have resigned.

Since it was only the Washington Post that forced
the issue into the Senate, it's still generally thought
in many Political Science Circles that the
entire US Republican Party should have resigned
than Nixon. Being that New York, Chicago, Miami,
and their Political "Conventions" had already resigned
from Human Civilization in the *1920s*.

[email protected]

July 2nd 04, 07:22 PM

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> wrote:
> > (Issac Goldberg) wrote:

> > Do you think that Congress should double check every Navy inquiry,
> > or just the Liberty? If just the Liberty then please explain what
> > the Navy's court did wrong and how Congress may be able to fix.

> > IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the
> > facts than Congress.

> But in a high profile case, leaders of a Navy Court of
> Inquiry are subject to pressure of the President if that
> President wants it to reach a certain conclusion.

Ha?
From http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj50p1835.htm
@The Supreme Court recognized potential problems with the independence
@of military judges in Weiss v. United States.139 The Court noted that
@military judges may be reassigned at any time because they have no
@fixed term of office. "Commissioned Officers are assigned or detailed
@to the position of military judge by a Judge Advocate General for a
@period of time he deems necessary or appropriate, and then they may be
@reassigned to perform other duties."140 Military judges also are
@accountable to their respective Judge Advocates General for their
@decisions. "By placing judges under the control of Judge Advocates
@General, who have no interest in the outcome of a particular [*pg 1858]
@court-martial, we believe Congress has achieved an acceptable balance
@between independence and accountability."141 What the Supreme Court
@failed to recognize is that Judge Advocates General may indeed have a
@significant interest in the outcome of cases when a large issue or
@principle is at stake.

In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.
Pressuring judges is not effective because the president can't
fire them, and illegal pressure will cause a stink much larger
than the "The Saturday night massacre."

> > If you reject this claim then please give
> > examples of Navy courtof inquiry making mistake, and Congress fixing
> > them.

> See the LA Times article below to see how the executive branch
> may try to ?manipulate' intelligence. .

The CIA is under the president's control. He can fire the head of the
CIA whenever he wants. But the president can not fire military judges.
The Supreme Court believes that, with respect to the military court
system, "Congress has achieved an acceptable balance between
independence and accountability." Do you reject this claim,
and if yes on what grounds?

> > A Navy court of inquiry can subpoena the CIA just like Congress can.
> > And since the Navy is better than Congress in keeping secrets, the
> > CIA will probably be more willing to coopertae.

> There was a Navy employee a number of years back who
> made copies of 500,000 classified government documents
> and provided them to a foreign government.

There is a difference between espionage and leaks. People who
commit espionage go to jail, Congressmen who leak win reelection.
Leaking of classified infromation is a big problem in Congress
because Congress is not willing to regulate itself. The
same can't be said about the Navy. The Navy makes a real effort
to throw everybody who passes classified information to jail.

> Your assertion about the Navy being better at keeping
> secrets is suspect.

Can you give example of Navy judges who leaked information
and got away with it? (And yes, I can give you examples
of Congressmen who leaked information and did not go to
jail; just ask.)

> > You claim that Congress investigation will be "better."
> > I claim that for better investigation you should either have
> > the ability to collect more data, or the ability to understand
> > the data better. Do you reject my claim, yes or no?
> > And if yes then what is your counter-claim?

> You, like Weeks, seek to muddy the waters. Congress
> has been successfully investigating the executive
> branch of government for 200 years.

:-)

> Your suggestion
> that the executive branch investigate itself violates
> the 'separation of powers' principle which has worked
> so effectively since our Constitution was adopted.

The military court system has its own version of "Separation"
that works pretty well. Military courts are not kangeroo
courts; something that can't be said about
Senator Joseph McCarthy's committee.

> > You assume that in short time Congressmen can become better experts
> > than people who spent years in sea commanding ships. I don't know
> > what is the base of your assumption, but I can tell you that you
> > can force people to tell you what they know, but knoweldge and
> > understanding is very different thing. E.g. a clueless person
> > like you who has access to all the data and still has no clue.

> One again, your arguments are so weak that you feel the need
> to resort to name calling. Why has every previous Naval disaster
> been investigated by Congress?

Because it was not.
E.g. the attack on USS Stark that killed 37 sailors.

> > Believe it or not, Congress is not always right.

> But they are independent and they do not serve
> at the pleasure of the President.

Congressmen need to get reelected. The officers of the
Navy's court of inquiry have no such concern.

> > Believe it or not, Joseph McCarthy "investigations"
> > did not catch a single Russian spy.

> Maybe because he saw Communist spies under every bed?

And you see an anti-Liberty conspiracy under every bed,
table and chair.

> Let's face it, when McCarthy accused President
> Eisenhower's Secretary of the Army of supporting
> Communism, it indicated a serious flaw in the
> Senator's judgment.

McCarthy had a fun time taking the rich and famous
of Hollywood and grilling them in the Senate, and
leaking some "secret" testimonies in return to good press.
The Hollywood actors had no means to fight back, and
McCarthy felt pretty powerful.

Then he decided to pick on the army,
and the army fought back pretty well. The Army accused
Senator McCarthy and his assistant, Roy Cohn, of pressuring
the Army to give favourable treatment to a former aide.
Every Senator with half brain would realize a serious threat
and back down, but mcCarthy decided to fight, and lost.

> In fact, it was the Army-McCarthy investigation
> itself which not only ended McCarthy's influence,
> but it also ended the national witch hunt known
> as McCarthyism.

And your point is...?

> Believe it or not, the Senate Watergate investigation
> was partially responsible for the first Presidential
> resignation in our country's history.

I'd give much more credit to Archibald Cox. After the
Saturday night massacre Nixon was *finished* in the
public's opinion.

> If we had
> adopted your suggestion of letting the executive
> branch investigate itself, there is a good chance
> Nixon would not have resigned.

What exactly did Archibald Cox do wrong?

> > Again, do you want to Congress to double-check everything that the
> > CIA say, or just the Liberty? And if just the Liberty then please
> > explain why the CIA can't be trusted in that case.

> CIA Felt Pressure to Alter Iraq Data, Author Says

And it got caught in less than 37 years because the army
could not find those WMD.

It shows that the system works, if there is no data to support a claim.
(The failure of the LVA to make a case also shows that the system works
when there is no data to support a claim.)

Hillel

"I don't know a man, woman, or child who was not happy about what happened
in the U.S. [on 9/11/2001]" (Abdullah Al-Sabeh, a professor of psychology at
Riyadh's Imam Muhammed bin Saud Islamic University, Business Week, 11/26/2001)

[email protected]

July 2nd 04, 09:50 PM

(Steve Richter) wrote in message >...
> wrote in message >...
> > The job of the court is to:
> > 1) Establish the facts.
> > 2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even
> > decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which
> > one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case
> > is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena
> > more data.

> Capt Boston on his and Adm Kidd's impression of the evidence heard by
> the NCOI:

> "... Each evening, after hearing testimony all
> day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen
> and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli
> forces responsible for the attack as "murderous *******s."

So?
A good judge may form an opinion after hearing half of the evidence
and yet have the integrity to change his opinion after hearing
all the evidence.

> It was our
> shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we
> received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and
> deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident. ..."

So why did not they write just that in the report?
Why did not Capt Boston refuse to sign the report?
(Yes, a judge is allowed to do that.)
Did Capt Boston lied by signing a false report 37 years ago,
or does he lie now?
How can we check if his claims about Johnson and Kidd are true?
(Dead people usually refuse to answer questions.)

> > Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and
> > a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following
> > data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that
> > somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*,
> > to write such a comment.

> and officers of the IDF, are they obligated to report criminal acts
> like the intentional crushing of young American protestors in Gaza?

The IDF officers obligation is to Israel, Kidd & Boston obligation
was to the US. If they signed a false report, knowing
that it was false, then they *FAILED* in their duty.

> "...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to
> interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd
> telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd
> later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to
> travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter. ..."

Admiral Kidd could write just that in his report. If he felt, rightly
or wrongly, that information was surpressed then he should have
reported that.

> "...I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that
> President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
> ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of "mistaken
> identity" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ..."

What was the interest of Johnson & McNamara to cover up for Israel?
Do you realize that if they did what you say (a big if) then they
were guilty of Obstruction of Justice?

> "...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
> he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the
> White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the
> court's findings. ..."

....and he just rolled over and played dead...
And you believe that an admiral would do just that without reporting
to the military justice system about such Obstruction of Justice.

> "... Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate
> machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews,
> which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and
> included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been
> excised. ..."

Testimony by whom?
Can the person who gave the original testimony verify that?

OK, I am getting tired of your bull****. Your "evidence" is about
as good as the description of the Dreyfus trial in
Anatole France' "Penguin Island." It is too stupid to be even funny.

Steve Richter

July 3rd 04, 12:08 AM

wrote in message >...
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> > According to Captain Boston, he and Admiral Kidd were
> > ordered in advance of the inquiry to conclude it was an
> > accident by President Johnson and Secretary of Defense
> > McNamara. That is, the Court of Inquiry was a sham which
> > produced a whitewash.
>
> And you believe that the admiral just rolled-over, played
> dead, and did not protest.
>
> You have a pretty low opinion of your Navy's commanders.

Capt Boston's own words:

"...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the
White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the
court's findings. ..."

"...I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know
that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the
public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to
Washington. ..."

"... Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate
machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews,
which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and
included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been
excised. ..."

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

Boston's sworn statement that Lt. Painter testified to the MGing of
the liferafts, but his testimony was not included in the NCOI report
is especially interesting. Here is an excerpt from an article
critical of the Liberty crew, basically calling them liars. The
article authors go after Painter, saying he testified to one thing in
court, but now tells another story. But Boston's sworn whatever
confirms what Painter is saying, that what he testified to was not
included in the final NCOI report!

http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/alert/hchannel2.html

------------------- start of pro Israeli bull
-------------------------

• The producers present at face value Mr. Painter's charge that
Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned Liberty life rafts that had been
placed in the water, which if true could be a violation of the laws of
war:

PAINTER: I climbed the ladder and opened the hatch and looked out to
the sea, and what I saw was the Israeli torpedo boats machine gunning
our life rafts in the water as they floated behind our ship.

Once again Mr. Painter contradicts both his own sworn testimony before
the Court of Inquiry, and that of his Captain. The Court's opening
question to Lt. Painter, after name, rank and organization, was:

On 8 June 1967, at about 1400 hours, an incident occurred aboard the
USS Liberty in which the vessel was attacked. Would you please relate
to this Court of Inquiry what you recall concerning that incident?

Nowhere in his response did Lt. Painter mention anything about Israeli
attacks on life rafts in the water. On the contrary, he testified that
most of the life rafts had been damaged and set alight during the
prior jet attacks on the ship, and that his crew pushed many of these
burning life rafts overboard:

At this time [after the torpedo attack], 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... All
during this time in Repair Three, my men were fighting fires and
knocking burning life rafts, etc.

What possible reason could Lt. Painter have had for omitting in his
testimony the charge which he now makes, that Israel attacked the
Liberty's life boats after they were put in the water? Why does he now
fail to mention that in fact he and his crew pushed the life rafts
overboard?

Whatever the reason for the divergence between Mr. Painter's present
claims and his testimony, Captain McGonagle also never mentioned any
attack on life boats during his testimony. On the contrary, he
testified that after the torpedo attack some crewmen mistakenly put
life boats in the water, and that he ordered them to stop because the
ship was in no danger of sinking:

------------ end of pro Israeli crap -------------------------------

Issac Goldberg

July 3rd 04, 06:17 PM

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
>>Jim Watt wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
>>>>Jim Watt wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Oops; it's a comment made in 2002 by the 1967 [then-CIA director] Helms in
> that
>>>>>BBC trash production of "Dead on the Water"
>>>>Is it trash because it comes to a different conclusion to you?
>>>You should really appreciate this; it's trash because it's a fairy tale.
>>And the evidence for that statement is?
>
>You have yet to show any evidence that the book "The Liberty Incident" is a
>fairy tale; since you admit to not having read it.

This is not evidence. This is 'changing the subject.' Whether or
not Watt read Cristol's book is hardly evidence that the BBC
production is a 'fairy tale.' This is just another example of the
kind of non sequitur Weeks often uses to muddy the waters.
How typical.

>I've seen this video, and when they use a cropped BDA photo taken from a Mirage
>IIICJ(R) which has been widely published since 1967 showing destroyed EAF MiGs
>on the ground and attempt to pass it off as having been taken from an USAF
>RF-4C flying for the IAF, piloted by USAF crews ...
>
>The cropped photo doesn't show the Mirage's shadow at the bottom ...
>
>You get just one example. Come back after you've read Cristol's book ...

Again, to imply that Watt's reading Cristol's book or not is 'evidence'
that the BBC production is a 'fairy tale' is totally bogus.

Your alleged proof concerning a cropped photo is your own personal
view, and as such is not evidence, it is just your opinion. This
just another example of the non-entity know as Weeks being omniscient.

Issac Goldberg

July 3rd 04, 06:24 PM

wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the
> > > facts than Congress.
>
> > But in a high profile case, leaders of a Navy Court of
> > Inquiry are subject to pressure of the President if that
> > President wants it to reach a certain conclusion.
>
> Ha?
> From http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj50p1835.htm
> @The Supreme Court recognized potential problems with the independence
> @of military judges in Weiss v. United States.139 The Court noted that
> @military judges may be reassigned at any time because they have no
> @fixed term of office. "Commissioned Officers are assigned or detailed
> @to the position of military judge by a Judge Advocate General for a
> @period of time he deems necessary or appropriate, and then they may be
> @reassigned to perform other duties."140 Military judges also are
> @accountable to their respective Judge Advocates General for their
> @decisions. "By placing judges under the control of Judge Advocates
> @General, who have no interest in the outcome of a particular [*pg 1858]
> @court-martial, we believe Congress has achieved an acceptable balance
> @between independence and accountability."141 What the Supreme Court
> @failed to recognize is that Judge Advocates General may indeed have a
> @significant interest in the outcome of cases when a large issue or
> @principle is at stake.
>
> In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
> only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
> can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.

Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
Johnson's actions were 'legal.'

One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
of vote fraud.

Try reading the three volumes of Caro's LBJ biography,
since they will provide illuminating insight into what an
unethical fellow Johnson really was, and how he would
willingly break the law to further his political goals.

[email protected]

July 6th 04, 06:46 AM

> > In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
> > only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
> > can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
> Johnson's actions were 'legal.'

> One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
> was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
> of vote fraud.

Johnson was a pretty smart SOB. He knew that all his communication
with Kidd would be recorded. Had Johnson given Kidd a clear proof
that Johnson commited illegal acts, Kidd would have the power to
roast Johnson's ass either by the Senate or by the JAG.

Johnson just could not be that stupid.

Issac Goldberg

July 6th 04, 05:00 PM

wrote in message >...
> > > In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
> > > only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
> > > can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.
>
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> > Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
> > Johnson's actions were 'legal.'
>
> > One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
> > was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
> > of vote fraud.
>
> Johnson was a pretty smart SOB. He knew that all his communication
> with Kidd would be recorded. Had Johnson given Kidd a clear proof
> that Johnson commited illegal acts, Kidd would have the power to
> roast Johnson's ass either by the Senate or by the JAG.
>
> Johnson just could not be that stupid.

Johnson was certainly not stupid.

If he knew his conversations would be recorded, he was
powerful enough to have the recordings erased.

Jim Watt

July 6th 04, 06:23 PM

On 6 Jul 2004 09:00:29 -0700, (Issac
Goldberg) wrote:

wrote in message >...
>> > > In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
>> > > only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
>> > > can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.
>>
>> (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
>> > Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
>> > Johnson's actions were 'legal.'
>>
>> > One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
>> > was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
>> > of vote fraud.
>>
>> Johnson was a pretty smart SOB. He knew that all his communication
>> with Kidd would be recorded. Had Johnson given Kidd a clear proof
>> that Johnson commited illegal acts, Kidd would have the power to
>> roast Johnson's ass either by the Senate or by the JAG.
>>
>> Johnson just could not be that stupid.
>
>Johnson was certainly not stupid.
>
>If he knew his conversations would be recorded, he was
>powerful enough to have the recordings erased.

Magnetic personality ?
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

[email protected]

July 7th 04, 12:26 AM

> > Johnson was a pretty smart SOB. He knew that all his communication
> > with Kidd would be recorded. Had Johnson given Kidd a clear proof
> > that Johnson commited illegal acts, Kidd would have the power to
> > roast Johnson's ass either by the Senate or by the JAG.

> > Johnson just could not be that stupid.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> Johnson was certainly not stupid.

> If he knew his conversations would be recorded, he was
> powerful enough to have the recordings erased.

How?
The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
"erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
them erased.

Issac Goldberg

July 9th 04, 10:46 PM

(Steve Richter) wrote:

> Boston's sworn statement that Lt. Painter testified to the MGing of
> the liferafts, but his testimony was not included in the NCOI report
> is especially interesting. Here is an excerpt from an article
> critical of the Liberty crew, basically calling them liars. The
> article authors go after Painter, saying he testified to one thing in
> court, but now tells another story. But Boston's sworn whatever
> confirms what Painter is saying, that what he testified to was not
> included in the final NCOI report!
>
> http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/alert/hchannel2.html

The link also shows how selective Camera can be. When it quotes
from the 1967 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings, Camera
leaves out the comments by the Senators. Those comments clearly
indicate that the Senators do not accept McNamara's explanations.
Furthermore, the Senators had not been provided with the report
from Kidd's inquiry, despite their previous request.

Following are, first, the fragment of the hearings quoted in
Camera, and second, the same hearings including the parts that
Camera omitted:

First, Camera's selective account:

<start>

Secretary of Defense McNamara mentioned this incident in testimony to
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1967:

Secretary McNamara: ...In the case of the attack on the Liberty, it
was the conclusion of the investigatory body headed by an Admiral of
the Navy in whom we have great confidence that the attack was not
intentional. I read the record of the investigation, and support that
conclusion, ....

It was not a conscious decision on the part of either the Government
of Israel--
Senator Hickenlooper: Perhaps not.

Secretary McNamara: (Continuing) To attack a U.S. Vessel.

[undocumented deletion by Camera]

Secretary McNamara: No. There is no evidence that the individuals
attacking the Liberty knew they were attacking a U.S. ship, and there
is some evidence, circumstantial, that they did not know it.

[undocumented deletion by Camera]

Secretary McNamara: Senator Hickenlooper, I don't want to carry the
torch for the Israeli. It was an inexcusable error in judgment.

.....

Secretary McNamara: And an inexcusable error of professional tactics.
I would simply point out to you that, at the same time, I was denying
that we had struck a Russian ship in Haiphong Harbor [sic] and I
proved to be in error. These errors do occur. We had no more intention
of attacking a Russian ship than Israel apparently did of attacking an
American ship. (Cristol, p 95-96)

<end>

Second, the transcript including the parts deleted by Camera.
Included are punctuation marks as printed in the original
document published by the GPO [Government Printing Office] and,
if a deletion was made by the government, it is indicated
by '[deleted].' The definition of the legal term "res ipsa
loquitur" used by Senator Hickenlooper is at the end of the post:

<start>

Hearings on the Foreign Assistance Act of 1967 (S. 1872) Senate
Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, June 12,
July 14 and 26, 1967.

…

Senator Hickenlooper: I had intended to ask you about the Liberty
incident. Of course I didn't go through the minute investigation,
but there is a phrase in law called res ipsa loquitur. From what
I have read I can't tolerate for 1 minute that this was an accident.

Senator Case: It wasn't, nobody claims it was, do they?

Senator Hickenlooper: I think it was a deliberate assault on this
ship. I think they had ample opportunity to identify it as an
American ship. I may be utterly wrong, but I do recall that some
time ago we had some difficulties in the Bay of Tonkin where at
night without full identification or really full proof it was
assumed that certain torpedo boats made rather menacing approaches
to one of our destroyers and we rushed over here with the Tonkin
Bay resolution right away. A war was unleashed.

What have we done about the Liberty? Have we become so placid,
so far as Israel is concerned or so far as that area is concerned,
that we will take the killing of 37 American boys and the
wounding of a lot more and the attack of an American ship in the
open sea in good weather? We have seemed to say: "Oh, well, boys
will be boys." What are you going to do about it! It is most
offensive to me.

Secretary McNamara: Senator Hickenlooper, there are several
points I would like to make.

Senator Hickenlooper: If Nasser had come out there and even
fired a torpedo at it, I am quite sure what we would have done.

Secretary McNamara: Senator Hickenlooper, there are several
points I would like to make in reply to your question because –

Senator Hickenlooper: I am making some assumptions upon which
I don't have full information. I am sorry.

Secretary McNamara: I think you reaction is a very human one,
and to some degree it has been ours at times; but the first
point to establish, I believe, in determining a response is
intent. In the case in the Gulf of Tonkin there was reason to
believe that the attack was intentional. In the case of the
attack on the Liberty, it was the conclusion of the investigatory
body headed by an admiral of the Navy in whom we have great
confidence that the attack was not intentional. I read the record
of the investigation, and support that conclusion, and I think
this, therefore, begins to –

Senator Hickenlooper: When you say it was not intentional, you
don't mean those guns fired themselves?

Secretary McNamara: It was not a conscious decision on the part
of either the Government of Israel –

Senator Hickenlooper: Perhaps not.

Secretary McNamara: (Continuing.) To attack a U.S. vessel.

Senator Hickenlooper: I think that could be conceded.

Secretary McNamara: In that respect, it differs materially from
the attack in the Tonkin Gulf.

If it was not the result of a conscious decision to a attack a
U.S. vessel, then I think we would be expected to respond in a
different fashion than we responded in Tonkin Gulf. Our Government
has made the strongest possible protest to the Israeli Government
on this matter.

I would be happy to make available to the committee the report of
the investigation if it chooses to examine it.

Senator Hickenlooper: Do we have any more reliable information
that the Government of North Vietnam intended for those torpedo
boats to attack an American ship?

Secretary McNamara: I think if we examine the intelligence data
at the time –

Senator Hickenlooper: (Continuing.) Than we do on this Liberty
incident!

Secretary McNamara: Yes, there is no question but what we have
more evidence here of lack of intent to consciously attack a U.S.
vessel than we had there.

May I finish by taking just one second to say I would like to go
back and examine the record of the Tonkin Gulf incident which
occurred 3 years ago, and on which my memory is a little hazy, to
determine the evidence of conscious intent of attack. I think it
is very clear.

[Deleted.]

There is no evidence of that in the case of the Liberty.

Senator Hickenlooper: There is no evidence, then, no evidence that
we have at all, that there was any communications between Tel Aviv
and the attacking vessels or the airplanes that apparently flew
over this ship several times at rather low altitude.

Secretary McNamara: No, There is no evidence that the individuals
attacking the Liberty knew they were attacking a U.S. ship, and
there is some evidence, circumstantial, that they did not know it.

Senator Hickenlooper: I probably shouldn't pursue this. But it
just doesn't sound very good to me. I can't accept these
explanations that so glibly come out of Tel Aviv and perhaps
some rather confusedly come out of our own investigation, I don't
know.

Secretary McNamara: I would suggest that you might like to look
at the investigation report, and, if you do, we shall be happy
to make the classified document available.

The Chairman: We asked for it about 2 weeks ago and have not
received it yet from Secretary Rusk.

Secretary McNamara: I will be happy to see that you get it
tomorrow if you wish, or today.

The Chairman: By the time we get it we will be on some other
subject.

Secretary McNamara: From the time you ask it of me, you will
have it in 4 hours. Jack, go over and ask for it to be sent right
over.

Senator Hickenlooper: It may not be what is in the report. It
could be conceivably what is not in the report.

Secretary McNamara: Well, there is nothing left out of the
investigation report that I have any knowledge of.

Senator Hickenlooper: It is inconceivable to me that the ship
could not have been identified. According to everything I saw
the American flag was flying on this ship. It had a particular
configuration. Even a landlubber could look at it and see that
it has no characteristic configuration comparable to the so-called
Egyptian ship they now try to say they mistook it for. If these
people were as well trained as they allege they are, and did what
they did, I don't know. It just doesn't add up to me. It is not
at all satisfactory.

Secretary McNamara: Senator Hickenlooper, I don't want to carry
the torch for the Israeli. It was an inexcusable error in judgment.

Senator Hickenlooper: That is what it looks like we are doing in
this country.

Secretary McNamara: And an inexcusable error of professional
tactics. I would simply point out to you that, at the same time,
I was denying that we had struck a Russian ship in Haiphong
Harbor; and I proved to be in error. These errors do occur. We
had no more intention of attacking a Russian ship than Israel
apparently did of attacking an American ship.

Senator Hickenlooper: I think that incident is totally different.
We didn't have torpedo boats in Haiphong Habor [sic] running
around looking at that ship and then firing at it after they
fully looked it over and saw it. I am not going to pursue this
any further.

Senator Aiken: I think, not only the committee, but the public
wants better information than they have had so far.

Senator Hickenlooper: The public is thoroughly dissatisfied
with the situation. I don't know. It is the seemingly cavalier
attitude expressed by Israel in some ways apparently accepted
by us on a very tragic situation. I think there is utterly no
excuse for it.

Secretary McNamara: I think there is no excuse, Senator Hickenlooper.
I completely agree with you, but it is thoroughly clear, based on
the investigation report, that it was not a conscious attack on a
U.S. vessel.

Senator Mundt: You mean by the pilots?

Secretary McNamara: By the pilots. They did not identify the vessel
as a U.S. vessel prior to the time of attack. You may consider this
inconceivable.

Senator Mundt: On the part of the attackers, yes. It seemed to be
broad daylight.

Secretary McNamara: They definitely did not. As far as we can tell.
All of the evidence points to the contrary.

Senator Mundt: You take their word for it!

Secretary McNamara: My conclusion is based on the investigation
report which did not discuss the identification with the Israeli
pilots or Naval personnel involved, but did examine all of the
circumstances of the attack and did discuss it with the commander
and even the men on the Liberty.

Senator Hickenlooper: Just to complete the record on this, I didn't
mean to pursue this. I am just quoting now from a Navy release from
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. This is a release
on June 28 about this incident. I will read one paragraph.

"The Court – "

Referring, I take it, to the Court of Inquiry –

"The Court heard witnesses testify, however, to significant
surveillance of the Liberty on three separate occasions from the
air at various times prior to the attack – five hours and 13 minutes
before the attack, three hours and 7 minutes before the attack and
two hours and 37 minutes before the attack."

If they didn't identify that ship, then they are not as smart as I
think they are.

Secretary McNamara: I am not sure whether they did. I don't believe
they did. But in any event, they weren't the attackers.

The attackers, so far as we could tell, had not recognized the ship
and, in any event, had not recognized it as a U.S. ship.

Beyond that, as best we can tell, there were inadequate
communications between the aircraft and/or ships reconnoitering
and the attacking vessels. I think it is an inexcusably weak
military performance. That, I fully agree with. But I simply want
to emphasize that the investigative report does not show any
evidence of a conscious intent to attack a U.S. vessel.

<end>

The following definition comes from a legal dictionary:

res ipsa loquitur
(rayz ip-sah loh-quit-her) n. Latin for "the thing speaks for
itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent
if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury
even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence,
and without negligence the accident would not have happened.
Examples: a) a load of bricks on the roof of a building being
constructed by Highrise Construction Co. falls and injures Paul
Pedestrian below, and Highrise is liable for Pedestrian's injury
even though no one saw the load fall. b) While under anesthetic,
Isabel Patient's nerve in her arm is damaged although it was not
part of the surgical procedure, and she is unaware of which of a
dozen medical people in the room caused the damage. Under res ipsa
loquitur all those connected with the operation are liable for
negligence. Lawyers often shorten the doctrine to "res ips," and
find it a handy shorthand for a complex doctrine.

Issac Goldberg

July 10th 04, 03:48 AM

wrote:

> How?
> The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
> hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
> "erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
> could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
> them erased.

Well, here is one way to do it:

July 9, 2004
Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times

HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish President
Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air
National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently
destroyed, according to the Pentagon.

It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage
deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it
added in notices dated June 25.

The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973
when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.

The disclosure appeared to catch some experts, both pro-Bush and con,
by surprise. Even the retired lieutenant colonel who studied Mr.
Bush's records for the White House, Albert C. Lloyd of Austin, said it
came as news to him.

The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom
of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times
and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought
Mr. Bush's complete service file under the open-records law.

There was no mention of the loss, for example, when White House
officials released hundreds of pages of the President's military
records last February in an effort to stem Democratic accusations that
he was "AWOL" for a time during his commitment to fly at home in the
Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director who has said
that the released records confirmed the president's fulfillment of his
National Guard commitment, did not return two calls for a response.

The disclosure that the payroll records had been destroyed came in a
letter signed by C. Y. Talbott, chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of
Information Office, who forwarded a CD-Rom of hundreds of records that
Mr. Bush has previously released, along with images of punch-card
records. Sixty pages of Mr. Bush's medical file and some other records
were excluded on privacy grounds, Mr. Talbott wrote.

He said in the letter that he could not provide complete payroll
records, explaining, "The Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) has advised of the inadvertent destruction of microfilm
containing certain National Guard payroll records."

He went on: "In 1996 and 1997, DFAS engaged with limited success in a
project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. During this process the
microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged,
including from the first quarter of 1969 (Jan. 1 to March 31) and the
third quarter of 1972 (July 1 to Sept. 30). President Bush's payroll
records for these two quarters were among the records destroyed.
Searches for backup paper copies of the missing records were
unsuccessful."

Mr. Talbott's office would not respond to questions, saying that
further information could be provided only through another Freedom of
Information application.

But Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for Defense finance agency in Denver,
said the destruction occurred as the office was trying to unspool
2,000-foot rolls of fragile microfilm. Mr. Hubbard said he did not
know how many records were lost or why the loss had not been announced
before.

For Mr. Bush, the 1969 period when he was training to be a pilot, is
not in dispute. But in May 1972, he moved to Alabama to work on a
political campaign and, he has said, to perform his Guard service
there for a year. But other Guard officers have said they had no
recollection of ever seeing him there. The most evidence the White
House has been able to find are records showing Mr. Bush was paid for
six days in October and November 1972, without saying where, and the
record of a dental exam at a Montgomery, Ala., air base on Jan. 6,
1973.

On June 22, The Associated Press filed suit in federal court in New
York against the Pentagon and the Air Force to gain access to all the
president's military records.

The lost payroll records stored in Denver might have answered some
questions about whether he fulfilled his legal commitment, critics who
have written about the subject said in interviews.

"Those are records we've all been interested in," said James Moore,
author of a recent book, "Bush's War for Re-election," which takes a
critical view of Mr. Bush's service record. "I think it's curious that
the microfiche could resolve what days Mr. Bush worked and what days
he was paid, and suddenly that is gone."

But Mr. Moore said the president could still authorize the release of
other withheld records that would shed light on his service record.

Among the issues still disputed is why, according to released records,
Mr. Bush was suspended from flying on Aug. 1, 1972. The reason cited
in the records is "failure to accomplish annual medical examination."

Mr. Bartlett, the White House spokesman, said in February that Mr.
Bush felt he did not need to take the physical as he was no longer
flying planes in Alabama. Mr. Lloyd, the retired colonel who studied
the records, gave a similar explanation in an interview.

But Mr. Lloyd said he was surprised to be told of the destruction of
the pay records that might have resolved some questions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/campaign/09records.html

[email protected]

July 10th 04, 07:23 AM

> > How?
> > The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
> > hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
> > "erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
> > could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
> > them erased.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> Well, here is one way to do it:
>
> July 9, 2004
> Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
> By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times
>
> It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
> former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense
> Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage
> deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it
> added in notices dated June 25.

You can run such a story on 25 years old records, and 25 days old records.
Besides, in 1997 Bush was not the president,
so the interest in him was much lower.

Issac Goldberg

July 10th 04, 04:48 PM

wrote in message >...
> > > How?
> > > The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
> > > hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
> > > "erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
> > > could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
> > > them erased.
>
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> > Well, here is one way to do it:
> >
> > July 9, 2004
> > Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
> > By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times
> >
> > It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
> > former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense
> > Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage
> > deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it
> > added in notices dated June 25.
>
> You can run such a story on 25 years old records, and 25 days old records.

You asked, "How?" And I provided you with one real life example.
LBJ could have used a similar method to have evidence destroyed in
the case of the USS Liberty attack.

> Besides, in 1997 Bush was not the president,
> so the interest in him was much lower.

Funny, when Bush released some of his records a number of months
ago, nothing was said of the destroyed records. Perhaps they
were not destroyed in 1997, but more recently? When you are
president, everybody is eager to follow your direct orders,
apparently, even if the orders may be illegal. It would take
a real suicidal personality to disobey a direct order from
the President of the United States. They say, "you can't
fight City Hall." In this case, it would be "you can't fight
the White House."

Issac Goldberg

July 10th 04, 04:56 PM

(Mike Weeks) wrote in message >...
> >From: (Issac Goldberg)
> >Date: 7/9/2004 19:48 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> wrote:
> >
> >> How?
> >> The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
> >> hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
> >> "erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
> >> could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
> >> them erased.
> >
> >Well, here is one way to do it:
> >
> >July 9, 2004
> >Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
> >By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times
> >
> >HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish President
> >Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air
> >National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently
> >destroyed, according to the Pentagon.
>
> <snip>
>
> What part of "according to the Pentagon" didn't you read?

Do you believe EVERYTHING that comes out of the Pentagon?

Nobody could be that stupid.

July 10th 04, 09:22 PM

changing the subject again you lying sack?

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com

"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote:
>
> > How?
> > The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
> > hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
> > "erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
> > could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
> > them erased.
>
> Well, here is one way to do it:
>
> July 9, 2004
> Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
> By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times
>
> HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish President
> Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air
> National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently
> destroyed, according to the Pentagon.
>
> It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
> former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense
> Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage
> deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it
> added in notices dated June 25.
>
> The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973
> when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.
>
> The disclosure appeared to catch some experts, both pro-Bush and con,
> by surprise. Even the retired lieutenant colonel who studied Mr.
> Bush's records for the White House, Albert C. Lloyd of Austin, said it
> came as news to him.
>
> The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom
> of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times
> and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought
> Mr. Bush's complete service file under the open-records law.
>
> There was no mention of the loss, for example, when White House
> officials released hundreds of pages of the President's military
> records last February in an effort to stem Democratic accusations that
> he was "AWOL" for a time during his commitment to fly at home in the
> Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
>
> Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director who has said
> that the released records confirmed the president's fulfillment of his
> National Guard commitment, did not return two calls for a response.
>
> The disclosure that the payroll records had been destroyed came in a
> letter signed by C. Y. Talbott, chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of
> Information Office, who forwarded a CD-Rom of hundreds of records that
> Mr. Bush has previously released, along with images of punch-card
> records. Sixty pages of Mr. Bush's medical file and some other records
> were excluded on privacy grounds, Mr. Talbott wrote.
>
> He said in the letter that he could not provide complete payroll
> records, explaining, "The Defense Finance and Accounting Service
> (DFAS) has advised of the inadvertent destruction of microfilm
> containing certain National Guard payroll records."
>
> He went on: "In 1996 and 1997, DFAS engaged with limited success in a
> project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. During this process the
> microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged,
> including from the first quarter of 1969 (Jan. 1 to March 31) and the
> third quarter of 1972 (July 1 to Sept. 30). President Bush's payroll
> records for these two quarters were among the records destroyed.
> Searches for backup paper copies of the missing records were
> unsuccessful."
>
> Mr. Talbott's office would not respond to questions, saying that
> further information could be provided only through another Freedom of
> Information application.
>
> But Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for Defense finance agency in Denver,
> said the destruction occurred as the office was trying to unspool
> 2,000-foot rolls of fragile microfilm. Mr. Hubbard said he did not
> know how many records were lost or why the loss had not been announced
> before.
>
> For Mr. Bush, the 1969 period when he was training to be a pilot, is
> not in dispute. But in May 1972, he moved to Alabama to work on a
> political campaign and, he has said, to perform his Guard service
> there for a year. But other Guard officers have said they had no
> recollection of ever seeing him there. The most evidence the White
> House has been able to find are records showing Mr. Bush was paid for
> six days in October and November 1972, without saying where, and the
> record of a dental exam at a Montgomery, Ala., air base on Jan. 6,
> 1973.
>
> On June 22, The Associated Press filed suit in federal court in New
> York against the Pentagon and the Air Force to gain access to all the
> president's military records.
>
> The lost payroll records stored in Denver might have answered some
> questions about whether he fulfilled his legal commitment, critics who
> have written about the subject said in interviews.
>
> "Those are records we've all been interested in," said James Moore,
> author of a recent book, "Bush's War for Re-election," which takes a
> critical view of Mr. Bush's service record. "I think it's curious that
> the microfiche could resolve what days Mr. Bush worked and what days
> he was paid, and suddenly that is gone."
>
> But Mr. Moore said the president could still authorize the release of
> other withheld records that would shed light on his service record.
>
> Among the issues still disputed is why, according to released records,
> Mr. Bush was suspended from flying on Aug. 1, 1972. The reason cited
> in the records is "failure to accomplish annual medical examination."
>
> Mr. Bartlett, the White House spokesman, said in February that Mr.
> Bush felt he did not need to take the physical as he was no longer
> flying planes in Alabama. Mr. Lloyd, the retired colonel who studied
> the records, gave a similar explanation in an interview.
>
> But Mr. Lloyd said he was surprised to be told of the destruction of
> the pay records that might have resolved some questions.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/campaign/09records.html

July 10th 04, 09:23 PM

so you are calling the US Military stupid?

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com

"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> (Mike Weeks) wrote in message
>...
> > >From: (Issac Goldberg)
> > >Date: 7/9/2004 19:48 Pacific Daylight Time
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> How?
> > >> The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
> > >> hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
> > >> "erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
> > >> could take an interest in the records just because the president
wanted
> > >> them erased.
> > >
> > >Well, here is one way to do it:
> > >
> > >July 9, 2004
> > >Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
> > >By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times
> > >
> > >HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish President
> > >Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air
> > >National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently
> > >destroyed, according to the Pentagon.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > What part of "according to the Pentagon" didn't you read?
>
> Do you believe EVERYTHING that comes out of the Pentagon?
>
> Nobody could be that stupid.

[email protected]

July 11th 04, 02:07 AM

> > What part of "according to the Pentagon" didn't you read?

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> Do you believe EVERYTHING that comes out of the Pentagon?
> Nobody could be that stupid.

Do you believe that the army, which is so slow in plenty of areas,
could destory Johnson's and/or McNamara's communications with Kidd?

Somehow, the debate with you reminds me a comment from "Hogfather"
by Terry Pratchett: "It's amazing how good governments are, given
their track record in almost every other field, at hushing up
things like alien encounters."

Issac Goldberg

July 11th 04, 05:54 PM

> wrote in message >...
> so you are calling the US Military stupid?

So you believe EVERYTHING that comes out of the Pentagon?

Hint: the Pentagon announced its intention to set up a
'disinformation' office to confuse the enemy. Should we
believe them? If so, how do we know which Pentagon
public statement is disinformation?

Hint: the neoClowns in the Pentagon (Wolfowitz, Pearl, Feith,
etc.) told us that the Iraqi people would welcome the U.S.
invasion of their country, and throw flower petals in the
path of our U.S. troops. Opps!

Goldberg, are you one of the neoClowns?

> > > >> How?
> > > >> The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
> > > >> hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
> > > >> "erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
> > > >> could take an interest in the records just because the president
> wanted
> > > >> them erased.
> > > >
> > > >Well, here is one way to do it:
> > > >
> > > >July 9, 2004
> > > >Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
> > > >By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times
> > > >
> > > >HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish President
> > > >Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air
> > > >National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently
> > > >destroyed, according to the Pentagon.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > What part of "according to the Pentagon" didn't you read?
> >
> > Do you believe EVERYTHING that comes out of the Pentagon?
> >
> > Nobody could be that stupid.

July 11th 04, 06:00 PM

Hey Goldberg.. (What's your real name?) I notice that you always post stuff
that is against Jews and Israel. why is it that you post under the "Jewish
name yet you seem to hate them all collectively? is this something you
learned at Stormfront.com Is your sole purpose in life to post these lies?

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com

"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> > wrote in message
>...
> > so you are calling the US Military stupid?
>
> So you believe EVERYTHING that comes out of the Pentagon?
>
> Hint: the Pentagon announced its intention to set up a
> 'disinformation' office to confuse the enemy. Should we
> believe them? If so, how do we know which Pentagon
> public statement is disinformation?
>
> Hint: the neoClowns in the Pentagon (Wolfowitz, Pearl, Feith,
> etc.) told us that the Iraqi people would welcome the U.S.
> invasion of their country, and throw flower petals in the
> path of our U.S. troops. Opps!
>
> Goldberg, are you one of the neoClowns?
>
> > > > >> How?
> > > > >> The command to destory the naval records would have to pass
several
> > > > >> hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
> > > > >> "erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor
that
> > > > >> could take an interest in the records just because the president
> > wanted
> > > > >> them erased.
> > > > >
> > > > >Well, here is one way to do it:
> > > > >
> > > > >July 9, 2004
> > > > >Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
> > > > >By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times
> > > > >
> > > > >HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish
President
> > > > >Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air
> > > > >National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently
> > > > >destroyed, according to the Pentagon.
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > What part of "according to the Pentagon" didn't you read?
> > >
> > > Do you believe EVERYTHING that comes out of the Pentagon?
> > >
> > > Nobody could be that stupid.

Issac Goldberg

July 11th 04, 06:47 PM

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
wrote:
>>>>>How?
>>>>>The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
>>>>>hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
>>>>>"erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
>>>>>could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
>>>>>them erased.

Well, here is one way to do it:

July 9, 2004
Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times

HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish President
Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air
National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently
destroyed, according to the Pentagon.

It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage
deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it
added in notices dated June 25.

The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973
when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.

The disclosure appeared to catch some experts, both pro-Bush and con,
by surprise. Even the retired lieutenant colonel who studied Mr.
Bush's records for the White House, Albert C. Lloyd of Austin, said it
came as news to him.

The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom
of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times
and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought
Mr. Bush's complete service file under the open-records law.

There was no mention of the loss, for example, when White House
officials released hundreds of pages of the President's military
records last February in an effort to stem Democratic accusations that
he was "AWOL" for a time during his commitment to fly at home in the
Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director who has said
that the released records confirmed the president's fulfillment of his
National Guard commitment, did not return two calls for a response.

The disclosure that the payroll records had been destroyed came in a
letter signed by C. Y. Talbott, chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of
Information Office, who forwarded a CD-Rom of hundreds of records that
Mr. Bush has previously released, along with images of punch-card
records. Sixty pages of Mr. Bush's medical file and some other records
were excluded on privacy grounds, Mr. Talbott wrote.

He said in the letter that he could not provide complete payroll
records, explaining, "The Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) has advised of the inadvertent destruction of microfilm
containing certain National Guard payroll records."

He went on: "In 1996 and 1997, DFAS engaged with limited success in a
project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. During this process the
microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged,
including from the first quarter of 1969 (Jan. 1 to March 31) and the
third quarter of 1972 (July 1 to Sept. 30). President Bush's payroll
records for these two quarters were among the records destroyed.
Searches for backup paper copies of the missing records were
unsuccessful."

Mr. Talbott's office would not respond to questions, saying that
further information could be provided only through another Freedom of
Information application.

But Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for Defense finance agency in Denver,
said the destruction occurred as the office was trying to unspool
2,000-foot rolls of fragile microfilm. Mr. Hubbard said he did not
know how many records were lost or why the loss had not been announced
before.

For Mr. Bush, the 1969 period when he was training to be a pilot, is
not in dispute. But in May 1972, he moved to Alabama to work on a
political campaign and, he has said, to perform his Guard service
there for a year. But other Guard officers have said they had no
recollection of ever seeing him there. The most evidence the White
House has been able to find are records showing Mr. Bush was paid for
six days in October and November 1972, without saying where, and the
record of a dental exam at a Montgomery, Ala., air base on Jan. 6,
1973.

On June 22, The Associated Press filed suit in federal court in New
York against the Pentagon and the Air Force to gain access to all the
president's military records.

The lost payroll records stored in Denver might have answered some
questions about whether he fulfilled his legal commitment, critics who
have written about the subject said in interviews.

"Those are records we've all been interested in," said James Moore,
author of a recent book, "Bush's War for Re-election," which takes a
critical view of Mr. Bush's service record. "I think it's curious that
the microfiche could resolve what days Mr. Bush worked and what days
he was paid, and suddenly that is gone."

But Mr. Moore said the president could still authorize the release of
other withheld records that would shed light on his service record.

Among the issues still disputed is why, according to released records,
Mr. Bush was suspended from flying on Aug. 1, 1972. The reason cited
in the records is "failure to accomplish annual medical examination."

Mr. Bartlett, the White House spokesman, said in February that Mr.
Bush felt he did not need to take the physical as he was no longer
flying planes in Alabama. Mr. Lloyd, the retired colonel who studied
the records, gave a similar explanation in an interview.

But Mr. Lloyd said he was surprised to be told of the destruction of
the pay records that might have resolved some questions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/campaign/09records.html

>>>You can run such a story on 25 years old records, and 25 days old records.
>>
>>You asked, "How?" And I provided you with one real life example.
>
>Ah clueless -- this came FROM the Pentagon; not some deep buried "deep throat"
>saying "hey press, psst -- check out ..."

Ah, again with the name calling. Weeks is so insecure with his
arguments that he now includes either name calling, insults, or
character assassination in each of his posts on this topic. How
typical. I guess that is what he needs to do since his factual
arguments are so weak.

As to the example I gave, it seems awful convenient that
records which might have shown President Bush was AWOL
(or not) have been destroyed.

If Bush can order the Department of Defense to destroy
records which show that he was AWOL, then it supports
my argument that another President (LBJ) can have
records concerning the Liberty attack destroyed. So what
if the two examples are not identical in every detail?

We are still waiting, Weeks, for you to tell us which
Congressional committee held hearings on the subject of
whether the attack on the Liberty was an accident. Or do
you agree that you and Cristol have lost all credibility
by implying that there was such an investigation?

And Weeks, when are you going to tell us about all of the
'arrogant jet jockeys' you had to deal with?

Issac Goldberg

July 12th 04, 02:26 AM

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> >"Stanley" > wrote:
>
> >> As pointed out to you, the Israeli government did apologize.
> >Senator Hickenlooper: The public is thoroughly dissatisfied
> >with the situation [regarding the response to the attack on
> >the USS Liberty]. I don't know. It is the seemingly cavalier
> >attitude expressed by Israel in some ways apparently accepted
> >by us on a very tragic situation. I think there is utterly no
> >excuse for it.
>In case the light hasn't gone on, Senator Hickenlooper didn't speak for the
>public ...
>
> MW

So, according to Weeks, United States Senators who are elected
do not speak 'for the public.' It must be that only the omniscient
Weeks can speak for the public, since he knows all, and sees all.

Issac Goldberg

July 12th 04, 11:42 AM

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> Once again repeating ...
> >July 9, 2004
> >Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
> >By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times
> ...
> So it's only fair ...
> Ah clueless -- this came FROM the Pentagon; not some deep buried "deep throat"
> saying "hey press, psst -- check out ..."
> So to close out, once again: "Do not worry, remember the absence of evidence
> for a conspiracy is proof there were two conspiracies, the second to cover up
> the first."
> MW

Weeks, having been exposed as a fraud for being unable
to name the Congressional Committee which he alleges
held an investigation to determine whether the attack
on the Liberty was intentional or not, is reduced to
repeating himself. This is not unusual for Weeks,
since normal logic shows he is on the losing
side of this argument. Weeks believes that if he uses
enough insults, name calling, character assassination,
and repeating the same failed arguments, that somehow
people will miss the fact that he and Cristol have
totally discredited themselves.

So we again ask Weeks to tell us which Congressional
committee held hearings and investigated the question
of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional
or not. And we know the Weeks cannot answer because
there were no hearings by a Congressional committee
on this question.

Issac Goldberg

July 12th 04, 12:03 PM

> wrote in message >...
> Hey Goldberg.. (What's your real name?) I notice that you always post stuff
> that is against Jews and Israel. why is it that you post under the "Jewish
> name yet you seem to hate them all collectively? is this something you
> learned at Stormfront.com Is your sole purpose in life to post these lies?

The sad fact is that the Zionist movement was hijacked by
terrorists in organizations like Irgun (whose bombing of
the King David Hotel resulted in the deaths of a dozen
Jews) and the Stern gang (which was responsible for the
assassination of the mediator from the United Nations,
Count Fouke Bernadotte). The leaders of the same
terrorist organizations, Begin and Shamir, both became Prime
Minister of Israel. Maybe this is why Palestinians turn
to terrorism, because Zionist terrorists demonstrated that
terrorism works.

> > So you believe EVERYTHING that comes out of the Pentagon?
> >
> > Hint: the Pentagon announced its intention to set up a
> > 'disinformation' office to confuse the enemy. Should we
> > believe them? If so, how do we know which Pentagon
> > public statement is disinformation?
> >
> > Hint: the neoClowns in the Pentagon (Wolfowitz, Pearl, Feith,
> > etc.) told us that the Iraqi people would welcome the U.S.
> > invasion of their country, and throw flower petals in the
> > path of our U.S. troops. Opps!
> >
> > Goldberg, are you one of the neoClowns?
> >
> > > > > >> How?
> > > > > >> The command to destory the naval records would have to pass
> several
> > > > > >> hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
> > > > > >> "erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor
> that
> > > > > >> could take an interest in the records just because the president
> wanted
> > > > > >> them erased.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Well, here is one way to do it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >July 9, 2004
> > > > > >Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
> > > > > >By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times
> > > > > >
> > > > > >HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish
> President
> > > > > >Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air
> > > > > >National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently
> > > > > >destroyed, according to the Pentagon.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > What part of "according to the Pentagon" didn't you read?
> > > >
> > > > Do you believe EVERYTHING that comes out of the Pentagon?
> > > >
> > > > Nobody could be that stupid.

Jeffrey Krantz

July 12th 04, 12:24 PM

It occured to me: why are the anti Israelies not bitching and moaning so
loudly about the USS Cole??
"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote in message
>...
> > > > How?
> > > > The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
> > > > hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
> > > > "erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor
that
> > > > could take an interest in the records just because the president
wanted
> > > > them erased.
> >
> > (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message
>...
> > > Well, here is one way to do it:
> > >
> > > July 9, 2004
> > > Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
> > > By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times
> > >
> > > It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
> > > former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense
> > > Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage
> > > deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it
> > > added in notices dated June 25.
> >
> > You can run such a story on 25 years old records, and 25 days old
records.
>
> You asked, "How?" And I provided you with one real life example.
> LBJ could have used a similar method to have evidence destroyed in
> the case of the USS Liberty attack.
>
> > Besides, in 1997 Bush was not the president,
> > so the interest in him was much lower.
>
> Funny, when Bush released some of his records a number of months
> ago, nothing was said of the destroyed records. Perhaps they
> were not destroyed in 1997, but more recently? When you are
> president, everybody is eager to follow your direct orders,
> apparently, even if the orders may be illegal. It would take
> a real suicidal personality to disobey a direct order from
> the President of the United States. They say, "you can't
> fight City Hall." In this case, it would be "you can't fight
> the White House."

July 13th 04, 12:43 AM

Nice side step .As usual you avoid the question with more garbage.

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com

"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> > wrote in message
>...
> > Hey Goldberg.. (What's your real name?) I notice that you always post
stuff
> > that is against Jews and Israel. why is it that you post under the
"Jewish
> > name yet you seem to hate them all collectively? is this something you
> > learned at Stormfront.com Is your sole purpose in life to post these
lies?
>
> The sad fact is that the Zionist movement was hijacked by
> terrorists in organizations like Irgun (whose bombing of
> the King David Hotel resulted in the deaths of a dozen
> Jews) and the Stern gang (which was responsible for the
> assassination of the mediator from the United Nations,
> Count Fouke Bernadotte). The leaders of the same
> terrorist organizations, Begin and Shamir, both became Prime
> Minister of Israel. Maybe this is why Palestinians turn
> to terrorism, because Zionist terrorists demonstrated that
> terrorism works.
>
> > > So you believe EVERYTHING that comes out of the Pentagon?
> > >
> > > Hint: the Pentagon announced its intention to set up a
> > > 'disinformation' office to confuse the enemy. Should we
> > > believe them? If so, how do we know which Pentagon
> > > public statement is disinformation?
> > >
> > > Hint: the neoClowns in the Pentagon (Wolfowitz, Pearl, Feith,
> > > etc.) told us that the Iraqi people would welcome the U.S.
> > > invasion of their country, and throw flower petals in the
> > > path of our U.S. troops. Opps!
> > >
> > > Goldberg, are you one of the neoClowns?
> > >
> > > > > > >> How?
> > > > > > >> The command to destory the naval records would have to pass
> > several
> > > > > > >> hands between the president and the corporal that would press
the
> > > > > > >> "erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk
factor
> > that
> > > > > > >> could take an interest in the records just because the
president
> > wanted
> > > > > > >> them erased.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Well, here is one way to do it:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >July 9, 2004
> > > > > > >Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
> > > > > > >By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish
> > President
> > > > > > >Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air
> > > > > > >National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently
> > > > > > >destroyed, according to the Pentagon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What part of "according to the Pentagon" didn't you read?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you believe EVERYTHING that comes out of the Pentagon?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nobody could be that stupid.

July 13th 04, 12:52 AM

Cause we Jews didn't do it!!

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com

"Jeffrey Krantz" > wrote in message
...
> It occured to me: why are the anti Israelies not bitching and moaning so
> loudly about the USS Cole??
> "Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
> om...
> > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > How?
> > > > > The command to destory the naval records would have to pass
several
> > > > > hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
> > > > > "erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor
> that
> > > > > could take an interest in the records just because the president
> wanted
> > > > > them erased.
> > >
> > > (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message
> >...
> > > > Well, here is one way to do it:
> > > >
> > > > July 9, 2004
> > > > Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
> > > > By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times
> > > >
> > > > It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
> > > > former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the
Defense
> > > > Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage
> > > > deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it
> > > > added in notices dated June 25.
> > >
> > > You can run such a story on 25 years old records, and 25 days old
> records.
> >
> > You asked, "How?" And I provided you with one real life example.
> > LBJ could have used a similar method to have evidence destroyed in
> > the case of the USS Liberty attack.
> >
> > > Besides, in 1997 Bush was not the president,
> > > so the interest in him was much lower.
> >
> > Funny, when Bush released some of his records a number of months
> > ago, nothing was said of the destroyed records. Perhaps they
> > were not destroyed in 1997, but more recently? When you are
> > president, everybody is eager to follow your direct orders,
> > apparently, even if the orders may be illegal. It would take
> > a real suicidal personality to disobey a direct order from
> > the President of the United States. They say, "you can't
> > fight City Hall." In this case, it would be "you can't fight
> > the White House."
>
>

Steve Richter

July 13th 04, 01:07 AM

"Jeffrey Krantz" > wrote in message >...
> It occured to me: why are the anti Israelies not bitching and moaning so
> loudly about the USS Cole??

Why will Israel not release crucial information about the attack?

Who in the IAF knew the USS Liberty had been identified as an American
spy ship the morning of 8 June?

The repeated overflights of the Liberty, who was flying those planes,
what did they report to the IAF controllers?

The airborne radar some say was used at attack time to guide the
initial attack jets to their target, was it also used to track the
Liberty during the morning hours of 8 June?

Were IAF CDR Hod and IDF COS Rabin told of the american spy ship the
morning of 8 June?

Why has Israel refused to release the detailed testimony of its
aftermath investigations?

In the Nowicki document there are clearly two distinct mentions of the
American flag by the Israelis in the intercepted conversations. Yet
in the released NSA intercept tapes, there is only one time when the
flag is mentioned. What would the Israeli attackers have been talking
about in that earlier conversation reported by Nowicki when they
mention the American flag? ( that first mention, an est 50 minutes
before the 2nd, is what caught the airborne NSA crew's attention to
the attack )

-Steve

Jeffrey Krantz

July 13th 04, 07:21 AM

why dont you bitch and moan about the USS Cole???
"Steve Richter" > wrote in message
m...
> "Jeffrey Krantz" > wrote in message
>...
> > It occured to me: why are the anti Israelies not bitching and moaning so
> > loudly about the USS Cole??
>
> Why will Israel not release crucial information about the attack?
>
> Who in the IAF knew the USS Liberty had been identified as an American
> spy ship the morning of 8 June?
>
> The repeated overflights of the Liberty, who was flying those planes,
> what did they report to the IAF controllers?
>
> The airborne radar some say was used at attack time to guide the
> initial attack jets to their target, was it also used to track the
> Liberty during the morning hours of 8 June?
>
> Were IAF CDR Hod and IDF COS Rabin told of the american spy ship the
> morning of 8 June?
>
> Why has Israel refused to release the detailed testimony of its
> aftermath investigations?
>
> In the Nowicki document there are clearly two distinct mentions of the
> American flag by the Israelis in the intercepted conversations. Yet
> in the released NSA intercept tapes, there is only one time when the
> flag is mentioned. What would the Israeli attackers have been talking
> about in that earlier conversation reported by Nowicki when they
> mention the American flag? ( that first mention, an est 50 minutes
> before the 2nd, is what caught the airborne NSA crew's attention to
> the attack )
>
> -Steve

Jim Watt

July 13th 04, 09:24 AM

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 06:21:21 GMT, "Jeffrey Krantz" >
wrote:

>why dont you bitch and moan about the USS Cole???

Its sub judice

--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

Issac Goldberg

July 13th 04, 05:13 PM

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> >> >Senator Hickenlooper: The public is thoroughly dissatisfied
> >> >with the situation [regarding the response to the attack on
> >> >the USS Liberty]. I don't know. It is the seemingly cavalier
> >> >attitude expressed by Israel in some ways apparently accepted
> >> >by us on a very tragic situation. I think there is utterly no
> >> >excuse for it.
> >>In case the light hasn't gone on, Senator Hickenlooper didn't speak for the
> >>public ...
> >So, according to Weeks, United States Senators who are elected
> >do not speak 'for the public.'

> Senator Hickenlooper was speaking for himself when he
> expressed his opinion regarding the "public's reaction." Period.

Elected officials whose statements do not agree with
public opinion often become 'former elected officials'
after their next election.

> Besides, his opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with the established fact
> that Israel did in fact apologize ...

The point is that the apology lacked sincerity.

As for Senator Hickenlooper's claim that "the cavalier
attitude expressed by Israel [is] in some ways apparently
accepted by us on a very tragic situation," LBJ's continued
inability to accurately give the correct casualty figures
could accurately be described as part of that cavalier
attitude. In his autobiography "The Vantage Point," he
continues to understate how many Americans died in the
Israeli attack on the Liberty.

This is another example of LBJ's willingness to lie, like
his repeated lies about sending U.S. ground troops to
Vietnam. During the 1964 presidential election, Johnson,
the 'peace' candidate, said, "I'm not going to send
American boys to do the job that the Vietnamese boys
should be doing." The Pentagon Papers reveal that
Johnson had already made the decision to send ground
troops, he was just waiting until after his 1964
reelection to implement his decision.

Steve Richter

July 13th 04, 07:25 PM

"Jeffrey Krantz" > wrote in message >...
> why dont you bitch and moan about the USS Cole???

The Cole was attacked by enemies of the US. Is that the how the
attack on the Liberty should be considered? Does Israel treat all
foreigners like they are palestinians? Why will it not release basic
information about the attack it says was accidental?

> "Steve Richter" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Jeffrey Krantz" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > It occured to me: why are the anti Israelies not bitching and moaning so
> > > loudly about the USS Cole??
> >
> > Why will Israel not release crucial information about the attack?
> >
> > Who in the IAF knew the USS Liberty had been identified as an American
> > spy ship the morning of 8 June?
> >
> > The repeated overflights of the Liberty, who was flying those planes,
> > what did they report to the IAF controllers?
> >
> > The airborne radar some say was used at attack time to guide the
> > initial attack jets to their target, was it also used to track the
> > Liberty during the morning hours of 8 June?
> >
> > Were IAF CDR Hod and IDF COS Rabin told of the american spy ship the
> > morning of 8 June?
> >
> > Why has Israel refused to release the detailed testimony of its
> > aftermath investigations?
> >
> > In the Nowicki document there are clearly two distinct mentions of the
> > American flag by the Israelis in the intercepted conversations. Yet
> > in the released NSA intercept tapes, there is only one time when the
> > flag is mentioned. What would the Israeli attackers have been talking
> > about in that earlier conversation reported by Nowicki when they
> > mention the American flag? ( that first mention, an est 50 minutes
> > before the 2nd, is what caught the airborne NSA crew's attention to
> > the attack )
> >
> > -Steve

July 14th 04, 12:36 AM

the COLE happened in a port that was considered safe. hence the refueling
depot.

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com

"Steve Richter" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jeffrey Krantz" > wrote in message
>...
> > why dont you bitch and moan about the USS Cole???
>
> The Cole was attacked by enemies of the US. Is that the how the
> attack on the Liberty should be considered? Does Israel treat all
> foreigners like they are palestinians? Why will it not release basic
> information about the attack it says was accidental?
>
> > "Steve Richter" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "Jeffrey Krantz" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > It occured to me: why are the anti Israelies not bitching and
moaning so
> > > > loudly about the USS Cole??
> > >
> > > Why will Israel not release crucial information about the attack?
> > >
> > > Who in the IAF knew the USS Liberty had been identified as an American
> > > spy ship the morning of 8 June?
> > >
> > > The repeated overflights of the Liberty, who was flying those planes,
> > > what did they report to the IAF controllers?
> > >
> > > The airborne radar some say was used at attack time to guide the
> > > initial attack jets to their target, was it also used to track the
> > > Liberty during the morning hours of 8 June?
> > >
> > > Were IAF CDR Hod and IDF COS Rabin told of the american spy ship the
> > > morning of 8 June?
> > >
> > > Why has Israel refused to release the detailed testimony of its
> > > aftermath investigations?
> > >
> > > In the Nowicki document there are clearly two distinct mentions of the
> > > American flag by the Israelis in the intercepted conversations. Yet
> > > in the released NSA intercept tapes, there is only one time when the
> > > flag is mentioned. What would the Israeli attackers have been talking
> > > about in that earlier conversation reported by Nowicki when they
> > > mention the American flag? ( that first mention, an est 50 minutes
> > > before the 2nd, is what caught the airborne NSA crew's attention to
> > > the attack )
> > >
> > > -Steve

Issac Goldberg

July 14th 04, 01:41 AM

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:

> >> Besides, his opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with the established fact
> >> that Israel did in fact apologize ...
> >
> >The point is that the apology lacked sincerity.
>
> And that's just simply an opinion, nothing more, and in anycase not the subject
> of the original claim as posted, and certainly not the opinion of the US
> officials who accepted the apology ...

You are wrong (as usual), and you deleted the reason you
are wrong (how typical).

So here it is again:

"As for Senator Hickenlooper's claim that "the cavalier
attitude expressed by Israel [is] in some ways apparently
accepted by us on a very tragic situation," LBJ's continued
inability to accurately give the correct casualty figures
could accurately be described as part of that cavalier
attitude. In his autobiography "The Vantage Point," he
continues to understate how many Americans died in the
Israeli attack on the Liberty."

Johnson's failure to get even the basic facts of
the Liberty attack correct in his autobiography
certainly shows a "cavalier attitude." Why is this
so?

And when are you going to tell us which Congressional
committee conducted a full scale investigation into
whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional
or an accident? Since there was no such investigation,
it proves what a fraud Cristol is and what a fraud
Weeks is.

Issac Goldberg

July 14th 04, 04:46 PM

> wrote in message >...
> Cause we Jews didn't do it!!

I didn't do it!! -Bart Simpson

July 14th 04, 06:03 PM

Referring to the Cole ass hole
but then you still refuse to tell us your real name.

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com

"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> > wrote in message
>...
> > Cause we Jews didn't do it!!
>
> I didn't do it!! -Bart Simpson

Issac Goldberg

July 15th 04, 03:52 AM

> wrote in message >...
> Referring to the Cole ass hole
> but then you still refuse to tell us your real name.

In case you missed it, this thread concerns the USS Liberty.
You must have gotten confused, which seems to be a regular
occurrence for you. If you look at the 'Subject' line at the
top, that should help you keep track of which topic is being
discussed.

Also, you may want to leave out the obscenities. They indicate
that you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

Issac Goldberg

July 15th 04, 04:17 AM

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> >Try reading the three volumes of Caro's LBJ biography,
>
> Why?

To improve your rather limited knowledge of LBJ's background?

> There appears to be a disagreement as to how much stock one should place
> in what Caro writes in anycase.

There was no disagreement as to who won the Pulitzer prize for
biography last year. It was Robert Caro. And it was for his book
"Master of the Senate," the third volume of his LBJ biography.

> <start>
> [author] Rbt. Dallek: You know I'm writing this two-volume biography [on LBJ],
> and--
> McNamara: I'm glad somebody other than [Robert] Caro is writing it. ...
> ...
> D: He was important to this country. I feel I'm a special advocate because,
> after all, I have a certain rivalry with Caro, so it's hard for me to be
> objective. But I've found his work to be so biased and overblown. It seems to
> me that you don't have to gild the lily if you want to put Lyndon Johnson in a
> bad light; there is plenty there that can speak for itself, and plenty of
> positive there that speaks for itself. But he is so inclined to beat on him
> unmercifully.
> M: He blew up Governor Coke Stevenson as a saint, which is absurd.
> D: There was a review of his book in the _St. Louis Post-Dispatch_ which said,
> "It takes the Catholic Church three hundred years to beatify a saint, but Caro
> did it to Coke Stevenson in one chapter."
> (Laughter)
> <end>
> From the LBJ Library; interview of McNamara - March 26, 1993.
> MW

So what? Next you're going to tell us that LBJ was a saint.

July 15th 04, 08:18 PM

ROFLOL there was a question referring to the Liberty in it but you ignore it
like everything else.
again the question is Why do they not bitch about the Cole bombing like they
do the liberty's. now answer the question ass clown

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com

"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> > wrote in message
>...
> > Referring to the Cole ass hole
> > but then you still refuse to tell us your real name.
>
> In case you missed it, this thread concerns the USS Liberty.
> You must have gotten confused, which seems to be a regular
> occurrence for you. If you look at the 'Subject' line at the
> top, that should help you keep track of which topic is being
> discussed.
>
> Also, you may want to leave out the obscenities. They indicate
> that you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

Jim Watt

July 15th 04, 10:41 PM

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:18:17 -0400, > wrote:

>Why do they not bitch about the Cole bombing like they
>do the liberty's. now answer the question ass clown

Well king of the ass clowns the answer is obvious, the
people responsible for the Cole attack are either dead
or currently being prosecuted.

Don't you read the news?

--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

Norma

July 15th 04, 11:51 PM

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:18:17 -0400, > wrote:
>
> >Why do they not bitch about the Cole bombing like they
> >do the liberty's. now answer the question ass clown
>
> Well king of the ass clowns the answer is obvious, the
> people responsible for the Cole attack are either dead
> or currently being prosecuted.
>
> Don't you read the news?

Where is Mr. Osama being tried? That isn't true. The situations are so
different that I wonder why this comes up so cyclically. Amazing. But it
is nice to see Mike Weeks name occasionally. Norma

>
>
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

Jim Watt

July 16th 04, 01:09 AM

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:51:20 -0600, "Norma" >
wrote:

>
>"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:18:17 -0400, > wrote:
>>
>> >Why do they not bitch about the Cole bombing like they
>> >do the liberty's. now answer the question ass clown
>>
>> Well king of the ass clowns the answer is obvious, the
>> people responsible for the Cole attack are either dead
>> or currently being prosecuted.
>>
>> Don't you read the news?
>
>Where is Mr. Osama being tried? That isn't true. The situations are so
>different that I wonder why this comes up so cyclically. Amazing. But it
>is nice to see Mike Weeks name occasionally. Norma

I posted this news item 08/07/04

Six charged over USS Cole

Six militants were charged with the October 2000 bombing of the
American destroyer Cole which killed 17 sailors in the Yemeni port of
Aden.

The men, including the main suspect, Abdel Rahim al-Nashiri, who is
being tried in his absence because he is in US custody, were also
accused of being members of al-Qa'eda.

--

Interestingly enough if you look on the FBI website they do not
specifically mention Osama (Usama) in connection with the Cole,
or indeed the WTC although they now add a catch-all.

http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terubl.htm

However, all of this although interesting in itself is digression
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

[email protected]

July 16th 04, 09:02 AM

Jim Watt > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:51:20 -0600, "Norma" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:18:17 -0400, > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why do they not bitch about the Cole bombing like they
> >> >do the liberty's. now answer the question ass clown
> >>
> >> Well king of the ass clowns the answer is obvious, the
> >> people responsible for the Cole attack are either dead
> >> or currently being prosecuted.
> >>
> >> Don't you read the news?
> >
> >Where is Mr. Osama being tried? That isn't true. The situations are so
> >different that I wonder why this comes up so cyclically. Amazing. But it
> >is nice to see Mike Weeks name occasionally. Norma
>
> I posted this news item 08/07/04
>
> Six charged over USS Cole
>
> Six militants were charged with the October 2000 bombing of the
> American destroyer Cole which killed 17 sailors in the Yemeni port of
> Aden.
>
> The men, including the main suspect, Abdel Rahim al-Nashiri, who is
> being tried in his absence because he is in US custody, were also
> accused of being members of al-Qa'eda.
>
> --
>
> Interestingly enough if you look on the FBI website they do not
> specifically mention Osama (Usama) in connection with the Cole,
> or indeed the WTC although they now add a catch-all.
>
> http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terubl.htm
>
> However, all of this although interesting in itself is digression

Interestingly enough, Osama was there in Yemen when it happened.
There was a marriage occuring to insure some kind of alliance, but he
was not blamed directly. That is a coincidence, isn't it? Norma

July 16th 04, 09:45 AM

***Special CONFIRMED Report. ****Assassins; who put Al-Qaeda to Shame.
The Number three most powerful man , after Dick Cheney & G.W. BUSH .

ALL Ariel Sharon's servants , Thugs & Mruderers.

Karl ROVE & Ariel Sharon banking on their Syrian killers & Murdereres &
Special Syrian Assassins of Assef Shawkat & Roustom Ghazali .

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/052104Madsen/052104madsen.html

Karl Rove's White House " Murder, Inc."

By Wayne Madsen .
Online Journal Contributing Writer .

JULY, 2004- On September 15, 2001, just four days after the 9-11 attacks,
CIA Director George Tenet provided President [sic] Bush with a Top Secret
"Worldwide Attack Matrix"-a virtual license to kill targets deemed to be a
threat to the United States in some 80 countries around the world. The Tenet
plan, which was subsequently approved by Bush, essentially reversed the
executive orders of four previous U.S. administrations that expressly
prohibited political assassinations.

According to high level European intelligence officials, Bush's counselor,
Karl Rove, used the new presidential authority to silence a popular Lebanese
Christian politician who was planning to offer irrefutable evidence that
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorized the massacre of hundreds of
Palestinian men, women, and children in the Beirut refugee camps of Sabra
and Shatilla in 1982. In addition, Sharon provided the Lebanese forces who
carried out the grisly task. At the time of the massacres, Elie Hobeika was
intelligence chief of Lebanese Christian forces in Lebanon who were battling
Palestinians and other Muslim groups in a bloody civil war. He was also the
chief liaison to Israeli Defense Force (IDF) personnel in Lebanon. An
official Israeli inquiry into the massacre at the camps, the Kahan
Commission, merely found Sharon "indirectly" responsible for the slaughter
and fingered Hobeika as the chief instigator.

The Kahan Commission never called on Hobeika to offer testimony in his
defense. However, in response to charges brought against Sharon before a
special war crimes court in Belgium, Hobeika was urged to testify against
Sharon, according to well-informed Lebanese sources. Hobeika was prepared to
offer a different version of events than what was contained in the Kahan
report. A 1993 Belgian law permitting human rights prosecutions was unusual
in that non-Belgians could be tried for violations against other
non-Belgians in a Belgian court. Under pressure from the Bush
administration, the law was severely amended and the extra territoriality
provisions were curtailed.

Hobeika headed the Lebanese forces intelligence agency since the mid- 1970s
and he soon developed close ties to the CIA. He was a frequent visitor to
the CIA's headquarters at Langley, Virginia. After the Syrian invasion of
Lebanon in 1990, Hobeika held a number of cabinet positions in the Lebanese
government, a proxy for the Syrian occupation authorities. He also served in
the parliament. In July 2001, Hobeika called a press conference and
announced he was prepared to testify against Sharon in Belgium and revealed
that he had evidence of what actually occurred in Sabra and Shatilla.
Hobeika also indicated that Israel had flown members of the South Lebanon
Army (SLA) into Beirut International Airport in an Israeli Air Force C130
transport plane. In full view of dozens of witnesses, including members of
the Lebanese army and others, SLA troops under the command of Major Saad
Haddad were slipped into the camps to commit the massacres. The SLA troops
were under the direct command of Ariel Sharon and an Israeli Mossad agent
provocateur named Rafi Eitan. Hobeika offered evidence that a former U.S.
ambassador to Lebanon was aware of the Israeli plot. In addition, the IDF
had placed a camera in a strategic position to film the Sabra and Shatilla
massacres. Hobeika was going to ask that the footage be released as part of
the investigation of Sharon.

After announcing he was willing to testify against Sharon, Hobeika became
fearful for his safety and began moves to leave Lebanon. Hobeika was not
aware that his threats to testify against Sharon had triggered a series of
fateful events that reached well into the White House and Sharon's office.

On January 24, 2002, Hobeika's car was blown up by a remote controlled bomb
placed in a parked Mercedes along a street in the Hazmieh section of Beirut.
The bomb exploded when Hobeika and his three associates, Fares Souweidan,
Mitri Ajram, and Waleed Zein, were driving their Range Rover past the
TNT-laden Mercedes at 9:40 am Beirut time. The Range Rover's four passengers
were killed in the explosion. In case Hobeika's car had taken another route
through the neighborhood, two additional parked cars, located at two other
choke points, were also rigged with TNT. The powerful bomb wounded a number
of other people on the street. Other parked cars were destroyed and
buildings and homes were damaged. The Lebanese president, prime minister,
and interior minister all claimed that Israeli agents were behind the
attack.

It is noteworthy that the State Department's list of global terrorist
incidents for 2002 worldwide failed to list the car bombing attack on
Hobeika and his party. The White House wanted to ensure the attack was
censored from the report. The reason was simple: the attack ultimately had
Washington's fingerprints on it.

High level European intelligence sources now report that Karl Rove
personally coordinated Hobeika's assassination. The hit on Hobeika employed
Syrian intelligence agents. Syrian President Bashar Assad was trying to
curry favor with the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9-11 and was
more than willing to help the White House. In addition, Assad's father,
Hafez Assad, had been an ally of Bush's father during Desert Storm, a period
that saw Washington give a "wink and a nod" to Syria's occupation of
Lebanon. Rove wanted to help Sharon avoid any political embarrassment from
an in absentia trial in Brussels where Hobeika would be a star witness. Rove
and Sharon agreed on the plan to use Syrian Military Intelligence agents to
assassinate Hobeika. Rove saw Sharon as an indispensable ally of Bush in
ensuring the loyalty of the Christian evangelical and Jewish voting blocs in
the United States. Sharon saw the plan to have the United States coordinate
the hit as a way to mask all connections to Jerusalem.

The Syrian hit team was ordered by Assef Shawkat, the number two man in
Syrian military intelligence and a good friend and brother in law of Syrian
President Bashar Assad. Assad's intelligence services had already cooperated
with U.S. intelligence in resorting to unconventional methods to extract
information from al Qaeda detainees deported to Syria from the United States
and other countries in the wake of 9-11. The order to take out Hobeika was
transmitted by Shawkat to Roustom Ghazali, the head of Syrian military
intelligence in Beirut. Ghazali arranged for the three remote controlled
cars to be parked along Hobeika's route in Hazmieh; only few hundred yards
from the Barracks of Syrian Special Forces which are stationed in the area
near the Presidential palace , the ministry of Defense and various
Government and officers quarters . This particular area is covered 24/7 by a
very sophisticated USA multi-agency surveillance system to monitor Syrian
and Lebanese security activities and is a " Choice " area to live in for its
perceived high security .

The plan to kill Hobeika had all the necessary caveats and built-in denial
mechanisms. If the Syrians were discovered beforehand or afterwards, Karl
Rove and his associates in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans would be
ensured plausible deniability.

Hobeika's CIA intermediary in Beirut, a man only referred to as "Jason" by
Hobeika, was a frequent companion of the Lebanese politician during official
and off-duty hours. During Hobeika's election campaigns for his
parliamentary seat, Jason was often in Hobeika's office offering support and
advice. After Hobeika's assassination, Jason became despondent over the
death of his colleague. Eventually, Jason disappeared abruptly from Lebanon
and reportedly later emerged in Pakistan.

Karl Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika may not have been
the last "hit" he ordered to help out Sharon. In March 2002, a few months
after Hobeika's assassination, another Lebanese Christian with knowledge of
Sharon's involvement in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres was gunned down
along with his wife in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A bullet fired at Michael Nassar's
car flattened one of his tires. Nassar pulled into a gasoline station for
repairs. A professional assassin, firing a gun with a silencer, shot Nassar
and his wife in the head, killing them both instantly. The assailant fled
and was never captured. Nassar was also involved with the Phalange militia
at Sabra and Shatilla. Nassar was also reportedly willing to testify against
Sharon in Belgium and, as a nephew of SLA Commander General Antoine Lahd,
may have had important evidence to bolster Hobeika's charge that Sharon
ordered SLA forces into the camps to wipe out the Palestinians.

Based on what European intelligence claims is concrete intelligence on
Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika, the Bush administration
can now add political assassination to its laundry list of other misdeeds,
from lying about the reasons to go to war to the torture tactics in
violation of the Geneva Conventions that have been employed by the Pentagon
and "third country" nationals at prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and
columnist. He served in the National Security Agency (NSA) during the Reagan
administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the
co-author, with John Stanton, of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of
George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil,
Black Ops, and Brass Plates." Madsen can be reached at:

This is some of the evidence for you and for the World ....

~~~encrypted/logs/access ~~~

Not to mention hundreds of private companies and governments. Anyway...
Lines 10-36
of my logfiles show a lot of interest in this article:

# grep sid=1052 /encrypted/logs/access_log|awk '{print $1,$7}'|sed -n
'10,36p'

spb-213-33-248-190.sovintel.ru /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
ext1.shape.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
server1.namsa.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
ns1.saclantc.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
bxlproxyb.europarl.eu.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
wdcsun18.usdoj.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
wdcsun21.usdoj.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
tcs-gateway11.treas.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
tcs-gateway13.treas.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
relay1.ucia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
relay2.cia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
relay2.ucia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
n021.dhs.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
legion.dera.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gateway-fincen.uscg.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
crawler2.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
crawler1.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gateway101.gsi.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gate11-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gate13-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
fw1-a.osis.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
crawler13.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
fw1-b.osis.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
bouncer.nics.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
beluha.ssu.gov.ua /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
zukprxpro02.zreo.compaq.com
/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052....

To be continued ....
HOLLYWOOD FL... ATTA & Aris2chat
DENVER CO
ART STUDENTS...
MOOVERS INC.@IL

July 16th 04, 12:28 PM

More bull**** from the tin foil crowd

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com

"@" > wrote in message ...
> ***Special CONFIRMED Report. ****Assassins; who put Al-Qaeda to Shame.
> The Number three most powerful man , after Dick Cheney & G.W. BUSH .
>
> ALL Ariel Sharon's servants , Thugs & Mruderers.
>
> Karl ROVE & Ariel Sharon banking on their Syrian killers & Murdereres &
> Special Syrian Assassins of Assef Shawkat & Roustom Ghazali .
>
>
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/052104Madsen/052104madsen.html
>
>
> Karl Rove's White House " Murder, Inc."
>
> By Wayne Madsen .
> Online Journal Contributing Writer .
>
>
>
> JULY, 2004- On September 15, 2001, just four days after the 9-11
attacks,
> CIA Director George Tenet provided President [sic] Bush with a Top Secret
> "Worldwide Attack Matrix"-a virtual license to kill targets deemed to be a
> threat to the United States in some 80 countries around the world. The
Tenet
> plan, which was subsequently approved by Bush, essentially reversed the
> executive orders of four previous U.S. administrations that expressly
> prohibited political assassinations.
>
> According to high level European intelligence officials, Bush's counselor,
> Karl Rove, used the new presidential authority to silence a popular
Lebanese
> Christian politician who was planning to offer irrefutable evidence that
> Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorized the massacre of hundreds of
> Palestinian men, women, and children in the Beirut refugee camps of Sabra
> and Shatilla in 1982. In addition, Sharon provided the Lebanese forces who
> carried out the grisly task. At the time of the massacres, Elie Hobeika
was
> intelligence chief of Lebanese Christian forces in Lebanon who were
battling
> Palestinians and other Muslim groups in a bloody civil war. He was also
the
> chief liaison to Israeli Defense Force (IDF) personnel in Lebanon. An
> official Israeli inquiry into the massacre at the camps, the Kahan
> Commission, merely found Sharon "indirectly" responsible for the slaughter
> and fingered Hobeika as the chief instigator.
>
> The Kahan Commission never called on Hobeika to offer testimony in his
> defense. However, in response to charges brought against Sharon before a
> special war crimes court in Belgium, Hobeika was urged to testify against
> Sharon, according to well-informed Lebanese sources. Hobeika was prepared
to
> offer a different version of events than what was contained in the Kahan
> report. A 1993 Belgian law permitting human rights prosecutions was
unusual
> in that non-Belgians could be tried for violations against other
> non-Belgians in a Belgian court. Under pressure from the Bush
> administration, the law was severely amended and the extra territoriality
> provisions were curtailed.
>
> Hobeika headed the Lebanese forces intelligence agency since the mid-
1970s
> and he soon developed close ties to the CIA. He was a frequent visitor to
> the CIA's headquarters at Langley, Virginia. After the Syrian invasion of
> Lebanon in 1990, Hobeika held a number of cabinet positions in the
Lebanese
> government, a proxy for the Syrian occupation authorities. He also served
in
> the parliament. In July 2001, Hobeika called a press conference and
> announced he was prepared to testify against Sharon in Belgium and
revealed
> that he had evidence of what actually occurred in Sabra and Shatilla.
> Hobeika also indicated that Israel had flown members of the South Lebanon
> Army (SLA) into Beirut International Airport in an Israeli Air Force C130
> transport plane. In full view of dozens of witnesses, including members of
> the Lebanese army and others, SLA troops under the command of Major Saad
> Haddad were slipped into the camps to commit the massacres. The SLA troops
> were under the direct command of Ariel Sharon and an Israeli Mossad agent
> provocateur named Rafi Eitan. Hobeika offered evidence that a former U.S.
> ambassador to Lebanon was aware of the Israeli plot. In addition, the IDF
> had placed a camera in a strategic position to film the Sabra and Shatilla
> massacres. Hobeika was going to ask that the footage be released as part
of
> the investigation of Sharon.
>
> After announcing he was willing to testify against Sharon, Hobeika became
> fearful for his safety and began moves to leave Lebanon. Hobeika was not
> aware that his threats to testify against Sharon had triggered a series of
> fateful events that reached well into the White House and Sharon's office.
>
> On January 24, 2002, Hobeika's car was blown up by a remote controlled
bomb
> placed in a parked Mercedes along a street in the Hazmieh section of
Beirut.
> The bomb exploded when Hobeika and his three associates, Fares Souweidan,
> Mitri Ajram, and Waleed Zein, were driving their Range Rover past the
> TNT-laden Mercedes at 9:40 am Beirut time. The Range Rover's four
passengers
> were killed in the explosion. In case Hobeika's car had taken another
route
> through the neighborhood, two additional parked cars, located at two other
> choke points, were also rigged with TNT. The powerful bomb wounded a
number
> of other people on the street. Other parked cars were destroyed and
> buildings and homes were damaged. The Lebanese president, prime minister,
> and interior minister all claimed that Israeli agents were behind the
> attack.
>
> It is noteworthy that the State Department's list of global terrorist
> incidents for 2002 worldwide failed to list the car bombing attack on
> Hobeika and his party. The White House wanted to ensure the attack was
> censored from the report. The reason was simple: the attack ultimately had
> Washington's fingerprints on it.
>
> High level European intelligence sources now report that Karl Rove
> personally coordinated Hobeika's assassination. The hit on Hobeika
employed
> Syrian intelligence agents. Syrian President Bashar Assad was trying to
> curry favor with the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9-11 and was
> more than willing to help the White House. In addition, Assad's father,
> Hafez Assad, had been an ally of Bush's father during Desert Storm, a
period
> that saw Washington give a "wink and a nod" to Syria's occupation of
> Lebanon. Rove wanted to help Sharon avoid any political embarrassment from
> an in absentia trial in Brussels where Hobeika would be a star witness.
Rove
> and Sharon agreed on the plan to use Syrian Military Intelligence agents
to
> assassinate Hobeika. Rove saw Sharon as an indispensable ally of Bush in
> ensuring the loyalty of the Christian evangelical and Jewish voting blocs
in
> the United States. Sharon saw the plan to have the United States
coordinate
> the hit as a way to mask all connections to Jerusalem.
>
> The Syrian hit team was ordered by Assef Shawkat, the number two man in
> Syrian military intelligence and a good friend and brother in law of
Syrian
> President Bashar Assad. Assad's intelligence services had already
cooperated
> with U.S. intelligence in resorting to unconventional methods to extract
> information from al Qaeda detainees deported to Syria from the United
States
> and other countries in the wake of 9-11. The order to take out Hobeika was
> transmitted by Shawkat to Roustom Ghazali, the head of Syrian military
> intelligence in Beirut. Ghazali arranged for the three remote controlled
> cars to be parked along Hobeika's route in Hazmieh; only few hundred yards
> from the Barracks of Syrian Special Forces which are stationed in the area
> near the Presidential palace , the ministry of Defense and various
> Government and officers quarters . This particular area is covered 24/7 by
a
> very sophisticated USA multi-agency surveillance system to monitor Syrian
> and Lebanese security activities and is a " Choice " area to live in for
its
> perceived high security .
>
> The plan to kill Hobeika had all the necessary caveats and built-in denial
> mechanisms. If the Syrians were discovered beforehand or afterwards, Karl
> Rove and his associates in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans would be
> ensured plausible deniability.
>
> Hobeika's CIA intermediary in Beirut, a man only referred to as "Jason" by
> Hobeika, was a frequent companion of the Lebanese politician during
official
> and off-duty hours. During Hobeika's election campaigns for his
> parliamentary seat, Jason was often in Hobeika's office offering support
and
> advice. After Hobeika's assassination, Jason became despondent over the
> death of his colleague. Eventually, Jason disappeared abruptly from
Lebanon
> and reportedly later emerged in Pakistan.
>
> Karl Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika may not have been
> the last "hit" he ordered to help out Sharon. In March 2002, a few months
> after Hobeika's assassination, another Lebanese Christian with knowledge
of
> Sharon's involvement in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres was gunned down
> along with his wife in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A bullet fired at Michael
Nassar's
> car flattened one of his tires. Nassar pulled into a gasoline station for
> repairs. A professional assassin, firing a gun with a silencer, shot
Nassar
> and his wife in the head, killing them both instantly. The assailant fled
> and was never captured. Nassar was also involved with the Phalange militia
> at Sabra and Shatilla. Nassar was also reportedly willing to testify
against
> Sharon in Belgium and, as a nephew of SLA Commander General Antoine Lahd,
> may have had important evidence to bolster Hobeika's charge that Sharon
> ordered SLA forces into the camps to wipe out the Palestinians.
>
> Based on what European intelligence claims is concrete intelligence on
> Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika, the Bush
administration
> can now add political assassination to its laundry list of other misdeeds,
> from lying about the reasons to go to war to the torture tactics in
> violation of the Geneva Conventions that have been employed by the
Pentagon
> and "third country" nationals at prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
>
> Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and
> columnist. He served in the National Security Agency (NSA) during the
Reagan
> administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the
> co-author, with John Stanton, of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of
> George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil,
> Black Ops, and Brass Plates." Madsen can be reached at:
>
>
> This is some of the evidence for you and for the World ....
>
>
> ~~~encrypted/logs/access ~~~
>
> Not to mention hundreds of private companies and governments. Anyway...
> Lines 10-36
> of my logfiles show a lot of interest in this article:
>
> # grep sid=1052 /encrypted/logs/access_log|awk '{print $1,$7}'|sed -n
> '10,36p'
>
> spb-213-33-248-190.sovintel.ru
/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> ext1.shape.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> server1.namsa.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> ns1.saclantc.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> bxlproxyb.europarl.eu.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> wdcsun18.usdoj.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> wdcsun21.usdoj.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> tcs-gateway11.treas.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> tcs-gateway13.treas.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> relay1.ucia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> relay2.cia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> relay2.ucia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> n021.dhs.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> legion.dera.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> gateway-fincen.uscg.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> crawler2.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> crawler1.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> gateway101.gsi.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> gate11-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> gate13-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> fw1-a.osis.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> crawler13.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> fw1-b.osis.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> bouncer.nics.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> beluha.ssu.gov.ua /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
> zukprxpro02.zreo.compaq.com
> /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052....
>
>
> To be continued ....
> HOLLYWOOD FL... ATTA & Aris2chat
> DENVER CO
> ART STUDENTS...
> MOOVERS INC.@IL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>