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

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is the oath that President Johnson took.

And that's the best you can do?

Johnson violating his oath of office is a tad more
serious than the charge that Captain Boston violated
his oath.

Note is made of no evidence to support the
claim that LBJ issued illegal orders to Kidd, or to McNamara, or to anyone else
involved w/ the Liberty incident.

Johnson was not stupid enough to leave any evidence
behind, unlike the unfortunate American prison guards in Iraq
who photographed themselves torturing Iraqi prisoners.

The part of my post that you deleted showed that Johnson
was willing to violate his oath of office. While my
example was different than the Liberty attack, it
highlighted the fact that Johnson was immoral, unethical,
and, yes, a criminal.

LBJ is alleged to have endangered the crew of the
Liberty and prevented a rescue flight which may have
saved American lives, which is a criminal act.
Therefore, any other evidence of his criminal activity
is relevant.

You failure to even attempt to refute my example could
be interpreted to mean that you agree that LBJ was a
criminal for sending troops to Vietnam without the
authorization of the U.N. Security Council. Or maybe
you agree with a recent attempt to justify the use
of torture in Iraq by a U.S. government memo which said
that a wartime president can do anything he wants;
laws don't apply.

It fits to a tee the prior characteristic of your inability for logical
thought...

You are the one who rejects anything that does not fall
into your predetermined position that the attack on the
Liberty was just an accident. That is your mantra. You do
become irrational sometimes in your 'accident' defense.
And you are certainly fanatical about it. A Google search
using:

"uss liberty"

plus

"uss liberty"

reveals that you have posted thousands of times on Usenet
defending your 'accident' theory of the Liberty attack.

Thanks again for sharing, and enjoy the swinging from the yardarm ...

MW

Your continuing personal attacks demonstrate yet again how
weak your case is. If you had convincing arguments, there
would be no need to engage in insults, name calling, and
the other dishonest tactics which you constantly use.