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

We hear lawyer-talk like 'Congress investigated the attack five
times and found no evidence that the attack was intentional.' But
since Congress never conducted an in-depth investigation devoted
to the attack on the Liberty, it found no evidence one way or
another since CONGRESS NEVER INVESTIGATED WHETHER THE ATTACK ON
THE LIBERTY WAS INTENTIONAL. It could just as accurately have been
said that Congress found no evidence to show that the attack on the
Liberty was an accident. See how easy it is to use weasel words?

Notice how the weasel ...

Notice how Weeks cannot avoid a personal attack. I guess he realizes
how weak his arguments are. If he had strong arguments, he would not
need to make personal attacks, or use name calling and insults, or
repeatedly use dishonest tactics, like implying that Congress
investigated the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was
intentional.

... turns everything on its head, in his black-is-white
world.

Here in the USA one has to bring credible evidence to the table if you're going
to go out and make charges and have any crediblity ...

All the material going to Congress never indicated that the IDF attacked this
ship, knowing her to be US, let alone one named the USS Liberty.

What material are you talking about? Are you saying Congress did
investigate whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional?
Which Congressional committee conducted that investigation? Why
doesn't Cristol list that investigation on his web site instead
of the two Congressional investigations which obviously did NOT
look into the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was
intentional?

You could have just as easily said that all the material going
to Congress never indicated that the IDF attack was an accident.

It looks like you are the one who sees the world as black-is-white.

If you are going to say Congress did investigate whether the
attack on the Liberty was intentional you need to bring credible
evidence to the table if you're going to have any credibility ...

Lack of evidence is exactly that -- lack of evidence.

So where is your evidence that Congress held hearings on
the question of whether the attack was intentional? We
are still waiting for your answer. Where is the Committee's
report? No hearings + no report = no investigation.

Lack of evidence is exactly that - lack of evidence.

But what the heck, let's even claim this attack was a joint US-Israeli
operation as this poster does and really muddy the waters ...

From a story which appeared in the Washington Post:

'Asked on camera by the BBC about Operation Cyanide, Rafi Eitan,
who was with the Israeli secret service in 1967, smiled
cryptically and said: "I know what I am able to tell you and
where I have to stop. And here I stop."

'When the same interviewers questioned former CIA chief Helms
on camera, he confirmed the covert function of the 303
Committee but said, "You'll have to ask McNamara" about
Operation Cyanide. When Robert McNamara, secretary of defense
in 1967, was asked on camera about Operation Cyanide,
he replied, "I won't say a word about the Liberty." Why?'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true