Navy crew remembers 1967 Israeli attack

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

In fact, Israel has previously committed
an intentional attack at a United States target:

Exhibit #1: Israel has attacked U.S. targets before with
terrorist bombs. See the results of any search engine
when you enter the key words "Lavon Affair." Weeks
has never disputed that Zionist terrorists set off bombs
in Egypt in the 1950s at American, British and Egyptian
targets. Nor has Weeks ever refuted that Israeli Prime
Minister David Ben-Gurion was forced to resign in
disgrace as a result of the Lavon Affair.

Apples and oranges.

Nice slogan. It might be better if you could cite some
evidence to back up your slogan. One must conclude that
Weeks has no evidence. But he knows some nice slogans.

Just for the record, Weeks does not dispute that Zionist
terrorists set off bombs in Egypt in the 1950s at American,
British and Egyptian targets. Weeks' 'apples and oranges'
consists of a Zionist attack on an American target and
Zionists attacking an American target. Big difference!

But it must be assumed in your black-is-white world, that
the IAF attack on the HMS Crane on 2 Nov. 1956 during the Suez War was all part
of this supposed "campaign" you imagine.

Again, Weeks combines a non sequitur with changing the
subject. How typical.

Conclusion: Weeks offers no intelligent rebuttal
regarding the similarities between the Lavon
Affair and the Liberty Affair.

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
Retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, the former counsel for the Navy's
Court of Inquiry, released a signed affidavit in October, stating he
was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary,
Robert McNamara, to conclude the attack was unintentional, despite
evidence to the contrary.

Just another incorrect statement. So damn typical. 80-year old Boston did
not
state what is claimed above.

Just so typical. Weeks does not offer any evidence to support
his claim. But since he is omniscient, he never needs to offer
any evidence. Weeks just knows.

Idiot; the statement as posted in inaccurate; there's nothing to show

Weeks feels his arguments are so weak that he needs to resort
to childish name calling. How typical. But the fact remains
that Weeks cites no evidence. We are just supposed to believe
him, because he knows all and sees all.

The only way to prove that I misquoted Boston is for Weeks
to post what he thinks Boston actually said. But apparently
Weeks is unable to do that. Weeks does not need to post any
evidence. He knows all. He sees all. He is omniscient.

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

It was generally agreed by insiders
that Johnson was someone you did not want to mess with. See Caro's
three volume biography for specific details.

LOL, nothing established, but a conclusion drawn. How typical.

Obviously you either have never read Caro's biographies, or you
were not able to make obvious character judgments based on Caro's
work. LBJ was able to reach the pinnacle of political power
because he was more aggressive than his peers, and he had no
reservations about employing any means necessary to achieve his
goals, even if it meant stuffing ballot boxes, a technique he used
to win both the Presidency of his College student body and the
1948 Texas Senate seat.

Caro won a 2003 Pulitzer prize in biography for the third
volume in his biography of LBJ, "Master of the Senate: The
Years of Lyndon Johnson."

I think I am entitled to draw a conclusion based on a Pulitzer
prize winning biography of LBJ.

In case you haven't noticed, Caro's work that you've presented doesn't
support
anything of what you claim above.

You are totally wrong. You present no evidence to support
your conclusion. How typical.

Thanks for continuing the tradition of being clueless.

Thanks for showing your case is so weak that you need to
constantly use name calling.

You've posted nothing
regarding Caro's work on LBJ that's, what, his pre-presidential as well as
pre-vice presidential days (i..e., "Master of the Senate" was the title,
right?) that relates to the Liberty incident, and your words of:

"McGonagle may have been directly ordered by President Johnson or some other
superior officer to lie."

I never claimed that was in Caro's book. Thanks for muddying the
waters again.

To repeat, I cited Caro's book in support of my claim that:

It was generally agreed by insiders
that Johnson was someone you did not want to mess with. See Caro's
three volume biography for specific details.

Notice I never associated Caro and McGonagle. Only Weeks does.

Just another "out of thin air" remark thank you very much.

I commend you, Weeks, for your ability to distort. You must
have earned a Ph.D. in propaganda from spook school to
constantly resort to dishonest tactics.

(Mike Weeks) wrote:

[snip]

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/boston.html

Thanks for the link, Weeks.

In the future, I will state that Johnson and
McNamara gave the order for the cover-up to Admiral
Kidd, who then informed Boston.

Thanks for the heads up.

That LBJ would give such an order is entirely consistent
with the person described in Robert Caro's Pulitzer prize
winning biography, "Master of the Senate," which is
volume three in his series, "The Years of Lyndon
Johnson."

In that book, Caro describes how Johnson used red-baiting
tactics to destroy the career of Leland Olds, because
Johnson's big oil friends in Texas wanted Olds gone. Caro
describes it this way:

"Another quality that Lyndon Johnson had displayed on
each stage of his march along the path to power was an
utter ruthlessness in destroying obstacles in that path."

Caro, in the two previous volumes, described how Johnson
used ballot box stuffing to win his Senate seat in 1948,
and also how Johnson used a similar illegal means to win
election as President of his College student body.

As to the content of Boston's statement, I'll take the
word of a Navy Captain over you, Weeks, a non-entity
who refuses to reveal his background. Furthermore, Weeks,
your constant name calling and insults show that
you are not looking for the truth, rather, you are
looking to suppress the truth. If you were looking
for the truth, there would be no need for you to
engage in name calling all the time.

A Navy Captain is more credible than a non-entity
any day.

Thanks again for the link, Weeks!

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

What I don't follow on this subject is what do the "accidental
attack"ers charge Capt Boston of lying about? His statement is well
written in that it is specific, clear and to the point. Why would
Boston, a combat veteran of WWII, lie on this matter and why do those
who defend Israel disparage him so?

The question is:
Had Boston lied when he had signed his name on the Court's findings,
affirming that the investigation had been done properly,
or did he lie later when he said that the investigation
was not done properly?

If the first, then what the word of a man who took an oath to
do a job properly, and did not do it, really worths?

How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors? How
do you even know what was in the report the Kidd
originally submitted, when evidence by Boston and others
suggests that Johnson's people at the White House
modified some sections and deleted other sections
that they didn't like?

The sad fact is that President Johnson was a proven
liar.

Johnson lied during the 1964 Presidential elections when
he repeatedly said that he "would not send American boys
to do the job of the Vietnamese boys." Later publication
of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the decision to send
ground troops to Southeast Asia had already been made.

The irony here is that Johnson was running as the
'peace' candidate. His was no small lie, since
the lie resulted in the deaths of tens of
thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese.
McNamara has estimated that somewhere in the
neighborhood of between two and three million
of the 'enemy' died during America's Southeast Asia
adventure.

This was the war that included the CIA's Phoenix
program, which killed thousands of civilians,
sometimes by summary execution, sometimes after
an interrogation session which included extreme
torture.

This was the war which included 'free-fire zones,'
where US soldiers could shoot anything that moved,
including women, children and the elderly. The
dead were included in the daily count of communist
fighters killed, even if those killed were unarmed
civilians.

It is fairly well known that many Americans ground
troops considered all Vietnamese as sub-human
'gooks.' A popular slogan which appears on many
tee-shirts at the time says, "kill them all, let
God sort it out."

A recent newspaper series in the Toledo Blade
detailed the atrocities committed in the Vietnamese
central highlands by an elite American unit known
as the Tiger Force:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...y=SRTIGERFORCE

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?

And Kidd never found that out...
And no copies are kept in different places...
And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...

If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.

wrote in message . com...
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?

And Kidd never found that out...
And no copies are kept in different places...
And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...

If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.

I see no possiblity that Boston is lying and think you defenders of
Israel show your "I'll do anything for Israel" stripes when you accuse
him of doing so. Kidd could easily have been venting when he said
what Boston said he said. And it's probable that testimony was taken
out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
review.

It's Cristol and other "Israel right or wrong" types who encourage the
attack speculation by denying that the court wanted to go to Israel
and accuse people like Lt Painter of being a liar for saying his
testimony was removed from the NCOI report.

Still would like to know why Cristol did not ask McNamara why the
court was not allowed to go to Israel and if Rabin and Hod were told
of the spy ship Liberty on the morning of 8 June.

-Steve

(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message . com...
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?

And Kidd never found that out...
And no copies are kept in different places...
And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...

If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.

I see no possiblity that Boston is lying

If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
Justice is a very serious matter.

And it's probable that testimony was taken
out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
review.

Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
parts.

wrote in message om...
How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?

And Kidd never found that out...
And no copies are kept in different places...
And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...

If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.

I see no possiblity that Boston is lying

If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
Justice is a very serious matter.

It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. g

Who empaneled the court of inquiry? My guess is that that entity is
the one that sets the boundaries of the courts inquiry and reviews its
findings. The court for example had no legal standing to hear
testimony pertaining to LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war. By the same
token, the entity that created the court could tell it that it could
not call any members of the IDF as witnesses.

And it's probable that testimony was taken
out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
review.

Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
parts.

How do you know that? If the DOD is the entity that empaneled the
court, it is probably the entity that rules on the courts scope of
inquiry. Striking testimony from the record is probably legally
allowed. My guess is that only falsifying testimony or other evidence
would be illegal.

The bottom line is that Boston is not a liar. When he says the court
wanted to go to Israel to gather evidence but was not allowed by Adm
McCain and others, that is surely what happened. When he says the
testimony of Lt Painter the MGing of the life rafts was excised,
that is without a doubt true also.

So as we see, not only has there never been a congressional
investigation of the attack on the Liberty. There has never been a
complete NCOI investigation either.

-Steve

Anyone can lie the possibilities are endless to why and how. but seeing the
lie is the hard part and that is why you can't see any possibility of him
doing so."in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"

--
"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...
wrote in message
. com...
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message
. com...
How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?

And Kidd never found that out...
And no copies are kept in different places...
And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...

If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.

I see no possiblity that Boston is lying and think you defenders of
Israel show your "I'll do anything for Israel" stripes when you accuse
him of doing so. Kidd could easily have been venting when he said
what Boston said he said. And it's probable that testimony was taken
out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
review.

It's Cristol and other "Israel right or wrong" types who encourage the
attack speculation by denying that the court wanted to go to Israel
and accuse people like Lt Painter of being a liar for saying his
testimony was removed from the NCOI report.

Still would like to know why Cristol did not ask McNamara why the
court was not allowed to go to Israel and if Rabin and Hod were told
of the spy ship Liberty on the morning of 8 June.

-Steve