(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
ojunk (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."