USS Liberty Challenge/Reward

ojunk (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.