|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
June 29th 04, 08:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote: [snip] (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. Idiot; Weeks does what he does best, he resorts to childish name calling. If he had a strong case, there would be no reason for his constant insults, his arguments alone would carry the day. But, considering how often he engages in name calling, his case must be very, very weak. He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an investigation devoted solely to the Liberty affair. Congress did investigate a single aspect of the Liberty incident, relating to DOD communications, which did not look at the question of whether the attack by Israel was intentional. In fact, none of the links provided by Cristol is to a Congressional investigation into the question, "was that attack on the USS Liberty intentional?" Weeks, if I am wrong, please provide a link to a Congressional investigation which looked into whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional. You can't, because Congress never conducted such an investigation. To say that Congress never found evidence that the attack was intentional is being disingenuous. If there was no investigation, then there was no conclusion. But to imply that Congress thoroughly investigated the Liberty affair, and to further imply that this investigation exonerated Israel, is the kind of dishonesty recently practiced by President Bush in convincing our country to invade Iraq. Bush can accurately say that he never directly accused Saddam of being behind 9/11, but his implications were so strong that a majority of U.S. citizens were convinced at the beginning of the assault on Iraq that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. Bush is an expert in using weasel words, just like Weeks. Maybe Bush went to the same disinformation school that Weeks attended. [snip] 
|
|
#3
June 29th 04, 11:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 29 Jun 2004 10:40:04 -0700, wrote:
What Mike does best is finding the facts and presenting his conclusions based on the facts; The fact which remains that the Liberty was attacked by the Government of Israel and they have never apologized for it, although there are ample apologists +for+ Israel. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
|
|
#4
June 30th 04, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message . com...
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com... (Mike Weeks) wrote: Idiot; Weeks does what he does best, he resorts to childish name calling. What Mike does best is finding the facts and presenting his conclusions based on the facts; e.g. you are an idiot. He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an investigation devoted solely to the Liberty affair. What makes "Congress" more qualified to run an investigation than the CIA? Can Congress get more data? Does Congress have deeper understanding of Israel? Does Congress have better exprerts in navies-at-war issues than the US NAvy? 1st, Congress has the legal authority to place witnesses under oath. 2nd, as an equal branch of government to the executive, can demand full access to all information known by the GOUS. Thirdly, and most important, the US Congress owns Israel from the perspective that it authorizes the billions of $$ each year that the US gives to Israel to conduct its brutal occupation of the palestinian territories. The Congress could, if it wanted, force Israel to release what it knows. To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on the American ship. A simple item like the flight path of the initial Kursa attack jets as they approached the Liberty is unknown. It is important to know because Micha Limor, a blabbermouth crewman of the attacking MTBs, wrote an article contemporaneous to the attack that reports the jets flew over the MTBs then went on to attack the Liberty. The testimony of the captain of the Liberty, CDR McGonagle indicates strongly to that flight path. ( Hillel, Mike Weeks, who you think highly of, was very disengenous in a past online discussion of this issue. He posted that the Liberty's radar readings of the approaching jets as they passed overhead of the MTBs at 32,000 yds distance was not possible because the Liberty radar was for surface contacts only. He was immediately corrected by a poster knowledgeable on the subject who informed the readership that the verticle beam of the Liberty's radar would have reached the height of those jets at the 32000 yd distance as they passed over the approaching MTBs. ) This is just an example of the little pieces of information that Israel will not release to the American public to explain its attack. Israel says the first attack jets circled the Liberty twice before going in for the kill. The IAF controller transcripts indicate that only a few minutes elapsed between the time that the Kursa lead pilot is talking to the MTB crew and correcting their course to the Liberty and the time the Israeli jets complete their first attack. The immed pre attack timeline drawn from the NCOI, which matches up with what Micha Limor reported in his article, does not come close to matching the one drawn from the IAF controller transcripts. Add to this the assertion that the Israelis are lieing about the attack jets first circling the Liberty and there are credible grounds to suspect that the IAF controller tapes and transcripts have been doctored, that is conversations have been removed from those tapes. This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty? Israel's shills like Jay Cristol parrot the Israeli explanation that the MTBs measured the Liberty's speed at 30 knots, "warship" speed. ( Micha Limor, our man on the MTB, writes that the measured speed of the Liberty was much less! ) But at jet attack time, the IAF controllers are using the very capable coastal radar net to direct the Kursa jets from whereever they were coming from to the Liberty. The Israeli coastal radar could see the Liberty fine. Why was it not used to find the ship that was supposedly shelling El Arish instead of the crappy radar onboard the MTBs? The public has been told how the Israeli Naval command forgot it knew of the American spy ship Liberty the morning of 8 June, hours before it ordered the attack. But what about what the Israeli air force command knew? IDF COS Rabin and IAF CDR Hod were both in on the attack, communicating with the Kursa flight leader as he approached the Liberty. Did they know the Liberty had been identified as an American spy ship hours before also? If so, why did those highest ranking Israeli commanders not question their subordinates as the attack was developing as to the obvious question of was the ship that was going to be attacked the American ship? ( And if not, why not? The presence of an American spy ship possibly means the Russians are in the area. Are the Russians organizing a counterattack in the Sinai? That would be the most important news of the day for Rabin/Hod/Dayan to be aware of. ) And if Rabin and Hod were talking to Kursa flight leader Spector immed pre attack ( as per well connected SDW historian Michael Oren ), why are their conversations not present on the IAF controller transcripts? So yes, Hillel, a congressional investigation is long overdue and worthwhile to the American public. The fact that American Jews appear to be the only entity opposed to such an investigation is very upsetting. Americans have been very loyal and friendly to Israel. Israel should return that goodwill in kind. -Steve
|
|
#5
June 30th 04, 12:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message . com... What makes "Congress" more qualified to run an investigation than the CIA? Can Congress get more data? Does Congress have deeper understanding of Israel? Does Congress have better exprerts in navies-at-war issues than the US NAvy? 1st, Congress has the legal authority to place witnesses under oath. Other branches of government also have the right to place witnesses under oath. E.g. a Grand jury and a Court of Inquiry. 2nd, as an equal branch of government to the executive, can demand full access to all information known by the GOUS. Having information, and using the information, are two different issues. IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree then please explain why. Thirdly, and most important, the US Congress owns Israel from the perspective that it authorizes the billions of $$ each year that the US gives to Israel to conduct its brutal occupation of the palestinian territories. The Congress could, if it wanted, force Israel to release what it knows. Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving so many people for 37 years? Anyway, treating a client state like **** is not always the best course of action. See France before the 6-Days-War for example. You may end up saving $3 billion per year on Israel, and spending $50 billion extra to save pro-US regimes in Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on the American ship. And the source of your information is...? How do you know what deals Israel made with the US? Do you want Congress also to publish other information that the US promised to keep secret? (E.g. the condition to US inspections is Dimona was that the US would keep the information secret. Should the US ignore its promise just because it will serve better your political agenda?) This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty? What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?! Where did you get that idea? Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection of WWII quality small ships? Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could look over the horizon. The public has been told how the Israeli Naval command forgot it knew of the American spy ship Liberty the morning of 8 June, hours before it ordered the attack. What an *IGNORANT* like you can't get is simple navy fighting facts. If you want to sink a ship using 1967 airplanes then you used half iron bombs, just like the US did in Midway. If you want to sink a ship, and cover your ass, then you use submarines, not torpedo boats that display your flag. If Israel tried to sink a US ship, knowing that it was a US ship, then this is a case of gross incompetence. The "cover-up" before the attack was pretty bad. You claim that the same people who did everything wrong before the attack have done everything right in the cover-up. I wonder if you really believe in your high quality bull****. So yes, Hillel, a congressional investigation is long overdue and worthwhile to the American public. So write to your Congressman and ask of an investigation. You may find one as stupid as you are, even though it is not that easy.
|
|
#6
July 1st 04, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
July 1st 04, 11:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
Having information, and using the information, are two different issues. IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree then please explain why. [Hillel] You call me names and then ask me questions. Why should not I ask an idiot some questions? It amuses me. Hillel, is that a typical Israeli way of interacting with others? Only when they are as clueless as you. (Not an easy thing to do.) Naval operations are not the issue. Israel's Naval operations are the issue. A rear admiral may have some understanding of how foreign navies work in time of war because he learned that in school and had some first hand experience. Such an admiral may also have some understanding of friendly fire; e.g. the bombing of Grayling by B-17s or losing 25 men in the attack on Kiska, Alaska. It is the question of whether Israel intentionally attacked the American ship, No. The job of the court is to: 1) Establish the facts. 2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena more data. whether the GOI withheld evidence of war crime actions by members of the IDF, and whether some in the GOUS were complicit in the withholding of that information. ....and if Saturan has five rings or six. The court had to find the best explanations to the facts and it accpeted most of the Israeli version because it fits well with the facts. There is good evidence the US DOS acted to prevent Adm Kidd from going to Israel to investigate the attack as he wished. Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*, to write such a comment. You have well founded confidence in the Admiral. Why would the US DOS, acting presumably without objection by LBJ and McNamara, act to overrule the Admiral's judgement and not allow the NCOI to go to Israel? That's between the admiral and the DoS. It is quite possible that the DoS offered him a "good enough" replacement. E.g. it could suggest that Ernest Castle, the United States Naval Attache at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, will collect the data he needed. The admiral could reject such a suggestion, and insist on running the show himself, but he did not see the benefit in that. The coverup of the coverup continues to this day. And next week we will start with the coverup of the coverup of the coverup. Last year at the DOS sponsored seminar the history of the SDW, DOS historian Marc Susser does not appear to have released any documents regarding DOS involvement in the NCOI proceedings. Even if the DoS will release all its documents, you will still continue to shout "cover up." So why even bother? Anyway, every four years or so the US has a new Secretary of State. Just write to each one when he takes office, explain why those documents are so important, and hope that some secretary, who is not a part of the conspiracy, will release them. Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving so many people for 37 years? Heck, Hillel. I am of the opinion that Israel has kept secret the full extent of its planning to take the WB from Jordan as part of the inevitable conflict between Israel and the arab states. ....and therefore suggested Jordan on June 5, 1967 to stay out of the war and promised "no harm" in such a case. ....and therefore the paratroopers who attacked Jerusalem had to unload all their equipment from the airplanes that had been supposed to drop them in Sinai. Eshkol's working assumption was that Jordan would stay out, like in 1956. He was wrong. Israel must have anticipated the marked increase in terror attacks from pratically zero before the occupation to what has occured after. There must have been some in the GOI who did not think that more land for Israel was worth the price of those killed by insurgent attacks. What all of that has to do with the ability of Israel to cover up?! To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on the American ship. And the source of your information is...? How do you know what deals Israel made with the US? Do you want Congress also to publish other information that the US promised to keep secret? (E.g. the condition to US inspections is Dimona was that the US would keep the information secret. Should the US ignore its promise just because it will serve better your political agenda?) BTW and the source of your information is...? This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty? What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?! Where did you get that idea? Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection of WWII quality small ships? Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could look over the horizon. How were the IAF controllers able to direct the Kursa attack jets to the Liberty? Was it Yahweh or radar? Arial radar or observations. Welcome to 1967, when some airplanes had radars! What an *IGNORANT* like you can't get is simple navy fighting facts. If you want to sink a ship using 1967 airplanes then you used half iron bombs, just like the US did in Midway. If you want to sink a ship, and cover your ass, then you use submarines, not torpedo boats that display your flag. Hillel, you can call me all the names you want, I just describe your state. You have no clue about the proper use of airplanes against ships, and so you draw the conclusion that it was a well planed attack. Somebody who knows something about the subject, e.g. an admiral, may reach the opposite conclusion. ( according to Israel Shahak, the Talmud instructs Jews to have all sorts of hostility toward Gentiles ) So Shahak is your source. LOL. First, no one knows for sure what the Israelis intended to do with the Liberty. After 37 years of conspiracy theory you can't even agree about that?! Maybe they just wanted to drive the ship away, Firing accross the bow, or bombing nearby, could achieve that. maybe it was just a local operation by IDF commanders concerned their killing of Egyptian prisoners was being witnessed by the American spy ship. Assuming that the POWs murder was done, Liberty could see through the cloud of dust that the war caused (BTW have you ever been on the dunes near El -Arish? I was), and the US embassy could not listen to their communication back to base asking to bomb liberty to help with the cover up. Seriously, how do you think that the forces in Al-Arish communicated home? There was no phone line and smoke signals have a limited range. It appears no one knows for sure. It is much more interesting to see you build your theory first, and every year release just few documents that blow up your theory. That is why Israel has to release its evidence. The evidence will be released because nothing remains secret forever. But I hope that you will commit to some theory first, so the data will make look pretty silly. ( and why Adm Kidd was justified in wanting to bring the NCOI to Israel ) So why the admiral dropped that? I notice you did not respond to my question the involvement of IDF COS Rabin and IAF CDF Hod. According to Israel friendly SDW historian Michael Oren, those two were in on the conversations with the Kursa jets as they approached the Liberty. Why would two generals talk over radio, knowing that some other country probably records it, if their goal is a cover-up? Your data contradicts your own theory. (No big surprise here.) Yet surely, hours prior, they must have been told of the 0800 identification of the American spy ship. Have you ever managed a war on three fronts? Do you really believe that the general gets *ALL* the data? Hillel, who cares what your opinion is. Why does Jay Cristol, author of the book "their blood in the water", ignore and gloss over the entire subject of how the IAF knew of the presence of the Liberty at 0800 on 8 June but collectively forgot this knowledge 6 hours later at 1400 attack time? Because in war **** happens and when you switch shifts some data is lost. BTW the first pilot to attack the Liberty, Yiftah Spector, moved to the Israeli far left lately. Why don't you try to convince him to change his story? Hillel "When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When you don't have the facts, argue the law. And when you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table." -- L.A. Weekly
|
|
#8
June 30th 04, 03:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message . com...
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com... (Mike Weeks) wrote: Idiot; Weeks does what he does best, he resorts to childish name calling. What Mike does best is finding the facts and presenting his conclusions based on the facts; e.g. you are an idiot. Another poster whose arguments are so weak that he feels the need to resort to childish name calling. He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an investigation devoted solely to the Liberty affair. What makes "Congress" more qualified to run an investigation than the CIA? Ah, it's the old 'move the goalposts' ploy. When confronted with the fact Congress did not conduct a thorough investigation of the Liberty affair, some people denigrate Congress. Can Congress get more data? A Congressional investigation can ask the CIA to testify on all of the data that has been collected. Does Congress have deeper understanding of Israel? A non sequitur with regard to the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional or not. Does Congress have better exprerts in navies-at-war issues than the US NAvy? Congress can request the testimony of the US Navy's finest experts, who are then obligated to give truthful answers, or face jail terms. In other words, why should Congresss investigate the Liberty incidence after the CIA concluded that the Israeli explanation is reasonable. Believe it or not, the CIA is not always right. Also, the CIA is subject to political pressure which may cause them to change their correct conclusions to something else. Kind of like when Vice President Cheney made his visits to CIA HQ at Langley, and the CIA then started to find reasons to invade Iraq. The President can replace anyone at the CIA, including the director, whenever he wants. But the President cannot replace members of Congress, since only the voters choose members of Congress. Therefore, Congress should investigate because they do not serve at the pleasure of the President. (See http://libertyincident.com/cia.htm @The Central Intelligence Agency completed an Intelligence @Memorandum titled The Attack on the USS Liberty on 13 Jun @1967. It was declassified on 31 Aug 1977. On page 4, in @paragraph 5, the report concludes that the Liberty could @easily be mistaken for the Egyptian transport El Quesir.) Common sense refutes this. The El Quesir was not outfitted with a large and uniquely identifying antenna dish. The first target attacked by the Israeli pilots was Liberty's communications, and the large and uniquely identifying antenna dish was quickly put out of action. If the El Quesir by some miracle had been converted to an intelligence vessel with a large and uniquely identifying antenna dish, it would have been targeted and destroyed on the first day of the war. It sounds like there may have been some political pressure put on the CIA to produce the results that LBJ wanted.
|
|
#9
June 30th 04, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message om...
wrote in message . com... What Mike does best is finding the facts and presenting his conclusions based on the facts; e.g. you are an idiot. Another poster whose arguments are so weak that he feels the need to resort to childish name calling. He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an investigation devoted solely to the Liberty affair. What makes "Congress" more qualified to run an investigation than the CIA? Ah, it's the old 'move the goalposts' ploy. When confronted with the fact Congress did not conduct a thorough investigation of the Liberty affair, some people denigrate Congress. So what? To make an investigation you need the power of subpoena and people who can ask the right questions. a Navy court of inquiry has those powers, and it is the standard tool for the US Navy to find the facts. Do you think that Congress should double check every Navy inquiry, or just the Liberty? If just the Liberty then please explain what the Navy's court did wrong and how Congress may be able to fix. IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the facts than Congress. If you reject this claim then please give examples of Navy courtof inquiry making mistake, and Congress fixing them. Can Congress get more data? A Congressional investigation can ask the CIA to testify on all of the data that has been collected. A Navy court of inquiry can subpoena the CIA just like Congress can. And since the Navy is better than Congress in keeping secrets, the CIA will probably be more willing to coopertae. Does Congress have deeper understanding of Israel? A non sequitur with regard to the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional or not. You claim that Congress investigation will be "better." I claim that for better investigation you should either have the ability to collect more data, or the ability to understand the data better. Do you reject my claim, yes or no? And if yes then what is your counter-claim? Does Congress have better exprerts in navies-at-war issues than the US Navy? Congress can request the testimony of the US Navy's finest experts, who are then obligated to give truthful answers, or face jail terms. You assume that in short time Congressmen can become better experts than people who spent years in sea commanding ships. I don't know what is the base of your assumption, but I can tell you that you can force people to tell you what they know, but knoweldge and understanding is very different thing. E.g. a clueless person like you who has access to all the data and still has no clue. In other words, why should Congresss investigate the Liberty incidence after the CIA concluded that the Israeli explanation is reasonable. Believe it or not, the CIA is not always right. Believe it or not, Congress is not always right. Believe it or not, Joseph McCarthy "investigations" did not catch a single Russian spy. Again, do you want to Congress to double-check everything that the CIA say, or just the Liberty? And if just the Liberty then please explain why the CIA can't be trusted in that case. Make a case why the executive branch can't be trusted or shut up. Also, the CIA is subject to political pressure which may cause them to change their correct conclusions to something else. Kind of like when Vice President Cheney made his visits to CIA HQ at Langley, and the CIA then started to find reasons to invade Iraq. You make two baseless assumptions: 1) The Johnson adminstration put pressure on the CIA to lie about Liberty. 2) Under eight different administrations, over 37 years, nobody in the CIA discovered that their conclusions were baseless. Again, make a case why the CIA can't be trusted in it Liberty conclusions, or shut up. The President can replace anyone at the CIA, including the director, whenever he wants. Yes. You can make a case that Johnson had enough power to force the CIA to lie about Liberty, but you still have to supply a motive. You also have to explain how such a cover-up, invloving so many people, can remian secret for 37 years. But the President cannot replace members of Congress, since only the voters choose members of Congress. Therefore, Congress should investigate because they do not serve at the pleasure of the President. I see. We should get rid off Grand Juries, Court of Inquiries, and all that jazz, and let just Congress investigate because only Congress can be trusted. (See http://libertyincident.com/cia.htm @The Central Intelligence Agency completed an Intelligence @Memorandum titled The Attack on the USS Liberty on 13 Jun @1967. It was declassified on 31 Aug 1977. On page 4, in @paragraph 5, the report concludes that the Liberty could @easily be mistaken for the Egyptian transport El Quesir.) Common sense refutes this. The El Quesir was not outfitted with a large and uniquely identifying antenna dish. The first target attacked by the Israeli pilots was Liberty's communications, and the large and uniquely identifying antenna dish was quickly put out of action. If the El Quesir by some miracle had been converted to an intelligence vessel with a large and uniquely identifying antenna dish, it would have been targeted and destroyed on the first day of the war. It sounds like there may have been some political pressure put on the CIA to produce the results that LBJ wanted.
|
|
#10
July 2nd 04, 11:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote: wrote: [snip] Do you think that Congress should double check every Navy inquiry, or just the Liberty? If just the Liberty then please explain what the Navy's court did wrong and how Congress may be able to fix. IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the facts than Congress. But in a high profile case, leaders of a Navy Court of Inquiry are subject to pressure of the President if that President wants it to reach a certain conclusion. If you reject this claim then please give examples of Navy courtof inquiry making mistake, and Congress fixing them. See the LA Times article below to see how the executive branch may try to ‘manipulate' intelligence. . Can Congress get more data? A Congressional investigation can ask the CIA to testify on all of the data that has been collected. A Navy court of inquiry can subpoena the CIA just like Congress can. And since the Navy is better than Congress in keeping secrets, the CIA will probably be more willing to coopertae. There was a Navy employee a number of years back who made copies of 500,000 classified government documents and provided them to a foreign government. Your assertion about the Navy being better at keeping secrets is suspect. Does Congress have deeper understanding of Israel? A non sequitur with regard to the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional or not. You claim that Congress investigation will be "better." I claim that for better investigation you should either have the ability to collect more data, or the ability to understand the data better. Do you reject my claim, yes or no? And if yes then what is your counter-claim? You, like Weeks, seek to muddy the waters. Congress has been successfully investigating the executive branch of government for 200 years. Your suggestion that the executive branch investigate itself violates the 'separation of powers' principle which has worked so effectively since our Constitution was adopted. Does Congress have better exprerts in navies-at-war issues than the US Navy? Congress can request the testimony of the US Navy's finest experts, who are then obligated to give truthful answers, or face jail terms. You assume that in short time Congressmen can become better experts than people who spent years in sea commanding ships. I don't know what is the base of your assumption, but I can tell you that you can force people to tell you what they know, but knoweldge and understanding is very different thing. E.g. a clueless person like you who has access to all the data and still has no clue. One again, your arguments are so weak that you feel the need to resort to name calling. Why has every previous Naval disaster been investigated by Congress? In other words, why should Congresss investigate the Liberty incidence after the CIA concluded that the Israeli explanation is reasonable. Believe it or not, the CIA is not always right. Believe it or not, Congress is not always right. But they are independent and they do not serve at the pleasure of the President. Believe it or not, Joseph McCarthy "investigations" did not catch a single Russian spy. Maybe because he saw Communist spies under every bed? Let's face it, when McCarthy accused President Eisenhower's Secretary of the Army of supporting Communism, it indicated a serious flaw in the Senator's judgment. Not only did McCarthy fail to prove the alleged leftist tendencies of the Army Secretary, but McCarthy's bizarre behavior was condemned by his Senate colleagues, after which nobody took McCarthy seriously. In fact, it was the Army-McCarthy investigation itself which not only ended McCarthy's influence, but it also ended the national witch hunt known as McCarthyism. Believe it or not, the Senate Watergate investigation was partially responsible for the first Presidential resignation in our country's history. If we had adopted your suggestion of letting the executive branch investigate itself, there is a good chance Nixon would not have resigned. Again, do you want to Congress to double-check everything that the CIA say, or just the Liberty? And if just the Liberty then please explain why the CIA can't be trusted in that case. CIA Felt Pressure to Alter Iraq Data, Author Says Agency analysts were repeatedly ordered to redo their studies of Al Qaeda ties to Hussein regime, a terrorism expert charges. by Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2004 WASHINGTON — In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, CIA analysts were ordered repeatedly to redo intelligence assessments concluded that Al Qaeda had no operational ties to Iraq, according to a veteran CIA counter-terrorism official who has written a book that is sharply critical of the decision to go to war with Iraq. Agency analysts never altered their conclusions, but saw the pressure to revisit their work as a clear indication that Bush administration officials were seeking a different answer regarding Iraq and Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the CIA officer said in an interview with The Times. "We on the Bin Laden side [of the agency's analytic ranks] were required repeatedly to check, double-check and triple-check our files about a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq," said the officer, who spoke on condition that he be identified only by his first name, Mike. Asked whether he attributed the demands to an eagerness among officials at the White House or the Pentagon to find evidence of a link, he said: "You could not help but assume that was the case. They knew the answer [they wanted] before they asked the question." The officer is the author of a forthcoming book titled, "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror," published by Brassey's Inc. of Dulles, Va. He is listed as "Anonymous" on the book, which describes him as a "senior U.S. intelligence official with nearly two decades of experience in national security issues." The author has held a number of high-ranking agency positions, including serving from 1996 to 1999 as head of a special unit tracking Bin Laden. The book was approved for publication by the CIA after a four-month review — creating an unusual situation in which one of the secretive agency's senior officers was offering public criticism of administration policies and the prosecution of the war on terrorism. CIA spokesman Bill Harlow emphasized that the opinions in the book were those of the author, not the agency. He acknowledged that the book's publication was awkward for an agency that sought to be apolitical, but that the CIA found no classified material in it, and therefore allowed its release. Some have questioned the author's motives, noting that he was removed as head of the Bin Laden unit in 1999 over concerns about his performance. An intelligence official who has worked with the author at the CIA said that he might have been embittered by his removal, but that "people tend to think of him as a straight shooter." Mike said he was removed from the post because agency leaders "thought I was too myopic, too intense, too aggressive." He declined to elaborate. But he insisted that he did not write the book to settle scores. "The important thing to me is that we're missing the boat on this issue," he said. The book has created a stir in intelligence and policymaking circles for its scathing critique of U.S. efforts after the Sept. 11 attacks. In the book, Mike writes that the war in Afghanistan was in many respects a failure because the United States waited nearly a month to launch the invasion — allowing Al Qaeda operatives to flee — and relied heavily on proxy Afghan forces that were not always loyal to the U.S. cause. The book asserts that invading Iraq has inflamed anti-American sentiment to such a degree that it is minting a new generation of terrorists. "We have waged two failed half-wars and, in doing so, left Afghanistan and Iraq seething with anti-U.S. sentiment, fertile grounds for the expansion of Al Qaeda and kindred groups," he writes. In an interview this week, Mike, who has close-cropped hair and a beard, said Monday's transfer of authority to Iraq was likely to do little to curtail insurgent attacks. "Iraq, with or without a transfer of power, will be a mujahedin magnet as long as whatever government is there is dependent on America's sword," he said, adding that he thought his view was widely shared among counter-terrorism officials at the CIA and other intelligence agencies. The stealth manner in which sovereignty was transferred this week in Iraq — in a surprise ceremony two days ahead of schedule involving L. Paul Bremer III, the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, and the country's interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi — also sent a weak signal, he said. "From Bin Laden's perspective, we were afraid they were going to attack us and we left like a thief in the night, with Bremer throwing the keys to Allawi," he said. "They can only see this as a victory." Mike's criticism of the war in Iraq echoes that of other prominent counter-terrorism officials, including former White House aide Richard A. Clarke. But he is the first active CIA official to make the criticism publicly, albeit anonymously. Mike, however, faulted Clarke and others who served in the Clinton administration for failing to mount operations to capture or kill Bin Laden when the CIA had intelligence on his whereabouts. He said he thought Bin Laden would have been extremely reluctant to enter a collaborative relationship with Hussein, in part because he saw Iraq's military and spying services as inferior, incapable of protecting the security of Al Qaeda plans and operations. Mike said that because he did not work in the agency's Iraq section, he could not assess the accuracy of claims that analysts were pressured by the White House to tailor their assessments of Iraq's alleged illicit weapons programs to help make the case for war. Despite being forced to redo their work several times, he said, counter-terrorism analysts never altered their conclusion that Iraq was not working with Al Qaeda. "There was pressure to perform. But to its credit, the intelligence community as a whole said there was nothing" to suggest a collaborative relationship, he said. "The director on down insisted we call it straight." Mike still serves in the agency's counter-terrorism center, but acknowledges that he has been marginalized. "I get invited to speak" on counter-terrorism at the Defense Department, the FBI and the National Security Agency, he said, "but not within my own building." He wrote an earlier book, also anonymously, on Bin Laden and Islamic terrorism that was titled, "Through Our Enemies' Eyes." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4236086.story
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| USS LIBERTY CASE EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES REOPENING | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 0 | April 2nd 04 08:31 PM |
| USS LIBERTY CASE EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES REOPENING | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 2nd 04 08:31 PM |
| THOMAS MOORER, EX-JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR DIES | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 4 | February 21st 04 09:01 PM |
| THOMAS MOORER, EX-JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR DIES | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 2 | February 12th 04 12:52 AM |
| Letter from USS Liberty Survivor | Grantland | Military Aviation | 1 | July 17th 03 03:44 PM |
Hybrid Mode
