USS Liberty Challenge/Reward

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.

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.

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."

The only connection with the attack on the Liberty was
the misrouted message ordering the Liberty to leave the
area due to the hostilities. No other aspect of the
attack on the Liberty was looked at. The topics
not looked at included:

a) Whether the attack was intentional,

b) Whether Israel had previously identified
the Liberty,

c) Whether rescue aircraft were recalled,

d) Whether an American intelligence plane
recorded conversations between the attacking
Israeli aircraft and their controllers, and
what those conversations were.

In fact the only issue considered in the report
deals with problems with DOD communications.

If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was a
Congressional investigation of the Liberty which
exonerates the Israelis, Cristol is a failure.

2) Senate Foreign Relations Committee Investigation

Lo and behold, rather than "An Investigation into the
attack on the USS Liberty," the link takes you to
hearings on the "Foreign Assistance Act of 1967."

It is not a report giving conclusions of an
investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty;
it is merely hearings. They are two different things.

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."

Senator Aiken: "I think, not only the committee, but the
public wants better information than they have had so far."

Senator Mundt also expresses doubts about the failure of
the attacking Israeli pilots to identify the ship "in
broad daylight."

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.

If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was an
investigation of the Liberty which exonerates the
Israelis, Cristol is a failure.

Cristol is 0 for 2. Cristol is a failure.

There was no Congressional investigation of the
USS Liberty which concluded that the Israeli
attack was an accident. And this was from the
link that Weeks provided. Maybe Weeks will
continue to provide other links which disprove
his contentions.

(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."

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

For some reason, I cannot reply directly to Hillel's post.

The main point, which Hillel does his best to avoid is:

Congress never conducted an investigation solely concerning
the USS Liberty affair, and Cristol's web page does not refute
that.


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.

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.

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."

The only connection with the attack on the Liberty was
the misrouted message ordering the Liberty to leave the
area due to the hostilities. No other aspect of the
attack on the Liberty was looked at. The topics
not looked at included:

a) Whether the attack was intentional,

b) Whether Israel had previously identified
the Liberty,

c) Whether rescue aircraft were recalled,

d) Whether an American intelligence plane
recorded conversations between the attacking
Israeli aircraft and their controllers, and
what those conversations were.

In fact the only issue considered in the report
deals with problems with DOD communications.

If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was a
Congressional investigation of the Liberty which
exonerates the Israelis, Cristol is a failure.

2) Senate Foreign Relations Committee Investigation

Lo and behold, rather than "An Investigation into the
attack on the USS Liberty," the link takes you to
hearings on the "Foreign Assistance Act of 1967."

It is not a report giving conclusions of an
investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty;
it is merely hearings. They are two different things.

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."

Senator Aiken: "I think, not only the committee, but the
public wants better information than they have had so far."

Senator Mundt also expresses doubts about the failure of
the attacking Israeli pilots to identify the ship "in
broad daylight."

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.

If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was an
investigation of the Liberty which exonerates the
Israelis, Cristol is a failure.

Cristol is 0 for 2. Cristol is a failure.

There was no Congressional investigation of the
USS Liberty which concluded that the Israeli
attack was an accident. And this was from the
link that Weeks provided. Maybe Weeks will
continue to provide other links which disprove
his contentions.

#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.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
The main point, which Hillel does his best to avoid is:

Congress never conducted an investigation solely concerning
the USS Liberty affair, and Cristol's web page does not refute
that.

Congress never conducted an investigation of *MOST* affairs. Congress
usually investigates only if there is a high profile case or there
are indications that the executive branch lied; e.g. Joseph McCarthy
communists' hunt, Iran-Contra affair, Watergate.

Unless you can show some good reasons why US Navy's Court Of Inquiry
can't be trusted in the Liberty case, I don't see why Congress should
waste its time duplicating the court's job.

wrote in message . com...

[snip]

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
The main point, which Hillel does his best to avoid is:

Congress never conducted an investigation solely concerning
the USS Liberty affair, and Cristol's web page does not refute
that.

Congress never conducted an investigation of *MOST* affairs. Congress
usually investigates only if there is a high profile case or there
are indications that the executive branch lied; e.g. Joseph McCarthy
communists' hunt, Iran-Contra affair, Watergate.

Congress has thoroughly investigated every disaster involving
the US Navy EXCEPT for the USS Liberty.

[snip]

#Congress never conducted an investigation of *MOST* affairs. Congress
# usually investigates only if there is a high profile case or there
# are indications that the executive branch lied; e.g. Joseph McCarthy
# communists' hunt, Iran-Contra affair, Watergate.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
Congress has thoroughly investigated every disaster involving
the US Navy EXCEPT for the USS Liberty.

Really?!
Would you like to compare the The USS Stark Incident
(see http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm), with
37 American seamen dead, to the Liberty?

Can you please tell us what special investgation Congress did about
the Stark and not about the Liberty? Come on, you made a claim now
prove it.

BTW my impression is that Congress usually accepts the Navy's Court
of inquiry conclusions; e.g. USS Greeneville. If you have some
counter examples, where Congress rejected the Navy's Court
of inquiry conclusions, then please post them.

ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
Jim Watt _way wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
Jim Watt _way wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:

Oops; it's a comment made in 2002 by the 1967 [then-CIA director] Helms in
that
BBC trash production of "Dead on the Water"
Is it trash because it comes to a different conclusion to you?
You should really appreciate this; it's trash because it's a fairy tale.
And the evidence for that statement is?

You have yet to show any evidence that the book "The Liberty Incident" is a
fairy tale; since you admit to not having read it.

This is not evidence. This is 'changing the subject.' Whether or
not Watt read Cristol's book is hardly evidence that the BBC
production is a 'fairy tale.' This is just another example of the
kind of non sequitur Weeks often uses to muddy the waters.
How typical.

I've seen this video, and when they use a cropped BDA photo taken from a Mirage
IIICJ(R) which has been widely published since 1967 showing destroyed EAF MiGs
on the ground and attempt to pass it off as having been taken from an USAF
RF-4C flying for the IAF, piloted by USAF crews ...

The cropped photo doesn't show the Mirage's shadow at the bottom ...

You get just one example. Come back after you've read Cristol's book ...

Again, to imply that Watt's reading Cristol's book or not is 'evidence'
that the BBC production is a 'fairy tale' is totally bogus.

Your alleged proof concerning a cropped photo is your own personal
view, and as such is not evidence, it is just your opinion. This
just another example of the non-entity know as Weeks being omniscient.

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

As pointed out to you, the Israeli government did apologize.
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 ...

MW

So, according to Weeks, United States Senators who are elected
do not speak 'for the public.' It must be that only the omniscient
Weeks can speak for the public, since he knows all, and sees all.