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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
(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." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
(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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
(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] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote: (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 to whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional. Congress did investigate a single aspect of the Liberty incident, relating to DOD communications. This investigation by the House Armed Services Committee did not consider the question of whether the attack on the USS Liberty 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?" To say that Congress never found evidence that the attack was intentional is being disingenuous. If there was no investigation into whether the attack was intentional, then there could be 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] |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
#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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
(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? In other words, why should Congresss investigate the Liberty incidence after the CIA concluded that the Israeli explanation is reasonable. (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.) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote: (Issac Goldberg) wrote: (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 to whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional. Congress did investigate a single aspect of the Liberty incident, relating to DOD communications. This investigation by the House Armed Services Committee did not consider the question of whether the attack on the USS Liberty 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?" To say that Congress never found evidence that the attack was intentional is being disingenuous. If there was no investigation into whether the attack was intentional, then there could be 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] You sure have Mike "the Mole" Weeks pegged right. He cannot back up Cristols lies as he knows they are lies and still cannot explain why his is so vehemently opposed to a new investigation such that he spends so much time trying to prevent it. It seems rather reasonable to investigate anew the events surrounding the USS Liberty attack in public investigation that settles this once and for all. I also believe that Weeks is nothing but a Zionist mole working to undermine the security of United States of America. An investigation into Mike Week's past should also be conducted as Weeks "claims" to have served in the US Navy (hard to believe I know) so what secrets he may have stolen is also in question. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |