Navy crew remembers 1967 Israeli attack

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

In fact, Israel has previously committed
an intentional attack at a United States target:

Exhibit #1: Israel has attacked U.S. targets before with
terrorist bombs. See the results of any search engine
when you enter the key words "Lavon Affair." Weeks
has never disputed that Zionist terrorists set off bombs
in Egypt in the 1950s at American, British and Egyptian
targets. Nor has Weeks ever refuted that Israeli Prime
Minister David Ben-Gurion was forced to resign in
disgrace as a result of the Lavon Affair.

Apples and oranges.

Nice slogan. It might be better if you could cite some
evidence to back up your slogan. One must conclude that
Weeks has no evidence. But he knows some nice slogans.

Just for the record, Weeks does not dispute that Zionist
terrorists set off bombs in Egypt in the 1950s at American,
British and Egyptian targets. Weeks' 'apples and oranges'
consists of a Zionist attack on an American target and
Zionists attacking an American target. Big difference!

But it must be assumed in your black-is-white world, that
the IAF attack on the HMS Crane on 2 Nov. 1956 during the Suez War was all part
of this supposed "campaign" you imagine.

Again, Weeks combines a non sequitur with changing the
subject. How typical.

Conclusion: Weeks offers no intelligent rebuttal
regarding the similarities between the Lavon
Affair and the Liberty Affair.

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
Retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, the former counsel for the Navy's
Court of Inquiry, released a signed affidavit in October, stating he
was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary,
Robert McNamara, to conclude the attack was unintentional, despite
evidence to the contrary.

Just another incorrect statement. So damn typical. 80-year old Boston did
not
state what is claimed above.

Just so typical. Weeks does not offer any evidence to support
his claim. But since he is omniscient, he never needs to offer
any evidence. Weeks just knows.

Idiot; the statement as posted in inaccurate; there's nothing to show

Weeks feels his arguments are so weak that he needs to resort
to childish name calling. How typical. But the fact remains
that Weeks cites no evidence. We are just supposed to believe
him, because he knows all and sees all.

The only way to prove that I misquoted Boston is for Weeks
to post what he thinks Boston actually said. But apparently
Weeks is unable to do that. Weeks does not need to post any
evidence. He knows all. He sees all. He is omniscient.

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

It was generally agreed by insiders
that Johnson was someone you did not want to mess with. See Caro's
three volume biography for specific details.

LOL, nothing established, but a conclusion drawn. How typical.

Obviously you either have never read Caro's biographies, or you
were not able to make obvious character judgments based on Caro's
work. LBJ was able to reach the pinnacle of political power
because he was more aggressive than his peers, and he had no
reservations about employing any means necessary to achieve his
goals, even if it meant stuffing ballot boxes, a technique he used
to win both the Presidency of his College student body and the
1948 Texas Senate seat.

Caro won a 2003 Pulitzer prize in biography for the third
volume in his biography of LBJ, "Master of the Senate: The
Years of Lyndon Johnson."

I think I am entitled to draw a conclusion based on a Pulitzer
prize winning biography of LBJ.

In case you haven't noticed, Caro's work that you've presented doesn't
support
anything of what you claim above.

You are totally wrong. You present no evidence to support
your conclusion. How typical.

Thanks for continuing the tradition of being clueless.

Thanks for showing your case is so weak that you need to
constantly use name calling.

You've posted nothing
regarding Caro's work on LBJ that's, what, his pre-presidential as well as
pre-vice presidential days (i..e., "Master of the Senate" was the title,
right?) that relates to the Liberty incident, and your words of:

"McGonagle may have been directly ordered by President Johnson or some other
superior officer to lie."

I never claimed that was in Caro's book. Thanks for muddying the
waters again.

To repeat, I cited Caro's book in support of my claim that:

It was generally agreed by insiders
that Johnson was someone you did not want to mess with. See Caro's
three volume biography for specific details.

Notice I never associated Caro and McGonagle. Only Weeks does.

Just another "out of thin air" remark thank you very much.

I commend you, Weeks, for your ability to distort. You must
have earned a Ph.D. in propaganda from spook school to
constantly resort to dishonest tactics.

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
Retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, the former counsel for the Navy's
Court of Inquiry, released a signed affidavit in October, stating he
was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary,
Robert McNamara, to conclude the attack was unintentional, despite
evidence to the contrary.

Just another incorrect statement. So damn typical. 80-year old Boston
did
not
state what is claimed above.

Just so typical. Weeks does not offer any evidence to support
his claim. But since he is omniscient, he never needs to offer
any evidence. Weeks just knows.

Idiot; the statement as posted in inaccurate; there's nothing to show

Weeks feels his arguments are so weak that he needs to resort
to childish name calling. How typical.

And this compares to you continuing w/ these silly claims, such as above as
only one example? You think perhaps it's all rather boring by now?

Note: still no evidence to support his claim.

The only way to prove that I misquoted Boston is for Weeks
to post what he thinks Boston actually said. But apparently
Weeks is unable to do that. Weeks does not need to post any
evidence. He knows all. He sees all. He is omniscient.

Once again LOL; find the statement from 2002 (or even 2003) in which Boston
reportedly states "he was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense
secretary, Robert McNamara". That's what was posted for reportedly his Oct.
2003 statement – so in any case, you can't even use the correct reported
source in support of something Boston didn't claim.

Still no evidence. Weeks does not need to produce a source
for his claim. He sees all. He knows all. But he wants to
muddy the waters for everybody else.

All you have to do is actually quote Boston stating what you posted in "a
signed affidavit in October [2003]"; what's the friggin' problem?

The problem, Weeks, is you. You refuse to produce any evidence.

"Stanley" wrote:
"Issac Goldberg" wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
Retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, the former counsel for the Navy's
Court of Inquiry, released a signed affidavit in October, stating he
was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary,
Robert McNamara, to conclude the attack was unintentional, despite
evidence to the contrary.

Just another incorrect statement. So damn typical. 80-year old Boston
did not
state what is claimed above.

Just so typical. Weeks does not offer any evidence to support
his claim. But since he is omniscient, he never needs to offer
any evidence. Weeks just knows.

Idiot; the statement as posted in inaccurate; there's nothing to show

Weeks feels his arguments are so weak that he needs to
resort to childish name calling. How typical.

Mike Weeks knows what he is talking about. Some crossposting clown calling
himself "Issac Goldberg" should realize that quoting anti-Jew websites isn't
research.

Why is it that you feel your case is so weak that you, too,
must resort to childish name calling?

And, like Weeks, you cite no evidence.

As to research, perhaps you can cite a single Congressional
report which must have been produced if Cristol's claim that
there were many Congressional investigations of the Liberty
is true. If there is no Committee report, then there was no real
Congressional investigation, and Cristol was not being honest
in his book on the Liberty. One might even say that Cristol's
work is just a one-sided piece of propaganda in support of the
Zionist position.

The only way to prove that I misquoted Boston is for
Weeks to post what he thinks Boston actually said.

The only way to prove that you accurately quoted what Ward Boston said is
for you to personally post Boston's actual words.

I did.

Somebody else doing it for
you doesn't count, at least by what passes for reasoning in your mind.

Your claim alone does not refute my quote, and is therefore worthless.

But apparently Weeks is unable to do that. Weeks does
not need to post any evidence. He knows all. He sees all.
He is omniscient.

Unless you immediately post Ward Boston's exact words you are a proven liar.

Your chance to prove that I am wrong was for you to cite a source
which proves I'm wrong. Your failure to so indicates that you are
unable to do so. Put up or shut up.

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
[snip]
Retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, the former counsel for the Navy's
Court of Inquiry, released a signed affidavit in October, stating he
was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary,
Robert McNamara, to conclude the attack was unintentional, despite
evidence to the contrary.

[snip]

All you have to do is actually quote Boston stating what you posted in "a
signed affidavit in October [2003]"; what's the friggin' problem?

The problem is you, Weeks:

Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty
Ex-Navy Attorney Alleges LBJ Cover-Up in Military Probe of 1967
Israeli Attack on U.S. Spy Ship

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Oct. 22 [2003] — A former Navy attorney who helped lead the
military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty
that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon
Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the
inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.

In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference,
retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading
the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of
'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

Boston was senior legal counsel to the Navy's original 1967 review of
the attack. He said in the sworn statement that he stayed silent for
years because he's a military man, and "when orders come ... I follow
them."

He said he felt compelled to "share the truth" following the
publication of a recent book, "The Liberty Incident," which concluded
the attack was unintentional.

The USS Liberty was an electronic intelligence-gathering ship that was
cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast on June 8, 1967.
Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty at what
became known as the outbreak of the Israeli-Arab Six-Day War.

In addition to the 34 Americans killed, more than 170 were wounded.

Israel has long maintained that the attack was a case of mistaken
identity, an explanation that the Johnson administration did not
formally challenge. Israel claimed its forces thought the ship was an
Egyptian vessel and apologized to the United States.

After the attack, a Navy court of inquiry concluded there was
insufficient information to make a judgment about why Israel attacked
the ship, stopping short of assigning blame or determining whether it
was an accident.

It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said Ret. Adm.
Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a
year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he
formed with other former military officials. The panel also included a
former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins.

"Why in the world would our government put Israel's interest ahead of
our own?" Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He
was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack.

Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a deliberate act, wants
Congress to investigate.

Israeli Embassy spokesman Mark Regev disputed any notion that Israel
knowingly went after American sailors.

"I can say unequivocally that the Liberty tragedy was a terrible
accident, that the Israeli pilots involved believed they were
attacking an enemy ship," Regev said. "This was in the middle of a
war. This is something that we are not proud of."

Calls to the Navy seeking comment were not immediately returned.

David Lewis of Lemington, Vt., was on the Liberty when it was
attacked. In an interview, he said Israel had to know it was targeting
an American ship. He said a U.S. flag was flying that day and Israel
shot it full of holes. The sailors on the ship, he said, quickly
hoisted another American flag, a much bigger one, to show Israel it
was a U.S. vessel.

"No trained individual could be that inept," said Lewis of the Israeli
forces.

In Capt. Boston's statement, he does not say why Johnson would have
ordered a cover-up. Later in a phone interview from his home in
Coronado, Calif., Boston said Johnson may have worried the inquiry
would hurt him politically with Jewish voters.

Moorer's panel suggested several possible reasons Israel might have
wanted to attack a U.S. ship. Among them: Israel intended to sink the
ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States
into the 1967 war.


http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/...1022_2438.html

(Mike Weeks) wrote:

[snip]

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/boston.html

Thanks for the link, Weeks.

In the future, I will state that Johnson and
McNamara gave the order for the cover-up to Admiral
Kidd, who then informed Boston.

Thanks for the heads up.

That LBJ would give such an order is entirely consistent
with the person described in Robert Caro's Pulitzer prize
winning biography, "Master of the Senate," which is
volume three in his series, "The Years of Lyndon
Johnson."

In that book, Caro describes how Johnson used red-baiting
tactics to destroy the career of Leland Olds, because
Johnson's big oil friends in Texas wanted Olds gone. Caro
describes it this way:

"Another quality that Lyndon Johnson had displayed on
each stage of his march along the path to power was an
utter ruthlessness in destroying obstacles in that path."

Caro, in the two previous volumes, described how Johnson
used ballot box stuffing to win his Senate seat in 1948,
and also how Johnson used a similar illegal means to win
election as President of his College student body.

As to the content of Boston's statement, I'll take the
word of a Navy Captain over you, Weeks, a non-entity
who refuses to reveal his background. Furthermore, Weeks,
your constant name calling and insults show that
you are not looking for the truth, rather, you are
looking to suppress the truth. If you were looking
for the truth, there would be no need for you to
engage in name calling all the time.

A Navy Captain is more credible than a non-entity
any day.

Thanks again for the link, Weeks!

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

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/boston.html

Thanks for the link, Weeks.

In the future, I will state that Johnson and
McNamara gave the order for the cover-up to Admiral
Kidd, who then informed Boston.

Thanks for the heads up.

You're most welcome. Pleased that your problem has as last been overcome.
Really a shame it took so long for it to happen and that you were unable, or
unwilling, to do it on your own.

It's really a shame that you play a game of "I'm so smart
because I know that you made a minor mistake but I'm not
going to tell you what that mistake is." If you had been
forthcoming initially, a lot of bandwidth could have been
saved. But apparently that is your style, obfuscation rather
than clarity.

As to the content of Boston's statement, I'll take the
word of a Navy Captain over you, Weeks, a non-entity
who refuses to reveal his background.

Oh, this is truly heart-warming to read, especially since it comes from whoever
the heck you are.

Changing the subject again? You prove my point that you
refuse to reveal any information about your background.

BTW, the "word" you wish to accept w/o question comes with a
small condition, that of admitting to violating UCMJ article 135, section (e):

"(e) The members, counsel, the reporter, and interpreters of courts of inquiry
shall take an oath to faithfully perform their duties."

But don't let that "small" detail bother you.

Members of the Armed Forces are trained to follow
orders without question. And if the orders originated
directly from the President of the United States,
there would be few in the service, if any, who would
not obey those orders, even if they were clearly illegal.

[LBJ's previous illegal acts included the theft of the
1948 Senate election in Texas, where he secured his
victory by using ballot box stuffing. 200 people
who allegedly voted for Johnson from precinct 13 in
Jim Wells County amazingly voted in alphabetical order,
and furthermore, they all had the exact same handwriting
when they allegedly signed in at the polling place.
Johnson's final winning margin was 87 votes out of a
million votes cast. See volume 2 of Caro's
LBJ biography, "Means of Ascent."]

Everything Boston says ties in with the charges by the
Liberty crew that the Navy Court of Inquiry was a sham.

The Navy Court of Inquiry carefully avoided looking
into the question of whether the attack was
intentional or an accident, so you are able to say
both that "they found no evidence that the attack
was an accident," and that "they found no evidence
that the attack was intentional."

[snip]

A Navy Captain is more credible than a non-entity
like you any day.

Agreed.

Thanks for your endorsement of Captain Boston.

That's why you have no credibility but Captain A. Jay Cristol does ...

Cristol lost whatever credibility he had because he
continues to imply that Congress thoroughly investigated
the Liberty affair and exonerated Israel as a result.
That never happened. If Congress never investigated
whether the attack was intentional or not, then they had
no evidence one way or another on which to base a
conclusion. It would be just as accurate to say, "Congress
found no evidence that the attack was an accident," as
saying "Congress found no evidence that the attack was
intentional." Both statements are technically correct, but
both are misleading, since the major point of controversy,
whether the attack was intentional or not, WAS NEVER
INVESTIGATED BY CONGRESS. Cristol, by continuing to imply
otherwise, is being dishonest.

For example, Cristol cites the Hearings on the Foreign
Aid Assistance Act of 1967 as evidence that the attack
on the Liberty was investigated by Congress. But
Senators present at those hearings openly questioned
the Administration's explanation of events and
complained about not having enough information to
make an informed conclusion regarding the attack on
the Liberty.

The only other Congressional investigation cited by
Cristol on his web page, by the House Armed Services
Committee, did not investigate the details of the
Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, because that committee
was charged to investigate shortcomings in DOD's
communications. To imply, as Cristol does, that the
Armed Services investigation thoroughly looked into
the Israeli attack on the Liberty and concluded that
it was an accident is pure dishonesty.

[Why Cristol would put examples of Congressional
investigations which clearly do not support his
conclusion, when better examples exist, is totally
illogical.]

President Bush used the same kind of deception to
build support for his invasion of Iraq. He repeatedly
implied that Saddam had been responsible for the 9/11
attacks, and at the start of the recent conquest of
Iraq, a majority of the American people believed it.

wrote in message . com...
(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...

What I don't follow on this subject is what do the "accidental
attack"ers charge Capt Boston of lying about? His statement is well
written in that it is specific, clear and to the point. Why would
Boston, a combat veteran of WWII, lie on this matter and why do those
who defend Israel disparage him so?

The question is:
Had Boston lied when he had signed his name on the Court's findings,
affirming that the investigation had been done properly,
or did he lie later when he said that the investigation
was not done properly?

If the first, then what the word of a man who took an oath to
do a job properly, and did not do it, really worths?

How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors? How
do you even know what was in the report the Kidd
originally submitted, when evidence by Boston and others
suggests that Johnson's people at the White House
modified some sections and deleted other sections
that they didn't like?

The sad fact is that President Johnson was a proven
liar.

Johnson lied during the 1964 Presidential elections when
he repeatedly said that he "would not send American boys
to do the job of the Vietnamese boys." Later publication
of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the decision to send
ground troops to Southeast Asia had already been made.

The irony here is that Johnson was running as the
'peace' candidate. His was no small lie, since
the lie resulted in the deaths of tens of
thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese.
McNamara has estimated that somewhere in the
neighborhood of between two and three million
of the 'enemy' died during America's Southeast Asia
adventure.

This was the war that included the CIA's Phoenix
program, which killed thousands of civilians,
sometimes by summary execution, sometimes after
an interrogation session which included extreme
torture.

This was the war which included 'free-fire zones,'
where US soldiers could shoot anything that moved,
including women, children and the elderly. The
dead were included in the daily count of communist
fighters killed, even if those killed were unarmed
civilians.

It is fairly well known that many Americans ground
troops considered all Vietnamese as sub-human
'gooks.' A popular slogan which appears on many
tee-shirts at the time says, "kill them all, let
God sort it out."

A recent newspaper series in the Toledo Blade
detailed the atrocities committed in the Vietnamese
central highlands by an elite American unit known
as the Tiger Force:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...y=SRTIGERFORCE

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?

And Kidd never found that out...
And no copies are kept in different places...
And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...

If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.