Most conspiracies hang together by a belabored psycho-social paranoid analysis. The conspiracy theory that Israel's attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 was "intentional" is a slanderous fabrication.
There are always those who will believe these conspiracy theories because they want to, because they have prejudices which make them vulnerable to these false allegations and no amount of logic or denial will ever convince them otherwise. This essay is not for them.
This lie about Israel being intentionaly culpable for the death of Americans is nothing less than a continued slander of a whole people.
http://pnews.org/art/ussliberty.shtml
Read the whole thing!!!
Full Version: The Truth about the USS Liberty
The late history of the US in regards to 'accidents' is nothing for Americans to be proud of. While I don't have the links here, the US admitted - 10 years after the fact - that it shot down an Italian passenger plane during the time of a brief conflict with Libya around 1980.
I am also sure that Iran will remember that fact we shot down one of their airliners by mistake during a 'secret' one day mini-war against Iran - which was the same day of the market crash in 1987.
Reparations were paid and apoligies were made by the US, but I don't expect the aggrieved parties will have any good feelings about those incidents.
I am also sure that Iran will remember that fact we shot down one of their airliners by mistake during a 'secret' one day mini-war against Iran - which was the same day of the market crash in 1987.
Reparations were paid and apoligies were made by the US, but I don't expect the aggrieved parties will have any good feelings about those incidents.
QUOTE(sleddog @ Jan 19 2005, 12:20 AM)
This lie about Israel being intentionaly culpable for the death of Americans is nothing less than a continued slander of a whole people.
Wow, that's some impressive hyberbole. "Slander of a whole people." Oh, my! When people criticize the actions of the US government, are you and I being slandered? How dare they!
A final determination of "who intended what" in this long-ago incident is probably impossible. But one of the reasons it won't go away is that some surprisingly senior officials have openly said there was a cover-up:
QUOTE
Two former NSA directors – Adm. Bobby Ray Inman, Gen. William Odom – and two ex-deputy directors – Gen. John Morrison and Oliver Kirby – told me that there has never been any question at the agency but that Israel's attack on the Liberty was deliberate.
San Diego Union Tribune article
Admiral Bobby Ray Inman? Gen. William Odom? These are top level people who are hardly going to associate themselves with some fringe conspiracy theory.
Then there are those involved in the original 1967 inquiry, such as the chief legal counsel Capt. Ward Boston, who have come out with damaging statements about a cover-up [from the same article linked above]:
QUOTE
As Dr. Richard Kiepfer, the ship's overwhelmed physician, has written, "Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers." A harsh judgment.
Kiepfer was referring to a perfunctory hearing convened barely a week following the attack, memorable to survivors mainly for its frequent rejection of testimony and evidence that tended to implicate Israel in a deliberate attack. Shockingly, the court's chief legal counsel, Capt. Ward Boston, in 2002 told Navy Times the naval court was, in fact, a politicized sham. Its conclusions, he declared, had been preordained to exonerate Israel.
Last month, Boston expanded upon those views in an interview with the Union-Tribune. He told Union-Tribune reporter James Crawley that a judgment of "no evidence of deliberate intent" was ordered from Washington to spare Israel embarrassment. Formerly, Cristol had supposed Boston would support him.
Kiepfer was referring to a perfunctory hearing convened barely a week following the attack, memorable to survivors mainly for its frequent rejection of testimony and evidence that tended to implicate Israel in a deliberate attack. Shockingly, the court's chief legal counsel, Capt. Ward Boston, in 2002 told Navy Times the naval court was, in fact, a politicized sham. Its conclusions, he declared, had been preordained to exonerate Israel.
Last month, Boston expanded upon those views in an interview with the Union-Tribune. He told Union-Tribune reporter James Crawley that a judgment of "no evidence of deliberate intent" was ordered from Washington to spare Israel embarrassment. Formerly, Cristol had supposed Boston would support him.
Ultimately, it's the hysteria of the "slander of a whole people" faction that makes me suspicious. If there's nothing to hide, what's wrong with re-opening an inquiry that original participants have said was flawed? Or are there 'taboo' subjects in our democracy?
To be perfectly frank, even if a new inquiry should show that the attack was deliberate, I doubt it would have much impact on the US-Israeli relationship. After all, it happened 38 years ago. The US has settled hostile incidents with foreign governments that occurred much more recently than that. So if that's what's got you so riled up, chill.
Personally, I'm less interested in Israel's role than in possible corruption on the U.S. side. If Lyndon Johnson ordered the Liberty incident buried for political reasons, what else did he cover up? Might he have covered up, or even been involved in the JFK assassination, as some have alleged?
Whether he did or not, the disturbing statements from senior US officials cited above suggest that the Liberty inquiry should be reopened in a search for the truth, whatever it might be (including reaffirmation of the original verdict, if that's what the truth is. Or do you know something I don't?
)
Sleddog, Thanks for the article. I didn't read all through it and I actually have no emotional commitment to either side of this one. It does however, rankle me that that the author makes the statement that bringing up the idea that it was a false flag operation, slanders an entire people. How can anyone slander an entire people this way? In order to pursue a charge of libel, intent has to be well established. I'm not splitting hairs here. Perhaps this author DOES have malicious intent. But is this aimed at the govt at that time, some individuals within the govt. or the entire people of Israel? It might be a wise idea for agencies like the anti-defamation league, to help bring these types of cases into a court of law, on charges of libel.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.