Home
U.S. and Israeli militaries discuss attack on Liberty
Central America News.Net
Saturday 5th July, 2008
Leading defense officials from the United States and Israel, meeting in Israel this week, raised the controversial attack on the U.S. ship USS Liberty, by Israel, in June 1967.
The attack has caused considerable controversy over the years despite both governments being reticent to publicly discuss the affair.
It is rare that defense officials from either side discuss the attack which killed 34 U.S. service personnel, and wounded 171 others. In talks this week however between the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, together with other senior Israeli and American military officials, the subject was well and truly on the table.
According to a Haaretz newspaper report on Friday, quoting a source from the Israeli delegation, the Liberty attack was raised in talks regarding Iran, and U.S. operations in the Middle East. While it was stressed that the parties did not discuss operational coordination, it was agreed by both sides that the United States and Israel would want to avoid any sort of 'mistaken confrontation' such as that which occurred when Israeli forces attacked the USS Liberty.
Why Mullen was in Israel at all remains a mystery, and the fact that he spent two days there is even more surprising. Not only that but this week’s visit to Israel was the second since December by the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs. Further it followed a visit to Israel last week by two four-star U.S. Generals. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead, was in Israel for high-level talks with his Israeli counterpart, Vice Admiral Eliezer Marom. It was their third meeting in eight months. Around the middle of last week Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, landed in Tel Aviv. He was there as the guest of OC Ground Forces Command Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrahi. In contrast to Roughead's visit, which was covered by the media, the Israeli military refused to answer questions about the Wallace visit.
The Mullen visit has been downplayed by the Pentagon but it was reported in the Israeli press the Joint Chiefs chairman cut short his trip to Europe to fly to Tel Aviv. Yet last week Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell at a press briefing told reporters, “As for Chairman Mullen's trip, I believe it's been months at least that it's been, well, it's been months on the schedule. It is, I believe, part of his normal outreach to strong allies of ours across the globe, Israel being one of our closest and strongest. But I believe this is a routine opportunity for Chairman Mullen to engage his counterpart in Israel on military-to-military matters, as he does in much of his travels around the world.”
Mullen is scheduled to meet with his Israeli counterpart again in a few weeks time in Washington. It will be the fourth time the men will have met since December. The intense discussions between the two military powers comes just two weeks after it was reported the Israel Air Force had conducted one of the largest aerial exercises in its history. The IAF reportedly flew one hundred F-15 and F-16 fighter jets - supported by midair fuel tankers and rescue helicopters - 1,500 kilometers westward over the Mediterranean Sea. This just happens to equal the distance eastward from Israel to Iran's nuclear facilities.
While Mullen this week was playing down threats of a military strike against Iran, by either the United States or Israel, speculation is rising that an attack will be carried out by Israel after the U.S. election in November.
Whilst U.S. officials, including Mullen, are pouring cold water on the idea, none have told Israel publicly that the U.S. would not condone such an attack.
Given the opportunity of squashing the speculation last week, the United States’ top defense official, William H. Gates, refused to address the topic. On June 26 at a press conference Gates was asked,” just curious to what extent you're worried that Israel may take preemptive military action against Iran with or without the support of the United States?”
Gates: “I'm not going to talk about a hypothetical.”
Immediately after this question, the defense secretary was asked what he thought about Israel’s view of Iran’s timetable for obtaining a nuclear weapon, and in responding hesitated before indicating he was not even sure what his own country’s estimate of when Iran might obtain a nuclear weapon.
Reporter: “Mr. Secretary, have you seen any evidence to support claims made by Israel that Iran's program for enriching uranium and perhaps producing fissile material for nuclear weapons is much further along than previously thought?”
Gates: “I think that the best way to characterize it is that there is a range of views among intelligence analysts in different countries, and our analysts probably tend to be a little more , think that the timeline is somewhat longer before they would have, be able to have enough enriched uranium to begin to proceed toward a weaponization process. I would say that Israel is not the only country -- without getting into any further details, that Israel is not the only country that has a more pessimistic view in terms of how soon they could have something”.
Reporter: “And what is the timeline by U.S. analysts?”
Gates: “I think that, well, I'd better not say. I'm not 100 percent sure.”
So where does the Liberty fit in? What discussions could have possible brought the Liberty attack to the fore? If indeed Israel is planning an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, could it be that the U.S. has warned the Jewish state it would not tolerate a repeat of what happened to the Liberty? What other explanation could there be for discussing an incident both governments have long tried to forget?
The USS Liberty, an unarmed electronic intelligence-gathering ship was sailing off the Egyptian Coast, fourteen miles from the Sinai Peninsular on 8th June 1967, the fourth day of the Six Day War. According to official reports later from both sides Israel flew a number of recon flights over the ship from early in the day. Then in the middle of the afternoon, the ship which had no means of defending itself, and despite being covered with broadcast towers and antennas, and bearing an American flag, was attacked by waves of low-flying Israeli Mystere and Mirage-III fighter-bombers with rockets, fragmentation bombs, heat seeking missiles, and napalm. A large number of officers and crew were killed and scores more were wounded. The ship was ablaze and as crewmembers rushed to extinguish fires, Israeli torpedo boats arrived on the scene and started firing torpedos. According to witnesses (survivors) Israeli gun boats then toured the area machine-gunning survivors.
The Liberty's radio frequencies were jammed as the assault started, however it got one message out to the Sixth Fleet nine minutes after the attack commenced, saying it was under attack by Israeli aircraft. The Sixth Fleet twice dispatched planes to aid the stricken ship. Towards the end of the attack Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was in contact with his counterpart in Israel telling him to call off the attack. Around this time Israel claimed it had made a mistake, saying it thought the ship was an Egyptian vessel. Much to the anger of the Sixth Fleet, and in particular, the USS Liberty, the planes sent to aid the Liberty were recalled.
While the U.S. government under President Johnson failed to publicly criticize Israel, a practice that continues to this day, the government’s views were revealed in a diplomatic note to the Israeli ambassador to the United States penned by Secretary of State Dean Rusk two days after the attack:
“The Secretary of State presents his compliments to His Excellency the Ambassador of Israel and has the honor to refer to the Ambassadors Note of June 10, 1967 concerning the attack by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats on the United States naval vessel USS Liberty, which was carried out at 1605 and 1625 hours local time. Respectively, on June 8, 1967 while the USS Liberty was engaged in peaceful activities in international waters,” Rusk wrote.
“At the time of the attack, the USS Liberty was flying the American flag and its identification was clearly indicated in large white letters and numerals on its hull. It was broad daylight and the weather conditions were excellent. Experience demonstrates that both the flag and the identification number of the vessel were readily visible from the air."
"At 1450 hours local time on June 8, 1967, two Israeli aircraft circled the USS Liberty three times, with the evident purpose of identifying the vessel. Accordingly there is every reason to believe that the USS Liberty was identified, or at least her nationality determined, by Israeli aircraft approximately one hour before the attack. In these circumstances, the later military attack by Israeli aircraft on the USS Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. As a minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life.”
“The subsequent attack by Israeli torpedo boats, substantially after the vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces, manifests the same reckless disregard for human life. The silhouette and conduct of the USS Liberty readily distinguished it from any vessel that could have been considered as hostile. The USS Liberty was peacefully engaged, posed no threat whatsoever to the torpedo boats, and obviously carried no armament affording it a combat capability. It could and should have been scrutinized visually at close range before torpedoes were fired,” said Secretary of State Rusk.
“While the Ambassador of Israel has informed the Secretary of State that "the Government of Israel is prepared to make amends for the tragic loss of life and material damage," the Secretary of State wishes to make clear that the United States Government expects the Government of Israel also to take the disciplinary measures which international law requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the military personnel of a State. He wishes also to make clear that the United States Government expects the Government of Israel to issue instructions necessary to ensure that United States personnel and property will not again be endangered by the wrongful actions of Israeli military personnel.”
“The United States Government expects that the Government of Israel will provide compensation in accordance with international law to the extent that it is possible to compensate for the losses sustained in this tragic event. The Department of State will, in the near future, present to the Government of Israel a full monetary statement of its claim.””
When Rusk published his memoirs in 1990 in his book “As I Saw It,” he had this to say about the Liberty incident:
"We also lost 34 American lives when, on June 8, the fourth day of the war, the U.S. communications ship Liberty came under air and naval attack. We were meeting with President Johnson in the White House situation room, considering the implications had the Soviets or Egyptians attacked the ship, when we received word from Tel Aviv that Israeli forces were responsible. That didn't please us, although an Israeli attack on Liberty was far easier to deal with. But I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."
Survivors of the Liberty have fought for four decades for a Congressional inquiry into the attack, but no members of Congress have been willing to pick up the baton to take it forward. Last month the controversy briefly raised its head again when Ward Boston, Jr.,Captain, JAGC, USN (Ret.), Counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry’s investigation into the attack died. He however broke his silence in recent years on what he claimed was a cover-up by the Johnson administration.
On January 9 2004 at Coronado, California he executed an affidavit in which he said:
“For more than 30 years, I have remained silent on the topic of USS Liberty. I am a military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United States, I follow them."
“However, recent attempts to rewrite history compel me to share the truth,” he said.
“In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps, Department of the Navy, I was assigned as senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the brutal attack on USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th.”
“The late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, president of the Court, and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation into the attack, despite the fact that we both had estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry into an attack of this magnitude would take at least six months to conduct,” said Boston.
“Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., then Commander-in-chief, Naval Forces Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR), (the father of current presidential candidate John McCain) at his headquarters in London, had charged Admiral Kidd (in a letter dated June 10, 1967) to “inquire into all the pertinent facts and circumstances leading to and connected with the armed attack; damage resulting therefrom; and deaths of and injuries to Naval personnel.”"
“Despite the short amount of time we were given, we gathered a vast amount of evidence, including hours of heartbreaking testimony from the young survivors,” said Boston.
“The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as “murderous bastards.” It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident.”
“I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their superiors, who had ordered the attack, were well aware that the ship was American,” wrote Boston.
“I saw the flag, which had visibly identified the ship as American, riddled with bullet holes, and heard testimony that made it clear that the Israelis intended there be no survivors. 10. Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded — a war crime.”
“Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter” said Boston.
“Regrettably, we did not receive into evidence and the Court did not consider any of the more than sixty witness declarations from men who had been hospitalized and were unable to testify in person.”
“I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of “mistaken identity. In particular, the recent publication of Jay Cristol’s book, The Liberty Incident, twists the facts and misrepresents the views of those of us who investigated the attack,” said Boston.
“It is Cristol’s insidious attempt to whitewash the facts that has pushed me to speak out.”
“I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary,” said Boston.
“Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the court’s findings.”
“Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to “put the lid” on everything having to do with the attack on USS Liberty. We were never to speak of it and we were to caution everyone else involved that they could never speak of it again,” he said.
“I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to Washington.”
“I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand correct and initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and I did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been excised,” claimed Boston.
“Following the conclusion of the Court of Inquiry, Admiral Kidd and I remained in contact. Though we never spoke of the attack in public, we did discuss it between ourselves, on occasion. Every time we discussed the attack, Admiral Kidd was adamant that it was a deliberate, planned attack on an American ship.”
“In 1990, I received a telephone call from Jay Cristol, who wanted to interview me concerning the functioning of the Court of Inquiry. I told him that I would not speak to him on that subject and prepared to hang up the telephone. Cristol then began asking me about my personal background and other, non-Court of Inquiry related matters. I endeavored to answer these questions and politely extricate myself from the conversation. Cristol continued to return to the subject of the Court of Inquiry, which I refused to discuss with him. Finally, I suggested that he contact Admiral Kidd and ask him about the Court of Inquiry,” said Boston.
“Shortly after my conversation with Cristol, I received a telephone call from Admiral Kidd, inquiring about Cristol and what he was up to. The Admiral spoke of Cristol in disparaging terms and even opined that “Cristol must be an Israeli agent.” I don’t know if he meant that literally or it was his way of expressing his disgust for Cristol’s highly partisan, pro-Israeli approach to questions involving USS Liberty.”
“At no time did I ever hear Admiral Kidd speak of Cristol other than in highly disparaging terms. I find Cristol’s claims of a “close friendship” with Admiral Kidd to be utterly incredible. I also find it impossible to believe the statements he attributes to Admiral Kidd, concerning the attack on USS Liberty,” he said.
“Several years later, I received a letter from Cristol that contained what he purported to be his notes of our prior conversation. These “notes” were grossly incorrect and bore no resemblance in reality to that discussion. I find it hard to believe that these “notes” were the product of a mistake, rather than an attempt to deceive. I informed Cristol that I disagreed with his recollection of our conversation and that he was wrong. Cristol made several attempts to arrange for the two of us to meet in person and talk but I always found ways to avoid doing this. I did not wish to meet with Cristol as we had nothing in common and I did not trust him,” said Boston.
“Contrary to the misinformation presented by Cristol and others, it is important for the American people to know that it is clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking an American ship and murdering American sailors, whose bereaved shipmates have lived with this egregious conclusion for many years,” concluded the Boston affidavit.
The controversy raged as Cristol took issue with Boston. “He now says under oath that he participated in a lie in 1967. If he is telling the truth now, he confirms lying in 1967, or if he was truthful in 1967, then obviously he is lying now. So how does one decide when Ward Boston was lying? Then or now?” asked Cristol.
"Why was Boston not outraged on June 18, 1967 by the report of the Court of Inquiry signed by, according to his definition apparent apologists for Israel, Admiral Kidd, Captain Atkinson, Captain Lauff and Captain Boston?"
"Why was Boston not outraged on June 18, 1967 when apologist for Israel, Admiral John C. McCain, in Boston’s presence, endorsed the Court of Inquiry with the comment: "The foregoing comments by the convening authority lead to an overall conclusion that the attack was in fact a mistake?" asked Cristol.
"Why was Boston not outraged in July 1967 when apologist for Israel, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated, "In the case of the attack on the Liberty, it was the conclusion of the investigatory body headed by an Admiral of the Navy [Isaac C. Kidd, Jr.] in whom we have great confidence that the attack was not intentional. I read the record of investigation and I support that conclusion, and I think . . . it was not a conscious decision on the part of either the government of Israel . . . [t]o attack a U.S. vessel." (Released by U.S. Government printing office: 1967.)"
"Why was Boston not outraged on September 15, 1967, when distinguished journalist and, by Boston’s definition "apologist for Israel," James L. Kilpatrick wrote in an article published in the National Review, on page 958, ". . . that the Israeli government was heavily dependent upon the goodwill of the united States; it would have been utterly irrational for the Israeli Navy knowingly to have launched an attack on the U.S. ship; and that the only reasonable explanation is that the incident was mistake arising from the natural tensions and fallible judgments of a hot war.""
"Why," continued Cristol, "was Boston not outraged on February 27, 1978 when "apologist for Israel," the CIA Director Admiral Stansfield Turner, stated in a letter to Senator Abourezk, "It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake.""
"Why was Boston not outraged on September 19, 1978 when the Director of Central Intelligence, Admiral Stansfield Turner, stated publicly on ABC television in a discussion about the Liberty incident: ". . .we released an evaluated over-all document which said very clearly that it was our considered opinion that the Israeli Government had no such knowledge at that time.""
"Why was Boston not outraged," asked Cristol, "on July 11, 1983 when "apologist for Israel," the National Security Agency released in its partially declassified 1981 report "Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors?""?
"Why was Boston not outraged on September 5, 1991 when "apologist for Israel," President George H.W. Bush’s (41) White House, wrote ". . . A thorough investigation into the USS Liberty incident was conducted and the conclusion was that it was a tragic case of mistaken identity.""
"Why," asked Cristol, "was Boston not outraged on May 10, 1995 when "apologist for Israel," President William Clinton’s White House, wrote, "There is no information available that demonstrates that the attack was deliberate.""
"Why was Boston not outraged on August 30, 1995 when Clark Clifford’s July 18, 1967 report was declassified revealing the conclusion, "The weight of the evidence is that the Israeli attacking forces originally believed their target was Egyptian . . .2. The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American.""
"Why," asked Cristol, "was Boston not outraged on October 2, 2002, when President George W. Bush’s White House, wrote "The results of the investigations were considered satisfactory,there is no precedent to reinvestigate this case.""
"Why was Boston not outraged," asked Cristol, "on July 2, 2003 when the "apologist for Israel" National Security Agency further declassified a portion of page 64 of its 1981 Report, which stated, "While these reports revealed some confusion concerning the nationality of the ship, they tended to rule out any thesis that the Israeli Navy and Air Force deliberately attacked a ship they knew to be American.""
 Email this story to a friend
Comments on this story
A NAVIGATOR
07-05-08, 02:33 AM |
U.S and Israeli militaries discuss attack on Liberty
IN WWII THE BATTLESHIP USS SOUTH DAKOTA THE BATTLECRUISER USS ALASKA WERE BOMBED AND STRAFFED BY US ARMY AIRCORPS B-25 MITCHELL BOMBERS OFF THE VIRGINIA CAPES IN TWO SEPERATE INCIDENTS THE AIRCREWS PROUDLY CLAIMED IN THE DEBRIEF THEY “BAGGED THE TIRPITZ”-OOOOOPS! - FRIENDLY FIRE IS NOTHING NEW AND PILOTS GOING AT CONSIDERABLE SPEED HAVE SHORT ATTENTION SPANS AND CANNOT ALLWAYS BE CERTAIN OF WHAT THEY HIT NAVAL UNITS ENGAUGED WHAT THE AF HIT- SAD WAR STORY
|
ElGatoGordo
07-05-08, 11:03 AM |
Which country has announced it's intent to destroy another country?
Iran’s leaders have repeatedly stated their intent to destroy Israel. It would be the height of folly for Israel to NOT plan to counter attack, or even to attack preemptively.
|
Anonymous
07-05-08, 06:58 AM |
No question Israel intends to attack Iran
Who does the world put up with this? Why is there no condemnation, outrage, about a sovereign country openly planning to attack another? Is the world so gutless that it is going to stand by and allow this to happen?
|
~`~~galljdaj+
07-05-08, 07:15 AM |
Military Officers have and make choices...
... , and One such choice, is to resign rather than to violate the Oath they have made.
Enlisted personnel follow orders in blind obedience under oath and threat of punishment(extreme as death), while those doing the Planning(officers) must include the 'Oath' in the plan. Violating the Constitution is not allowed! Regardless of 'loyalty' to a President!
Resignation was and is the only Honorable Choice! It is the only Legal Choice! It also is the most violated by Our Military.
Our Constitution, arguably Our Nation, is suffering from an almost total loss of HONOR! Our lEADERS FEAR the Constitution’s Rule of Law! Imposing Lying rather than Standing Tall alongside of the Constitution!
|
Anonymous
07-05-08, 07:33 AM |
Too bad Israel is not a member of the International Court
It seems Israel can commit war crimes, invade other countries, attack its allies, and sit back with absolute immunity. Why is this one country in the world allowed to get away with so much? The previous poster is right. Pilots and commanders in the Israeli military can do what they like without fear of being prosecuted for war crimes. The only thing they have to worry about is they consciounce, but I doubt they have one.
|
Anonymous
07-05-08, 07:40 AM |
Cut the bullshit, have an independent inquiry
This matter has gone on too long. All the officers and crew of Liberty, and all US service personnel who serve today, and have served, deserve a full and open, and independent inquiry into what happened here. I would never believe an Israeli military explanation. This needs to be investigated properly, and now, before everyone involved is dead. Quite obviously the US Congress is not going to bring it about because they are all on Israel’s payroll. Only the people can. Lets get something happening. Why should the Liberty sailors be carrying the can all these years, especially after what they went through.
|
kjhalliwell
07-05-08, 09:43 AM |
Evidentiary Study of the USS Liberty Attack
I invite anybody seriously interested in this matter to take a look at: http://ussliberty-inquiry.us
Critical feedback welcome...
|
~`~~galljdaj+
07-05-08, 11:31 AM |
kjhalliwell; I have attempted, and get a return message...
... , site may not exist. !caution!
Why don’t you post some portions you feel are particularly relative to your interest(s).
|
kjhalliwell
07-05-08, 02:53 PM |
Evidentiary Study of the USS Liberty attack
Here’s an alternative address: http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/
http://ussliberty-inquiry.us is simply a alais for the above address.
All of the information on the above site addresses my interests in the matter. I simply offer it as another source of information for anybody interested.
|
~`~~galljdaj+
07-05-08, 03:20 PM |
Disappointed Mr. Halliwell, however...
... , after some additional checking, I now believe you are seeking the the truth.
And, for a number of reasons you believe jay cristol to be a liar.
Whether you do or not, I can say I believe him to be a liar and a presenter of fraud.
I believe it was in 1985 that he was rewarded with a Judgeship! Those presenting him with the reward were Reagan Bush. His path was well 'greased'!
So why was he rewarded? The services provided regarding the Liberty seems to be his merit badge.
The irony that convinces me comes from Our lil pundit. He no doubt heard many a war story at his daddy’s table. We have seen those stories played out again, and again, with the signature I can do better than you daddy!
The attempts on Saddam’s Life in January February 2001, the Wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the use of Torture and how it came about is the most telling copying of Daddy’s War Stories.
Bybee elevated to a Judgeship for writting a White Paper saying torture was not torture.
The go between, Gonzales, was elevated to US Attorney General.
Daddy’s elevations and pardons were to prevent 'disclosures' and convictions, lil bush is repeating!
With the inception of the CIA, 'lying' has been a fact of Government and has resulted in the first concerted and 'successful' dismantling of Our Constitution! Inherient in a secret government is lying, and it is forbidden in Our Constitutional Government!
Such Lying is soo pervasive today, the People need a new constitution, i.e., one the People Change, and not Our employees!
|
Anonymous
07-05-08, 05:56 PM |
Too many unanswered questions here
Why has Mullen been visiting Israel? Why is he doing house-calls at all to such a small country?
As far as Cristol is concerned he makes some good arguments but why is he so passionately putting Israel’s case without any subjective concession to the other side of the story? He mustn’t have been a very good judge.
|
zzbudsman
07-07-08, 06:14 AM |
USS Libertys faith in question
It goes without question that Israel has the best intelligence gathering agency in the world. Having said that, we still to this day question the positive and negative aspects to Israel in the roll she played in the devastation of one of America’s proud intelligence gathering naval vessels. Was there a precondition placed on our intelligence, by Israel, prior to the sad incident. If so, we can affirm that Israel bites the hand that feeds it.
I tend to believe that the CIA should have informed Israel that one of our ships was indeed in the area. Had this not been the case, the US shares the blame. Indeed, the fog of war prevailed here. Maybe by preparing Israel of our intentions shortly, we can avoid another such mishap. I pray for both countries' future.
|
Have your say on this story
|
|
