Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Former Chief Navy Counsel Alleges Cover-Up by LBJ of 1967 Israeli Attack on U.S. Ship
AP ^

Posted on 10/22/2003 5:25:49 PM PDT by TheOtherOne

Former Chief Navy Counsel Alleges Cover-Up by LBJ of 1967 Israeli Attack on U.S. Ship

Published: Oct 22, 2003

advertisement

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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-Egyptian 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 would our government put Israel's interests 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.

In Boston's statement, he does not say why Johnson would have ordered a cover-up. Attempts were made to reach Boston at his home in Coronado, Calif., but he did not return calls seeking comment.

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.

---

On the Net:

USS Liberty Memorial Web site: http://www.ussliberty.org

AP-ES-10-22-03 1943EDT



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: conspiracy; coverup; israel; liberty; thomasmoorer; ussliberty; warcrimes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-269 next last
Not that I like reading about the Liberty incident on FR, but this was news on the topic.
1 posted on 10/22/2003 5:25:49 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: A+Bert
Ping
2 posted on 10/22/2003 5:27:58 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Wing
ping
3 posted on 10/22/2003 5:35:41 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: TheOtherOne
this needs to be independently investigated by someone without a political agenda.
5 posted on 10/22/2003 5:49:25 PM PDT by Elkhound4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr Zilman
One of the most shameful incidents in this country's history. But, what the heck, GI's were cheap in those days, why would LBJ care about 34 more dead after squandering thousands in Viet Nam?

Some people have asserted that he had a lot of practice in covering things up from the Kennedy assassination.

6 posted on 10/22/2003 5:52:41 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
Yesterday an army general was criticised for speaking honestly about his faith. Tomorrow this Navy Captain will be criticised for speaking honestly about his work. Thank God for Free Republic where honest comments can at least be heard and even appreciated.
7 posted on 10/22/2003 5:53:49 PM PDT by okiedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
Well of course it was a cover up, or at least a dowplaying.
Otherwise they might have had to investigate why the NSA ordered a defenseless ship into a war zone after the US promised to withdraw all ships and after the administration refsued Israel's request of the Naval liason.
8 posted on 10/22/2003 5:59:37 PM PDT by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okiedog
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.

After saying he kept quite do to his duty, this seems like a soft reason to speak now. It is not like the idea that the incident was unintentional was just brought forward now -so I am curious: why is he speaking now?

9 posted on 10/22/2003 6:01:42 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
bump
10 posted on 10/22/2003 6:02:05 PM PDT by nkycincinnatikid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Alouette; veronica
We need you folks to liven up this thread.
11 posted on 10/22/2003 6:04:30 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Otherwise they might have had to investigate why the NSA ordered a defenseless ship into a war zone after the US promised to withdraw all ships and after the administration refsued Israel's request of the Naval liason.

Excuse me ? So this is reason for "our closest ally in the middle east" to attack Americans ? We should have counter- attacked the ungrateful bastards with our own air strike.
12 posted on 10/22/2003 6:07:26 PM PDT by okiedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
This Liberty thing just won't quit stinking.
13 posted on 10/22/2003 6:08:47 PM PDT by dix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elkhound4
While not exactly independent, the book "Attack on the Liberty" was a very interesting read.

14 posted on 10/22/2003 6:09:11 PM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
so I am curious: why is he speaking now?

Enough time has passed now and the Admiral is probably more comfortable in sharing his knowledge. As more time passes, and the people involved in the incident become deceased, we may even find out the real reason why Israel chose to try and sink The Liberty with all hands.

15 posted on 10/22/2003 6:10:18 PM PDT by zchip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Elkhound4
No such animal.
16 posted on 10/22/2003 6:10:27 PM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (I've been making fine jewelry for years, apparently.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
After saying he kept quite do to his duty, this seems like a soft reason to speak now. It is not like the idea that the incident was unintentional was just brought forward now -so I am curious: why is he speaking now?


Sometimes courage begets courage. And besides alot of Americans are getting fed up with Sharon and his party's arrogance toward the hand that feeds them.
17 posted on 10/22/2003 6:10:38 PM PDT by okiedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

Investigations of the Liberty Tragedy


The tragic Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, has provoked a great deal of controversy and longstanding anger among surviving members of the crew. Though residual anger and suspicions remain, the incident was the subject of ten U.S. investigations and three more by Israel. In the American case, the full weight of the U.S. government was behind the investigations, which had access to all the relevant information. Though some accusations have been made suggesting the reports sough to hide facts or protect Israel, no credible evidence for these charges has been produced. Moreover, if the investigatory bodies had a bias, it was far more likely to be against Israel. Here is a summary of the investigations and their conclusions:

Investigation Date Conclusion
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 10-18, 1967 The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.
CIA Report June 13, 1967 The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) June 9-20, 1967 Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings about the actual attack.
Clifford Report July 18, 1967 No premeditation, but "inexcusable failures" by Israeli forces constituing "gross negligence."
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967 Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.
Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 1, 1968 No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.
House Appropriations Committee April-May 1968 Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.
House Armed Services Committee May 10, 1971 Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1979 Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.
National Security Agency 1981 Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.
House Armed Services Committee June 1991 Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.

Israeli Investigations

Investigation Date Conclusion
Ram Ron Commission June 12, 1967 The attack was made "neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as the result of a bona fide mistake. Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area.
Preliminary Inquiry July 1967 There was no malicious intent and no deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct that would justify a court-martial.
IDF History 1982 The attack was a result of an "innocent error."

 


Source: A.J. Cristol, "The Liberty Incident," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, 1997, pp. 86-113.


18 posted on 10/22/2003 6:10:58 PM PDT by BrooklynGOP (www.logicandsanity.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: okiedog
Excuse me ? So this is reason for "our closest ally in the middle east" to attack Americans ? We should have counter- attacked the ungrateful bastards with our own air strike.
Why should the Israelis have thought it to be an American ship?
The ship was hailed but refused to identify itself. It was patrolling a warzone, near Soviet spy ships?
Why didn't our administration, Navy, or State Department inform Israel that there would be American ships covertly operating in a region we had promised Israel we would not be?
Why didn't we provide a Naval liason?

Either the we were spying on Israel, or this was a huge SNAFU.

19 posted on 10/22/2003 6:11:38 PM PDT by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: zchip
Sink it with all hands?
They Napalmed the ship. They did not lanch a full air strike. Israel could easily have sunk it and killed everyone. Instead they tried to render assistance once teh US informed them of teh ship.
Personally, I want the idiot at the NSA shot.
20 posted on 10/22/2003 6:20:12 PM PDT by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-269 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson