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
|
|
|
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
Actually, the first Warship to offer help was a Soviet Destroyer.
It shadowed the Liberty during the night in case the Timbers shoring the bulkheads gave way and the Liberty suddenly sank.
Try to get the Israeli government -- or the U.S. government -- to admit that on the record, though.
If an Arab country had done this to us, there would have been hell to pay.
Since you brought up the subject of SPYING, consider this.
At that time (1967) the US Navy was being severely compromised by the Walker spy ring. All US Naval communications were being read by Moscow as if they were in clear text.
If Israeli intelligence was aware of this then they really had no alternative other than to sink that ship. If the Liberty acquired any information about Israeli movements it would could have resulted in Israel loosing that war. If Liberty had been lost with all hands, then they would simply say that it was a mistake in identity.
The cover-up by LBJ simply means that he was afraid that if the truth of the matter became public, (whatever that truth may have been), it would have been a great embarassment for his administration.
Not asinine at all. If Israel had a mole in a position to know what was going on in Moscow there is NO WAY that they would ever inform anybody. To do so would compromise their mole.
An outright lie.
Not according to Israeli reports. I read that the communications between the Israeli boats and teh Liberty were recorded. Those should settle the issue.
Yeah, right. How could a ship like the Liberty hide out on the open sea?
By operating in an area off limits to American ships?
All US flagged ships were supposed to be west of Cyprus.
Here we had an intelligense ship, operating between two warring countries, not only unannounced, but 300 miles out of place.
Of course, if we had given the Israelis a Naval liason, this would not have occured.
Who knows? Maybe they did ask. What if LBJ said NO and sent Liberty on station anyway. After all, who are the Israelis to tell/ask the United States to do anything? (Thinking like LBJ and his extremely brilliant administration.)
A question that is still resoundingly relevant today.
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.