Replies

Sorry, you need to defend your statements. I'm aware of the controversy. I'm aware of the background. The site has details of the investigations which you say never happened. …o discuss this any further, and maintain your credibility, you're going to have to explain to me how all eleven investigations (and I couldn't care less if they have another one, though GWB is against it) are frauds (giving you the benefit of the doubt, you said there were none, I'm sure that was a mistake) and how every President since Johnson, Republican and Democrat, along with hundreds of congressmen from both parties are "shills for Israel". Short of that, I conclude you're talking out of your *ss.

Still waiting, Thorin. All you could do is play your antisemite card. Job to big? Here, work on this on. I’ll settle for one President, proven to be a shill for Israel, if you can.

....................

Dear Mr. Tourney:

Thank you for your letter to President George W. Bush concerning USS LIBERTY. I am answering on behalf of the President.

I can certainly understand your motivation in writing. The People of the United States will forever remain in debt to those crewmen of USS LIBERTY who sacrificed their lives in the service of their country. In reference to your letter, the main question posed to the investigative team was whether the attack by the Israeli armed forces on USS LIBERTY was deliberate. The Navy convened a court of inquiry immediately after the event to review this question and address other concerns. Much of the hearings and testimonies were classified as they dealt with the nature of the Navy's electronics and communications technology. Large portions of this report have subsequently been declassified.

Israel accepted responsibility for the attack and made a public apology for the incident. Additionally, as you already know, the Government of Israel paid reparations for the death and injuries suffered by your shipmates on LIBERTY and for the damage to the ship caused by this tragic and unfortunate incident.

The results of the investigations, and the conciliatory actions of the Government of Israel, were considered satisfactory to Administration and Defense officials. At this time, there is no precedent to reinvestigate this case and no plans have been made to do so. Please be assured that we have taken measures to prevent an incident of this tragic nature from occurring in the future.

Again, thank you for writing to the President.

Sincerely,
(sig)CHRISTOPHER J. ROUIN
Director, White House Liaison Office
Office of the Secretary of the Navy

....................

You might want to read what George Wahsington had to say about passionate attachments to foreign countries in his Farewell Address.

The cut and paste historian strikes again?

I’ve read the entire address (like you-ha, ha), and have some familiarity with the period, particularly the events of 1798 and 1823 which clearly impact on Washington’s remarks.

I see no relevance in Washington’s remarks about permanent alliances to the 1967 war at all, nor do passionate attachments come into play, the US’s relationship to Israel at the time could hardly be called passionate.

There is some relevance though. Washington warns as well about those who indulges towards another a habitual hatred becoming a slave to its animosity.

Equally relevant, So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop… let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. Clearly Washington would have honored our firm commitment to keep the Gulf of Aqaba open to Israeli shipping, made as an inducement to return the Sinai to Egypt. In that event, the 1967 war might well not have happened.