The Truth about the USS Liberty

College Voice of Connecticut College | Will be Nov. 1st | Yoni Freeman

[Demidog]

Janes would be a good source and I'm sure that virtually every military uses it.

The fact that they were so accurate utterly destroys the notion they believed the ship was an Egyptian horse-carrier.

[Poohbah]

I'm wondering if the Israelis had some kind of inside info, or if a consultation of Jane's or the like would have told them all they needed to know.

The latter. The antennas weren't concealed, after all.

[Demidog]

My understanding is that the battlegroup commander launched his SIOP birds (the alert birds carrying nukes), and that's why the strike got recalled

Right. So why would Cristol deny the facts?

[Demidog]

The latter.[You conceded that Jane's was consulted, correct?] The antennas weren't concealed, after all.

If they consulted Jane's in order to pick their targets, they knew it was an American ship.

[Poohbah]

The question is WHO recalled the strike.

Cristol merely says that it wasn't McNamara. I tend to believe him on that point, because of the time difference between the Eastern Med and Washington, DC (IIRC, ten or eleven hours), and this attack went down in midday local time. Someone would have to locate McNamara (or get him out of bed), get him up to speed on the situation (possibly while he's still trying to get fully awake), he'd have to decide to recall the birds (which have been winging eastward towards the Liberty the entire time), and the recall order would have to get out to the aircraft in time.

You might be able to do all that today, with all the commo infrastructure we have available (civilian and military). In 1967? Far less likely.

My guess is that COMSIXTHFLT in Naples recalled the strike once he realized which aircraft had been committed.

[yonif]

It is from their site. It is a different section which is their Coference they had concerning the middle east. Those are where the quotes are from.

[yonif]

"I would not say that the attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate either due to the fact the latter does not have sufficient and truthful evidence
Thank you for your kindness in replying.

If I interpret your message correctly there is a possibility that the situation might arise when you would conclude that the attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate?"

[yonif]

These quotes were taken from a newer section of their site. If you follow the links I posted in the article you will see the Council for National Interest header which is seen on the pages.

[Demidog]

It is a different section

It's an entirely different domain name. Nice try.

[VOA]

Do you know if that interview is available on the internet?

As to that specific interview (on The Dennis Prager Show; sometime in the last week
or two), I suspect you'll have to contact Prager's staff. Prager sells tapes of his shows.
Either just go to www.dennisprager.com and click for "customer service". I think
there is e-mail and phone contact info. (the phone info sort of buried at the bottom of the page).

Or try this ponderous URL to get there.

http://stores.dennisprager.com/cgi-bin/Dennisprager.storefront/3dc320c0001f8b69271742f09cbf06d8/Service


Additionally, there is this "contact information" at Cristol's site of
www.thelibertyincident.com:

Contact information

To contact the author, please send your comments, questions, or supplemental
material by mail to:

The Liberty Incident
c/o American #200
1666 - John F. Kennedy Causeway
Miami Beach, FL 33141

Please include a legible name, mailing address, and telephone number.

Hope this helps you out.

[Demidog]

Cristol merely says that it wasn't McNamara.

According to a poster here who heard the interview, Cristol denies McNamara even sent the planes at all. That's where it gets wierd. Perhaps, he was just a bit too general in his denial and he didn't mean to imply that. Then again, given Cristol's tendency to distort the truth, I don't have a problem believing he denied that any planes were dispatched and recalled.

[yonif]

Both sites are owned, operated, and representative of the policies of the Council for the National Interest.

Go to http://rescuemideastpolicy.com/index.html
and you will see that header, etc. at the bottom. This is a newer site of theirs.

Here is their main site:
http://www.cnionline.org/
On that page you have:
For highlights from our April 27-30 conference please visit the following link:
www.rescuemideastpolicy.com

You see? It is their policies. Look before you speak, or type in this context.

[Demidog]

Israel destroyed over 415 Palestinian villages, along with their churches and mosques, so that the Palestinian villagers could not return.

So....what about this statement do you claim is incorrect or "Anti-Semitic" and what exactly does this have to do with the USS Liberty? Have you ever heard of Irgun or The Stern Gang? They were Jewish terrorist orginizations. Irgun in particular is known for wiping out at least one village of Arabs. How is it anti-Semitic to restate these facts?

[Demidog]

As you can see, a biased and anti-Israeli organization presented this video.

Who presented the video is irrelevant. Furthermore your claim that the facts being presented on the websites are "biased" is a matter of opinion. Perhaps you don't like the facts but that doesn't make them "anti-Israel" or biased.

What of the film? Do you have anything other than a logical fallacy (guilt by association) to debunk any of the facts presented in the film? Did you even watch the film?

[yonif]

it is anti-Semitic by acusing Israel, as a state and people, for committing these acts, which in effect, if happened, they would have done by a terrorist organization not the government of Israel, who did not and never supported any terrorist groups fighting in its name (for example the Kach' organization, Israel brands it as terrorist).
It is anti-Semitic. In addition it is accusing Israel with generalistic and unfactual comments. They can't back this up. They are simply trying to write propaganda to make Israel look as a criminal.

What is this have to do with the USS Liberty? Think about it. Would a anti-Israel organization show a documentary saying that Israel mistakenly attacked the Liberty or a documentary which accuses Israel of doing so on purpose? And how can you trust a documentary written by such an organization as showing the truth. In that documentary, as I said, it did not talk about the congressional hearings that occured, it did not talk about the various other facts we mentioned. It simply forgot them. If you wish to present a balanced view, you would have to show both sides. In that specific documentary it is a bunch of rhetoric, anti-semetic, and biased propaganda aimed at Israel.

[yonif]

What do you mean? Who presented this video is already a hint as to what kind of information will be presented by this video. And the fact this organization is anti-Israel, makes this video already distrustful to its factual content.

First of all, are those facts that I just excepted? No they are not. OK. It is like this. Facts can be used against one's cause, like Israel. Take this for example (this is what is prevelant in some news organizations such as CNN): "4 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank" This is a fact. 4 were killed. But what the headline doesn't mention is that the 4 were "killed" when the bomb they were constructing prematuraly blewup.

I watched the film. And was not shocked at what I saw. Nothing but propaganda taken directly from the style of Arab-anti Israel propaganda.

I did not debunk any of the facts in the film. All the "facts" that were presented were either lies, misrepresented facts, and rehetoric from the organization which helped fund the making of the documentary, an organization against Israel and against the Israeli-American friendship.

[Demidog]

it is anti-Semitic by acusing Israel, as a state and people, for committing these acts, which in effect, if happened, they would have done by a terrorist organization not the government of Israel

Rabin, who headed Irgun, received a Nobel Peace Prize and did in fact the become the Leader of Israel. To say that Israel didn't condone what he did, is to ignore all facts. There is nothing anti-Semetic about telling the truth. Now, as to the alleged "bias" by the organization presenting the film in question: Do you have anything to say about that or do you expect everyone to simply accept your charges of anti-Semitism with not even a shred of rational or hard evidence to support your accusation?

Would a anti-Israel organization show a documentary saying that Israel mistakenly attacked the Liberty or a documentary which accuses Israel of doing so on purpose?

The question is vapid. Your attempt to paint the organization as "anti-Israel" hasn't even begun, much less been established.

And how can you trust a documentary written by such an organization

The organization in question didn't write the documentary. Have you seen the documentary?

as I said, it did not talk about the congressional hearings that occured,

What's to talk about? There have been no congresional hearings convened which investigated the matter. When there is such a hearing, then perhaps a documentary producer can mention it.

[Demidog]

Who presented this video is already a hint as to what kind of information will be presented by this video.

Nonsense.

I did not debunk any of the facts in the film.

Obvious to any reading your screed. Until you do, your credibility will be about nil.

[yonif]

"Rabin, who headed Irgun, received a Nobel Peace Prize and did in fact the become the Leader of Israel. To say that Israel didn't condone what he did, is to ignore all facts. There is nothing anti-Semetic about telling the truth. Now, as to the alleged "bias" by the organization presenting the film in question: Do you have anything to say about that or do you expect everyone to simply accept your charges of anti-Semitism with not even a shred of rational or hard evidence to support your accusation? "

I am not here to discuss the activities of the Irgun (which by the way in Hebrew means organization or group). Frankly, I do not know much about that. I already provided my conclusions regarding anti-Semitism by showing excepts from the various articles concerning Israel. In no article on that middle east section do they condone Palestinian terorrism. Remember that. They don't even mention it.

"The question is vapid. Your attempt to paint the organization as "anti-Israel" hasn't even begun, much less been established"

See the above comment.

"The organization in question didn't write the documentary. Have you seen the documentary? "

It helped by providing various "facts" and its own assumptions. Furthermore many of its "Israeli History" facts which are thrown into the documentary are in line with what this organization believes in. Such as the distortment of how the 1967 war began. They simply say Israel attacked first. This is true in a sense, but they do not provide clear background information leading up to the vital day.

"What's to talk about? There have been no congresional hearings convened which investigated the matter. When there is such a hearing, then perhaps a documentary producer can mention it. "

There has been 5 congressional investigations. In order to be "fair" to the other side and show balance, the producer should have included this fact and many others.

[yonif]

It is not nonsense, it is fact. It is the art of propaganda and knowing what one will do based on their way of thinking.

It is commensense. For example, would Stalin's propaganda machine include anything good about the United States in history textbooks or video footage? Of course not. He would state various crime "statistics," show white policemen beating up blacks, etc. You would expect that even before he does so.