Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Nefarious "USS Liberty Lobby" Groups
attacked a ship that turned out to be an American navy surveillance
(spy) ship. It was where it should not have been in the middle of a war.
Israel apologized and paid reparations. Google lists almost a million web
pages that dscuss the "attack on the USS Liberty". Previous pieces
attempting to put the matter to rest include
Ever since, the USS Liberty has been the rallying cry for anti-Semites
and Neo-Nazis. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of web sites urging
Americans to avenge the Israeli "attack" on the Liberty. Many are by
Neo-Nazis pretending to be survivors from the ship. Recently the
far leftist anti-Semitic web magazine Counterpunch joined the barking
(http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair06082007.html). Counterpunch earlier
ran a dozen similar pieces. Other anti-Semites inciting against Israel
for the USS Liberty incident include (from the ADL web site):
Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, "Remembering the Liberty," The Washington
Post, November 6, 1991. (Much of the article is based on the testimony of
Seth Mintz, who claims to have been inside the Israeli war room during the
attack. Mintz responded to the Post in a November 9 letter in which he
denies the quotes related to him. Many details about Mintz's story seem
Paul Findley, They Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront
Israel's Lobby, 1985 (The book does not deal specifically with the Liberty
incident, but it includes a discussion of the incident in which Findley
mentions some of the conspiracy theories.)
Liberty News, newsletter of the USS Liberty Veterans Association. The
association was formed following a reunion of Liberty survivors in 1982.
In 2002, Philip Tourney, the group's president, spoke at a conference held
by the Institute for Historical Review, a California-based organization
dedicated to promoting Holocaust denial.
Major Web sites implicating Israel:
The USS Liberty Memorial Web Site
If Americans Knew
USS Liberty Court of Inquiry
The very same people who cheer the al-Qaeda attackers of America and
every other act of anti-American terrorism on earth are curiously obsessed
with an accidental Israeli attack on an American navy ship 40 years ago.
The USS Liberty "lobby" is today little more than a front for neo-nazis
and anti-Semites. When Islamist terrorists attacked the USS Cole in 2000,
most of these same people applauded teh terrorists and denounced US
actions to target the terrorist leaders.
Please read the following
Why You Shouldn't Pay Attention to the Claims that Israel Attacked the USS
By A. Jay Cristol
Judge Cristol is the author of the Liberty Incident: The 1967 Israeli
Attack on the U. S. Navy Spy Ship.
On June 8, 2007, the San Diego Union Tribune published an article titled
"Time for the Truth About the Liberty," with a byline, Ward Boston, Jr.
Ward Boston, Jr.served his country as a naval aviator during World War II.
He completed law school and then, after a stint with the FBI, he returned
to the Navy as a legal specialist in the days prior to creation of the
Judge Advocate Generals Corp. By 1967, he had been promoted to the rank of
Captain and established a fine reputation as a legal officer. When the
Liberty incident occurred, he was selected by then Rear Admiral Isaac C.
Kidd, Jr. as counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, convened by order
of Admiral John McCain (the father of Senator John McCain)
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe.
When Boston reentered the Navy, he took an oath to faithfully perform his
duties as a United States Naval Officer and upon the opening of the Court
of Inquiry, on the record at page 106, he took another oath to faithfully
perform his duties as counsel to the Court. Also sworn to faithfully
perform their duties on the Court were Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, Jr. As
President, Captain Bernard J. Lauff, a highly respected veteran of Wake
Island, and Captain Bert M. Atkinson, Jr., a Naval Academy Graduate, as
members, Lieutenant Commander Allen Feingersch, as associate counsel and
YNC Joeray Spencer, as court reporter.
The Court convened at forty-six minutes before midnight on June 10, 1967,
in London, moved to the USS Liberty to take sworn testimony of the crew,
and then back to London where it closed for deliberations at 16:45 London
time on June 16 and filed its report on or about June 18, 1967 with
Admiral McCain, who endorsed it. "The foregoing comments by the convening
authority lead to an overall conclusion that the attack was in fact a
mistake." It was sent immediately to Washington to the Chief of Naval
Operation Admiral David McDonald, being carried personally by Admiral Kidd
in a brief case chained to this wrist.
The Boston article goes on to recite some hearsay, "I know from personal
conversations with the late Adm. Isaac C. Kidd - President of the Court of
Inquiry - that President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of mistaken identity."
The article fails to explain how or when President Johnson or Secretary
McNamara transmitted the orders.
Prior to the publication of the June 8, 2007 article, Ward Boston signed
an affidavit which was released on October 22, 2003, making similar
allegations and later supplemented the affidavit by declaration making
additional allegations. So, Boston, who signed the Court of Inquiry
findings under an oath in 1967, now says under oath in 2003 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?
Perhaps an analysis of the June 8, 2007 San Diego Times Unions article,
Boston.s affidavit, and the supplemental declaration will help determine
when, not if, but when, Ward Boston lied.
First, a look at the article raises a question of whether it was written
by Ward Boston or written by someone else for him. The first paragraph
talks of the "bombing" of the ship. Boston was aware and the record is
clear, the ship was not bombed. It was attacked with 30MM cannons by the
aircraft and then by 20MM cannon, 50 caliber machine guns and torpedoes by
the torpedo boats. The second paragraph says 34 American sailors died. In
fact, 33 sailors and one NSA civilian died. It says 172 were wounded. The
official records show 171 were wounded. Next. the article says the
cover-up has haunted us for 40 years. If the Johnson administration had
engaged in a "cover-up," why did the next seven administrations, five
Republican and two Democrat, continue the "cover-up"?
The next paragraph is a repetition of the demand of various conspiracy
theorists requesting a congressional hearing and suggesting the survivors
be allowed to testify. One hundred and fifty four pages of sworn testimony
of the Liberty.s Captain, William McGonagle, the ship.s officers and key
crew members was taken on June 13 and June 14, 1967 and is available for
review by any member of the public. Not one shred of additional evidence
has been produced or disclosed by the conspiracy theory supporters since
1967. What is being requested is a platform to make allegations and
charges before TV cameras without any prior showing that there is new or
credible evidence to support he allegations. In our system of justice,
first there must be the presentation of some credible evidence of probable
cause to support the charges. To date, neither Boston nor anyone else has
produced such evidence.
The article confirms that "we," Boston and Admiral Kidd, boarded the
Liberty and interviewed the survivors and states that "the evidence was
clear" but does not state what that evidence was. What evidence was clear?
This is the point where Boston makes a leap of faith. He says "we both
believed with certainty that the attack was deliberate."
Boston, the lawyer, if he wrote those words, knows better. He could say "I
believed" but when he attributes that belief to Admiral Kidd, he violated
the hearsay rule and the Dead Man Statute which forbids quotation of a
dead man because the dead man can neither confirm nor deny the statement.
The article says "I heard testimony that made it clear the Israelis
intended there be no survivor." What testimony did Boston hear? A careful
reading of the 154 pages of sworn testimony does not even suggest it. Who
testified about what? Since no Israelis participated in the Court of
Inquiry, who was able to testify about he intent of the Israelis and where
is that testimony?
And an even better question, if the Israelis intended to sink the Liberty,
then why didn't the Israeli Armed Forces, which had destroyed the entire
Egyptian Air Force in minutes, had destroyed thousands of Egyptian tanks
and artillery in a few days, had captured the Sinai, the Suez Canal, the
Old City of Jerusalem, the West Bank and a day later destroyed the Syrian
army and its armor and captured the Golan Heights, all in six days, why
didn.t they sink the ship, if that is what they intended?
The myth Boston repeats about Israel committing a war crime by machine
gunning three life rafts was initiated by Lloyd Painter about ten years
after the event. The sworn testimony of Lloyd Painter taken June 13, 1967
does not mention machine gunning the three life rafts, nor does the
testimony of the Captain or any of the crew, who were there on the bridge
and on the deck with Lloyd Painter at the time on June 8, 1967.
Boston states "I am outraged at the efforts of Israel.s apologists to
claim this attack was a case of .mistaken identity.." This outrage, coming
in 2003 - 36 to 40 years after Boston signed the Court of Inquiry findings
under oath raises a number of questions.
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: "15. The foregoing comments by the convening
authority lead to an overall conclusion that the attack was in fact a
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 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
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
Why was Boston not outraged 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 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 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
Why was Boston not outraged 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."
Boston says "Let former intelligence officers testify that they received
real-time Hebrew translations of Israeli commanders instructing their
pilots to sink the American ship. This myth is perhaps the easiest of all
to debunk. Although the conspiracy theorists have claimed for years that
there exist NSA audio intercepts between Israeli pilots and their
controllers which prove the attack was deliberate, no such tapes have ever
been produced. What has been produced on July 2, 2004, as a result of this
author.s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, are audio tapes and
translations of communications between Israeli pilots and their
controllers which clearly establish that the Israelis believed the target
ship was hostile, most likely Egyptian, until 3:12 PM, approximately 44
minutes after the attack was concluded. The National Security Agency
confirms that there are no other tapes.
Dr. Marvin Nowicki, the U.S. Navy/NSA person who recorded and initially
translated the intercepts has stated clearly that they show the attack to
be a mistake. See letter of the Dr. Nowicki to Editor of the Wall Street
Journal published May 16, 2001 at page A23.
Richard Hickman, the NSA Hebrew linguist at headquarters, who made the
final translations of the intercepts and briefed NSA Director Marshal
Carter on the tapes, also confirmed that the tapes make it clear the
attack was a mistake.
The reader may hear the tape recordings in Hebrew and read the official
transcripts of English translation on the National Security Agency.s NSA
So who told Ward Boston about the former intelligence officers receiving
"real-time Hebrew translations"? Could it have been Ron Gotcher who helped
Boston with his initial affidavit and declaration and very likely wrote or
assisted in the preparation of the June 8, 2007 article, bylined Ward
Boston, Jr., published in the San Diego Union Tribune. Ron Gotcher has
long made claims of the existence of the alleged incriminating tapes on
his website. Gotcher also claimed to have worked for the National Security
Agency; however, reference the "Documents" page of www.libertyincident.com
and go to "Gotcher Debunked." There the viewer will see the actual letter
from the National Security Agency, in response to a FOIA request,
confirming that Gotcher never worked for NSA.
What or who is behind these continuing false charges that have induced
Boston, a naval officer with a distinguished career, to dishonor himself
by admitting to have violated his oath, either in 1967 or more recently.
Ron Gotcher is only a bit player in a much broader propaganda effort.
The propaganda emanates from a small but well-funded and very vocal group
of people and organizations principally supported by Saudi Arabian money.
The groups include the American Educational Trust (AET) operated in
Washington, DC by former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Andrew I.
Kilgore, and a circle of others whose agenda is to attack the present
excellent symbiotic relationship between the United States and Israel. It
includes: the Americans for Mideast Understanding (AMEU) which was
reportedly founded with money from Arabian American Oil Company, ARAMCO,
and has former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, who was
dismissed by the U.S. State Department in 1975 "for being too compliant to
Saudi demands" and former congressman Paul Findley serving on its National
Council; and the Liberty Alliance operated by Tito De Nagy Howard, who is
described as "a man at war with the Israelis" by Anthony Pearson. Howard
met Pearson in Dubai and upon learning that Pearson was considered by the
PLO to be pro-Palestinian, gave him "an idea to resurrect the Liberty
incident as a whole new story."
It all started with former Illinois congressman Paul Findley (who was
defeated for re-election after he announced his support for the terrorist
organization, the PLO) and former California congressman Paul "Pete"
McCloskey, who speaks regularly at meetings of Holocaust denial
organizations in California and Washington and was defeated for
re-election. Findley and McCloskey were the moving force in founding the
Liberty Veterans Association. Findley served as its advisor and McCloskey
incorporated the association and served as its attorney. They continue to
manipulate and distress Liberty survivors and their families by prodding
this old wound and preventing its healing . all for their own political
agenda. And what is that agenda? Findley and McCloskey are also the
founders of the Council for the National Interest (CNI), whose publicly
announced purpose is to be the anti-Israel lobby.
Distorted explanations of events obfuscate the picture and destroy the
ability to learn real lessons for the future. Multiple official
investigation reports and endorsements have all concluded the incident was
the result of a tragic mistake or that there is no evidence that the
attack was deliberate. Nevertheless, dozens of conspiracy stories, in
addition to Ward Boston.s sad confession that he dishonored his oath taken
in 1967 and remained silent about it for 36 years, have become part of the
literature through the actions of persons and organizations with their own
political agenda. The conspiracy stories continue to multiply and become
more extreme. They detract from the possibility to learn from the tragedy.
They also inflict pain and suffering upon the victims and their families
creating an additional tragedy by provoking, goading and torturing the
victims with inaccurate, false and even absurd theories about that sad
day, not with the goal of bringing closure and peace but for political
As for the victims, they should be left to believe whatever brings them
peace. As for historians seeking the truth, it is respectfully suggested
that a review of all evidence, now declassified and available, will
confirm the official conclusion that the Liberty incident was a tragic
case of mistaken identity as a result of numerous mistakes by both the
United States and Israel, and will explain the conflicting recollection of
Ward Boston, who boasts he is now in his eighties. Perhaps the quotation
from a recent speech by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer
explains. Breyer said "I am now at the age where I remember quite clearly
and with great detail, many things that never actually happened."
After forty years, it is time to close the book. Let those who lost their
lives rest in peace and be honored in treasured memory. Let the survivors
be honored and respected and let them and their families have peace and
2. From the Wall St Journal
June 12, 2007
The Evils of Holocaust Denial
By ABDURRAHMAN WAHID and ISRAEL LAU
June 12, 2007; Page A17
BALI, Indonesia -- Today, religious leaders from many faiths and nations
will gather here for a landmark conference in a unique place -- an island
of tolerance, not terrorism. In a world in which religion is manipulated
to justify the most horrific acts, it is our moral obligation not only to
refute the claims of terrorists and their ideological enablers but also to
defend the rights of others to worship differently: in freedom, security
While there are many things that can be said and done to advance this
cause, one issue in particular stands out as something we religious
leaders must unite in denouncing: Holocaust denial. This denial is not a
new phenomenon. Yet it is becoming an increasingly pervasive one. Long a
hobbyhorse of the neo-Nazis and other figures from the fringe, it is
gaining currency among millions of people who are either ignorant of
history or are being misled by their media, their governments or -- sad to
say -- their own religious authorities.
A scene from the liberation of Auschwitz.
In recent years, we have seen that notorious 19th century Russian forgery,
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," being widely disseminated in
bookshops from London to Cairo. We have seen Hitler's "Mein Kampf" become
a bestseller in Turkey. We have seen schools in Britain stop teaching the
Holocaust for fear of offending their students. We have seen notorious
academic frauds invited by the president of Iran to raise "questions"
about the Holocaust -- as if this is just another controversy in which all
opinions are equally valid. We have seen the Holocaust deniers use the
fashions of moral relativism and historical revisionism to deny not just
truth but fact, all the while casting themselves as martyrs against
Worst of all, we have seen Holocaust denial being turned to an insidious
political purpose: By lying about the events of the past, the deniers are
paving the way toward the crimes of the future. They are rendering that
well-worn yet necessary phrase "Never Again" meaningless by seeking to
erase from the pages of history the very event that all people of good
faith seek never to repeat.
Let us be clear: The real purpose of Holocaust denial is to degrade and
dehumanize the Jewish people. By denying or trivializing the murder of six
million Jews by the Nazis and their allies, the deniers are seeking to
advance their notion that the victims of the 20th century's greatest crime
are, in fact, that century's greatest victimizers. By denying or
trivializing the Holocaust, the deniers are seeking to rob Jews of their
history and their memory -- and what is a people without history and
Indeed, by denying or trivializing the Holocaust, the deniers are
perpetrating what is, in effect, a second genocide. Extinguished as they
were from the ranks of the living, Hitler's Jewish victims are now, in
effect, to be extinguished from the ranks of the dead. That is the essence
of Holocaust denial.
Yet even as we recognize the threat that Holocaust denial poses to Jews
everywhere, we must also be cognizant of the peril it represents to people
of all faith traditions. Nations or governments that historically have
given free rein to Jew-hatred -- whether in Medieval Europe or
Inquisition-era Spain or 1930s Germany -- have invariably done lasting
damage to themselves as well.
Today, the countries in which Holocaust denial is most rampant also tend
to be the ones that are most economically backward and politically
repressive. This should not be surprising: Dishonest when it comes to the
truth of the past, these countries are hardly in a position to reckon
honestly with the problems of the present. Yes, the short-term purposes of
unscrupulous rulers can always be served by whipping up mass hysteria and
duping their people with lurid conspiracy theories. In the long term,
however, truth is the essential ingredient in all competent policy making.
Those who tell big lies about the Holocaust are bound to tell smaller lies
about nearly everything else.
Holocaust denial is thus the most visible symptom of an underlying disease
-- partly political, partly psychological, but mainly spiritual -- which
is the inability (or unwillingness) to recognize the humanity of others.
In fighting this disease, religious leaders have an essential role to
play. Armed with the knowledge that God created religion to serve as
rahmatan lil 'alamin, or a blessing for all creation, we must guard
against efforts to demonize or belittle followers of other faiths.
Last year, Muslims from Nigeria to Lebanon to Pakistan rioted against what
they saw as the demonizing of their prophet by Danish cartoonists. In a
better world, those same Muslims would be the first to recognize how
insulting it is to Jews to have the apocalypse that befell their fathers'
generation belittled and denied.
Sadly, we do not live in such a world. Yet if radical clerics can move
their assemblies to hatred and violence -- as was the case during the
Danish cartoons episode -- then surely moderate and peace-loving clerics
can also move theirs to rise above their prejudices and facilitate good
relations between peoples of different faiths. In the words of the Holy
Quran, which echo the story of creation from the book of Genesis: "Oh
mankind! We created you from a single pair, male and female, and made you
into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another, and
not to despise each other."
Today in Bali, we look forward to hearing different ideas from diverse
voices on how to advance this divine goal. Facing up frankly to the evil
of Holocaust denial will be evidence that the conferees are "living in
truth" and determined to act against hatred.
Mr. Wahid is the former president of Indonesia and co-founder of the
LibForAll Foundation. Mr. Lau, a survivor of the Buchenwald concentration
camp, is the former Chief Rabbi of Israel. Today's conference in Bali,
"Tolerance Between Religions: A Blessing for All Creation," is cosponsored
by LibForAll Foundation, the Wahid Institute and the Museum of Tolerance.
URL for this article:
3. Chamishism Diagnosed?
4. Uber-Moonbat from Tel Aviv University - if Israel boycotts Hamas then
some REAL terrorist groups will emerge!