U.S. And Israeli Militaries Discuss Attack On Liberty

[megimoo]

Leading defense officials from the United States and Israel, meeting in Israel this week, raised the controversial attack on the U.S. ship USS Liberty, by Israel, in June 1967.

The attack has caused considerable controversy over the years despite both governments being reticent to publicly discuss the affair.

It is rare that defense officials from either side discuss the attack which killed 34 U.S. service personnel, and wounded 171 others. In talks this week however between the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, together with other senior Israeli and American military officials, the subject was well and truly on the table.

According to a Haaretz newspaper report on Friday, quoting a source from the Israeli delegation, the Liberty attack was raised in talks regarding Iran, and U.S. operations in the Middle East. While it was stressed that the parties did not discuss operational coordination, it was agreed by both sides that the United States and Israel would want to avoid any sort of 'mistaken confrontation' such as that which occurred when Israeli forces attacked the USS Liberty.

Why Mullen was in Israel at all remains a mystery, and the fact that he spent two days there is even more surprising. Not only that but this week’s visit to Israel was the second since December by the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs. Further it followed a visit to Israel last week by two four-star U.S. Generals. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead, was in Israel for high-level talks with his Israeli counterpart, Vice Admiral Eliezer Marom. It was their third meeting in eight months. Around the middle of last week Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, landed in Tel Aviv. He was there as the guest of OC Ground Forces Command Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrahi. In contrast to Roughead's visit, which was covered by the media, the Israeli military refused to answer questions about the Wallace visit.

The Mullen visit has been downplayed by the Pentagon but it was reported in the Israeli press the Joint Chiefs chairman cut short his trip to Europe to fly to Tel Aviv. Yet last week Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell at a press briefing told reporters, “As for Chairman Mullen's trip, I believe it's been months at least that it's been, well, it's been months on the schedule. It is, I believe, part of his normal outreach to strong allies of ours across the globe, Israel being one of our closest and strongest. But I believe this is a routine opportunity for Chairman Mullen to engage his counterpart in Israel on military-to-military matters, as he does in much of his travels around the world.”

Mullen is scheduled to meet with his Israeli counterpart again in a few weeks time in Washington. It will be the fourth time the men will have met since December. The intense discussions between the two military powers comes just two weeks after it was reported the Israel Air Force had conducted one of the largest aerial exercises in its history. The IAF reportedly flew one hundred F-15 and F-16 fighter jets - supported by midair fuel tankers and rescue helicopters - 1,500 kilometers westward over the Mediterranean Sea. This just happens to equal the distance eastward from Israel to Iran's nuclear facilities.

While Mullen this week was playing down threats of a military strike against Iran, by either the United States or Israel, speculation is rising that an attack will be carried out by Israel after the U.S. election in November.

Whilst U.S. officials, including Mullen, are pouring cold water on the idea, none have told Israel publicly that the U.S. would not condone such an attack.

Given the opportunity of squashing the speculation last week, the United States’ top defense official, William H. Gates, refused to address the topic. On June 26 at a press conference Gates was asked,” just curious to what extent you're worried that Israel may take preemptive military action against Iran with or without the support of the United States?”

Gates: “I'm not going to talk about a hypothetical.”
snip



http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.p...d/378628/cs/1/

[megimoo]

Published Commentary: The Liberty Incident: Who IS A. Jay Cristol ?

Critique of the Author, A. Jay Cristol

See also: The Liberty Incident's Analysis and Criticism and Summary of Position.

The Liberty Incident is faithful to the "Big Lie Theory" of propaganda: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Attributed to Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), Minister of Propoganda under Adolf Hitler charlatan. n.
...A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud...

Background
A. Jay Cristol is a master of the art of lying through misdirection. His book is a perfect example of this talent. Without directly lying, he arranges facts (and omits others) in such a way as to lead a reader to a completely false conclusion. If challenged, he can reply that he didn't really lie, the error of fact only exists in the reader's mind. In addition to the articles in this critique which deal with the application of Cristol's special talent to the telling of the story of the Israeli attack on USS Liberty, it is instructive to see how he has done the same thing to give a false impression as to his own background. Since there is no evidence that he has ever sought to correct these factual mistakes, one can only assume that they were the intended result of his design.

Cristol presently works as a United States Bankruptcy Judge in Miami, Florida. Though he styles himself as "a federal judge," this description is a bit misleading. He works for the federal government and is given the title of judge, but he is not a United States District Judge or Circuit Judge. These positions require Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. Mr. Cristol, an appointee of circuit judges, has never had his name placed before nor confirmed by the Senate.

Mr. Cristol writes of himself on his web site:

"In November 1951, during the Korean conflict, A. Jay Cristol joined the US Navy as an aviation cadet, earning his Navy Wings of Gold in April 1953. He deployed with VS-37, a Navy anti-submarine squadron aboard the aircraft carrier Princeton (CV-37) to the Western Pacific and the Sea of Japan. He was also part of TG70.4 during February 1955, in support of evacuating Nationalist Chinese from the Tachen Islands near the Communist China mainland in the South China Sea. He flew day and night missions as both a hunter pilot flying the Grumann AF-2W and a killer pilot flying the Grumann AF-2S. He was subsequently attached to the Fleet All Weather Training Unit, Pacific at San Diego, California as an instrument flight instructor and taught maneuvers for the delivery of nuclear weapons. Upon returning to civilian life, Cristol joined the Naval Air Reserve where he qualified as a four-engine Navy transport plane commander. In the 1960s, he flew operational flights during the Cuban Missile Crises and volunteer airlift missions to Vietnam.
After 18 years as a Naval aviator, Cristol joined the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He graduated with distinction from Naval Justice School. He served as a lawyer for another twenty years. His duties included teaching law of war and serving as the administrative officer for the summer Naval Reserve law courses. In 1983, he was made an honorary professor by the Naval Justice School. He has performed special active duty in the office of the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations. In the 1980s, the Department of Defense sent him to the International Institute of Humanitarian Law at San Remo, Italy to lecture on Law of Naval warfare to senior foreign military officers. Captain Cristol retired in 1988. He wears more than a dozen military decorations including the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal, and the Navy Achievement Medal.

In civilian life, Cristol became a lawyer and practiced civil law. He served as Special Assistant Attorney General of Florida during the 1959, 1961, 1963, and 1965 sessions of the Florida Legislature. In 1985, after 25 years of law practice, he left his position as senior partner in a firm he founded to accept an appointment to the federal bench. He continues to serve as Chief Judge Emeritus in the Southern District of Florida. He is also an adjunct professor, teaching at the University of Miami School of Law.

An interest in international terrorism led him to enroll in the Graduate School of International Studies of the University of Miami where he researched and wrote on terrorism. Because of his background as a navy pilot, a navy lawyer (JAG), a lecturer in law of naval warfare, a civil lawyer, and a federal judge, members of the faculty encouraged him to research and write about the Liberty incident. He spent ten years researching the subject and was awarded a Ph.D. by the University of Miami Graduate School of International Studies. His collection of research material on this subject is considered to be the largest and most complete of any collection on the subject in the entire world. After completing his dissertation, he obtained declassification of additional heretofore secret documents through many Freedom of Information Act requests and appeals. His book, The Liberty Incident, was written to update and complete the historical record. He has written numerous articles on law, aviation, history, and other subjects.

Judge Cristol remains an avid aviator. He made his first flight in a Piper J-3 Cub on Biscayne Bay in 1945. He has personally piloted a Ford Tri-Motor, the Goodyear Blimp, a Soviet MiG-15, and many other unique, antique, or historic aircraft. In 1998, he became one of the few persons to have an airplane named after him when Pan Am named one of their 727 aircraft the Clipper A. Jay Cristol. He is a founding member of the National Museum of Naval Aviation at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida and a founding member of the Wings Over Miami Military and Classic Aircraft Museum in Miami, Florida."snip


http://usslibertyinquiry.com/comment...uecristol.html

[megimoo]

More on U.S. and Israeli militaries discuss attack on Liberty

snip

“The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as “murderous bastards.” It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident.”

“I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their superiors, who had ordered the attack, were well aware that the ship was American,” wrote Boston.

“I saw the flag, which had visibly identified the ship as American, riddled with bullet holes, and heard testimony that made it clear that the Israelis intended there be no survivors. 10. Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded — a war crime.”

“Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter” said Boston.

“Regrettably, we did not receive into evidence and the Court did not consider any of the more than sixty witness declarations from men who had been hospitalized and were unable to testify in person.”

“I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of “mistaken identity. In particular, the recent publication of Jay Cristol’s book, The Liberty Incident, twists the facts and misrepresents the views of those of us who investigated the attack,” said Boston.

“It is Cristol’s insidious attempt to whitewash the facts that has pushed me to speak out.”

“I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary,” said Boston.

“Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the court’s findings.”

“Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to “put the lid” on everything having to do with the attack on USS Liberty. We were never to speak of it and we were to caution everyone else involved that they could never speak of it again,” he said.

“I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to Washington.”

“I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand correct and initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and I did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been excised,” claimed Boston.

“Following the conclusion of the Court of Inquiry, Admiral Kidd and I remained in contact. Though we never spoke of the attack in public, we did discuss it between ourselves, on occasion. Every time we discussed the attack, Admiral Kidd was adamant that it was a deliberate, planned attack on an American ship.”

“In 1990, I received a telephone call from Jay Cristol, who wanted to interview me concerning the functioning of the Court of Inquiry. I told him that I would not speak to him on that subject and prepared to hang up the telephone. Cristol then began asking me about my personal background and other, non-Court of Inquiry related matters. I endeavored to answer these questions and politely extricate myself from the conversation. Cristol continued to return to the subject of the Court of Inquiry, which I refused to discuss with him. Finally, I suggested that he contact Admiral Kidd and ask him about the Court of Inquiry,” said Boston.

“Shortly after my conversation with Cristol, I received a telephone call from Admiral Kidd, inquiring about Cristol and what he was up to. The Admiral spoke of Cristol in disparaging terms and even opined that “Cristol must be an Israeli agent.” I don’t know if he meant that literally or it was his way of expressing his disgust for Cristol’s highly partisan, pro-Israeli approach to questions involving USS Liberty.”

“At no time did I ever hear Admiral Kidd speak of Cristol other than in highly disparaging terms. I find Cristol’s claims of a “close friendship” with Admiral Kidd to be utterly incredible. I also find it impossible to believe the statements he attributes to Admiral Kidd, concerning the attack on USS Liberty,” he said.

“Several years later, I received a letter from Cristol that contained what he purported to be his notes of our prior conversation. These “notes” were grossly incorrect and bore no resemblance in reality to that discussion. I find it hard to believe that these “notes” were the product of a mistake, rather than an attempt to deceive. I informed Cristol that I disagreed with his recollection of our conversation and that he was wrong. Cristol made several attempts to arrange for the two of us to meet in person and talk but I always found ways to avoid doing this. I did not wish to meet with Cristol as we had nothing in common and I did not trust him,” said Boston.

“Contrary to the misinformation presented by Cristol and others, it is important for the American people to know that it is clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking an American ship and murdering American sailors, whose bereaved shipmates have lived with this egregious conclusion for many years,” concluded the Boston affidavit.

The controversy raged as Cristol took issue with Boston. “He now says under oath 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?” asked Cristol.

"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: "The foregoing comments by the convening authority lead to an overall conclusion that the attack was in fact a mistake?" asked Cristol.

"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 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 that time.""

snip



http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.p...d/378628/cs/1/

[megimoo]

More on U.S. and Israeli militaries discuss attack on Liberty

"Why was Boston not outraged," asked Cristol, "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," asked Cristol, "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," asked Cristol, "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 case.""

"Why was Boston not outraged," asked Cristol, "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.""

"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," continued Cristol, "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 mistake.""

http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.p...d/378628/cs/1/

[Teetop]

Jay Cristol and gator, seperated at birth?

:eek:

:D

[megimoo]

Jay Cristol and gator, seperated at birth?

:eek:

:D

Diametrically opposed.

[Odysseus]

Diametrically opposed.

A few days ago, a Palestinian hijacked a piece of construction equipment and tried to drive it through a crowded market area in Jerusalem. He was killed, but not until he had killed three Israelis. Arabs have been protesting the killing of the killer since the incident.

I'm sure that Gator has an alibi.

[megimoo]

A few days ago, a Palestinian hijacked a piece of construction equipment and tried to drive it through a crowded market area in Jerusalem. He was killed, but not until he had killed three Israelis. Arabs have been protesting the killing of the killer since the incident.

I'm sure that Gator has an alibi.

Are you calling him an Arab ?