| Author | Message | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: Key Figure in USS Liberty Inquiry Dies |
| The first notable mention of Ward's death on the Web that I found. How sad.
Key Figure in USS Liberty Inquiry Dies
June 16, 2008 Military.com|by Bryant Jordan
http://www.military.com/news/article/key-figure-in-uss-liberty-inquiry-dies.html?col=1186032310810
Retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, who in 2002 broke 35 years of silence to say the US Navy Board of Inquiry long cited to clear Israel of wrongdoing in attacking a US Navy ship during the Six Day War was a sham, died June 11 in California. He was 84.
Emma Boston, his wife of 60 years, told Military.com that Boston had been sick for about six weeks before his death and had been hospitalized. She said he ultimately died of pneumonia, which he contracted in the hospital.
"He was sharp as a tack right up until they put him under sedation" because of his difficulty breathing, she said.
In 1967, Boston was a Navy lawyer and assigned as the legal adviser to the board, which was convened within days of the June 8 attack by Israeli air and naval forces on the USS Liberty, an American surveillance ship floating in international waters in the Mediterranean.
Israel claimed the attack was a case of mistaken identity, and that it believed the Navy ship was an Egyptian vessel. The report ultimately turned over by the board made no conclusions on culpability, though survivors have long maintained that the Israelis knew full well they were attacking an American ship.
In the years since, the three members of the board died, leaving only Boston as an inside witness to their work. In 2002 he at last began to talk about the investigation, saying the board's work was intended as a cover-up. Subsequently Boston drafted and signed a full statement, in which he said the final report was not the one he signed off on as the legal counsel. Handwritten corrections and his initials were absent from the board transcript released publicly, he said.
He also stated that the board president, Rear Adm. Isaac Kidd, told him that he had been ordered to re-write portions of the report when he brought it to Washington.
Boston's comments were welcomed by stunned Liberty survivors, who believed they would finally get the congressional hearings they sought for more than three decades.
Other credible sources had called the incident a deliberate attack on an American ship -- among them former Secretary of State Dean Rusk, former CIA Directors Richard Helms and Bobbie Inman, former National Security Agency Director Marshall Carter, and Rear Adm. Merlin Staring, who was legal counsel to board's appointing authority, Adm. John McCain.
But Ennes said Boston's first-hand knowledge of the board's work lent greater weight to his words.
"We … felt the lid had finally been lifted in 2002 when Captain Boston came forward to report the inner workings of the cover-up,” Jim Ennis, a Liberty survivor and author of the 1980 book Assault on the Liberty, told Military.com. "Finally, we thought, Congress would give us the investigation we have sought since 1967.”
But a statement from a witness to the board's work, said Ennes, "could not move a single member of Congress to look seriously at what survivors agree was a cover-up of the deliberate attack by Israel.” Thirty-four men were killed in the attack and more than 170 wounded. The board, told it had just one week to wrap up its work, interviewed about 15 survivors, and took no testimony from the more than 60 men hospitalized, Boston said.
Supporters of Israel argue that Israel would have no motivation to attack an American ship. Among explanations offered by those who believe the attack was deliberate is that Israel feared the U.S. spy ship would pick up radio signals indicating Israeli soldiers were executing captured and unarmed Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai, or because they feared the U.S. would react negatively if it knew that Israel launched its attack on the Golan Heights without having been attacked by Syria.
© Copyright 2008 Military.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: |
| Ward Boston died June 12, 2008, only Military.com reported his death in a timely manner. Of course no mention of his repudiation of the official claim.
The media reports the death a week later?
Navy attorney who investigated 1967 attack on USS Liberty dies at 84
June 18, 2008 17:21 EDT Link
Navy attorney in USS Liberty investigation dies
By CHELSEA J. CARTER (AP) – 20 hours ago June 18 Link
Same AP by Carter report another link
Tuscaloosa News.com
Mercury News.com | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: Ward Boston; Investigated Attack on USS Liberty |
| Ward Boston; Investigated Attack on USS Liberty
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903589_pf.html
By Chelsea J. Carter
Associated Press
Friday, June 20, 2008; B07
SAN DIEGO -- Ward Boston, 84, a former Navy attorney who helped investigate the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 crew members and said years later that President Lyndon B. Johnson had ordered that the assault be ruled an accident, has died.
The retired Navy captain died June 12 of complications from pneumonia at a San Diego area hospital, his wife, Emma Boston, said Wednesday. He lived in Coronado, Calif.
Capt. Boston was assigned as a legal adviser to a military board of inquiry investigating the attack on the Liberty, an electronic-intelligence-gathering ship that was cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast June 8, 1967. Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty in the midst of the Israeli-Arab Six-Day War.
In addition to the 34 fatalities, 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 said its forces thought the ship was an Egyptian vessel and apologized to the United States.
After the attack, a Navy court of inquiry concluded that there was insufficient information to make a judgment about why Israel attacked the ship, stopping short of assigning blame or determining that it was an accident.
In 2002, Capt. Boston said Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, had told those leading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary," according to a signed affidavit.
Capt. Boston said that he kept his silence because he was a military man and that "when orders come . . . I follow them." He said he felt compelled to go public after the publication of the book "The Liberty Incident," which concluded that the attack was unintentional.
Capt. Boston said in a legal declaration that he was certain the Israeli pilots knew the Liberty, which clearly displayed American flags and had markings in English, not Arabic, was a U.S. Navy ship.
Retired Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who investigated the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other former military officials, wrote in 1997 that he thought Israel intentionally attacked the Liberty to conceal that it was preparing to seize the Golan Heights from Syria.
A. Jay Cristol, a U.S. bankruptcy court judge who wrote "The Liberty Incident," said in the book that 10 U.S. and three Israeli investigations found no evidence of any Israeli intent to attack an American ship.
Capt. Boston is survived by his wife and three children. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:07 am Post subject: |
| Insider Tells the Truth About the Cover-up of the Attack on the USS Liberty
Ward Boston passed away yesterday. Not a single mention on the corporate media, of course.
June 9, 2007 — crescentandcross
‘Son, I spent 2 years as a special agent in the FBI and over 30 yrs in the military, and if it is one thing I learned through all of this, it’s that when you get an order, you say ‘yes sir’ and carry it out with no questions asked’.
This was the response given by Capt. Ward Boston, USN (Ret) to this reporter in a series of recent interviews he gave for American Free Press Newspaper. For those not familiar with Capt. Ward Boston, he played what will one day be recognized as one of the most pivotal roles in recent human history. 40 years ago this upcoming June, he was the senior legal council for the Naval Board of Inquiry concerning the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty by Israeli Air and Naval forces that resulted in 34 Americans killed and 171 wounded. His job in 1967 was to be part of a hastily-called investigation into the attack, and–as he has recently revealed to the shock of many–to rule that Israel’s 90-minute bloodfest waged against America’s young men was all an ‘accident’ that occurred during ‘the fog of war’, all the evidence to the contrary be damned. In 2002, Capt. Ward broke his silence of 3 decades and released an affidavit to the public in which he admitted that the entire investigation was a sham, and that he was under orders (from persons of no less authority than President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara) to rule that the bloodiest day in American naval history since WWII took place as a result of ‘mistaken identity’ and that America’s ally, Israel–was innocent of any wrongdoing.
For 35 years Capt. Ward lived with the bitter knowledge that his fellow servicemen had been deliberately murdered in what was an act of war by a foreign power and yet because of the orders he received was powerless to say anything. A conflux of events however led him to make the decision to ‘damn the torpedoes’ and to let the chips fall where they may. ‘I’m an old man’ he told AFP. ‘They can’t threaten my job, and if they throw me into jail, so what? The truth has to be told for the benefit of the survivors and for the American people whose sons and daughters are dying today’.
The first of these events leading him to break his silence was the 2002 release of a book entitled ‘The Liberty Incident’ written by Judge Ahron Jay Cristol at a time when America was being drawn into a series of long-term military engagements with countries that just so happened to be enemies of Israel. Through his book and subsequent speaking tour, Cristol (a slavish, shameless, fanatical apologist for the Jewish State who is on more-than-friendly terms with a number of people in both the military and arms industry in Israel) did the usual song and dance when it comes to discussing the terrorist state that attacked America in 1967, which was to argue for unconditional acquittal, using a collage of sloppy yet deliberate misrepresentations and omissions of fact. In Capt. Boston’s words, it was Cristol’s ‘insidious attempt to whitewash the event that pushed me to speak out’.
‘These rats,’ he said, referring to Israel and her defenders. ‘They lie about everything. You can’t believe a word they say’ he told AFP. What was so important about this statement was that Capt. Boston was not just talking about the past, but about the present and future as well. ‘They’ve completely infested the entire Intelligence and Defense apparatus of the United States’ he said. ‘Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, and all the rest of them…They’re spies for Israel, every damned one of them’ he said. ‘Just consider the 5 guys who were arrested after 9/11, cheering and celebrating, and then afterwards we come to find out that they were Mossad and then they get sent back to Israel. They knew all about it and yet our government, the government I worked for most of my life did nothing about it. Can you imagine if these guys were Arabs?’ he asked. ‘It’s been the same thing, ever since 1967’ he said with unmistakable aggravation. ‘Protect Israel, protect Israel…In the meantime, our boys are dying over there and those who don’t die are coming back here with all sorts of problems, both physical and psychological’.
It was his visit to Israel some years back that clinched it for this man in terms of his feelings for the ‘great experiment’ in Jewish self-rule. ‘The way they treat the Arabs…it’s unconscionable’ he said. ‘You go into Israel, into the only places where they allow the tourists, and it’s the picture of paradise, just as the Soviets used to do. Then you take a detour off the approved itinerary and you see what it is really like…The poverty, misery, abuse. Arab kids being gunned down in broad daylight. It’s worse than South Africa. Only a person with a ice water in his veins could see the way the Arabs are treated and not be outraged’.
As far as the future goes, Capt. Boston is not hopeful. ‘If either they (the Israelis) or the US launches a war against Iran, it will be the beginning of the end’ he said. ‘Armageddon…You’ll have Muslims pouring into the area from all over the world and no army will be able to stop them. They will tear Israel and the Americans to pieces.’
As far as his reaction to the predictable accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ that have been leveled against him for telling the truth concerning the attack on the Liberty, he laughs it off. ‘One of my closest friends growing up was Jewish’ he said. ‘I don’t have a prejudiced bone in my body. What we are dealing with here is an act of war initiated against the United States, the country I swore an oath to defend, period. If a proper investigation into the attack on the Liberty had been allowed to take place and the American people made aware of what happened, we would not be in the middle of this mess in the Middle East now.’
2007 By Mark Glenn
Correspondent–American Free Press Newspaper
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2007/06/09/insider-tells-the-truth-about-the-cover-up-of-the-attack-on-the-uss-liberty/ | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: |
| http://hnn.us/articles/39936.html
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.
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 mistake"?
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 mistake."
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."
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 case."
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." | | | | Tipper | | Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:05 am Post subject: |
| DECLARATION OF WARD BOSTON, JR., CAPTAIN, JAGC, USN (RET.)
June 11, 2008 — crescentandcross
I, WARD BOSTON, JR. DO DECLARE THAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE AND COMPLETE:
1. FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, I HAVE REMAINED SILENT ON THE TOPIC OF USS LIBERTY. I AM A MILITARY MAN AND WHEN ORDERS COME IN FROM THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I FOLLOW THEM.
2. HOWEVER, RECENT ATTEMPTS TO REWRITE HISTORY COMPEL ME TO SHARE THE TRUTH.
3. IN JUNE OF 1967, WHILE SERVING AS A CAPTAIN IN THE Judge Advocate General Corps, Department of the Navy, I WAS ASSIGNED AS SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE NAVY’S COURT OF INQUIRY INTO THE BRUTAL ATTACK ON USS LIBERTY, WHICH HAD OCCURRED ON JUNE 8TH.
4. THE LATE ADMIRAL ISAAC C. KIDD, PRESIDENT OF THE COURT, AND I WERE GIVEN ONLY ONE WEEK TO GATHER EVIDENCE FOR THE NAVY’S OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACK, DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE BOTH HAD ESTIMATED THAT A PROPER COURT OF INQUIRY INTO AN ATTACK OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD TAKE AT LEAST SIX MONTHS TO CONDUCT.
5. ADMIRAL JOHN S. MCCAIN, JR., THEN COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, NAVAL FORCES EUROPE (CINCUSNAVEUR), AT HIS HEADQUARTERS IN LONDON, HAD CHARGED ADMIRAL KIDD (IN A LETTER DATED JUNE 10, 1967) TO “INQUIRE INTO ALL THE PERTINENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO AND CONNECTED WITH THE ARMED ATTACK; DAMAGE RESULTING THEREFROM; AND DEATHS OF AND INJURIES TO NAVAL PERSONNEL.”
6. DESPITE THE SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME WE WERE GIVEN, WE GATHERED A VAST AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE, INCLUDING HOURS OF HEARTBREAKING TESTIMONY FROM THE YOUNG SURVIVORS.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.” (shame on you cowpollard)
14. 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.
15. IT IS CRISTOL’S INSIDIOUS ATTEMPT TO WHITEWASH THE FACTS THAT HAS PUSHED ME TO SPEAK OUT.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. IN 1990, I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM JAY CRISTOL,
(rabid zionist jew...avid israeli firster.... bankruptcy judge was no MILITARY EXPERT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM) 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
DATED: JANUARY 8, 2004 AT CORONADO, CALIFORNIA.
WARD BOSTON, JR., CAPTAIN, JAGC, USN (RET.) SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE USS LIBERTY COURT OF INQUIRY | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:10 am Post subject: |
| Notice that Boston never actually says that he lied or that he was ordered to lie about anything.
http://hnn.us/articles/39936.html
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.
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 mistake"?
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 mistake."
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."
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 case."
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." | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
