| Author | Message | | 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 5:04 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 5:12 am Post subject: |
| Notice that Boston evasively 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." | | | | Tipper | | Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: |
| | shame on you cowpollard | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:41 am Post subject: |
| Hi T,
Don't expect a civvie to understand "I AM A MILITARY MAN AND WHEN ORDERS COME IN FROM THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I FOLLOW THEM."
That's way beyond plagiarist Coward's grasp. | | | | Tipper | | Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:58 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | Don't expect a civvie to understand "I AM A MILITARY MAN AND WHEN ORDERS COME IN FROM THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I FOLLOW THEM."
That's way beyond plagiarist Coward's grasp. |
I have never seen anything like it...
cowpollard never served in the US armed forces....
he serves on his knee's to his zionist masters...
he's a liar....proven liar.. over and over ...
he refuses the truth...then insults us with someone like a jay cristol...???
then denys the surviving vetrans aboard the USS LIBERTY thier day
in court.....calls them liars!!!! and then.......
he spams the forum with bullshit...trying to make the
men aboard the USS LIBERTY LOOK BAD ...so that the ISRAEL
can look good???
How can this cowpollard call himself an american?? there is
nothing farther from the truth...... | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: |
| | The truth? Cowards need no truth. It hinders them in living a lie. | | | | snowqueen | | Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: |
| Funny how when people are coming to the end of their lives they want to set the record straight.
You're right Daniel, cowboy doesn't get the concept of following orders from a higher up like the President of the United States. How facts can be wiped out, stories fudged, and more lives ruined for telling the complete truth. If I remember he tried to tell the truth, but that was taken care of. Things just disappear. | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: |
| Hi SQ,
The truth and politics simply don't mix.
F****** MSM spent more time covering 2 f***** Israeli dead IDF-ers than they ever did covering the funerals and coming home of our men and women who courageously fought, or worse, lost their lives in these f***** up wars.
I'm in contact/touch with WWII/Korea/Nam/GuldO/GulfOO/Afghani combat Vets and to know that this PoS dishonors them all, makes me wanna puke.
I'm a totally anti-war person, because my family has been ravaged and torn apart by war, nevertheless I commemorate those heroic men and women who put their lives on the line. liberated, fought, killed and died doing what they told to do.
Hence my sig-line:
" Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence, trust and justice." - Baruch Spinoza | | | | Cowboy | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
