Re: USS Liberty 40th anniversary

On Jun 21, 3:22?pm, "Mort" <getalifeam...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 5:45?pm, hillelg...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jun 21, 1:41 am, Joe <jbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> There have been investigations, but the LVA loudmouths didn't like
them because they didn't reach the conclusion they want.


I'm ex-Navy, too, and I'm tired of listening to their whining. The
Navy investigated the incident and ruled it a mistake and that's it.

Which is, IMO, the root of the disagreement.
The attack was investigated by Admiral Kidd, a
man who spent most of his time in sea on
destroyers. The base of his report is the Liberty's
captain testimony. (It is a common practice in
the US Navy to take the ship's commander
testimony as the most reliable one.)

The NSA guys don't have much understanding of
ships, big or small, at sea. Also, they are pretty
sure that the Israeli planes could identify the
Liberty as American, but write
"None of the attacking aircraft was identified as
to either type or nationality until much later,
when comparison was made with standard
warplane photographs."

To me, as somebody who, at age 10, could
recognize a Mirage no problems at all,
it seems strange that US intelligence
collectors could not do the same.
But unlike them I don't jump to conspiracy
theories. I can believe that people under
stress may miss "obvious" information.

Ship's commander most reliable?

Along with the others, who combined to give the court as complete as
picture as possible. Haven't read that part have you, Ken.

Heck, Captain McGonagle couldn't even
correctly remember which way the ship was heading or when his gunnery
officer (Ensign Lucas) was on or off the bridge during the attack. So
much for being a "reliable" witness.

And Ken continues with the red herrings ...

Not only do folks under extreme stress miss details, they get confused
about what happened when; e.g., Captain McGonagle.

But not Ennes, for example??????????????

Nobody here -- at least lately -- is talking about conspiracy
theories. The issue is whether or not attacking an unidentified ship,
in international waters, not within a declared war zone, over 14 miles
from any hostilities, on a clear day, steaming slowly, flying the
American flag, not behaving in a provocatieve manner, ecetra was a
reckless act.

LOL, the only reason this subject gets brought up, Ken, is because of
the conspiracy stories generated as a result of such efforts as
yourself ....

I noticed, again, a number of mis-leading statements, Ken. Why do you
continue with them?

Trying to paint a picture that it was just a peaceful Thursday
afternoon cruise on 8 June 1967 along the shore of the Sinai coast
just doesn't wash, Ken -- no matter how you try to spin it. Heck,
what was it that Captain McGonagle told his crew:

"Before dismissing the crew from general drills, I gave the crew a
short talk on the PA system, reminding them of the importance of
expeditiously responding to general quarters and the setting of
condition Zebra for drills and in the event of an actual attack. So
that they would be impressed I pointed out to the crew at that time
that the column of black smoke on the beach should be sufficient
evidence that the ship was in a potentially dangerous location."

I bet you'd try to dismiss the captain's words, except that Ennes uses
them in his book.

Come back to Earth, Ken.