Remember the USS Liberty

[Adam L]

Look, I've heard info on every side of this issue and whatever it reads out to my question is "why?" Look whatever the situation was wether or not it was intentional doesn't really matter. If it wasn't it was incompetence and it shouldn't have been covered up. If it was reckless troops blowing up everything in site, the same thing. If it was intentional you have to ask why. There does not seem to be any reason here for a direct attack. If the attack was not an accident there probably is some sort of reason and there is no way in hell anybody is going to release the documents. There are too many inconsistencies on both sides. Frankly, if its been kept secret this long somebody somewhere, on both sides (probably including someone in our executive branch,) really f*%ked up. As far as a congressioinal investigation, there should be one, if that hasn't happened yet something that is too potentially embarassing, to both us and them, exists. In conclusion, there isn't going to be an investigatioin.

[bourbon]

Look, I've heard info on every side of this issue and whatever it reads out to my question is "why?"

James Bamford stirred debate in his 2001 book on NSA Body of Secrets, alleging the attack on the Liberty was to cover up the execution of Egyptian POWs at El Arish.

USS Liberty: Cover Up By James Bamford, History News Network, 8-13-01

[Abu Buckwheat]

James Bamford stirred debate in his 2001 book on NSA Body of Secrets, alleging the attack on the Liberty was to cover up the execution of Egyptian POWs at El Arish.

USS Liberty: Cover Up By James Bamford, History News Network, 8-13-01

As a former CT I am biased because one of my old CT instructors was a survivor who was supposed to be in the collection room before it was obliterated by the torpedo ... we studied this attack in our A-school as a failure of mission self-defense (cryptologically speaking) . I've read everything UNCLAS or DECLAS on this and I agree with the theory put out by a writer in the Naval Institute's Proceedings and the book Assault on the Liberty. The most logical reason for why they attacked was that they Israelis delayed the invasion of the Golan until the Liberty was out of the way. Forget Bamford as his "killing POWs" theory holds no water.

Having worked with the Israelis I know that protecting Israel is job #1. The Liberty was bringing undue attention from the Russian Intel, Israel decided to make an example of it. Maybe they thought it would be acceptable to mistake it for an Egyptian tanker. It worked and the best effect of it was to move collection from AGRs to warships.

[Tom Odom]

As a former CT I am biased because one of my old CT instructors was a survivor who was supposed to be in the collection room before it was obliterated by the torpedo ... we studied this attack in our A-school as a failure of mission self-defense (cryptologically speaking) . I've read everything UNCLAS or DECLAS on this and I agree with the theory put out by a writer in the Naval Institute's Proceedings and the book Assault on the Liberty. The most logical reason for why they attacked was that they Israelis delayed the invasion of the Golan until the Liberty was out of the way. Forget Bamford as his "killing POWs" theory holds no water.

Having worked with the Israelis I know that protecting Israel is job #1. The Liberty was bringing undue attention from the Russian Intel, Israel decided to make an example of it. Maybe they thought it would be acceptable to mistake it for an Egyptian tanker. It worked and the best effect of it was to move collection from AGRs to warships.

AB

Off thread. I am reading your book. Good job!

Tom

[bourbon]

As a former CT I am biased because one of my old CT instructors was a survivor who was supposed to be in the collection room before it was obliterated by the torpedo ... we studied this attack in our A-school as a failure of mission self-defense (cryptologically speaking) . I've read everything UNCLAS or DECLAS on this and I agree with the theory put out by a writer in the Naval Institute's Proceedings and the book Assault on the Liberty. The most logical reason for why they attacked was that they Israelis delayed the invasion of the Golan until the Liberty was out of the way. Forget Bamford as his "killing POWs" theory holds no water.

Having worked with the Israelis I know that protecting Israel is job #1. The Liberty was bringing undue attention from the Russian Intel, Israel decided to make an example of it. Maybe they thought it would be acceptable to mistake it for an Egyptian tanker. It worked and the best effect of it was to move collection from AGRs to warships.

Thank you, Assault on the Liberty will be added to my constantly growing reading list. Is this the Proceedings article you reference?: Friendless Fire? By David C. Walsh, Proceedings, June 2003


Absolutely no question that the national interest comes first, last, and only. If anything I can admire and appreciate that. But I’ll contest the assertion made in our nation, that the U.S. and Israel’s national interests are intertwined. It is an argument that no matter how many times repeated, defies logic, no two nations will always have the same interests.

Israel may be getting a dozen Raptors, but I think that means the Saudi’s will be getting a dozen Raptors. And the PRC will be getting a Raptor, or at least significant related technology transfers via Israel. And my hunch is the increased Raptor production will drive down unit cost, which will bring about a successful push to increase U.S. purchases. So we will spend billions more dollars,of which we don’t have, on a plane designed to fight the Chinese (who by the way will be financing our purchase), and is of marginal use in our “war on terrorism”.

[Ken White]

don't allocate them at all well.

Raptors, like the Virginia class and M1A2 SEPs may not have much use in the terror tangle but they do have other uses and we really do need to be a full spectrum force. Keeps a lot of folks honest; there's a reason North Korea is playing better with others and Iran is unduly nervous.

Not to mention the fact that technology is a moving train...

* Read Congress...

[Abu Buckwheat]

Thank you, Assault on the Liberty will be added to my constantly growing reading list. Is this the Proceedings article you reference?: Friendless Fire? By David C. Walsh, Proceedings, June 2003

No it was an article written in 1975-1976 (??) it was a detailed analysis of the attack as an Israeli plan to stop brining Russian attention to why they were loitering off Northern Israel... and was followed up by an article from Capt McGonagle who blasted the Israelis. I was a Sea Cadet when i read it ... Yes I was a Navy geek from the start... blame my Old Man, the Master Chief!

[Tom Odom]

Look, I've heard info on every side of this issue and whatever it reads out to my question is "why?" Look whatever the situation was wether or not it was intentional doesn't really matter. If it wasn't it was incompetence and it shouldn't have been covered up. If it was reckless troops blowing up everything in site, the same thing. If it was intentional you have to ask why. There does not seem to be any reason here for a direct attack. If the attack was not an accident there probably is some sort of reason and there is no way in hell anybody is going to release the documents. There are too many inconsistencies on both sides. Frankly, if its been kept secret this long somebody somewhere, on both sides (probably including someone in our executive branch,) really f*%ked up. As far as a congressioinal investigation, there should be one, if that hasn't happened yet something that is too potentially embarassing, to both us and them, exists. In conclusion, there isn't going to be an investigatioin.

El Arish perhaps. Most likely reason to prevent US interecpt of IDF orders to move on Syria and take the Golan, after a UN ceasefire went into effect.

There were 3 separate attacks, Adam. Fighter, helicopter, and torpedo boats. That makes the "accident claim" really stretched. Intentional versus accidental is critical.

As for reasons for the coverup, well look at your reaction. The embarrassment was tremendous; the Navy awarded the Medal of Honor to the skipper in a private ceremony. That is not "business as usual."

As for the possibility of an investigation, I fear you are correct. And that makes Point 12 of the Moorer Commission more compelling:

12. That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel's interests when they conflict with American interests; this policy, evidenced by the failure to defend USS Liberty and the subsequent official cover-up of the Israeli attack, endangers the safety of Americans and the security of the United States.

Tom