Sunday June 25, 2017
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com
Zip Weather


Weather Forecast

 

Sep-13-2006 19:05printcomments

The Day Israel Attacked the United States

An event shrouded in mystery in 1967 left more than three dozen American sailors dead and many unanswered questions.

U.S.S. Liberty
Unloading the dead photo courtesy: ussliberty.org
Israeli flag courtesy: saharamarathon.co.uk

(SALEM) - An amazingly large number of educated and intelligent people that I converse with have never heard of the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty that caused the deaths of 34 men and injuries to 171.

They are shocked to learn that in 1967, during Israel's Six-Day War with Egypt, Israeli fighters repeatedly attacked a U.S. Navy ship from the air for 25 minutes and then by torpedo boats for 40 minutes. That, after circling the ship 13 times in daylight over a nine hour period to establish her identity.

For years, hundreds of Americans knew about the attack and they knew that it was kept under wraps until more recent years. And as I said, most people still don't know about it.

Why the secrecy? How and why could this have happened? We are after all, allies. It isn't like it was a random shot, it was friendly fire on steroids.

This is the ship the U.S.S. Liberty was mistaken for; an Egyptian horse carrier named El Quseir, The Liberty is shown at right, her crews said the ship's American flag was flying high when the Israeli jet attacked

Emblem of the U.S.S. Liberty

This incident has remained a matter of controversy ever since that fateful day. The Israel government insists the attack was a tragic accident while survivors and many top US officials say it was planned and deliberate.

Officially, the United States says only that Israel's motive for attack could not be determined. Secretary of State Dean Rusk, in office at the time, called the attack deliberate.

The official excuse is still withheld from the American public at the request of the Government of Israel. That sounds sneaky, and we fight fire with fire around here. While we can't bring you the report in it's entirety, this is an official U.S. synopsis called the Salans Report: www.ussliberty.org/salans.htm

I have no problem with the bully state of Israel on most days, well, maybe that isn't true. OK, it isn't... I can't stand to think of the history of the occupation of the place. It isn't so much what happened, but it is the obvious ignorance that goes with it. History is a sad thing when the oppressed become the oppressor.

In 1947, with the help of the British Secret Service and other western government sponsored groups, the founder of the Jewish state forced the Palestinians from their homes, places where they were born.

Then twenty years later, they blasted the heck out of a U.S. Navy ship and killed a lot of the guys who were aboard, while injuring scores of others. We should have this in the back of our minds as we go through our lives here in the states, and things need to be laid out the way they really happened.

I can not do this story any real justice, anyone who is interested should visit this site where you can spend hours reading about the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty: www.ussliberty.org/




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



Ron March 23, 2008 7:00 am (Pacific time)

After reading all the comments here I can say that as a survivor I am indebted to all those Zionist supporters who help us keep this story alive. Without their help I don't believe we could keep the truth out there for all to see. Thank you.


Jim McMullan October 20, 2007 2:04 pm (Pacific time)

There have been TEN Congressional Probes over 30 years- all found the attack UNintentional.. as did the last NSA Radio Releases showing the Israeli pilots did NOT know it was an American Ship. - - And a few Years ago - the Pilot who lead the raid spoke out .. from Jpost. This pilot Not towing the company line either is now a refusenik- and his ego obviously precludes his lying. - -- - - - - - -- - Oct. 10, 2003 Pilot who bombed ‘Liberty’ talks to ‘Post - By ARIEH O’SULLIVAN - - - - -- -- An Israeli pilot who Mistakenly attacked the American intelligence ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he had no bombs – otherwise he would have sunk her. - “There was a Mistake. - Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place,” said Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector. - - - - After 36 years Spector, who this week was Dismissed by the IAF for signing the pilots’ refusal letter protesting the policy of Targeted killings, agreed to speak to a reporter for the first time on his role in the attack on the Liberty, an American spy ship strafed on the fourth day of the war. - - - - Flying a Mirage III fighter jet code named “Kursa” or couch, Spector was the first pilot to reach the ship, which was about 20 nautical miles west of Gaza. - - He had been on an air-to-air mission and was NOT loaded with bombs. - - - - Spector, now 63, went on to become a triple ace, shooting down 15 enemy aircraft, and take part in the 1981 raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, earning himself a place in the pantheon of Israeli fly boys. This week he ended a 20-year stint teaching new generations of pilots. - Spector had always refused to discuss the attack on the USS Liberty, which killed 34 US sailors and wounded 172, or even be revealed as the pilot who led the attack on her. Until now. - “I did Not fire on the Liberty as a human target. I was sent to attack a sailing vessel. This ship was on an escape route from the El Arish area, which at that same moment had heavy smoke rising from it,” Spector said. - - -- “It was thought to be an Egyptian vessel. This ship positively did NOT have any symbol or flag that I could see. What I was concerned with was that it was not one of OURS.- - - - - - - I looked for the symbol of our navy, which was a large white cross on its deck,” he told The Jerusalem Post. “This was Not there, so it wasn’t one of ours.” - - - - - - - - - The concern of the IAF was that Spector and his wingman, who had been diverted from the Suez Canal, would strike one of the Israel Navy ships in pursuit of the vessel, which was assumed to be Egyptian. IAF archival recordings of the pilots’ radio transmission of the actual attack obtained by the Post show that Spector was specifically requested to verify that the ship was a military vessel and Not Israeli. - - - According to the June 8, 1967, radio transmission, Spector said: “I CAN’T identify it but in any case it’s a Military ship.” - - Speaking of the event 36 years later may have caused Spector to mix what he remembered with what he may have read and his testimony does not always match archival facts. - “I circled it twice and it did not fire on me. My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively NO Flag. -Just to make sure I photographed it,” said Spector, who retired from active duty as a brigadier-general in 1984. Experts intimately acquainted with the incident said that the only photos Spector took were from his gun-sight camera during his strafing run. Regardless of whether the 455-foot ship bristling with eavesdropping antennas flew a US flag, which it evidently did from its starboard halyard, that banner was shot off in Spector’s first strafing pass. - “I was told on the radio that it was an Egyptian ship off the Gaza coast. Hit it. The luck of the ship was that I was armed only with light ammunition [30mm] against aircraft. -- - If I had had a bomb it would be sitting on the bottom today like the Titanic. I promise you,” Spector said. The 30mm rounds were armor piercing, which to this day led Liberty survivors to believe they had been under rocket attack. Spector’s first pass ignited a fire which caused the ship to billow black smoke. Ironically, Spector transmitted he suspected the Liberty was putting out smoke to deliberately mask itself. “Every order is given by commanders and the last one to receive it has to decide whether he will pull the trigger or not. In this instance I was the fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that it was a military ship and not one of ours] and pulled the trigger,” Spector said. - - “The crew should be thankful for their luck [that I was on an Air-to-Air Mission and did NOT HAVE any bombs]. It is a pity we attacked. I’m sorry for poor Capt. (William Loren) McGonagle, who was wounded in the leg and the other guys who were killed and wounded.” - - - “I’m sorry for the mistake. Years later my mates dropped flowers on the site where the ship was attacked,” Spector said. “I’m the last guy who has a problem with admitting mistakes and asking for forgiveness. There was a mistake, but it wasn’t my mistake.” - - - - He added he remains Baffled that the Conspiracy theories live on that Israel deliberately attacked the US intelligence ship. He suggested it might be due to anti-Semitism, or anti-Israeli sentiments. - - “I know that after the war one of the first things that was done was the establishment of a [US] senator’s inquiry. I know this personally, because I was called upon to testify before it. They came to the country and I was questioned. - - I told them what I told you just now – that there was a mistake. I am sorry for the mistake. In war mistakes happen,” Spector said. He said that he had never in the past 36 years ever met with any of the Liberty survivors, but has no qualms about doing so now. “They must understand that a mistake was made here,” Spector said. “The fool is one who wanders about in the dark in dangerous places, so they should not come with any complaints. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I would also like to add in response to several comments- the Testimony of the US Crew is fairly IRRELEVANT.. as they could NOT know who the Israelis THOUGHT they were, and that victims of Friendly Fire attacks always feel it was intentional... And finally- some crew brass are protecting their own @ss as they blew Radio communications to be nowehere near there... and for all anyone knew (The USA and Israel) UNTIL they were attacked, they were Hundreds of Miles away.


Albert Marnell February 7, 2007 6:39 am (Pacific time)

Tim, February 7th, 2007 Better late than never.... Alex Jones goes into detail about this event in his documentary called "TerrorStorm". A History of Government Sponsored Terrorism. President Johnson wanted the U.S.S. Liberty sunk to the bottom by Israeli war planes so that they could blame it on Egypt and invade the Middle East as we now have done. The only reason they stopped was because a Russian Ship was nearby as a witness to the event. I have always known that the majority of attacks on western nations are self-inflicted wounds with double agents etc. Most of the people in the military have no idea about what is really going on. It is a small group of people paid off by high positioned and powerful people. Check out www.infowars.com


Stan White September 29, 2006 11:45 am (Pacific time)

Mike, I am making NO statements here that you can use to spin. Just this: Bring something to the table here 1) A resource for you accepting the "accident" you believe happened. 2) Some person with factual information,that you have talked to or communicated with, that this was an accident and that person's source. I will research any of the above with an open mind. OK ?


Mike Weeks September 28, 2006 11:23 am (Pacific time)

Always interesting to have Joe continue to confuse readers when he makes statements and what they really mean; he has been doing it for many years, long before I ever got interested in the subject. Once again, to have one believe that what has supposedly been a response from some unnamed and not-quoted “Congressional Delegation” relating to some unquoted CRS response as definitive is truly a stretch. After all, the CRS charter is to “formulate legislative proposals”. Besides, all one has to understand is that not all available material on the subject is located in the Library of Congress _and_ cataloged for computer access. Joe also seems to be confused when it comes to believing that “putting faith” is somehow connected to Boston and Staring having not “asked us to.” Then to put the “icing on the cake”, as it were, when it come to “having faith”; to claim that there is going to be an “investigation”done in reaction to that paper sent to the DOD. If nothing else Joe really should change the web site sentence of “We are still waiting patiently for a reply.” to one of “... that only supports our conclusions.” After all, the response which one can’t read on the LVA web site is located here:


Joe Meadors September 27, 2006 5:09 am (Pacific time)

Mike, thanks once again for coming to our assistance and allowing us to expand on our position by responding to your posts. It is a tactic we have employed so many times in the past it appears to be deliberate on your part. You previously wrote that the Congressional Research Service does not conduct investigations and that nobody has claimed it does. True. The point I was making is that if you write to your Congressional Delegation with a request that they contact the Congressional Research Service and ask them to answer the question, “has the US government ever conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty” the response from the CRS will be that the US government has never conducted an investigation of the attack. To address the point that you characterize our writings as “putting faith” in the claims of Capt. Boston and RADM Staring – it is not a question of putting faith in anyone. They haven’t asked us to. What will happen is that the account they have provided will be subjected to the same critical scrutiny of examination and cross-examination that all evidence will be subjected to during the investigation of the attack that will flow from the War Crimes Report we filed with the Department of Defense.


Mike Weeks September 26, 2006 1:18 pm (Pacific time)

Stan White really should double check his claim (as one example) regarding the two retired USN JAG officers, Boston and Staring. Staring has make no claim whatsoever as expressed by White. As for Boston, well, put your faith if you wish in someone who is stating he violated not only his oath as an officer, but also his oath as counsel of the court -- as well as claiming that all others (they being deceased of course) on the court violated their oath. See article 135 of the UCMJ: "(e) The members, counsel, the reporter, and interpreters of courts of inquiry shall take an oath to faithfully perform their duties." Is that the Navy Stan White retired from? Bottom line continues to be that these op eds, postings, etc, etc, are really meaningless, as the 1967 incident has long been closed and settled and the world has moved on. So Stan White, speaking of saying nothing ...


Stan White September 25, 2006 9:26 am (Pacific time)

There are no rants here, Mike, just the facts that you show up at every site that takes a look at the attack on the LIBERTY, and post day after day without ever presenting any sources, or facts of any kind. We have two US Navy retired officers, both being from JAG and both involved in the Navy's investigation, stating publicly that it was a fraud and that their orders were for it be to concluded as an "accident" even though the evidence did not show it was. We have survivors on the main deck that saw unmarked planes attack the LIBERTY,in international waters, a war crime, with no effort to make identification , a war crime, and machine gun gun and sink life rafts released by the LIERTY after being torpedoed, a war crime and what do you bring in support of your "mistake" theme, NOTHING ! You will respond to this with another wordy answer, but again saying NOTHING !


Mike Weeks September 24, 2006 7:09 pm (Pacific time)

Simply read thru the posts by Stan White, it's that simple Tim.


Tim King September 24, 2006 1:34 pm (Pacific time)

Boy, that is an interesting point that Mike Weeks calls forward. Mike, if "rants" are ineffective how do explain your own approach?


Mike Weeks September 24, 2006 1:30 pm (Pacific time)

Stan White -- speaking of being boring. There are no winners when it comes right down to it; having an accurate understanding of history is like that in many cases. Rants do nothing when attempting to advance an agenda.


Stan White September 24, 2006 10:08 am (Pacific time)

I don't know if you won or lost, Mikie, guess you won because evryone left this discussion, but in reality you lost again because once again you proved to everyone that you didn't have a clue what in the heck you were talking about. Does Israel pay you if people go away because you are just plain BORING, or are you required to actually convince at least one person of their lies and our government's scared to death cover-up ?


Mike Weeks September 22, 2006 11:01 am (Pacific time)

Joe Meadors continues to be confused; that the Congressional Research Service has conducted an investigation has never been claimed, to my knowledge; nor is it a depository of historial events -- espically non-Congressional. The focus of the CRS is quite clearly stated: "Congress created CRS in order to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues. Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress." Naturally all this is meaningless, as nothing is going to change, no matter what Joe decides to post next.


Anonymous September 21, 2006 1:46 pm (Pacific time)

You tell 'em Joe!


Stan White September 21, 2006 1:37 pm (Pacific time)

Geeze, Mike you are so lame, this last posting once again is filled with words but not one authoritive piece of data we can confirm your inputs what so ever. Here and other forums, it's always the same with you, no facts, just propaganda. You must have one solid thing that you can show us that you have knowledge that brought you to this never ending line of BS that you have been spreading for years now. Since you say you were in the USNR, and thus no ax to grind with American sailors, then the only other possibility is you are paid by Israel to find these sites and start all over again, stating things you have NO proof of.


Joe Meadors September 21, 2006 5:19 am (Pacific time)

Mike Weeks fails to mention one simple fact -- the US government has NEVER conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty. A simple request to the Congressional Research Service through your Congressional Delegation will prove that fact.


Mike Weeks September 20, 2006 5:21 pm (Pacific time)

The sailors aboard the ship that day only know what happened to them. It's quite simple and very straightforward. The "interest", as you call it, for this subject is now one of looking over the various stories and such, and comparing them to the wealth of available material (which should have been made available years ago by the gov't). It shouldn't have taken the State Department some 35 years to pen for example: "Johnson ordered a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding the attack. After extensive investigations, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency concluded that there was 'little doubt' that the attacking Israeli units 'failed to identify the Liberty as a US ship before or during the attack' and that they had mistakenly identified the ship as Egyptian." In the larger scheme of things, it's really just the net which is the avenue by which a number of former crewmembers hope to somehow change history.


Tim King September 20, 2006 4:44 pm (Pacific time)

Mike, I assume you meant "phrase" but at any rate, you can believe what you want. Your POV appears to be shared by few who know very much about it. I have a hard time ever seeing myself or anyone else suggesting that they know more than the sailors aboard the vessel that day.

But all differences aside, I am glad the subject draws interest as it does. That is the point.


Mike Weeks September 20, 2006 4:38 pm (Pacific time)

That's correct Tim, the insignificance of what you wrote and what's being bantered around here. And BTW, anyone who wasn't on the ship, nor in the aircraft, MTBs, at Haifa or Tel Aviv are in effect "armchair" whatever. It's the third party historians/researchers which normally bring a wider, more balanced perspective to the subject. These various comments by former Liberty crewmembers for example, remind me of that pharse; don't care what you write about me, as long as you write something.


Tim King September 20, 2006 4:21 pm (Pacific time)

The insignificance of this piece? You can call it an OpEd if you want Mike, you aren't the first to say that, but it sure has kept your attention and it has attracted more than one of the ship's actual survivors. Now I know you think you know more than those who were actually there. But hey, where would we be without armchair historians?


Mike Weeks September 20, 2006 3:46 pm (Pacific time)

Joe Meadors being in denial continues to be quite amusing. Regarding "unnamed sources", perhaps Joe should take that up directly with Jim Ennes: "The story first came to me from a Navy master chief petty officer who was working with the Central Intelligence Agency ... one of the CIA employees returned to the topic in private conversation, seemingly anxious to inform the chief that the attack was no real surprise to the CIA. .... 'There was plenty of warning,' a former Israeli government official told another friend." (pgs. 206-207) I'm afraid that Ron Kukal is mistaken if he thinks that the "inquiry" forum is of any significance -- bottom line, nothing is -- including this op ed piece. What comes to mind is the song titled "Road to Nowhere", from the Talking Heads rock group.


Ron Kukal September 20, 2006 7:41 am (Pacific time)

For Mike Weeks: Mike I see your methods haven't changed much over the years. Been awhile since I talked to you, and as usual you still lean towards misdirection, unproven facts, and in general just comments off the top of your head. I am still waiting for you to come to the Court of Inquiry web site and do battle with the facts that are there. This site has been waiting for you for quite some time.


Joe Meadors September 20, 2006 5:23 am (Pacific time)

Mike Week’s characterizing the modification of a position based on review and analysis of evidence presented subsequent to establishing that existing position as “reverse spin” is as expected. What else is left to him? His “bible” – Jay Cristol’s “The Liberty Incident” - relies on doctored photos and unnamed sources to support his position. I shudder to think how we would be castigated should we (or any American) resort to such a heretofore unacceptable and outrageous strategy to support our position. It begs the question, in a time when our country finds itself at war what kind of American resorts to using such a source or such a tactic to apologize for and/or rationalize actions committed by and against the US military that resulted in the death of 34 Americans, the wounding of at least 173 and the total destruction of a US Navy ship without any investigation whatsoever by the US government of the attack that caused the carnage?


Stan White September 19, 2006 1:21 pm (Pacific time)

Come on Mr Weeks, show us the money ! We want to read, or talk to, or whatever, your "expanded series of sources" Don't respond by saying so and so said this and so and so said that, or how amused you are about something, just let us see and decide for ourselves. Step up to the plate or be a good USNR sailor, OK ?


Mike Weeks September 19, 2006 11:25 am (Pacific time)

It continues to be amusing to witness a typical Joe Meador’s reverse spin on the subject: For example; “I was convinced that the attack was deliberate, premeditated murder.” -- Jim Ennes having _already_ reached a conclusion by June 14, 1967 -- less than one week following the attack (pg. 137 of his book). Perhaps Joe can point to any published statement from Jim Ennes in which he acknowledges that he had been in fact “in error” when he was claiming to the public that Congress had indeed investigated.


David Lewis September 19, 2006 7:42 am (Pacific time)

I is ridiculous to argue with Mike Weeks. He will pick at nits till; Hell freezes over and always ignore the truth.


Joe Meadors September 19, 2006 5:24 am (Pacific time)

Mike’s comment concerning Jim Ennes’ statement gives me the opportunity of pointing out one of the most glaring differences between the tactics used by his side and ours. Our side collects and analyzes evidence and testimony and takes a position based upon that analysis. If we have taken a position that subsequent evidence or analysis tells us is incorrect we modify that position to agree with the evidence and analysis currently available. Mike’s side assumes a position and entertains evidence and conducts analyses that support that position. He then tries to characterize our tactic of assuming or modifying our position to agree with the most recent evidence and analysis as a weakness in our strategy and evidence that we are wrong, inconsistent or that our position “flip-flops.” Sometimes – as in this case – he asks us to speak to a position that has been modified based upon subsequent evidence or analysis. With regard to his criticism for what he characterizes as my disputing Stan White’s comment regarding the investigation conducted by the US Navy, there is no dispute. Both Stan and I are correct.


Mike Weeks September 18, 2006 11:10 am (Pacific time)

Perhaps Joe Meadors should actually take up his claim with Jim Ennes: "the Defense Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, which investigated the attack in 1967" -- from a published letter in 1984. It is also interesting to note Joe Meadors disputing what Stan White had to say.


Stan White September 18, 2006 11:03 am (Pacific time)

Mike weeks continues to fill his input with hot air, but he should be able to provide his "expanded series of sources" for all of to research on our own. Maybe we can arrive at his "opinion/conclusion".


Joe Meadors September 18, 2006 5:02 am (Pacific time)

Mike Weeks seems to be a bit confused and apparently wants to bring others along with him. True there were reports prepared but the US government has never conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty.


Mike Weeks September 17, 2006 10:05 pm (Pacific time)

I'm afarid Stan White continues to be confused about what is an opinion and what is an established fact. The fact that he suffered thru the attack by no means whatsoever establishes what he claims is actually a fact -- if for no other reason than he wasn't in any other location to know the intent of the Israeli forces which ended up attacking the ship. Rather or not someone was on active duty on June 8, 1967 means squat to the gaining of an understanding of not only the events of that day but also to many of the myths which have been generated in the later years. As to this claim of only ONE official investigation; I hate to break the news here, but he'll NOT see that mistaken statement repeated by the Navy JAG -- A Navy JAG Captain could only speak for what the JAG did, not the other components of the USG, including other parts of the Navy -- such as the NSG. Don't think there were other investigations? Well, just contact the Naval Historical Center (MHC), and ask for the "Naval Security Group File on USS Liberty" -- sanitized declassified dated 11 April 1985. You can bet that the NSG didn't send a copy over to the JAG. If Stan White wishes to do some fact checking of his own to counter some of the more silly stories generated about what the 6th Fleet did, or DIDN'T do, I suggest he either obtain his own copy of the NHC "6th Fleet/USS Liberty" message file, or go visit this specific web page: http://libertyincident.com/messages/usmessages.html and read thru them. I have no doubt that it'll be quite informative and educational.


Stan White September 17, 2006 2:45 pm (Pacific time)

"I notice that Stan White doesn't complain about those who push what he happens to believes, only those who happens to have come another conclusion -- based on an expanded series of sources. And just do you'll know, I'm ex-USNR ('67-'78), not that really matters"

Two things, Mr Weeks, concerning your statement above

1) It is not "what I believe", it's what I KNOW is the truth, from surviving, which was pure MURDER, no excuses work ! I, and every single survivor, would truly appreciate you revealing how YOU KNOW the truth and I just believe in some theory or part of some conspiracy cult. Put your research resources where this happened "those who happens to have come another conclusion -- based on an expanded series of sources", here for everyone to see, so that we might all check them out. By the way there was only ONE official investigation concerning this horror act put on by Israel, if you would please contact the US Navy Dept, like we did, and you will receive a letter stating there was only one. At least you didn't say there had been twelve or thirteen investigations like your Buddy A.J.

2) The last part of your statement above: "And just so you'll know, I'm ex-USNR ('67-'78), not that really matters"

You are correct here, it doesn't matter ! Not unless you happened to be on active duty June 8, 1967, and on board the USS LIBERTY, and observed an entirely different attack, than we survivors lived through.


r s thompson September 16, 2006 5:44 am (Pacific time)

I would encourage the reading of Peter Hounam's book;"Operation Cyanide" and the review of the BBC documentary;"Dead in the Water". Both avaliable through the USS Liberty web site or Amazon.com.Today's events demand an explanation on the why of Operations Cyanide and Frontlet 615. It is past time for the US Government to review it's policies with israel and take an America first attitude.


Hank Ruark September 15, 2006 5:07 pm (Pacific time)

Friends: Didn't pick up on this one earlier since wanted to see where it went...and it did ! ONLY comment: Have thick file re Watergate, started same way and accumulated closely parallel radically-negative comments --guess which way !!--for long-time. But historical perspective has proven most of that precisely what some of you here have termed much-mentioned from one side. Wanna bet this will be same way ? Per journalistic reflections, see nothing to complain about at all in Tim's coverage -- any old Marines out there also old journalists too ?


Tim King September 15, 2006 3:41 pm (Pacific time)

Joe, thank you for that, and I will look for that title. I know Mike makes some good points, it is a tough subject. I am just honored to be able to talk about it. Thanks for taking the time to visit and leaving your insightful comment.


Joe Meadors September 15, 2006 3:22 pm (Pacific time)

Tim, Kudos on your article from another USS Liberty survivor. When all the dust has settled the fact remains that the US government has never conducted an investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty. Indeed, there is also little to support the claim that the Israelis conducted one either. For all his faults I have to agree with Mike Weeks on one point -- read Jay Cristol's book. I understand it is out of print but may still be available at Amazon or through the author. When you read it, try to duplicate his research. You might also browse through our website at usslibertyinquiryDOTcom and read some analyses of his book. Then contact Jay and ask him to enter into an online discussion of his book at the forums on the website. Thanks again for your article. Warmest regards, Joe Meadors USS Liberty Survivor joeATussliberty.com co-webmaster usslibertyDOTcom and usslibertyinquiryDOTcom


Tim King September 15, 2006 2:00 pm (Pacific time)

Mike, It has already been suggested that you should have more respect for your fellow sailors, and I hope that in your heart, you really have more respect for your own country's loss that day than you disclose here, I'm sure you really do.


Mike Weeks September 15, 2006 12:54 pm (Pacific time)

Tim, a desire for historical accuracy has no "historical motives." No one is claiming the 1967 incident should be forgotten, and yes Israel screwed up, which isn't denied. I continue to find it amusing how you attempt to demean someone who doesn't walk in lock-step with the error-filled material you present. What's so interesting about the net is that it's just about the only place such material continues to be presented. Thank goodness the net hasn't replaced all other means of gaining information.


Albert Marnell September 15, 2006 12:52 pm (Pacific time)

Anyone who is pro-Israel first and U.S. interests second, go an take the slow boat to Tel Aviv.


Tim King September 15, 2006 12:26 pm (Pacific time)

Mike, the record has been set straight and the history of your obvious nationalist motives have been exposed. You aren't looking any better by the post at this point. Israel screwed up in '67 and some of us aren't forgetting about it. It isn't that personal, that is not until you start piping up. I'm glad you were in the Navy Reserve, I was an active duty Marine. Maybe the Israeli military has some openings, check it out.


Mike Weeks September 15, 2006 11:22 am (Pacific time)

It really would help young Andrew's credibility if he would do some serious research on the Six-Day War and then state it accurately. Solid documentation shows that it was only the Egyptian airfields which Israel struck first on 5 June (Egypt posed the greatest threat). The Jordanians commenced artillery fire as well as airstrikes on Israel prior to the IAF catching the Jordanian planes on the ground for refueling in the afternoon. The Syrian Air Force struck first at northern Israel in the late morning, doing little damage, then getting caught on the ground in the afternoon by the IAF. The _general_ claim which can be used is that by the end of the first day of the war, the IAF had destroyed nearly all of the planes belonging to Egypt, Jordan and Syria. That's a far cry from the story Andrew presents. As to Andrew's other comment, all one has to do is to go to a local fed. depository library and find evidence of some of the various types of Congressional investigations which have taken place. However one was disclosed by author Jay Cristol, and it was the one held on behalf of the Liberty veterns group, in 1991-1993 period. See: http://libertyincident.com/house-investigation-1991.html


Mike Weeks September 15, 2006 10:41 am (Pacific time)

Thanks Tim for showing such hypocrisy with your last set of comments. For you to believe that a 1967 event somehow equates to the challenges the western world faces today is simply mind-boggling. I especially found it humorous for you to project your frustration with some church or other and attempt to equate that with me. Just how insecure is that? BTW, a group named finalcall.com first used the same title back in 2003: "A matter of Liberty - The Day Israel Attacked America". So it would appear that not even the title you picked is original. I notice that Stan White doesn't complain about those who push what he happens to believes, only those who happens to have come another conclusion -- based on an expanded series of sources. And just do you'll know, I'm ex-USNR ('67-'78), not that really matters


eqriddler September 15, 2006 10:39 am (Pacific time)

Tim, What do these major record-setting events have in common? • The ten costliest insurance events in U.S. history • The twelve costliest hurricanes in U.S. history • Three of the four largest tornado outbreaks in U.S. history • The two largest terrorism events in U.S. history. All of these major catastrophes and many others occurred or began on the very same day or within 24-hours of U.S. presidents Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr. applying pressure on Israel to trade her land for promises of "peace and security," sponsoring major "land for peace" meetings, making major public statements pertaining to Israel’s covenant land and /or calling for a Palestinian state. Documentation: EYE TO EYE by William R. Koenig


eqriddler September 15, 2006 10:31 am (Pacific time)

The emotion should be left out of a thoughtful analysis of any issue that is intended to spur truth seeking. It's sad that this issue divides and even sadder that it divides along this particular issue at this particular time. Evidently, the trick was to divide and apparently it was successful enough. However, you'll accomplish more to benefit amorphous populations by coaxing higher levels of congealed thought.


Andrew September 15, 2006 9:53 am (Pacific time)

Tim, you have to excuse Mike Weeks. He will nitpick every error, fallacy, set up a strawman to knock down, you name it, just to show that he is right. And most of the time he is. The problem is that he'll never attack your thesis or main argument, just try to knock the one leg that's a little wobbly (meanwhile, the other three legs hold strong). In the end, the thesis/argument still stands relatively unscathed. My favorite is asking Mr. Weeks how many U.S. Congressional investigations there have been. He says five, or six depending on the day. Even the Library of Congress says none. Readers may also want to visit www.ussliberty.org's sister site, www.usslibertyinquiry.com, which also has a forum. I am absolutely appalled by Eric Villman's comment that Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. Quite to the contrary, ALL accepted history is that Israel pre-empted the war by bombing the Egyptian and Jordanian air forces while it was still on the ground. As the bombing commenced on the early morning of June 5, 1967, Israel sent out a false message to the world that said they were responding to an Egyptian attack. I will again point out that this message was false and that Israel drew first blood. Indeed, the militaries of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt were largely on the defensive for much of the war. To not agree with this would make Mr. Villman a conspiracy theorist.


Tim King September 15, 2006 8:56 am (Pacific time)

Stan, I am honored that you took the time to share the information on Mike Weeks. It was getting a little long in the tooth if you know what I mean. I think ol' Mike's future comments are now on the verge of earning our rarely used "flush button" a.k.a. the delete key. We really try to approve comments, we go way out on a limb sometimes with the things people write, but sometimes it just quits making sense. I've had hateful mail and comments lately with the Westboro Baptist Church people who harrass soldier/Marine/sailor funerals, and they have all earned the dubious honor of the flush button. What a group to be a part of Mike.

Again, it is a humble honor to have you here Stan and we are very sorry for what happened to you and your shipmates aboard the U.S.S. Liberty.


Stan White September 15, 2006 8:27 am (Pacific time)

When ever the Liberty attack by Israel appears in any form, radio, TV, internet sites, etc. , Mike Weeks and several more just like him show up to spread their line of BS ! From a Survivor of the USS LIBERTY murderous attack on our ship, these are truths that he and others try to make anyone interested in the Liberty, appear as uninformed and not doing research. Mr. Weeks has been doing this for YEARS, I'm not sure if he gets paid by Israel to search the web everyday to spread his words of wisdom, or if he just doesn't like US Military personnel. Truth: The attack was an intentional act of murder There has been only ONE actual investigation of this attack, done by the US Navy, and has been proven to be a fraud. This is the only attack on a US Navy ship, not investigated by the US Congress, nor will they even talk to us about it. We have been labeled as "anti semetic" and worse, which is the way Israel and people like Weeks operate. You dare say anything critical of Israel, you are labeled and you are just a hater. Keep up the good work Tim.


Tim King September 15, 2006 7:58 am (Pacific time)

That's cool Mike, you made your point. I am surprised that somebody who claims to know so much about American military matters, seemingly cares so little that our guys were murdered that day. It's just good to call the kettle black sometimes, I would estimate that at least 95% of Americans do not know about what happened, but they could hear "Islamic terrorist" a thousand times on American television without hearing a single negative uttered toward anything Israel may have done wrong. The title by the way which seems to irritate you so much, is completly accurate.


Mike Weeks September 15, 2006 1:19 am (Pacific time)

Tim, I hate to break the news to you, but the 1967 USS Liberty story isn't "news", so I can't figure out how you can claim that what you wrote has anything to with the "news world" -- but I assume you thought it important to get folks attention by the title chosen. And finally regarding the F-4s; if you get a chance, again talk to some former USN/USMC F-4 crew members and ask them about fuel flow and afterburning. Mention that the model is the F-4B (w/ -8 J79 engines), and on the carriers in June 1967 they were configured w/ wing drop tanks (370 gals. each) as well as Sidewinder missile rails. At the AB burn rate of approx. 1500#/minute -- you get something like 10-15 minutes of "flight time" before flameout. Besides, it's quite clear how long it was going to take for the aircraft to reach Liberty -- 90 minutes. Can't see how you can knowingly ignore that statement from the 6th Fleet. As to your "recommended" web site, well there's more than one out there, and that's been mentioned previously. Perhaps a more reasonable approach would have been to do a wider search of the subject and given folks a few choices -- instead of only one. But then that might not have made any sense given the chosen title, right?


Tim King September 15, 2006 12:03 am (Pacific time)

I'm sure I didn't do it justice, but I seem to have caused more than a few people to think about it and that was a primary objective. I'm just as critical of any nation that makes glaring military errors and fails to make them right, if that is even a possibility. I will try to find that article that you mentioned, thanks.


eqriddler September 14, 2006 11:57 pm (Pacific time)

Tim, I usually advocate responding JUST to an article objectively, avoiding name calling (even if someone doesn't understand but should). You knew this was a divisive issue before you wrote it. Truth. It became all the more dangerous when you realized you couldn't do it justice. Truth. I too am interested in the truth as I believe YOU are, so I leave this comment on the article as well; God's chosen people are not immune to mistakes. They are examples of how God loves all of us and keeps His promises. The real reason behind the attack may be discernable but the overarching truth is it's not God's fault, it's because of sin. This is not a non-answer but it's not a wanted answer by most either. If you have a minute, read an editorial review on a book entitled "Eye to Eye" on Amazon.


Tim King September 14, 2006 11:00 pm (Pacific time)

Muchas gracias Amigo Albert!


Albert Marnell September 14, 2006 10:58 pm (Pacific time)

Israel is so Holy....give me a break!


Albert Marnell September 14, 2006 10:54 pm (Pacific time)

Good Work Tim! Don't let people who have bugs in their bonnet wear you out.


Tim King September 14, 2006 7:28 pm (Pacific time)

That's the way we do things in the news world sometimes, if we don't get their attention then they never see it. Blame it on the mentality, sure worked well in your case. You are entitled to your opinion, you obviously have spent some time with this. But F-4's have drop tanks and the "few minutes" figure is completely off track. I've never flown an F-4 but I was around their pilots and crews as a Marine myself. F-4's come in so many configurations and models, you can't throw out generalities like that when you require such specifics from me.

I think you need to go back and read the definition of false too. You're grabbing onto facts and figures and touting them as the truth and I have no idea where you are in terms of expert qualifications.

And what do you think my political agenda is anyway? Why do guys like you always have to throw out the same stuff? You have heard my agenda time and time again here in this thread; I believe in bringing out the truth. You throw all of this out and yet I concluded the article with this: "I can not do this story any real justice, anyone who is interested should visit this site where you can spend hours reading about the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty: http://www.ussliberty.org/" directing people toward a real source of information so they could learn more. That's the way I like to do things, never claiming to be an expert, and always willing to send people off to a better source after giving them an idea of what it is all about.


Mike Weeks September 14, 2006 7:15 pm (Pacific time)

Tim, It's a most simple "fact of life" that not all previous events are going to be remembered by all who come after said event, or even in some cases while the event itself is still news. I am indeed aware, in at least general terms, of all those other events you mention. I enjoy the study of history. That's not something everyone likes to do. However I'm not fond of folks who put forth such ridiculous titles as you have done here -- it shows a complete lack of simple fact checking and points more towards a political agenda. As to this one specific point; I certainly hope that this ex-USMC pilot you met was previously USN, as my research indicates that there were no USMC exchange pilots assigned to VF-31, VF-33, VF-102, or VF-103 -- the four F-4 squadrons aboard the two carriers in June 1967. And yes Tim, I do know that indeed a F-4 which reaches Mach 1 or greater is NOT going to stay in the air very long, and will flame-out long before going anything close to 500 miles. Hitting afterburner sucks the fuel at such a rate that the F-4 will become a poor glider w/in just a few short minutes. Again, here's what the 6th Fleet commander told his superiors as to the length of time it would take for the first launched aircraft to reach Liberty: "4. ETA FIRST ACFT ON SCENE ONE HOUR PLUS THIRTY AFTER LAUNCH. ESTIMATE LAUNCH AT 1345Z." That's 90 minutes flight time; because the F-4 jets could not reach Liberty if they went supersonic (and the A-4s [launched also] were subsonic in anycase). That gives you an idea of just how far a distance from any help was the Liberty. Why that was the case might be of interest for historical study purposes, but it sure as heck ain't as sexy as the title you picked for this little essay. It's one think to encourage folks not to forget something from the past, it's quite another to encourage them to remember something which is false from the past.


Tim King September 14, 2006 5:57 pm (Pacific time)

Mike, you reject my simple point about the F-4 driver and yet you proceed to confirm that indeed, every possibility for the story I mentioned does exist. This man I met is a former Marine Corps fighter jock, that is a fact, but I never said I swore by his statement. I just said that is where it all begins for me. BTW Mike, I'm sure you know how long it takes an F-4 to travel 500 miles, it isn't a very long haul once you break mach.

I appreciate everything else you said, I can't stick up for the History Channel and I have seen many things there that that had major flaws in some bozo producer's quest to turn a quick buck.

But I know many people would like to see history remain buried. Once a generation or two passes, people tend to forget everything, that is sad.

Then you get things like "Holocaust revisionists" who are stupid, ignorant bullies (there, I did it again) with single digit I.Q's like most racists and those inbred folks in the lower states who live by a culture of racism.

Here are a couple of other facts that are intended to disturb the peace...

Do you know American WW1 veterans set up a tent city on the White House lawn during the Depression? They said a veteran's payment they expected and were promised was never delivered. So what did our fine government do? They called out a man who would go on to great fame; Douglas MacArthur, and he had his troops open fire on the veterans and their families, killing many. Like it or not, it happened.

Does anyone remember My Lai? Several hundred Vietnamese civilians in a "free fire zone" all murdered at the direction of a Lt. named William Calley and his commander, Captain Ernest Medina. If we forget this history, then we might end up...

How about the saying "In like Flynn"? That comes from when Errol Flynn beat rape charges against a young underage girl, very O.J. Simson-esque.

How about the plight of the only black pilot of WW1, Eugene Bullard? Only France would allow this American to fly, it took the U.S. decades to finally accept black pilots. All the white people who never quite succeeded in bringing him down are wretches in history.

As long as we forget the dark history, it repeats itself and I am getting sick of it. I know people have their comfort zones and I respect that as much as I respect somebody who hears a neighbor woman screaming during domestic abuse and they ignore it. I don't think God holds out any great space for people who can't stand up and face the truth, whatever it is, and do what is right, regardless of the harm they may risk in doing so. I'm sick of the evil rulers with their heartless blue-blooded decisions, I've had it with people who "don't want to hear it" because it isn't pleasant.

I like your comments Mike, and I hope you freely write your thoughts because you have some answers. And I want to say that while I may be out of my league when it comes to Israel's Six-Day War, I'm not when it comes to a whole lot of other historical subjects in the WW1/WW2/Vietnam areas and aviation in general.

One of my projects has been the pursuit of the story of Frank Luke Jr., the WW1 American pilot who was our top-ranked ace at the time of his death in 1918. Check out www.frankluke.com when you have a few spare minutes if you are looking for something that isn't as much of a blood boiler.


Mike Weeks September 14, 2006 5:06 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. King continues with these stories which have no basis in fact. He states to know a former F-4 Phantom pilot "on an aircraft carrier in the general vicinity of the Liberty." Well, for the record, there were two carriers in the Eastern Med that day, the Saratoga and America. Both were operating just south of the island of Crete, while Liberty was operating just outside the territorial waters of Egypt, near El Arish -- over 500 miles away. In my research of this subject I have talked with several F-4 crewmembers, as well as former A-1 Skyraider and A-4 Skyhawk pilots aboard both of the aforementioned carriers. Their remembrances run the range of remembering nothing specific, to that of launching then being recalled. Why were they recalled? It's not because of "not being allowed" to defend the ship for crying out loud, It was because a message came to the 6th Fleet that Israel had acknowledged attacking the ship by mistake and also that Liberty herself was stating the attack was over and she was withdrawing to the north. It's all that very simple. The documentation has been reproduced and is available at this web site: http://libertyincident.com/ (I strong urge Mr. King to broaden his knowledge by visiting that web site.) It was the 6th Fleet admiral, Admiral Martin, who ordered the recall, not anyone in Washington. Perhaps from his history books Mr. King remembers the "Big Lie" by the Arabs during the Six-Day War, the charge that the US had been fighting with Israel, and that US planes had attacked Egypt. That Big Lie was clearly one concern which Admiral Martin would have when sending aircraft to defend Liberty. Now that she no longer was being attacked and was withdrawing, there was no longer a need to have aircraft so damn close to the war. The fact that the History Channel put out a horrible story-telling (i.e., error-filled) of the incident only goes to prove one shouldn't depend on simply 35 year-old memories as always being all that accurate; especially given the amount of story-mixing which always takes place at reunions over the passing years. I can accept Mr. King's statement he'd be peeved if Egypt had attacked the ship. Is he aware that on Dec. 19, 1964 Egyptian Air force MiGs shoot down a US civilian oil company plane, killing it's crew? It was covered in the press, but there's no on-going attempt to keep this incident/story "alive" The point is that the USS Liberty incident was covered when it was news, and there's even some news coverage when certain folks attempt to keep this long-closed incident "in front" for their political purposes. However these attempts simply don't change the most basic fact, that it was a series of blunders on the part of the Israelis which resulted in the ship being attacked.


Tim King September 14, 2006 3:38 pm (Pacific time)

OK, I'm sorry to offend people, I knew it would happen because you can't touch the subject without doing so. I'd like to walk through some of these objections... First, it is entirely true that I probably am out of my league, I was four years old when this happened. But it irks me that the most intelligent people I run into haven't a clue about the incident when I bring the subject up. If there was widespread news coverage about it in 1967, then it is a surprise to many. There is not a single reference to this in any school text book I ever saw, at the primary or college level. That isn't to say there may not be, but it would be a rarity at best.

Mike Weeks, it would peeve me no less if the attacker had been Egypt or any other nation for that matter. If you knew me, you would know that. I know I did some name calling and I don't blame you for letting me know what you think, but do understand one thing for the record; that we at Salem-News.com are hardcore anti-racists.

Eric Villman, go back and read your history books before you knock on my door, Israel attacked Egypt in 1967 after Egypt massed troops at the Israeli border. Israel did not wait for Egypt to make a move, they felt threatened and they attacked first. In terms of war, it was a solid effective effort. And yes, it brought Israel more territory, the Gaza Strip.

I have no problem with the Six-Day War and I do not hate Israel, I have many friends who have lived there for part of their lives. I have a problem with their nonsensical actions back in '67 when they attacked innocent friends.

The "bully" comment was, I'm sure, unnecessary. But at Salem-News.com we aren't striving to fit the mold, and we are sick of the American press being cowed down and told they are unpatriotic if they don't support Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq.

And I do resent the unwavering support of Israel when so many others have been displaced as a result of their occupation. Don't think that everything going on in Iraq isn't directly tied to that unwavering support, anyone with a brain and a conscience knows that we are hated in the middle east primarily because of supporting Israel all this time.

But I guess you think it is just fine of Israel's leaders play God with country's populations and in this last round; kill untold Lebanese civilians because two of their soldiers were kidnapped.

I don't like the way they do business and it seems that the insanity of world leadership these days is all too similar.

To the third comment that was left without a name; I sense a kindness and appreciation but I really wish you wouldn't have stated "anti-semetic" because that is so unfair based on how I have lived my life. I'm just a truth seeker and I put things out there for people to think about. I should have slugged this as an Op-Ed, it was suggested by others here, but I chose not to. Maybe that was a mistake, like your anti-semetic reference.

I take it you didn't catch either of the articles I wrote about Mel Gibson's recent arrest. There are people who are anti-semetic, then there are those who just wish to call things what they are. Of course Israel is a racist land, in that non-Jewish people face many restrictions when it comes to general rights. Then there are the coutless Israeli's who have always wanted to work better with their non-Jewish neighbors.

I guess I should throw this last thing out; I know a former F-4 Phantom pilot who was on an aircraft carrier in the general vicinity of the Liberty. They badly wanted to launch and defend the ship, but were not allowed. That was my introduction to it about four years ago, and it seems all in the wake of that tim period that the Discovery Channel and History Channel started looking at the story.

No conspiracy theory here gang.


Mike Weeks September 14, 2006 3:24 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. King's story is so full of factual erros, one doesn't know where to begin. Well, one place is to point to the a web site which shows "in it's entirety" the official Israeli examination of the incident; which of course counters a good number of the errors stated by Mr. King. The official report: http://libertyincident.com/yerushalmi.html It also should be pointed out that Mr. king incorrectly states that it's the U.S. government's position that only the "motive" could not be determined. In fact it's the official conclusion of the CIA, for example, that "the Israeli attack [on] the USS Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake." It's understood that the attack was a serious of blunders, and that no "motive" is involved beyond the normal confusion which results when a war takes place. As to Mr. king's charge that the incident has been "kept under wraps"; one wonders how that is even possible, given the wide-spread news coverage the incident generated back in 1967. Mr. King is simply confused about a long-ago tragedy and attempts to link it to his political views as it relates to his feelings about Israel. One can seriously ask if Mr. King would be so outraged if the ship had been, for example, mistakenly attacked by Egypt. Sincerely, Mike Weeks Duarte, CA


Eric Villman September 14, 2006 1:19 pm (Pacific time)

Is this really reporting? The "bully" state of Israel? I would have thought the ethics associated with those who have the duty to report the news would prevent someone from basically saying "Here is a story about a nation I hate doing something bad, sort of." The Six Day War, was NOT a war between Israel and Egypt. It was the war when Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria simultaneously only to result in Israel's victory and occupation of the Gaza strip. Occupying the territory won through conflict isn't normally viewed as a bullying action. As far as the attack on the Liberty, I don't have an explanation. But apparently, neither do you. Maybe you didn't do your homework here, because your logic of "Israel is evil, and America is evil for supporting Israel," won't work into a story where we were hurt by Israel intentionally or not.


Anonymous September 14, 2006 12:25 pm (Pacific time)

Tim, you seem to believe every conspiracy theory out there, and then proceed to call others who haven't heard the rumors ignorant. And why don't people know about it? Because most likely there is nothing more to the incident--there's no need to know. Why the name calling? Why do you even care? How does it affect you today? Why are you anti-semitic in your tone? How will knowing the "truth" make your life different? I appreciate the service you provide to Salem--truly an underserved market--but I think you fail miserably when you try to write about historical events that are obviously outside of your league and expertise. Keep up the good work with the local beat, and leave the rest for the Internet community to haggle over.

[Return to Top]
©2017 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for September 12, 2006 | Articles for September 13, 2006 | Articles for September 14, 2006
Steele`s Karate
In Salem
Sign Up Now!

Fully licensed for Medical and Recreational Cannabis!

Donate to Salem-News.com and help us keep the news flowing! Thank you.

Since 1985, Tattoo Mike is one of the most reputable tattoo artists in Oregon.