Muscatine

Rick Perry Indicted

Posted in: Muscatine
  • Avatar
  • mobaydave
  • Respected Neighbor
  • muskateen
  • 3907 Posts
  • Respect-O-Meter: Respected Neighbor

  • Avatar
  • hiroad
  • Respected Neighbor
  • The Hilltop
  • 5055 Posts
  • Respect-O-Meter: Respected Neighbor

Reality vs. mobman's BS:

 

ADVERT
Posted in: News Posted: June 29, 2014

John McCain And ISIS? Here’s The Photo Everyone’s Talking About — And The Real Story Behind It

 
John McCain ISIS photo

Did John McCain, the U.S. Senator from Arizona and 2008 Republican presidential candidate, pose for smiling photos with ISIS, getting all buddy-buddy with members of the brutal militant group now taking over city after city in Iraq, with the aim of seizing control of the whole country?

 

A pair of photos has been circulating this week, showing John McCain and a group of Middle Eastern fighters, at least one of whom is apparently armed in the photos. The shots were taken in Syria last year, when McCain made a secret trip into that civil-war-torn country to meet with leaders of one of the rebel groups that the Arizona senator believes the U.S. should support.

After the trip, McCain released the photos to the U.S. media and discussed his experience in Syria, calling for United States military intervention on behalf of rebels there attempting to overthrow the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

But on various internet sites this week, the photos from McCain’s sneak visit to Syria have reappeared — along with the claim that ISIS itself is now posting the photos as part of its PR campaign. ISIS has earlier posted photos of such interesting subjects as the beheaded corpse of one of its victims with a joke about using the man’s head as a soccer ball.

With McCain now one of the leading advocates for U.S. military intervention against ISIS in Iraq, is it possible that he really met with ISIS members on friendly terms a year ago? Needless to say, the story is not as simple as it sounds.

McCain entered Syria with under the guidance of Mouaz Moustafa, a 29-year-old former congressional aide who was born in Syria but has spent much of his life in the U.S. Moustafa is the man on the far right in the above photo.

In Syria, McCain met with high-ranking members of what he called “moderate” factions of the Syrian rebels, specifically the Free Syrian Army, which was then led by General Salim Idris, who is the man next to McCain, with the striped shirt and mustache, in this photo:

image: http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/John-McCain-ISIS-photo-2.jpg

John McCain ISIS photo 2

Idris was later fired by the FSA as military commander for being “ineffective” and because he “lacked the military experience to run operations on the ground.” He was not fired for being “too moderate” as some political sites have reported this week, as they posted the photos of McCain with the rebel leaders.

The same sites claim that these same Syrian rebels have since gone on to join ISIS and are now waging brutal civil war inside Iraq. But the fact is, there is no way to directly connect the people posing in the photo with John McCain to ISIS — though ISIS itself does claim to represent rebel forces in Syria as well as in Iraq. There has also been no independent confirmation that ISIS is actually circulating the photos of McCain itself.

On the other hand, it is not surprising that John McCain would support U.S. military intervention against ISIS on one hand and for the Syrian rebels on the other. John McCain has a long history of calling for U.S. military intervention in conflicts all over the world.


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1326127/john-mccain-isis-photo/#es1XTkqBSuRa8wrb.99

Sen. John McCain on ISIS: 'Kill 'Em'

Image: Sen. John McCain on ISIS: 'Kill 'Em' (Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Landov)

Tuesday, 02 Sep 2014 08:22 PM

By Greg Richter

 
Sen. John McCain on Tuesday joined a growing chorus of Republican lawmakers saying that the Islamic State group (ISIS) must be completely wiped out rather than merely contained.

"Kill 'em," the U.S. senator from Arizona told Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren when she asked how the United States should deal with the terrorist group that has threatened to attack America.

"They've got to be destroyed, and you've got to have a goal ... and we have to have a strategy to fit that goal and policies that will implement it. We have none of the above," McCain said.

The Islamic State group released a video Tuesday claiming to show the beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff. The video came two weeks after journalist James Foley was beheaded by the same group.

McCain was critical of President Barack Obama, who said last week that he had no strategy for dealing with the Islamic State group in Syria. The United States is currently hitting the group with limited airstrikes in Iraq.




  • Avatar
  • mobaydave
  • Respected Neighbor
  • muskateen
  • 3907 Posts
  • Respect-O-Meter: Respected Neighbor

nice how you pick the photo to debunk but not the video of him admitting to be in contact with ISIS. You don't pic the ben swann or SCG video to debunk, is it because you can't!!!!

 

ISIS : John McCain admits he met ISIS and says "We know these people intimately" (Sept 16, 2014)

 

SOURCE: http://www.foxnews.com

News Articles:

Alleged ISIS Photo Controversy Engulfs Sen. John McCain
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governme...

ISIS brags about links to US Senator John McCain
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/0...

White House was aware of McCain's trip to Syria in advance
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/05...

ISIS Post PR Photos They Took With John McCain
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/06...

Angry McCain Admits Meeting With ISIS, Scolds Rand Paul For Not Knowing Terrorists
http://www.infowars.com/angry-mccain-...

Expert who traveled with Syrian rebels: So-called ‘moderates’ are Muslim Brotherhood-style Islamists
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/11/exp...

McCain Gaffes Going After Rand Paul: ‘Has He Met With ISIS?’
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/15/mcc...

McCain: 'Has Rand Paul ever been to Syria?'
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/217...

 

John McCains Reasons For Arming ISIL (ISIS)

John McCain is personally responsible for arming the "largest and best trained" terrorist organization in the Middle East. ISIL

In this news clip, Sen McCain explains why arming a terrorist organization will benefit America.Youll notice some of his reasons are now regarded as bad intel and flat out lies.

 

With that out of the way let's move to this!

 

The Bill O’Reilly scandal, made simple

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/24/the-bill-oreilly-scandal-made-simple/

 

Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly, host of the highest-rated show in cable news, is under fire for reasons that are drawing comparisons to Brian Williams’ recent troubles. In case you haven’t had the time or inclination to sort through all the back-and-forth, here’s a simple guide to this affair.

* The basic charge — that O’Reilly exaggerated his record covering war — is true.

It all started with this article by David Corn and Daniel Schulman published in Mother Jones on Thursday, in which they detailed how on many occasions over the years, O’Reilly has characterized himself as a veteran of war reporting. Among the quotes they cited are times when O’Reilly said things like “I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands,” and “having survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands war, I know that life-and-death decisions are made in a flash,” and “I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands…” That O’Reilly said these things is not in question. But in fact, O’Reilly was never in the Falklands, and he never reported from any “combat situation.”

* O’Reilly’s defense of his original false statements is itself built on one falsehood and a bunch of claims that are questionable at best.

O’Reilly insists that everything he has said is true, because when he was working for CBS News he reported on a violent protest in Buenos Aires around the time of the Falklands war, and that constitutes a “combat situation” in a “war zone.” That part of the claim is absurd on its face; if covering a protest over a thousand miles away from where a war is being fought constitutes being in a “combat zone,” then that would mean that any reporter who covered an anti-war protest in Washington during the Iraq War was doing combat reporting.

Then there’s the matter of the protest itself. O’Reilly asserts that Argentine soldiers were “gunning people down in the streets” as evidence of how combat-esque the scene was; he wrote in one of his books that “many were killed.” But neither the story that CBS ran that evening nor any contemporaneous reporting mentions anyone being killed. The Post’s Erik Wemple has tried to substantiate O’Reilly’s claim, and been unable to do so. Former CBS reporters who were O’Reilly’s colleagues at the time have also disputed his description of the protest, which was certainly violent, but as far as we know, not actually deadly. But even if everything O’Reilly said about that protest was true, it wouldn’t mean that he had seen combat.

 

* O’Reilly can’t admit that he was wrong.

To the surprise of no one who is familiar with his modus operandi, O’Reilly has responded to the evidence against him with a stream of invective against anyone who contradicts him. He called David Corn a “guttersnipe liar,” and called CNN’s Brian Stelter, a media reporter whose sin was merely discussing this story, a “far-left zealot.” When a reporter from the New York Times called to get his comments on the story, he told her that if the article she wrote didn’t meet with his approval, he would retaliate against her. “I am coming after you with everything I have,” he said. “You can take it as a threat.”

So why not just say, “I may have mischaracterized things a few times” and move on? To understand why that’s impossible, you have to understand O’Reilly’s persona and the function he serves for his viewers. The central theme of The O’Reilly Factor is that the true America, represented by the elderly whites who make up his audience (the median age of his viewers is 72) is in an unending war with the forces of liberalism, secularism, and any number of other isms. Bill O’Reilly is a four-star general in that war, and the only way to win is to fight.

The allegedly liberal media are one of the key enemies in that war. You don’t negotiate with your enemies, you fight them. And so when O’Reilly is being criticized by the media, to admit that they might have a point would be to betray everything he stands for and that he has told his viewers night after night for the better part of two decades.

* The truth of the charges against him won’t matter.

Brian Williams got suspended from NBC News because his bosses feared that his tall tales had cost him credibility with his audience, which could lead that audience to go elsewhere for their news. O’Reilly and his boss, Fox News chief Roger Ailes, are not worried about damage to Bill O’Reilly’s credibility, or about his viewers deserting him. Their loyalty to him isn’t based on a spotless record of factual accuracy; it’s based on the fact that O’Reilly is a medium for their anger and resentments.

Night after night, he yells about the “pinheads” and other liberals who are destroying this great country, saying the things his viewers wish they could say and sticking it to the people they hate. If anything, this episode proves that the media are out to get him, and he has to stay strong and keep standing up to them.

* This is another demonstration of the inherent problem with the conservative media bubble.

Fox built its brand not just by convincing conservatives that it was a great place for them to get their news, but by telling them that the rest of the media can’t be trusted, so you almost have to get your news from Fox. In the last couple of years, however, what seemed like a great success of institution-building (including Fox and other media outlets) has begun to look less like a strength of the conservative movement and more like a liability. This was vividly illustrated in November 2012, when Republicans up to and including Mitt Romney convinced themselves that it was just impossible that the American electorate would grant Barack Obama a second term. Within that bubble, Obama was a failed president all right-thinking Americans rejected, and so he would of course lose badly on election day; they were genuinely shocked when the election turned out the way it did.

I haven’t yet seen any conservatives arguing that Bill O’Reilly is right, and that covering a violent protest 1,200 miles from a place where a war just ended is in fact seeing combat in a war zone (although I haven’t been watching Fox today, so maybe they have). But the farther they move from reality, the less able they are to make wise strategic decisions and find ways to persuade people who don’t already agree with them. And the more surprised they’ll be the next time they lose an election.

 

Mother Jones Accuses Bill O’Reilly of Lying About Reporting from Falklands War Combat Zone

http://benswann.com/mother-jones-accuses-bill-oreilly-of-lying-about-reporting-from-falklands-war-combat-zone/

 

Following revelations that Brian Williams lied about having been in a helicopter that was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade during the Iraq War, Mother Jones just released a scathing article accusing Bill O'Reilly of lying about whether he reported from an active war zone while covering the 1982 Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina.

Just as the furor over Brian Williams’ embellishment of his Iraq War combat zone reporting experiences has begun to die down, Mother Jones writers David Corn and Daniel Schulman have unleashed an incendiary article on Fox News‘ Bill O’Reilly called Bill O’Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem. The critical piece scrutinizes Bill O’Reilly’s tales in which he claims to have worked as a war correspondent in an active war zone during the 1982 Falklands War, in which the United Kingdom and Argentina battled over the Falkland Islands. O’Reilly was employed by CBS News at the time.

Said O’Reilly back in 2013 on The O’Reilly Factor, “I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I’m looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important.” O’Reilly wrote in his 2001 book The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America, “You know that I am not easily shocked. I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands.”

 

However, Mother Jones investigated and uncovered the fact that O’Reilly never actually reported from the Falklands War combat zone, which would have been the remote Falkland Islands, located around 1,200 miles offshore of the Argentinian mainland. Instead, O’Reilly reported on the intense Argentinian protests in Buenos Aires that followed the nation’s surrender to the United Kingdom at the end of the conflict. O’Reilly clarified this in comments to The Blaze while responding to the Mother Jones piece and said, “I never said I was in the Falkland islands — ever. I said I covered the Falkland Islands War… And if that moron doesn’t think it was a war zone in Buenos Aires, then [David Corn’s] even dumber than I think he is.” O’Reilly accused Mother Jones‘ David Corn of playing politics. He said, “It’s a bunch of lies and a politically motivated hit piece… It’s all about ideology and money. He’s got a chance to try and tie me into Brian Williams so he throws a bunch of lies to try to make that happen.”

Mother Jones notes that it is well-established that no American reporters were able to report on the Falklands War from the Falkland Islands. A handful of British journalists embedded with the UK military made it offshore to the remote islands, but American journalists could not. However, O’Reilly characterized the protest he reported on in Buenos Aires as an active war zone in which Argentinian soldiers were gunning down civilians. Said O’Reilly of the protests, “A major riot ensued and many were killed. I was right in the middle of it and nearly died of a heart attack when a soldier, standing about ten feet away, pointed his automatic weapon directly at my head. After a couple of hours of this pandemonium. I managed to make it back to the Sheraton with the best news footage I have ever seen. This was major violence up close and personal, and it was an important international story.” However, reports from The New York Times, CBS Evening News, and The Miami Herald described the protests as clashes between police and protesters in which tear gas and rubber bullets were used, resulting in injuries, but did not mention any fatalities, raising suspicions that O’Reilly’s self-reported combat zone experience was more similar to recent clashes in the US between Occupy Wall Street protesters and police than an active war zone.

O’Reilly’s claimed combat experiences in El Salvador were also questioned by the Mother Jones article, which suggested that O’Reilly’s tales of having experienced firefights during El Salvador’s 1981 civil war did not match up with his own reports. In one instance, O’Reilly noted that little fighting was going on in the location from where he was reporting. In another, he reported from a village called Meanguera which had just sustained an attack by the Salvadoran military in which two buildings had been burned down. In a later anecdote about the incident from his aforementioned 2001 book, he allegedly embellished it, describing the scene as “leveled to the ground and fires were still smoldering. But even though the carnage was obviously recent, we saw no one live or dead. There was absolutely nobody around who could tell us what happened. I quickly did a stand-up amid the rubble and we got the hell out of there.” Footage of his report from the scene shows locals walking around in the background.

The above-embedded footage by Inform notes that Bill O’Reilly harshly criticized former NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams for lying about his Iraq War combat experiences.

 

 O'Reilly is a cicken hawk pressitute and here this guy ACTUALLY fought in Iraq.

        

 

Ken O'Keefe Dares To Say What Others Do Not

 

"Presstitutes" - Corporate Media Whores

 

 

 

 

 

 



  • Avatar
  • mobaydave
  • Respected Neighbor
  • muskateen
  • 3907 Posts
  • Respect-O-Meter: Respected Neighbor

New Evidence Proves Israel Attacked USS Liberty With Orders to Kill 294 Americans

 

Fresh evidence presented in an exclusive Al Jazeera investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 Americans proves the incident was not a mistake. Since 1967 the ‘official story‘ has been that Israel simply misidentified the American ship as Egyptian for several hours. Israel apologized to the United States and for several decades we’ve been led to believe that this could be the only explanation for why Israeli jets and torpedo boats would launch rockets, missiles and torpedoes at an American target for more than two hours.

From Around the Web

thedayA new documentary called ‘The Day Israel Attacked America” airing on Al Jazeera was produced and directed by award winning British film maker Richard Belfield. Thanks to the audio evidence obtained by Belfield, it is finally possible to prove the survivors of the attack on the USS Liberty were right all along. The survivors have always been extremely confident that Israel’s intentions were to sink that ship and kill everyone on board so Egypt could be blamed for the tragedy. Why? To convince President Lyndon Johnson (and the American public) that we needed to declare war on Egypt. This is the definition of a ‘false flag‘. (can you say 9/11?)

It appears that once again, a conspiracy theory has turned out to be conspiracy fact. You can finally take off your tinfoil hats!

Earlier this year, I acquired a copy of the audiotape of the attack as it had unfolded, the real time conversations between Israeli Air Force pilots and their controllers back at base. It had never been broadcast before. I went to talk to Al Jazeera and after careful consideration, the network commissioned the film.” – Richard Belfield

Just sixteen minutes after Israel attacked America, the USS Liberty was confirmed by Israeli forces to be an American ship. These conversations can be heard in the documentary Al Jazeera has been airing on their station.

“To what state does she belong?” (Answer): “American”

Yet the attacks continued for an hour and a half!

Even five minutes before the first bombing you can hear Israeli Air Force pilots question whether the ship was American or not. You don’t have to be a genius to understand why these pilots would be extremely uncomfortable attacking a ship suspected to be American without being given direct orders to do so. I believe we can safely assume this attack wouldn’t have been carried out otherwise.

rsz_deathamerica“Is it an American ship?” “What do you mean American?” “No comment.”

Twenty minutes after a ground controller answered “American” when asked “to what state does she belong?” by Israeli Air Force pilots, the first torpedo hit the USS Liberty. A voice can clearly be heard which confirms that this target, thought to be American at that time, was to be destroyed.

“The torpedo is talking care of the ship now.”

As soon as the first torpedo hit the USS Liberty, Israeli torpedo boats circled the ship and started machine-gunning the American target for another 40 minutes. When the USS Liberty crew lowered their lifeboats into the water to evacuate their ship, the Israelis moved closer so they could gun down the Americans attempting to save their own lives.

More than ten years ago a journalist named Arieh O’Sullivan from the Jerusalem Post was allowed to listen to these same audiotapes. He published a transcript of the Israeli military transmissions he heard directing the attack on the USS Liberty. Sixteen minutes after the attack started, just as in the recording obtained by Al Jazeera, O’Sullivan’s transcript (translated from Hebrew to English) shows the same exchange.

“Kislev, what country?” (Answer): “Apparently American.”

That is where O’Sullivan’s transcript, published over ten years ago by the Jerusalem Post, ends. There is just one major problem with that… The attack continued for another hour and a half!

Navy Admiral Thomas Moorer, who has served this country as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Naval Operations, once lead an independent commission to investigate what really happened to the USS Liberty. The commission’s findings were made public in 2003. Here are a few of the shocking conclusions.

  • The attack, by a U.S. ally, was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill its entire crew.
  • The attack included the machine-gunning of stretcher-bearers and life rafts .
  • The White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the USS Liberty. This was the first time in naval history a rescue mission had been cancelled while an American ship was under attack.
  • Surviving crew members were later threatened with court-martial, imprisonment, or worse if they talked to anyone about what had happened to them; and were “abandoned by their own government.”

John Crewdson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, published in 2007 what former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has called the ‘most detailed and accurate account of the Israeli attack‘ for the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun. You guessed it, Crewdson was fired by the Chicago Tribune just a year later after working there for 24 years. You should read his work.

Israeli messages intercepted on June 8, 1967, leave no doubt that sinking the USS Liberty was the mission assigned to the attacking Israeli warplanes and torpedo boats as the Six-Day War raged in the Middle East. Let me repeat: there is no doubt – none – that the mission of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) was to destroy the USS Liberty and kill its entire crew.” – former CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

 

Capitol Hill, October 2003. It is a historic occasion. An independent, blue-ribbon commission is to release its findings from an investigation into an internationally significant 36-year-old attack on a US Navy ship that left more than 200 American sailors killed or wounded.

The commission consists of:

  • A former ambassador to one of the US’s most important allies
  • A US Navy rear admiral and former head of the Navy’s legal division
  • A Marine general, America’s highest ranking recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and the former Assistant Commandant of Marines
  • A US Navy four-star admiral, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest military position in the country), former Chief of Naval Operations, a World War II hero, and the only Naval admiral to have commanded both the Pacific and the Atlantic fleets

The panel is moderated by a former ambassador who served as Chief of Mission in Iraq and Deputy Director of Ronald Reagan's White House Task Force on Terrorism.

The commission announces explosive findings:

  • »   That the attack, by a US ally, was a “deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew”
  • »   That the ally committed “acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States”
  • »   That the attack involved the machine-gunning of stretcher-bearers and life rafts
  • »   That “the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the [ship]... never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack”
  • »   That surviving crewmembers were later threatened with “court-martial, imprisonment or worse” if they talked to anyone about what had happened to them; and were “abandoned by their own government”
  • »   That due to the influence of the ally’s “powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people”
  • »   That due to continuing pressure by this lobby, this attack remains “the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress”
  • »   That “there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history”
  • »   That “the truth about Israel's attack and subsequent White House cover-up continues to be officially concealed from the American people to the present day and is a national disgrace”
  • »   That “a danger to the national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation...” and that this policy “endangers the safety of Americans and the security of the United States”

Newsworthy?

Not when Israel is the attacking nation. Not when Israel is the “ally” to whose interests American needs are said to be subverted.

This extraordinarily high-ranking commission was reporting on the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. Many analysts believe that the Liberty attack could be Israel’s undoing – at least as far as US support is concerned – if Americans knew the facts about it.

But they don’t. Here’s why:

A search of hundreds of the largest news media in this country indexed by Lexis-Nexis does not turn up a single US newspaper that mentioned this commission, a single US television station, a single US radio station, a single US magazine. While it was mentioned in an Associated Press report focusing on one of the commission’s most dramatic revelations, Lexis reveals only a sprinkling of news media printed information from this AP report, and those few that that did failed to mention this commission itself, its extremely star-studded composition, and the entirety of its findings.

Apart from a few members of the alternative press and the excellent Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (not indexed by Lexis), this commission might as well not have existed as far as most of the US media is concerned – and therefore, the American public.

While the results of its investigation can be read in the Congressional Record, “Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft while the Ship was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government,”1 only an infinitesimal fraction of the American citizenry has any idea that a commission made up of some of the nation’s most respected military leaders stated publicly and forcefully – on Capitol Hill – that a US president chose to sacrifice US interests and US servicemen (specifically, the 25 of the 34 dead who were killed after US rescue missions were recalled) to Israeli interests, and then ordered a cover-up of his actions.

Almost no one knows that the US’s purported “special” ally tried to sink a Navy ship, and then quibbled for years over what it would pay in compensation to the widows, children, and parents of those it killed and to the United States for the ship it destroyed. (Thirteen years later it grudgingly paid $6 million for a ship valued at $40 million.)

The one piece of this story that did make it into the mainstream media has also remained astonishingly buried: testimony that provided the final nail in the coffin of claims that the Israeli attack – which lasted two hours; consisted of rockets, napalm, and torpedoes; and killed 34 Americans total and injured over 170 – was somehow accidental.

This testimony, which was read at the Capitol Hill event, was by Captain Ward Boston, the chief counsel to the one US government investigation ever undertaken of this attack, the Naval Court of Inquiry. This quickie investigation, overseen by Admiral John S. McCain (the current Presidential contender’s father), who gave subordinates one week to conduct an investigation that normally would have been allotted a minimum of six months, found the attack to be a case of “mistaken identity.” The report, which focused on the performance of the crew and the adequacy of communications, and which excluded critical testimony from crew members, is the keystone in Israel partisans’ claims that the attack was accidental. All other US reviews of the attack that state it was accidental cite this investigation as their source.

For decades, Liberty crewmembers and authors such as James Ennes, Stephen Green, Paul Findley, John Borne, and James Bamford had provided substantial evidence that this conclusion was false. Numerous American officials of cabinet-level positions and the equivalent have stated publicly that they believed the attack to be intentional. Senior military, diplomatic and intelligence officials had long held that the magnitude and duration of the attack on the easily recognizable ship precluded any possibility that it was a mistake.2

Captain Boston’s testimony was a dramatic confirmation that they were correct.

In his testimony, Boston stated that he had decided to end his 30-year silence and was going to expose the truth: the Court of Inquiry conclusions had been a sham. President Lyndon Johnson and his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, had ordered the court to cover up the fact that all the evidence had indicated clearly that the attack had been intentional.3

Somehow the major media missed this, even though AP, uncharacteristically, had an excellent news report on it. There was no report in USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times... you name it, and they probably missed it. Despite the significance of this new evidence, only a handful of newspapers printed it, mostly small, regional ones; a Lexis search a few days later revealed nine.

A major tree had fallen in the forest, and almost no one heard it, because the US media chose not to report it.

This mainstream media blind spot has continued, and with it an American cover-up of astounding proportions.4

June 8th, was the 40th anniversary of this attack. There were moving ceremonies in commemoration of the fallen at Arlington National Cemetery, the Naval Academy, and the Naval War Memorial in Washington DC. Survivors placed wreaths for their shipmates, sisters remembered their brothers; mothers wept yet again for their sons.

Somehow CNN missed this; ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly news missed it. Despite the fact that the USS Liberty was the most decorated ship in American history; despite the fact that its commander received the Congressional Medal of Honor; despite the fact that a War Crimes Report on the unprovoked attack has been filed by the crew, and that members of the military elite are calling for a sustained, public investigation; despite the fact that a Naval rear admiral stated that the Liberty honorees had suffered “an unprecedented injustice... at the hands of our very own Navy and government;”5 the national media almost entirely ignored the Liberty, its crew, and its significance. The Washington Post, in whose backyard this all occurred, printed nary a word on any of it. Not a single mainstream news outlet reported the statement by former high-ranking career diplomat and Reagan appointee Ambassador Edward Peck comparing the treatment of Pat Tillman’s death to the treatment of Liberty casualties:

The US has just gone through a long, painful, costly and embarrassing effort to unravel the cover-up of the death by friendly fire of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan. American servicemen will be punished for attempting to conceal the circumstances of the accidental killing of a single American soldier by his own comrades. It is totally unacceptable that even though Israeli servicemen would not receive punishment for carrying out orders...that resulted in the killing and wounding of more than 200 of the Liberty’s crew, our government has steadfastly refused to permit the survivors of the heaviest attack on a Navy ship since WWII to tell properly constituted official investigators what happened on that fateful day.
This is obsequious, unctuous subservience to the peripheral interests of a foreign nation at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their families. It should no longer be condoned.6

While AP did have a story on the Liberty on June 8th, the report, oddly, was filed from Israel and was sent out only internationally; US editors never saw it. Where the US media did produce stories, almost all (like the above AP story) gave the Israeli invention – that “investigations” showed it was accidental.

USA Today: Covering-up the Cover-up

USA Today is a case in point. According to its website, USA Today is the nation's top selling newspaper. Its average daily circulation is 2.3 million and it is available worldwide.

USA Today has a history of missing stories on the Liberty. It neglected to report on Ward Boston’s historic revelations; it missed the independent commission’s Capitol Hill announcement; it refused to print an op-ed by commission chairman and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer (later published by the military newspaper Stars and Stripes.7). In fact, in its 25-year history, it appears that USA Today had never carried a single news report on the USS Liberty.

On the June 8th anniversary, USA Today finally published a news story about the Liberty: "Coverup theory alive at USS Liberty reunion." The good news was that USA Today had finally discovered the Liberty; the bad news was that it relied on Israel partisans for the story’s context and that it omitted major facts. Most troubling, it published a fraudulent statement that then framed the entire story.

While there are numerous objective US experts on this attack, USA Today’s reporter Oren Dorell chose to use only analysts with ties to Israel: Michael Oren, who was born and grew up in the United States where he was active in Zionist youth movements, emigrated to Israel where he took Israeli citizenship, served in the Israeli army, participated in Israel’s first invasion of Lebanon, and, most recently, served as a Major in the Reserve during Israel’s 2006 invasion8; and Mitchell Bard, a former editor of the Near East Report, the publication produced by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Israel’s lobby in the United States. (None of this information was in Dorell’s article). Despite the fact that the Liberty survivors have created an award-winning website9 containing first-hand testimonies and exhaustive documentation on the attack, and that there are additional websites with valuable information, Dorell’s article mentioned only one website – Bard’s.

While Dorell did interview crewmembers, his failure to include any of the massive evidence supporting their contention that the attack was intentional conveyed the impression that these survivors were simply traumatized conspiracy theorists. Worse yet, he preceded their statements with a sentence that contained an outright falsehood: “Israel has always insisted the attack was a case of mistaken identity, and 11 U.S. investigations over the years have reached the same conclusion."

While it is true that Israel proclaims its innocence, the second half of this statement is, quite simply, a fabrication.

The Myth of the “11 Investigations”

If USA Today had investigated this claim, continually put forward by Israel partisans, its editors would have discovered that in 2006 the reference librarian at the Library of Congress had investigated this allegation and found it to be false:

After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty.10

Even earlier, in 2003, a writer for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Terence O’Keefe, investigated this claim and similarly found it to be hokum. In his subsequent article, also clearly missed by USA Today, O’Keefe discussed each of these alleged “investigations,” as well as their alleged conclusions. Following are excerpts from his report:11

1. The U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry: The court concluded that “available evidence combines to indicate...[that the attack was] a case of mistaken identity.”...According to Captain Ward Boston, chief legal counsel to the Court of Inquiry, the court found that the attack was deliberate, but reported falsely that it was not, because they were directed by the president of the United States and the secretary of defense to report falsely. So the findings are fraudulent. Yet these fraudulent findings were the basis for several other reports that followed.
2. The Joint Chiefs of Staff Report of June 1967: This was an inquiry into the mishandling of several messages intended for the ship. It was not an investigation into the attack. It did not exonerate Israel, because it did not in any way consider the question of culpability.
3. CIA report of June 13, 1967: This interim report, completed five days after the attack, reported “our best judgment [is] that the attack...was a mistake.” No investigation was conducted, and no first-hand evidence was collected. Then-CIA Director Richard Helms concluded and later reported in his autobiography that the attack was planned and deliberate.
4. Clark Clifford report of July 18, 1967: Clark Clifford was directed by Lyndon Johnson to review the Court of Inquiry report and the interim CIA report and “not to make an independent inquiry.” His was merely a summary of other fallacious reports, not an “investigation”... The report reached no conclusions and did not exonerate Israel... On the contrary, Clifford wrote later that he regarded the attack as deliberate.
5. and 6. Two Senate meetings: The Committee on Foreign Relations meeting of 1967 and Senate Armed Services Committee meeting of 1968 were hearings on unrelated matters which clearly skeptical members used to castigate representatives of the administration under oath before them. Typical questions were, “Why can’t we get the truth about this?” They were not “investigations” at all, but budget hearings, and reported no conclusions concerning the attack. They did not exonerate Israel.
7. House Appropriations Committee meeting of April and May 1968: This was a budget committee meeting which explored the issue of lost messages intended for the ship. It was not an investigation and reported no conclusions concerning the attack.
8. House Armed Services Committee Review of Communications, May 1971: Liberty communications were discussed along with other communications failures. The committee reported no conclusions concerning the attack.
9. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1979/1981: [Miami bankruptcy judge A. Jay Cristol, author of a book exonerating Israel] claims that the committee investigated the attack and exonerated Israel, yet he has been unable to provide minutes, a report or other evidence of such an investigation. Rules of the select committee require that any committee investigation be followed by a report. There is no report of such an investigation; ergo, there was no such investigation.
10. National Security Agency Report, 1981: Upon the publication in 1980 of “Assault on the Liberty” by James Ennes, the National Security Agency completed a detailed account of the attack. The report drew no conclusions, although its authors did note that the deputy director dismissed the Israeli excuse (the Yerushalmi report) as “a nice whitewash.” The report did not exonerate Israel.
11. House Armed Services Committee meeting of 1991/1992: Though cited by Mr. Cristol as an investigation which exonerates Israel, the U.S. government reports no record of such an investigation. Cristol claims that the investigation resulted from a letter to Rep. Nicholas Mavroules from Joe Meadors, then-president of the USS Liberty Veterans Association, seeking Mavroules’ support. Instead of responding to Liberty veterans, however, Congressman Mavroules referred the matter to Mr. Cristol for advice. Survivors heard nothing further. Meadors’ letter was never answered. The U.S. government reports that there has been no such investigation.

Ethics the USA Today Way

Armed with this information, I contacted USA Today about their story. They had committed two significant errors: one of omission and one of commission. According to the American Society of Newspaper Editors Statement of Principles, both types require a correction.12

Specifically, it was unconscionable for USA Today to include the finding of the Naval Court of Inquiry, as it had, while omitting the fact that its chief counsel had subsequently disavowed the inquiry. Nevertheless, given the fact that newspapers rarely correct omissions, and given the power dynamics of the situation (a national newspaper has a great deal, a reader next to none; the Israel lobby has a massive amount, the Liberty survivors barely any) I didn’t expect USA Today to run a correction on this omission.

However, an outright, irrefutable error, I thought, was a different matter. When a statement is shown to be erroneous, papers usually run a simple, short correction in a corrections box. Since the paper’s claim that there have been 11 US investigations finding “mistaken identity” is without any substantiation whatsoever, I felt it would be impossible for USA Today editors to deny the need to correct it.

I was right. It was impossible for them to deny this. So, instead, they (1) created a new definition for a word they couldn’t justify (investigation), (2) defended a different statement, one from the middle of the article (which was also incorrect; I am now asking that they correct this one as well) and (3) stated that what they had meant to convey was not wrong, and therefore they didn’t need to correct the statement that they still had not denied was incorrect.

It has been one of my more bizarre exchanges with US editors.

It is now more than two weeks since I first contacted USA Today about its need to run a correction. In that time they’ve run over 25 corrections. For example, on June 19th they were careful to inform readers: “A daily feature Friday tracking Barry Bonds' progress toward Hank Aaron's career home run record misidentified the home city of the Braves when they signed Aaron in 1952. It was Boston.” On June 15th they took the time to tell the public: “A story Wednesday on the FX series Rescue Me misstated a family relationship. Sheila is the widow of Tommy's cousin.” Nothing, however, on their erroneous reporting on an incident of profound geopolitical importance.

I am not privy to the internal workings of USA Today and the individual predilections of its writers, editors and owners, so I have no idea what is going on. I don’t know if reporter Oren Dorell and/or his editors unconsciously or consciously tilt toward Israel, or whether they were simply sloppy. I don’t know if their refusal to correct an obvious mistake is caused by defensiveness or arrogance, partiality toward Israel or unwillingness to trigger the displeasure of pro-Israel superiors or Israeli-centric readers/advertisers. I don’t know if it’s that they prefer the explanations of the powerful to the facts of the powerless, or simply that they don’t like to admit mistakes. I don’t know if it’s all of the above, or whether they’re just too busy to bother and too jaded to care.

Whatever the reason, until American news media start being conscientious enough to get their reports on Israel right, Americans are going to continue being disastrously misinformed about one of the globe’s most destabilizing, tragic, and potentially calamitous areas of conflict. When the media refuse to report on findings by a four-star US Navy admiral and the highest ranking Medal of Honor recipient in the United States, and ignore an affidavit of historic proportions, perhaps it’s not surprising that they also ignore the 18-month truce conducted by Hamas despite continuing Israeli violence, the role in the current Palestinian strife played by Israeli-orchestrated policies of divide-and-conquer, and that they perpetually, just as in the USS Liberty attack, report the context dead wrong.

Advertise Here!

Promote Your Business or Product for $10/mo

istockphoto_2518034-hot-pizza.jpg

For just $10/mo you can promote your business or product directly to nearby residents. Buy 12 months and save 50%!

Buynow