How did we ever end up with creeps like that as leaders? Why do we let them get away with assassinating and murdering so many of US?

Dean Rusk, Johnson’s Secretary of State (in the only known instance where he disagreed with the President) wrote:
“We also lost 34 American lives when, on June 8, the fourth day of the war, the U.S. communications ship Liberty came under air and naval attack. We were meeting with President Johnson in the White House situation room, considering the implications had the Soviets or Egyptians attacked the ship, when we received word from Tel Aviv that Israeli forces were responsible. That didn’t please us, although an Israeli attack on Liberty was far easier to deal with. But I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.”

Rusk’s memoirs: “As I Saw It” (W.W.Norton, 1990) p388

DOES CRISTOL DISPUTE RUSK? DOES HE DARE CALL RUSK A LIAR?

How ironic, or how fitting, that “mac Cain” means son of CAIN.

He Crashed 5 jets, plus was responsible for the Horrible USS Forrestal fire In 1967. Surviving crewmen and those who investigated the Forrestal fire case reported that McCain deliberately ‘wet-started’ his A-4E Skyhawk to shake up the guy in the F-4 Phantom behind his A-4. ‘Wet-starts’, done either deliberately (the starter motor switch allowed kerosene to pool in the engine and give a wet start) or accidentally, shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft. In McCain’s case, the ‘wet-start’ ‘cooked off’ and launched the M34 Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that punctured the Skyhawk’s fuel tank, knocked the M-65 1000 lb. bomb off it’s 500 lb. rated mount, and touched off the explosions and massive fire. The F-4 pilot was reportedly killed in the conflagration, along with 167 of his fellow Forrestal shipmates (including those who died later from wounds suffered). ‘Wet starting’ was a common practice among young ‘hot-dog’ pilots. McCain was quickly (they were still counting the Forrestal dead) transferred to the USS Oriskany (the only Forrestal crewman to be immediately transferred).
Description: XA4D-1 Skyhawk BuNo 137812 experiencing a wet start (note the pool of JP on the ground and the tongue of flame from the tailpipe).

<<>>

Any way to verify this story?

Almost all the links on that url to some very revealing and important web sites about this coverup of the USS Liberty no longer work. It seems that censorship on the internet is in full swing. As if that’s not bad enough, there have been half a million hits from one ip address on one day on one image on that url.

A jew in a meeting at the Venetian in Las Vegas recently began bragging about Israel’s military prowess. When asked about the USS Liberty, he wasn’t at all at a loss for words to try to make excuses for it. I was surprised at how much he knew about it, and he said he’s not on the internet much. How come he knows so much but almost no American knows, unless they stumble across it on the net. As he walked away, he nudged my shoulder and said “you wouldn’t have respected us if we hadn’t done that”. Obviously, jews like him know this was no accident.

“Does anyone know what has happened to the following url, which no longer works?:

http://www.quivis.com/liberty.html

Here’s the page:

USS Liberty: Is the Truth Anti-Semitic?
What’s a few sailors, when it saves our Middle-East ally from potential “embarrassment.”

Funny, how that “special relationship” the U.S. is supposed to have with Israel demands that, in the interests of good relations, a few American lives be thrown away every now and then. Well, if it’s not exactly the U.S. throwing them away . . . then it’s our president and Congress downplaying any public outcry about our “friend” doing it.

Witness the New York Times April 23 review of James Bamford’s book, “Body of Secrets,” about the June 1967 attack on the USS “Liberty,” an electronic surveillance ship that was in the eastern Meditteranean about the time that Israel and Egypt had their little war. Israeli aircraft and gunboats attacked the unarmed vessel for a period of several hours, killing 34 sailors and wounding 171. Israel later claimed it was all a mistake and after a long stretch, paid nominal compesation to the families of those killed.

According to records Bamford discovered in his research on the book, unbeknownst to the Israelis, a U.S. spy plane was high overhead at the time, and recorded conversations among the Israeli air force pilots, one of whom said that he could clearly see a large American flag on the vessel, contradicting Israel’s claims about the vessel’s identity being obscure. The article naturally drew a lot of comments, most of them saying that the fact that the attack was deliberate has been long known to the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment, as well as to knowledgeable Israelis–it was only the governments of the two “allies,” who wanted to hush up the truth.

Among the Middle-East experts who commented on the story, according to Salon’s April 25 reprise of the Times story, were two former ambassadors, both of whom are involved in various Middle-East think tanks, and a fellow of the Institute of Policy Studies who heads their Middle-East project. All are basically agree that Bamford’s version of the story is very plausible: The attack was not a mistake. It was deliberate–some think that it was ordered because Israel didn’t want the Western Powers to know that it was not in danger of being overwhelmed by United Arab Republic (the short-lived union of Nasser’s Egypt and Syria) troops but, rather, was winning at the time, but wanted to keep the information secret to keep Israel’s supporters from pressuring her to agree to a cease-fire. One also raises the possibility that Israel’s military had massacred a number of Egyptian captives in the Sinai desert and didn’t want the Americans to find out about it by listening to military communications. In fact even many knowledgeable Israelis believed at the time that the attack was deliberate.

Not so for Mr. Thomas Neumann, executive director of the “Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.” (Kind of makes you wonder, why should American Jews have need such an institute–after all, there is no Lutheran or Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Muslim institute of national security? Who funds it, and which nation’s security are they really concerned with?) And to Mr. Neumann, the best argument against facts or opinions he doesn’t seem to like is the charge of anti-Semitism:

“James Bamford has attacked Israel before. It’s not the first time. He did it in “The Puzzle Palace” and from what I understand — though I have not personally read the book — he hasn’t come up with any new information. He has added to his anti-Semitic and anti-Israel (evidently the same in Mr. Neumann’s mind) allegations. . . Bamford doesn’t come to the table as a clean scholar. He comes to the table having made these kinds of charges against Israel in the past.”

And you just don’t do that in today’s special-interest-focused, political-correctness-infested society.