The French vs. the W apologists

[3rdnlng]

GG says we haven't made fun of Canadians yet...and you open the door?

 

See Marauder?

 

You may be a lot of things: idiotic, unoriginal, naive, incapable of defending your position on anything...

 

but badass? No.

 

Uh, OK, as long as you realize that, to be historically accurate, you two will have to have a TON of gay sex.

 

Estimates vary, but you may end up having to have gay sex about 70% of the time at your meetings.

 

Who knows? Perhaps that's what Dexter is after?

If he's being honest, and he really is what he posts, then totalitarianism, wearing a brown shirt, and getting sweaty with a bunch of other guys, is probably right up his alley.

If he's fake, and he really is a progressive trying to make conservatives look bad, then totalitarianism, wearing a brown shirt, and getting sweaty with a bunch of other guys, is probably right up his alley.

 

 

As long as it is up his alley he doesn't care.

[Dexter]

"he really is a progressive trying to make conservatives look bad, then totalitarianism, wearing a brown shirt, and getting sweaty with a bunch of other guys, is probably right up his alley."

 

 

and the scope of reality fades further...

 

 

First of all, nobody who supported the biggest spending President since LBJ is a "conservative." Leftist socialist Zionists and Treasonous Sub Human Bible Thumping Socialists support Bible Thumping Socialist Worst President in US history W. And when they support W, they support the harm W did to the US, doubling Federal spending in eight years, turning a strong economy and a surplus into a depression and a trillion dollar deficit, making those behind 911 "not a priority," sending way too few after them, flipping off those at war with them, and lying to sell out our troops in Iraq for money and media coverage from a pro gay pro abortion pro socialism FOREIGN LOBBY.

 

You aren't a conservative. You are a treasonous sub human Bible Thumping Socialist who serves Israel and cheers harm to the US as long as Israel approves of it.

 

And as for supporting totalitarianism, you supported Mubarak, and I was for the rebellion against him... because you are for totalitarianism whenever ISRAEL TELLS YOUR SUB HUMAN BIRDBRAIN to support it...

Edited March 27, 2011 by Dexter

[OCinBuffalo]

As long as it is up his alley he doesn't care.

Hi, my name is Occam, and here is my razor!

 

---

 

The notion that I support anything other than a Jeffersonian approach to all political, and potentially political, issues, is retarded and therefore, laughable.

 

I am a classic liberal in the true definition of the word. I know better than to give government, of any stripe, the benefit of the doubt, and, I distrust any government agency whose primary job is to dole out assistance to individuals, rather than having it's scope limited to the country as a whole.

 

Notice the simplicity, yet consistency, of the above. That's why I support the Coast Guard but detest Medicare.

 

However, I am also an adult. My adulthood means that I understand that sometimes you have to do things that you don't want to do, and/or that go against what you believe, because, there is some other, more serious and immediate thing that requires atypical thought and action.

 

Dexter's childish approach, or, that of the person impersonating conservatives using Dexter's handle, requires that there are never any exceptions to any rules, and that we should put our faith in ideology rather than the people, as individuals or on the whole.

 

Both Jefferson, and I, have a serious problem with that.

[GelMibson]

GG says we haven't made fun of Canadians yet...and you open the door?

 

See Marauder?

 

You may be a lot of things: idiotic, unoriginal, naive, incapable of defending your position on anything...

 

but badass? No.

 

Uh, OK, as long as you realize that, to be historically accurate, you two will have to have a TON of gay sex.

 

Estimates vary, but you may end up having to have gay sex about 70% of the time at your meetings.

 

Who knows? Perhaps that's what Dexter is after?

If he's being honest, and he really is what he posts, then totalitarianism, wearing a brown shirt, and getting sweaty with a bunch of other guys, is probably right up his alley.

If he's fake, and he really is a progressive trying to make conservatives look bad, then totalitarianism, wearing a brown shirt, and getting sweaty with a bunch of other guys, is probably right up his alley.

 

 

So what if he's gay? This is a free society and as long as it is between consenting adults it is ok by me. What's more important to me is his character. As long as he is supporting TRUE CONSERVATIVES and railing against the Treasonous Sub Human Bible Thumping Socialist Worst President in US History then he has my support. Regardless, I don't think he is gay. It is a known fact that most gays are jewish and he would be severely limiting his choice of partners in that case.

[Dexter]

"My adulthood means that I understand that sometimes you have to do things that you don't want to do, and/or that go against what you believe, because, there is some other, more serious and immediate thing that requires atypical thought and action."

 

 

Translation - "I supported everything W did because, even though I am "conservative," it was just so much fun blurring Al Qaeda into 'the terrorists, islamofascists, etc..." and so I was TOO STUPID AND UNEDUCATED to notice things like Saddam=not Islamic and that if Saddam smoked a cigar in front of Osama, Osama would cut Saddam's fingers off... nope, I had my parroting, and it came from "conservatives" on FIXED and my (Israeli funded) pastor... so it was holy... so while I was pretending to be a "conservative" I supported

 

1. outporking, outsocializing, and outspending Jimmy Carter with a Dem Congress

2. first responding to 911 by UNIONIZING baggage screeners, doubling their pay and cost to the taxpayer

3. leaving Al Gore's pal James Hansen in charge of lying about Algore's Fraud as head of NASA

4. installing life long DEMOCRATS to US AG, US Fed Chair, US Treasury Secretary

5. making those behind 911 "not a priority"

6. sending way too few after the "not a priority"

7. flipping off those at war with the "not a priority"

8. lying, including breaking our laws and treaties to lie, to sell out our troops in Iraq and in the process liberate the greatest ever recruiting class of the "not a priority"

9. reminding us in 2004 "I'm a War President!!!"

10. taking the entire US Federal Reserve and handing $7 trillion to a leftist dual citizen of another country saying "fix it" - with "it" being the mess created by W violating every principle of fiscal conservatism in eight years

 

 

 

There was absolutely nothing "conservative" about Iraq. There was no threat, no US national interest. Iraq, was, indisputably, the most LIBERAL act of US foreign policy in US history, a complete re-write of how and why we deploy, this time so a sub human spoiled brat big spender could get the money and media coverage in 2004 that was so very against his daddy in 1992.

 

 

Nobody who supported W is "conservative," since precisely nothing W did was "conservative."

 

However, supporters of W are 100% for treason against the US, and are not a bit sorry for it...

[....lybob]

Hi, my name is Occam, and here is my razor!

 

---

 

The notion that I support anything other than a Jeffersonian approach to all political, and potentially political, issues, is retarded and therefore, laughable.

 

I am a classic liberal in the true definition of the word. I know better than to give government, of any stripe, the benefit of the doubt, and, I distrust any government agency whose primary job is to dole out assistance to individuals, rather than having it's scope limited to the country as a whole.

 

Notice the simplicity, yet consistency, of the above. That's why I support the Coast Guard but detest Medicare.

 

However, I am also an adult. My adulthood means that I understand that sometimes you have to do things that you don't want to do, and/or that go against what you believe, because, there is some other, more serious and immediate thing that requires atypical thought and action.

 

Dexter's childish approach, or, that of the person impersonating conservatives using Dexter's handle, requires that there are never any exceptions to any rules, and that we should put our faith in ideology rather than the people, as individuals or on the whole.

 

Both Jefferson, and I, have a serious problem with that.

Omni-Cipher you're kidding right, Jeffersonian approach?

 

Thomas Jefferson on banks, corporations and the dynamic between rich and poor

 

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

 

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

 

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor."

 

Thomas Jefferson on the military,relationship to nations and the use of force.

 

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."

 

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

 

"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government"

 

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."

 

"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses. "

 

Thomas Jefferson on religion

 

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

 

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."

 

Thomas Jefferson on the disease of government and the cure

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

 

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

Maybe what Thomas Jefferson might have thought of whistle-blowers and wikileaks

 

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. "

 

"No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will."

 

On mental hygiene

 

"He who knows best knows how little he knows."

 

Hate to say it OC you remind me nothing of Thomas Jefferson..Unless......

oh wait, I get it, Onerous-Crotchsniffer must have been talking about George Jefferson the guy with the Laundromats, a little selfish egomaniac know-it-all who spends his time sucking up to the rich and putting on airs around the poor- yes OC is very Jeffersonian in that light.

[Dexter]

""I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.""

 

 

While some of our FFs were Christian, most were "passive" Christians in the sense that the did not feel the need to shove their religion down everyone's throat. The way Beck and others pretend that the FFs were all hard core Thumpers beyond even being Americans... naw... not quite, Mr. Beck...

[/dev/null]

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

 

Thomas Jefferson was one smart dude.

 

I wonder what his opinion of The Benbernank would be

[....lybob]

Thomas Jefferson was one smart dude.

 

I wonder what his opinion of The Benbernank would be

I think it would involve tar, feathers, and a donkey.

[ieatcrayonz]

""I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.""

 

 

While some of our FFs were Christian, most were "passive" Christians in the sense that the did not feel the need to shove their religion down everyone's throat. The way Beck and others pretend that the FFs were all hard core Thumpers beyond even being Americans... naw... not quite, Mr. Beck...

You have referred to the Bible thumpers and other groups as sub humans. I find this interesting, not because it is offensive or arbitrarily applied, rather because you have been able to come to grips with how to apply it. I struggle with this myself.

 

I think it is fair to call certain groups sub human. Obviously all mammals and other animals are sub human. I don't think anyone would take offense to calling child molesters sub human because universal disdain can be heaped upon them. There is nothing whatsoever redeeming about their traits. To me Bible thumpers can be annoying and do some bothersome things, but sometimes a good message works its way in there. How do you differentiate? I also get stuck with some groups that illicit more pity than disdain. I have a hard time calling them sub human. I won't name any of the back bacon eating groups for fear of being hit with a hockey puck but would appreciate your insight on the use of the term.

 

Thanks in advance dude.

[Dexter]

The definition of "sub human" is quite simple - one who appears human but is not intelligent enough to be classified as one.

 

A human thinks, while a sub human parrots.

 

A human will notice things like being lied to, while the sub human won't, and will continue to parrot those who lie to it.

 

A human is curious and interested in gaining knowledge. A sub human is not. A sub human is not curious, and believes whatever it parrots is plenty of "knowledge" even as it doesn't even understand what it parrots.

[ieatcrayonz]

The definition of "sub human" is quite simple - one who appears human but is not intelligent enough to be classified as one.

 

A human thinks, while a sub human parrots.

 

A human will notice things like being lied to, while the sub human won't, and will continue to parrot those who lie to it.

 

A human is curious and interested in gaining knowledge. A sub human is not. A sub human is not curious, and believes whatever it parrots is plenty of "knowledge" even as it doesn't even understand what it parrots.

So it is not strictly a smart/dumb thing? For instance some sub humans might be smart but choose to parrot out of laziness. Conversely, some extraordinarily dumb groups of people may be full human because hey don't parrot; they instead wander around aimlessly drinking beer, playing hockey, saying "eh", and never brushing their teeth. Do I have this right?

 

Do they have to have all of the traits you list or only one to be sub human? Would a person that is not curious, and doesn't notice things but also does NOT parrot, just rambles randomly in a drunken like stupor be considered sub human?

[Dexter]

"So it is not strictly a smart/dumb thing?"

 

It does begin there...

 

 

"For instance some sub humans might be smart but choose to parrot out of laziness"

 

Smart people don't parrot. Smart people may cite sources and documentation, but parroting, the mindless repetition of the words of others, is strictly an act of total idiocy, especially when that which is parroted is also appropriated into the sub's "own opinion" without any understanding, like claiming the invasion of Iraq was "fighting radical Islam" while not noticing Saddam was not islamic.

 

 

"Conversely, some extraordinarily dumb groups of people may be full human because hey don't parrot; they instead wander around aimlessly drinking beer, playing hockey, saying "eh", and never brushing their teeth. Do I have this right?"

 

Extraordinarily stupid "people" do parrot. There is no exception, unless they are in a coma.

 

 

"Would a person that is not curious, and doesn't notice things but also does NOT parrot, just rambles randomly in a drunken like stupor be considered sub human?"

 

Again, you will find, even in the drunk bum in the alley, that person has "opinions," and those "opinions" originate from somewhere other than that individual.

 

 

 

Now, a sub human may find curiosity, may notice that his pastor lies to him all the time, and leave the church. That is the moment when sub human ceases to be sub and becomes human...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

"So it is not strictly a smart/dumb thing?"

 

It does begin there...

 

 

"For instance some sub humans might be smart but choose to parrot out of laziness"

 

Smart people don't parrot. Smart people may cite sources and documentation, but parroting, the mindless repetition of the words of others, is strictly an act of total idiocy, especially when that which is parroted is also appropriated into the sub's "own opinion" without any understanding, like claiming the invasion of Iraq was "fighting radical Islam" while not noticing Saddam was not islamic.

 

 

"Conversely, some extraordinarily dumb groups of people may be full human because hey don't parrot; they instead wander around aimlessly drinking beer, playing hockey, saying "eh", and never brushing their teeth. Do I have this right?"

 

Extraordinarily stupid "people" do parrot. There is no exception, unless they are in a coma.

 

 

"Would a person that is not curious, and doesn't notice things but also does NOT parrot, just rambles randomly in a drunken like stupor be considered sub human?"

 

Again, you will find, even in the drunk bum in the alley, that person has "opinions," and those "opinions" originate from somewhere other than that individual.

 

 

 

Now, a sub human may find curiosity, may notice that his pastor lies to him all the time, and leave the church. That is the moment when sub human ceases to be sub and becomes human...

 

 

So, you're a sub-human then for parroting Lyndon Larouche?

 

[Dexter]

So, you're a sub-human then for parroting Lyndon Larouche?

 

 

 

Anyone can cite a statistic, or a CIA documentation that Israel not only started the shooting in 1967, but did so with the weapons and blessings of one LBJ...

 

When whatever is cited is documented or proven wrong, the human will take note, while the sub human will go right back to the same source that lied and parrot another, as every FIXED viewer has precisely no concern at all that every reason given by FIXED for invading Iraq was a 100% intentional and obvious falsehood.

 

As for what a sub human can do when outed as a sub human, a sub human will usually grasp any bucket of #### he can and make a false accusation... with precisely no evidence to support the accusation...

Edited March 28, 2011 by Dexter

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Israel not only started the shooting in 1967, but did so with the weapons and blessings of one LBJ...

 

Boy, you're a smart one, huh? EVERYBODY knows Israel started it in 67.

 

No one debates that (other than maybe the voices in your head, that is). But you've yet to address 1948 and 1973. Why would Israel cede those territories when their neighbors have shown NO willingness to live alongside them peacefully? I suppose that's too simple a question to ask one as enlightened as you, Mr. Hess.

[Dexter]

Boy, you're a smart one, huh? EVERYBODY knows Israel started it in 67.

 

No one debates that (other than maybe the voices in your head, that is). But you've yet to address 1948 and 1973. Why would Israel cede those territories when their neighbors have shown NO willingness to live alongside them peacefully? I suppose that's too simple a question to ask one as enlightened as you, Mr. Hess.

 

 

That is not an American issue, or a national concern of the United States. If you care that much about Israel, the great thing about the US is that you can move there before everyone here becomes 100% convinced of the clear and obvious truth that you are a traitor.

 

In 1948, the US agreed with a UN resolution creating "Israel." The US never agreed that Israel should expand beyond its 1948 border. The US would not have been attacked on 911 if Israel was not outside of its 1948 UN defined border. Hence, those that support Israel expansion beyond its 1948 border support the act of war by a foreign country that was the stated excuse for 911. Our relationship with "Israel" is that we, the United States, give ISrael money and weapons, and then selective sellouts in the office of US President have gone way beyond that, specifically LBJ and W, two completely selfish and stupid Bible Thumping Socialists from Texas, who thought war was good for poll numbers...

 

You whine about 1948 and 1973, even though neither involves the UNITED STATES, and yet you have absolutely no concern at all about this in 1968...

 

 

when Israel attacked the USS Liberty and murdered 30 US naval personnel... and let us listen to all these "anti-semites" who claim it wasn't an "accident" as LBJ quickly agreed it "was an accident" and so did our "US media..."

 

 

 

http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm

 

 

 

This is the group that Israeli supporter Ahron Jay Cristol calls "conspiracy theorists"

 

 

 

* "I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . 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."

-- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk

 

 

 

* "Accidents don't occur through repeated attacks by surface vessels and aircraft. It obviously was a decision made pretty high up on the Israeli side, because it involved combined forces. The ship was flying an American flag. My judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly senior official gave the go ahead. I personally did not accept the Israeli explanation."

-- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Recorded interview, www.ussliberty.org

 

 

 

* "...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."

-- CIA Director Richard Helms in his book A Look Over my Shoulder

 

 

 

* "It was no accident."

-- CIA Director Richard Helms in interview for Navy Times, 6/26/2002. Asked to say more, Helms remarked that he did not want to spend the rest of his life testifying in court about the attack.

 

 

 

* "To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that the Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway, either through confusion in Command and Control or through deliberate disregard of instructions on the part of subordinates."

-- CIA Deputy Director Admiral Rufus Taylor

 

 

 

* That the attack was deliberate "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the National Security Agency

-- Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings

 

 

 

* Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident

-- 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings

 

 

 

* "I have never believed that the attack on the USS Liberty was a case of mistaken identity. That is ridiculous. Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American."

-- Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff writing for Americans for Middle East Understanding, June 8, 1997

 

 

 

* "To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument."

-- Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14

 

 

 

* "To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway."

-- Admiral Rufus Taylor, Deputy CIA director, as quoted by CIA director Admiral Rufus Taylor in A Look Over My Shoulder.

 

 

 

* Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate

-- David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings

 

 

 

* "That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable"

-- Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson

 

 

 

* "Inconceivable that it was an accident � 3 strafing passes, 3 torpedo boats. Set forth facts. Punish Israelis responsible"

-- Clark Clifford, Secretary of Defense under Lyndon Johnson, in Minutes of NSC Special Committee Meeting, 9 June 1967

 

 

 

* "A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted]."

-- Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack. Dr. Tordella expressed the view that the attack was deliberate and that the Israeli government attempted to cover it up to authors James Ennes and James Bamford and to Congressman George Mahon (D-Texas), and in an internal memorandum for the record. He noted "a nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept (redacted)" in the margin of the official Israeli excuse for the attack as noted in the NSA Gerhard report 1982)

 

 

 

* "The attack was clearly deliberate."

-- General Marshall Carter, former director, National Security Agency, in a telephone interview with James Ennes

 

 

 

* "The attack was deliberate"

-- Lucius Battle, former presidential advisor, as keynote speaker for 1982 USS Liberty reunion.

 

 

 

* "My immediate reaction was it was not an accident. It had to be a deliberate attack."

-- Lucius Battle, in BBC Documentary "Dead in the Water".

 

 

 

* "....did not buy the Israeli 'mistake' explanations either. Nobody believes that explanation." When informed by author Bamford of gruesome war crime (killing of large numbers of POWs) at nearby El Arish, Morrison saw the connection. "That would be enough," he said. "They wouldn't want us in on that. You've got the motive. What a hell of a thing to do."

-- Major General John Morrison, US Air Force, Deputy Chief NSA Operations during the attack and later Chief of NSA Operations as reported in Body of Secrets by James Bamford, p233.

 

 

 

* "I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that they knew they were attacking an American ship."

-- Oliver Kirby, former deputy director for operations/production, National Security Agency. Kirby participated in NSA's investigation of the attack and reviewed translations of intercepted communications between pilots and their headquarters which he reports show conclusively that they knew their target was an American ship. Kirby is considered the "Godfather" of the USS Liberty and USS Pueblo intercept programs. (Telephone interviews with James Ennes and David Walsh for Friendless Fire, Proceedings, June 2003)

 

 

 

* On the strength of intercept transcripts of pilots' conversations during the attack, the question of the attack's deliberateness "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the agency.

-- Lieutenant General William E. Odom, former director, National Security Agency, interview with David Walsh on March 3, 2003, reported in Naval Institute Proceedings, June, 2003

 

 

 

* Inman said he "flatly rejected" the Cristol thesis that the attack was an accident. "It is just exceedingly difficult to believe that [uSS Liberty] was not correctly identified" based on his talks with NSA seniors at the time having direct knowledge of intercepted communications. No NSA official could be found who dissented from the "deliberate" conclusion.

-- Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN, Director National Security Agency 1977-1981, reported in Proceedings, June, 2003

 

 

 

* "I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units. I still find it impossible to believe that it was."

-- Paul C. Warnke, Undersecretary of the Navy and later general legal counsel to the Department of Defense.

 

 

 

* "In many years, I have wanted to believe that the attack on the Liberty was pure error. It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity. . . . I think it is about time that the State of Israel and the United States government provide the crew members of the Liberty, and the rest of the American people, the facts of what happened and why it came about that the Liberty was attacked 30 years ago today." Later, McGonagle remarked, "USS Liberty is the only US Navy ship attacked by a foreign nation, involving large loss of life...that has never been accorded a full Congressional hearing."

-- Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery June 8, 1997.

 

 

 

* "The Israelis told us 24 hours before that ...if we didn't move it, they would sink it. Unfortunately, the ship was not moved, and by the time the message arrived the ship was taking on water."

-- John Stenbit, Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3Im in an address to the AFEI/NDAI Conference for Net Centric Operations, Wednesday, April 16, 2003

 

 

 

* State Department Legal Advisor and author of highly critical detailed analysis of the Israeli excuse in telephone interview from his home in France, Mr. Salans described the attack as deliberate.

-- Legal Advisor Carl Salans

 

 

 

* Walter Deeley, NSA department head, conducted still-classified investigation of the attack and remarked later in telephone interview that he regards the attack as deliberate.

-- NSA Department Head Walter Deeley

 

 

 

* "The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it 'inconceivable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error."

-- Lyndon Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31

 

 

 

* Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers.

-- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor

 

 

 

* "The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.... It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident.... I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American."

-- Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry

 

 

 

* According to Kidd's legal counsel, Captain Ward Boston, USN, Kidd discussed with him his belief that the attackers were aware they were attacking an American ship. The Court ruled otherwise because they were so directed by Washington.

-- Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, President of the Navy Court of Inquiry, as reported in Navy Times, 6/26/2002

 

 

 

* "I feel the Israelis knew what they were doing. They knew they were shooting at a U.S. Navy ship."

-- Captain Ward Boston, legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry, as reported in . Navy Times, 6/26/2002

 

 

 

* "No one in the White House believed that the attack was an accident."

-- George Christian, Press Secretary to President Lyndon Johnson in letter to James Ennes, 1978.

 

 

 

* After reviewing the Court of Inquiry in his official capacity as legal counsel to the convening authority, concluded that the evidence did not support the findings that the attack was an accident and declined to recommend that his Commander sign and forward it to Washington.

-- Rear Admiral (then captain) Merlin Staring, Staff Legal Office for Commander in Chief US Naval Forces Europe and later Chief Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Statement to Navy Times, 3 June 2002 and elsewhere

 

 

 

* "This book [Assault on the Liberty] gives convincing evidence that the attack was deliberate and that the facts, including the Navy's bungling before and during the attack, were covered up."

-- United States Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III as reported in Congressional Record -- Senate S13136 September 23, 1980. Senator Stevenson later announced his interest in holding Congressional hearings on the attack. He pointed out that the survivors have been consistent in their accounts of what happened and that the attack was, in his word, "premeditated." Also reported by William J. Small, United Press International, September 28, 1980.

 

 

 

* "The Congress never investigated this matter, and I don't detect much enthusiasm for getting into it now."

-- Senator Adlai Stevenson III in letter to James Ennes dated September 9, 1980

 

 

 

* "From what I have read, I can't tolerate for one minute that this was an accident! ... What have we done about the Liberty? Have we become so placid, so far as Israel is concerned or so far as that area is concerned, that we will take the killing of 37 (sic) American boys and the wounding of a lot more and the attack on an American ship in the open sea in good weather? We have seemed to say: 'Oh, well, boys will be boys.' What are you going to do about it? It is most offensive to me!

-- Senator Bourke Hickenlooper; From transcript of July 1967 Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on Foreign Assistance Act of 1967.

 

 

 

* "I have read the Navy investigation of the Liberty, and the evidence adduced there, and I have read the Israeli court of inquiry records, and based upon their own records of the investigation, I cannot agree that it was accidental."

-- Senator Bourke Hickenlooper; From transcript of May, 1968, Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on Foreign Assistance Act of 1968, page 444.

 

 

 

* "American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens. . . . The Liberty's presence and function were well known to Israel's leaders. ...Israel's leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.

-- George Ball, under secretary of state at the time writing in The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement with Israel, pages 57-58.

 

 

 

* "I don't think that there's any doubt that it was deliberate.... [it is] one of the great cover-ups of our military history."

-- David G. Nes, the deputy head of the American mission in Cairo at the time

[3rdnlng]

Nine minutes after jsp's post Dexter is able to put this novel together? Somethings not very Kosher here.

[ieatcrayonz]

"So it is not strictly a smart/dumb thing?"

 

It does begin there...

 

 

"For instance some sub humans might be smart but choose to parrot out of laziness"

 

Smart people don't parrot. Smart people may cite sources and documentation, but parroting, the mindless repetition of the words of others, is strictly an act of total idiocy, especially when that which is parroted is also appropriated into the sub's "own opinion" without any understanding, like claiming the invasion of Iraq was "fighting radical Islam" while not noticing Saddam was not islamic.

 

I do not totally agree here. By your standards, unless I misread them, everyone would have to be an expert in everything to avoid being sub human. For example, I might be the world's foremost expert in twine theory. That would take a lot of smarts. I would speak at symposiums and people would come to me for knowledge. At the same time, I could be a fan of the Bills but not an expert in the x's and O's. I would root for them and have opinions on all 53 players. Is it even possible to develop informed decisions on crappy 5th round cornerbacks that are now out of the league while I spend so much time on twine theory? Wouldn't I have to form opinions at least based on the opinions of others? There are only 24 hours in a day, even for the smartest and richest among us.

 

"Conversely, some extraordinarily dumb groups of people may be full human because hey don't parrot; they instead wander around aimlessly drinking beer, playing hockey, saying "eh", and never brushing their teeth. Do I have this right?"

 

Extraordinarily stupid "people" do parrot. There is no exception, unless they are in a coma.

 

 

"Would a person that is not curious, and doesn't notice things but also does NOT parrot, just rambles randomly in a drunken like stupor be considered sub human?"

 

Again, you will find, even in the drunk bum in the alley, that person has "opinions," and those "opinions" originate from somewhere other than that individual.

 

I don't disagree here, but I still think I need clarification from you, so I will start by asking a simple clarifying question:

 

Do you consider Canadians sub human?

[Dexter]

Nine minutes after jsp's post Dexter is able to put this novel together? Somethings not very Kosher here.

 

 

I love it. The quotes from the USS Liberty website are part of a "novel," that is really "isn't clear" Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty... because LBJ and our "US media" say so...

 

such concern you have for the crew of the USS Liberty, Israeli...

 

 

 

 

"everyone would have to be an expert in everything to avoid being sub human"

 

LOL!!!

 

Not at all. Rather, you just have to be able to think and realize that when someone says something that gets proven false, perhaps the proper response to that is to do something other than just go back to that same source and parrot something else, like what W supporters were saying in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2011 about why we needed to invade Iraq. If you noticed that what they were saying in 2003 proved 100% false, you did something other than parrot the "new" lies in 2004 etc... or you qualify fully...

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Do you consider Canadians sub human?"

 

 

To qualify, "Canadians" would have to be documented as parroting from a dishonest source, which gets outed for lying, and then the "Canadians" continue to parrot new lies from the same source...

 

I see no evidence of this.

 

I see it two places in the US, the W/Iraq supporters, and the Global Warmers...

Edited March 28, 2011 by Dexter