If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran

Status
Not open for further replies.
While I might agree that our nation is suffering from a complete lack of leadership on all sides, any time I see an author tossing the word "neocon" around as a pejorative I tend to discount anything they say as the raving of a madman. The "neoconservative" has become a boogeyman for the raving left, a villain who seeks to commit only evil, who feasts on the blood of the newborn child and takes delight in the suffering of puppies.

It's not a term used by people who are engaging in thoughtful and reasoned discussion. Good points might be raised, but then, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

Let's debate ideas and events, instead of hurling invectives and foaming at the mouth. It does not become us.
 
If Israel does it, then I still won't like it, as a lot of innocent people will be killed, and it will be a hypocritical act of aggression. But at least in that case the US won't be complicit in a horrible war crime. I say let the Israelis do their own dirty work instead of constantly trying to get the US to spend our blood, money, and moral standing for them (like we've already done and continue to do in Iraq).

Of course the US will still refer to such an attack as "self-defense." It's okay for Israel to have nukes, but not for anyone else in the Middle East. Why? Ask AIPAC, ZOA, JINSA, WZO, or any of the other organizations that exist solely to subvert the US government so that it puts Israeli interests ahead of America's. Israel could bomb every orphanage and nursing home in Palestine or Lebanon, and the US government would repeat its refrain that "Israel has the right to defend itself" (even through widespread, brutal collective punishment, presumably). Our government is so controlled by the Israel-first lobby that even the USS Liberty massacre continues to be covered up to this day, as the following veteran-run site explains:

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

This is why neoconservatism is such a scam. It's not real conservatism at all -- it's nothing more than advocating US involvement in Mideast wars, with the ulterior motive of benefitting Israel. It's horrifying that so many American have fallen for it. And I hasten to add that most Jews (including myself) are not neocons, and that many neocons are not Jewish (a large number are so-called "Christian Zionists").
Click to expand...

Maybe you should take a look at this to understand Israels situation a little better regarding their war on Lebanon and "Palestine"

http://www.yideoz.com/view_video.php?viewkey=bb0c9b8a3bf979d3b917

Being a Zionist doesn't necessarily mean one supports the current administration or government in control of Israel at this point in time. I am a religious Zionist Jew and oppose the leftist government in control. I would much prefer a Kahanist government though for some odd reason they are banned from elections yet there are arabs and palestinian sympathizers allowed in the Israeli Knesset. Odd how a Muslim can live a regular life in Israel yet a Jew can't live a normal life in Saudi Arabia, heck whats the Jewish population in Saudi Arabia anyways

Here is an article regarding the sinking of the USS Liberty

USS Liberty: Israel Did Not Intend to Bomb the Ship
By A. Jay Cristol
Mr. Cristol is the author of the forthcoming The Liberty Incident.

Editor's Note: This summer HNN devoted a special edition to Israel's attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 during the Six Day War, which resulted in the deaths of 34 Americans. Israel insists the attack was an accident. Many others contend it was deliberate, among them, James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets., which has attracted a great deal of attention. A. Jay Cristol, a federal bankruptcy judge in Florida, has spent 14 years researching the incident and has been allowed exlusive access to Israeli archives and officials. His long-awaited book, The Liberty Incident, will be published in March by Brassey. In the piece below, Judge Cristol critiques the claims advanced by Mr. Bamford. The judge's conclusion? Mr. Bamford is guilty of telling "tall tales."

Bamford: Describes the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty as "unprovoked."

Fact: He completely ignores that the United States had publicly announced to the world at the United Nations Security Council only two days before June 8, 1967 that it had no warships within hundreds of miles of the combat zone. The chain of reactions were started by an Israeli army report of explosions at El Arish. Since Israel controlled the air and the ground, they made the assumption that they were being shelled from the sea and a warship was in eye view. In view of the U.S. public announcement, it seems more logical for the Israelis to have assumed that a haze grey warship sailing within eye view of the ongoing combat was an enemy vessel rather than a U.S. ship.

Bamford: "Israel fighters and torpedo boats assaulted the ship for more than an hour."

Fact: The air attack lasted about 12 minutes and was terminated as soon as the Israel Air Force determined the ship was not an Arab ship. While the Air Force was initiating rescue operations, the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling to the Liberty. The response of the Liberty was to begin shooting at the torpedo boats which thereupon began the torpedo attack. It lasted less than 15 minutes during which time the navy torpedo boats believed they were facing an enemy who initiated the shooting at them.

Bamford: The Israeli attackers used "cannon fire, rockets, heavy bombs, burning napalm and five torpedoes"

Fact: No rockets were fired at Liberty. No bombs, "heavy" or otherwise, were used. The attacking aircraft were not armed to attack a ship. Had they dropped the standard 500 pound iron bombs normally used against ship targets, the Liberty would very likely have been sunk in minutes. (During the battle of Midway in World War II, U.S. Navy dive bombers using standard 500 pound iron bombs sank three Japanese aircraft carriers in ten minutes.) Four napalm canisters [bombs] were dropped by the attacking aircraft. At least three and possibly all missed. The Liberty's doctor reported no treatment of any crew member for napalm burns.

Bamford: "Israeli reconnaissance planes had positively identified the ship"

Fact: A routine Israel Navy reconnaissance flight at dawn on June 8 sighted Liberty at about 6:00 A.M. steaming southeasterly and south more than 70 miles further west of El Arish. Positive identification was made and the information passed to Naval Intelligence Headquarters and the Liberty was marked on the battle control board at Naval Headquarters. Five hours later, the Liberty mark was considered old information and removed from the battle control board. At 11:00 A.M., shifts changed and the information about the Liberty was not known to the officer who assumed command. At about 1:00 P.M., when the presence of a ship steaming west, 14 miles off the coast of the Sinai and reported to be shelling Israel Army positions from the sea became a tactical issue, the Navy Officer in command did not know about the dawn sighting of Liberty many miles to the west.

Bamford: "Throughout the attack, according to survivors, the Liberty was flying a large American flag,"

Fact: Immediately prior to the air attack, the Liberty had a 5 by 8-foot American flag hoisted but because of the light wind conditions it probably was not extended. This is the Finding of Fact number 2. of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry of June 18, 1967. As a matter of fact, a reference to the formula for visual acuity reveals that a flag that size, if fully extended in good light would not be identifiable beyond 1323 feet and the attacking aircraft never came that close. It is also the undisputed testimony of the Commanding Officer of the Liberty that the 5 by 8-foot flag was shot away on the first strafing run. A second, larger, 7 by 13 foot flag was hoisted after the air attack and prior to the torpedo attack but it was engulfed in smoke and thus was not an identification factor during the attacks. The first actual sighting of an American flag on the Liberty was made by an Israeli helicopter pilot more than 30 minutes after both air and sea attacks were over.

Bamford: "Nowicki heard both the pilots and the torpedo boat crew members referring to the American flag during the attack,"

"Nowicki also heard the pilots talk about the American flag."
 
Fact: No reference to an American flag was made on any radio intercept until 1512, approximately 30 minutes after the attack was over. I have obtained transcripts of the Israel Air Force tapes which confirm this. I have an appeal pending before the National Security Agency for release of their tapes, which are the tapes described by Bamford. Release of these tapes by NSA will corroborate both what Nowicki originally told Bamford as well as the transcripts of the Israel Air Force tapes. That is the attack was a mistake.

Bamford: [The Liberty] "had its name painted in English in ten-foot letters across the stern."

Fact: The name Liberty on the curved stern of the ship was not larger than 18 inches and because of the curvature of the stern, was extremely difficult to read under any circumstances. The ships identifier, "GTR-5" was painted on both sides of the ship near the bow and near the stern but only the number "5" was ten feet tall. The "GTR" was substantially smaller. It was the sighting of these markings by the second wave of aircraft that identified the ship as not an Arab ship and resulted in immediate termination of the air attack.

Bamford: "Among those who never believed Israel's explanation are the survivors and the captain of the ship."

Fact: The captain of the ship, William L. McGonagle, testified under oath before the U.S. navy Court of Inquiry on June 13, 1967 "I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack having been conducted in error." [emphasis added] [Court of Inquiry Record, p. 39] Bamford attributes rejection of the Israel explanation of mistaken identity to "The Survivors." This infers all the survivors. Again, this is not a true statement.

Bamford: "Among those who never believed Israel's explanation are ... Secretary of State, Dean Rusk and Chief of Naval Operations (and later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Admiral Thomas Moorer;"

Fact: Dean Rusk never accepted the Israeli explanation but when I asked him in an interview at Athens, Georgia on April 5, 1989 on what evidence he based his opinion, he conceded that he never read the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry findings, the CIA Report, or the Clark Clifford Report. When pressed further, he said, "I did not make a career of studying the evidence."

Admiral Moorer was Commander in Chief Atlantic on the day of the attack on the Liberty and became Chief of Naval Operations on August 1, 1967. In two interviews in Washington, D.C. on February 10, 1989 and May 3, 1990, he explained that the Liberty's identity could not be mistaken because she was the "Ugliest ship in the Navy" and was larger in size than the Egyptian ship for which she was mistaken. The CIA Report concludes the opposite, that the two ships could be mistaken. Ironically, the findings of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry were approved by Moorer's office while he was the Chief of Naval Operations.

Bamford: [The Liberty] never fired a shot."

Fact: This statement is a lie. The evidence has been undisputed for more than three decades that when the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling, the Liberty began shooting at them. Captain McGonagle, the commanding officer, testified to this under oath at the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry and reconfirmed it in a videotaped press conference on board Liberty when the ship returned to the United States. He may be observed on videotape telling of the Liberty firing at the torpedo boats in the Thames TV documentary, Attack on the Liberty, aired on British television on January 27, 1987.

Bamford: "The evidence that Israel's attack was deliberate is overwhelming." [He refers to] "the mountain of evidence in my book indicating that Israel knew the ship was American."

Fact: All attacks are inherently deliberate. The question is: did the Israelis attack knowing that it was an American ship. Ten official U.S. investigations and three official Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a tragic mistake or that there is no evidence to establish that it was not a tragic mistake. Seven U. S. Presidents, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush, and Clinton have all accepted the conclusion that the attack was a tragic mistake. Still, more than two dozen conspiracy theories, most of which like Mr. Bamford's conspiracy theory, are based on false or erroneous premises, and have been circulating for years. They all start from the assumption that all the above investigations were wrong or a deliberate cover up; that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship; and the only question is: "Why". Bamford's book presents a mountain of allegations but no credible evidence to prove the allegations.

Bamford: Refers to Marvin Nowicki plus "another Hebrew linguist" who, he says, "is" confident that the Israeli attack was a deliberate attack.

Fact: Here again Mr. Bamford lies. Dr. Marvin Nowicki, the U.S. Navy Hebrew linguist on the NSA EC-121 aircraft who heard the Israeli Air Force pilots' radio transmissions and supervised their recording, told Mr. Bamford exactly the opposite, that is Nowicki is certain the attack was a mistake. In an e-mail letter dated March 3, 2000, a copy of which was provided to me by Nowicki and which will be published in full in my forthcoming book, Nowicki wrote to Bamford, "...we recorded most, if not all, of the attack. Further, our intercepts, never before made public, showed the attack to be an accident on the part of the Israelis." Dr. Nowicki's letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal published on May 16, 2001 unequivocally contradicts what Bamford attributes to him. Nowicki said in the Wall Street Journal letter: "My position, which is opposite of Mr. Bamford's, is the attack, ..., was a gross error." There are not one, but two other NSA connected Hebrew linguists that, according to Dr. Nowicki, have heard the tapes and share his - not Bamford's - alleged conclusions.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABOUT JUDGE CRISTOL: He is a former U.S. Navy carrier pilot, and a lecturer for the Department of Defense on the Law of Naval Warfare. He retired from my Naval service with the rank of Captain. He is professionally knowledgeable about air combat and naval matters. He has spent fourteen years researching one question about the Liberty incident: did the Israelis attack her knowing she was a U.S. ship ("No") or was it a case of mistaken identity ("Yes")? This study was his doctoral dissertation accepted in 1997 by the Graduate School of International Studies of the University of Miami and is on file in the Library of Congress.

The quotations attributed to Mr. Bamford were taken from a statement he published in the New Republic.

http://hnn.us/articles/369.html
 
I don't really get how we are losing a war that has ceased to exist between us and the terrists. I mean we went into Iraq, removed Saddam, set up a new government, and had an election where people were not afraid to vote for what they wanted. We were done. We finished what we started. What else is there to lose other than the whole world wide "war on terror" which will be next to impossible to win. It's going to be more of a policing thing which I do not think that America needs to do since it will be terrorists attack, we respond and show up AFTER the attack, and the process will go on and on and on with no end in sight. If we do a gradual pull out of Iraq it will still be a victory for us. Same as the vietnam conflict was statistically a victory for us as well although on a global scale it was considered a failure (I think we won our part personally). This conflict (or did we actually declare war on the Iraqi?) has more victory to it than nam and if we start telling news companies that "the war is a failure" it will only encourage the terrorists and they will spread their propaganda that "we drove out the greatest military might in the world!"

IMHO I don't think even the isrealis should have nukes. Cause once they think Iran has them or decides to nuke them they will already have them and there will be a nuke war in the middle east and oil prices will sky rocket once the entire area becomes a radioactive wasteland. Third world countries shouldn't have nukes! Usally they are governed by unstable governments that are at eachothers throats. Even an atom or hydrogen bomb is almost worse since the explosion is smaller and some crazy warlord will think it's ok to use and will probably use one but they won't realise the radiation will be worse than a thermonuclear reaction.
 
The neocons think that by bombing Iran the US will provoke Iran to arm the Shiite militias in Iraq with armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades and with surface-to-air missiles and unleash the militias against US troops. These weapons would neutralize US tanks and helicopter gunships and destroy the US military edge, leaving divided and isolated US forces subject to being cut off from supplies and retreat routes. With America on the verge of losing most of its troops in Iraq, the cry would go up to "save the troops" by nuking Iran.
Click to expand...

I think the meds need to be thinned out some... You do know that Roosevelt secretly communicated with Yamamoto to ensure that the attack at Pearl Harbour was succesful in motivating the public while not sacraficing the carriers? Teddy Roosevelt also arranged for the destruction of the USS Maine to start the Spanish American War.

Islam cannot survive alongside the modern world in its current form. Either Islam needs to go through a self cleaning process that drags it into the 21st century or we will reach the point where genocide against one group or the other will be the only answer. The big difference between the two groups is we would feel guilty afterwards if we won while the hardcore Islamists would not. This situation is inevitable because we are approaching the point where religious nut jobs will have the ability and see no downside to utilizing a WMD to eliminate millions even if it means their own deaths, which will be for the glory of their god.

Nuking Iran may be an option and we may have to take it. Personally I have no problem with a B2 dropping a nuke on their development site while we shrug and say "oops, they must have had an accident."

Iran is not a nation that can be dealt with reasonably in its current form and if their own people will not rise up to depose their insane leaders then the people are our enemy as well. America has not used an atomic weapon in anger since WWII and the world has come to believe we lack the will to take ultimate measures. When we are stuck with a WMD, and it is coming, we will need to react in such an overwhelming manner that doubt will be erased for many generations to come. People may cry for the "innocents" we kill in such attack but I will rejoice for the millions that we will protect from future attacks. If we can pre-empt such an action and save even more American lives by unleashing an atomic weapon on Iran so be it. I see no reason that we need to wait longer for us to realize that the militant brand of Islam sweeping the world is not something that we can coexist with in the modern world. It is destructive enough with non-governmental terrorist groups but when it controls a nation state such as Iran it can not be allowed to live.

FYI I dislike all religions but at least those preaching peace are less likely to wage Jihad against other. Islam does not fall into that category an is a world wide threat.
 
I don't think Bush is so much evil...just dumb. I think a guy like Putin could be classified as evil, but he is clearly smart. I think you can predict what an evil smart guy will do better than a dumb guy...like you know who.

I think most have no problem with going after any power that directly attacks this Country. But we have got to stop making up situations like the Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq WMD's, etc as made up excuses for war. I voted for Bush one time (my dumb mistake), but if we see him seriously going for another war then he needs to be impeached. Bush has cost this Country immeasurably in terms of lives lost and money spent for his personal Iraq war. Let's just hope we make it to the next election before he makes more stupid mistakes.

At least in the end Johnson understood that Vietnam was a huge mistake. You could see he was a broken man when he announced he would not seek office again...Bush is too arrogant to be that smart!
 
IMHO I don't think even the isrealis should have nukes. Cause once they think Iran has them or decides to nuke them they will already have them and there will be a nuke war in the middle east and oil prices will sky rocket once the entire area becomes a radioactive wasteland. Third world countries shouldn't have nukes! Usally they are governed by unstable governments that are at eachothers throats. Even an atom or hydrogen bomb is almost worse since the explosion is smaller and some crazy warlord will think it's ok to use and will probably use one but they won't realise the radiation will be worse than a thermonuclear reaction.
Click to expand...

The Israelis have had nukes since the 50's, when have they threatened a nation or used them against another country? The Israeli's have them simply because they are surrounded by enemys who wish to wipe them out. Israel is hardly a third world country.
 
The "neoconservative" has become a boogeyman for the raving left, a villain who seeks to commit only evil, who feasts on the blood of the newborn child and takes delight in the suffering of puppies.
Click to expand...

Yep. MoveOn.Org is here again.

Love the hysterics combined with the bash. :rolleyes:

Edited to add: what if we don't think that President Bush is evil now?
 
Whether we like it or not, Israel only exists by having the force necessary to stop their enemy's from invading and destroying their country. The US has a buffer of water and large land mass, but Israel is small and next to it's enemy's territory. We all know that Israel has nuclear weapons, and we all know that they do not bluff and will respond to any nuclear attack. I feel that adds stability to the region...not the reverse.

Whether or not Israel has the right to exist is another argument, but for me I feel they have earned that right.
 
Whether or not Israel has the right to exist is another argument, but for me I feel they have earned that right.
Click to expand...

The only rights any posses are those that they can defend. The Antelope has a right to exist only so long as it escapes the lion and Isreal has a right to exist only so long as it can oppose those around it who wish it destroyed.

Talk of rights is meaningless when compared to the discussion of capabilities.
 
The only rights any posses are those that they can defend. The Antelope has a right to exist only so long as it escapes the lion and Isreal has a right to exist only so long as it can oppose those around it who wish it destroyed.
Click to expand...

Awesome. So if some sniper hits you with a head shot from 800 yards, he can do it with full impunity?

No, certain rights are inalienable.
 
Awesome. So if some sniper hits you with a head shot from 800 yards, he can do it with full impunity?

No, certain rights are inalienable.
Click to expand...

Inalienable a right to life may be, it's still moot if you get that head shot you mention. Israel's right to exist is not recognized by their neighbors. They will destroy Israel if they can. Therefore, if their right to exist will not be recognized by their neighbors, they need their ability to destroy those neighbors to be recognized by them. Then, the neighbors may not admit Israel has a right to exist, but they will know that if they choose to act on that belief, Israel can cause THEM to not exist, and they won't get to enjoy the Israel-free Middle East. A moral high ground is pretty freakin' worthless if you're dead (no matter the side you're on).

Israel has proven themselves responsible stewards of a nuclear capability. I'm not convinced their neighbors would have similar restraint.
 
"The problem is that very very few people even know about the incident at all, thanks in large part to the acts or lack thereof by a bought and fearful government and very cooperative, corporate-owned U.S. mainstream media."

"very, very few people even know about the incident"

That has got to be one of the silliest things I've ever read. Do you hang out with people who can't read?

Here's a partial list. Google will turn up scads more if you're interested.

Books
A History of Israel by Ahron Bregman contains extracts from the tapes. (ISBN 0-333-67631-9)
Cristol, A. Jay (2002). The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Israeli Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship. Dulles, Virginia: Brassey's. ISBN 1-57488-414-X.
Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East, by Michael B. Oren, Oxford University Press (ISBN 0-19-515174-7)
Assault on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship, by James M. Ennes, Jr. (ISBN 0-9723116-0-2) Currently in its 9th printing.
The Puzzle Palace, by James Bamford, Penguin Books, 1982, has a detailed description of the Israeli attack on the SIGINT ship USS Liberty, and the events leading up to it, on pages 279-293.
Body of Secrets, by James Bamford, Doubleday, 2001 (ISBN 0-09-942774-5)
Peter Hounam, Operation Cyanide: Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III, Vision Paperbacks. 2003, ISBN 1-904132-19-7,
Anthony Pearson, Conspiracy of Silence: The Attack on the USS Liberty, 1979 ISBN 0-7043-2164-5
John Borne, The USS Liberty, Dissenting History vs. Official History
Thomas, Baylis (1999). How Israel Was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-0064-5. In Chapter 15 on "The Six Day War and Its Consequences", dissects the sequence of events and concurrent attacks on Arab towns and explores the possibility that the attack on this U.S. spy ship was an intentional act to prevent U.S. monitoring of Israeli military actions, and that the intent was to kill all on board before any kind of communications could be sent out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top