Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (14713)	6/12/2002 8:30:21 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 21057

CAIRO??? Why Cairo? Interesting, isn't it? The fleet launched them based soley on receiving an SOS from the USS Liberty. Which is interesting for a couple of reasons. The fleet didn't know that there was a US ship there [not hugely surprising for the mission]. They had no information as to who the attacker was; so it must have been a pre-planned order to retaliate against Cairo if any US ship was attacked. You could give a little leeway to the fleet on that, who would guess that Israel would be the attacker? But to send nukes in realiation based on an assumption? A single SOS?!?! Having been aware of the incident prior to the BBC program. The survivors have had at least one piece wrong. The survivors have thought that there were aircraft sent to defend the USS Liberty. Hah! The fleet never sent fighters to defend the aircraft. The only fighters that were recalled were the ones that were sent to Cairo; recalled by direct order from SECDEF. The Admiral then requested that conventional fighters be sent to defend the Liberty and was denied by SECDEF. The Admiral questioned the order and LBJ came on the line to repeat that the Fleet was not to send fighters to assist the Liberty. One of the items that I had prior skepticism on, was that the Israeli aircraft were unmarked. I thought that might have been a case of no one noticed the markings and that grew in legend to unmarked aircraft. I was in error, the crew made a conscious effort to identify the aircraft and there were no marking. The Israeli attack planes came in and immediately went for the antennas, followed by spreading napalm on the deck. The Israeli aircraft then went after the life boats. The crew managed to string an antenna amidst that chaos, only to find that the US Fleet frequencies were being jammed. [Stick that in the pipe of those that think it was an accident, jammed US frequencies by accident]. Air Force Intelligence intercepts reported that the Israeli ground was frustrated that the ship was not immediately sunk. Israeli torpedo boats then arrived and immediately went after any floating lifeboats. [F*&king bastards]. Followed by the torpedo attack on the ship. I knew it was an intentional attack, but after this BBC documentary, there's no doubt that not only was it intentional but it was pre-planned by the Israelis and the intent was to make sure that there were no survivors. Based on the pre-planned nature of the attack on the Liberty and the retaliation that was set in motion based on only an SOS, I think it's a damn good speculation that the Israelis knew what the US response would be and that was the motivation in attacking the Liberty. The Isaelis were trying to get the US to nuke Cairo. The Fleet did of course come to the Liberty, 15 hours after the SOS. The Admiral was helicoptered on deck, removed his Eagles and asked what happened, as one Navy crewman to another. After the crew told the 'Admiral' what happened, he put his Eagles back on an ordered the crew never to repeat the story to anyone. In the subsequent investigation, either crew members were not called to testify, including the acting Captain, or hours of testimony from the crew were never recorded. Of the survivors, no two were ever assigned at the same location. This was not a documentary of wackos. The interviewed persons were the surviving crew, the Air Force intelligence person that captured the intercepts, an Israeli torpedo boat member, an Israeli intelligence office, the SECDEF, and an asst sec of State. Though I will say that outside of official government positions the Israelis and the SECDEF refused to respond to any questions on the Liberty. If you get a chance to catch the show, pay particular attention to the discussion on the '303 Committee'. It's a high level group that worked out of the Executive White House Building. Their purpose [allegedly] was to set US policy in certain matters such that if anything went wrong the President could deny any knowledge of the policy. One of the surviving crew members found a '303 Committee' document in the LBJ libary filed in the USS Liberty section. It's not a definitive document, i.e., the evidence isn't absolutely clear, but it raises some questions. Also what came out was that there were US reconnaisance aircraft, operated by US personnel that were re-painted with Israeli markings. The Israelis deny it, and there was a declassified overhead photo to show that there were Israeli marked recon aircraft....but the Isaelis never owned them in that time period. jttmab

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (14713)	6/12/2002 8:44:17 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Any idea on how to find the text of the Act of Congress giving Bush authority to use military force after 9/11? Message 17584891 Work back through that two or three posts to see what were after. The topic has been floating around elsewhere on SI. There was an HJ [Joint Resolution] 62 that was sponsored by 9 members of the House on 9-13 [declaring war on anyone and everyone that committed acts of terror]. It promptly was sent to the House International Committee on 9-13. It's been there ever since [Hence the phrase 'dead in committee']. I think the real answer to your question is "the Budget". Pres proposes expenditures, Congress approves it; it's authorized. Clean and simple and no debate on the pros and cons of declaring war. I've sort of thought that's the reason that there has been no official declaration of war since WWII. The Congress caucuses in conference rooms, restrooms, by e-mail, by phone and in the hallways. They agree that we should go to war. They opt for the action to approve the war through a budgetary process and avoid the debates on the floor...questions like...'Can we declare war on a stateless group of terrorists?' Why shouldn't we just stay the hell out of Vietnam or Korea? Why confuse the American people? Just fund the damn thing. Without the debate, you can more easily assert 'moral clarity'. jttmab