“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Friday, February 07, 2014

Friday Night at the Lib

111 comments:

  1. My initial comment was made to draw you into an ambush, operating from the presupposition that you would act within character, i.e. you would not be able to resist the temptation to immediately counter with an ad hominem. You did not disappoint. Since I knew where and how I would proceed to blow you out of the water, there was no need to trouble myself with continued reading. You gave me the opening I wanted and I carried out my attack as planned.

    You are ignorant of the events of 1967. You are innately hostile to the Jewish State of Israel and have used the attack on the USS Liberty as the means to express your hostility in a manner that you thought could not be challenged. This is the current method for regurgitating anti-Judaism. You were mistaken.

    Your comments directed at members of the armed forces of the United States cannot be misunderstood both explicitly and implicitly. In your estimation they participated in a conspiracy to falsify the record to cover up the facts of the event (garbage in, garbage out). Moreover, you have criminalized them by informing the reader that military members knowingly followed unlawful orders and participated in the material falsification of an official reports over the course of decades. All these actions are criminal acts covered within the UCMJ.

    Since your credibility is now in tatters and your little boat is with Davy Jones, there is nothing more to say other than, “Thank you! I could not have done it without you.”

    Oh, yes, Q.E.D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. quirk: Add to those, WiO's argument that the Liberty was taken over by rogue NSA pirates and that they were transmitting Israeli battle plans to the Egyptians and that was the reason Israel attacked them

      No I have said the OFFICIAL NSA folk, ordered the USS LIBERTY into the situation. Never have I ever said "rouge".

      And I have said that the NSA was transmitting the "electronic signatures" and comm intel, never have i said "battle plans"

      For someone that is as high on the IQ scale as you tell us you miss a lot of details, now I being just a nitwit I have an excuse.

      But you Quirk?

      We expect you to have fidelity to the facts of the discussion...

      You disappoint me...

      :( <----sad face

      Delete
    2. .

      You disappoint me WiO.

      I seem to recall the specifics rather clearly. But not to argue. Bob was asking for reasons why Israel would attack the Liberty. You have just given him your 'corrected' version.

      .

      Delete
    3. .

      Now Allen, on the other hand.

      My initial comment was made to draw you into an ambush, operating from the presupposition that you would act within character, i.e. you would not be able to resist the temptation to immediately counter with an ad hominem. You did not disappoint. Since I knew where and how I would proceed to blow you out of the water, there was no need to trouble myself with continued reading. You gave me the opening I wanted and I carried out my attack as planned.

      :)

      Right. Just like you didn't read my post.

      I could almost enjoy your frequent trips into lunacy were it not also kind of a little sad.

      .

      Delete
    4. .

      You are ignorant of the events of 1967. You are innately hostile to the Jewish State of Israel and have used the attack on the USS Liberty as the means to express your hostility in a manner that you thought could not be challenged. This is the current method for regurgitating anti-Judaism. You were mistaken.

      Congratulations. You’ve shown great restraint.

      Waited until the second paragraph before bringing out the race-baiting.

      More than we could have expected.

      .

      Delete
    5. .

      Your comments directed at members of the armed forces of the United States cannot be misunderstood both explicitly and implicitly.

      Oh sure they can. You have just done it. Implicitly, explicitly, or more to the point, ‘paraphrased’ by you.

      .

      Delete
    6. .

      In your estimation they participated in a conspiracy to falsify the record to cover up the facts of the event (garbage in, garbage out).

      This is the only part of you silly rant you actually got right.

      Yet, you seem to be surprised that top officials in our government would lie to us over what they consider controversial foreign policy decisions or what they might term ‘national security’. I can only assume you have been asleep for the past fifty years.

      .

      Delete
    7. .

      Moreover, you have criminalized them by informing the reader that military members knowingly followed unlawful orders and participated in the material falsification of an official reports over the course of decades. All these actions are criminal acts covered within the UCMJ.

      More nonsense. My fight is with those at the top that gave the orders. How do you criminalize a military officer when he is given a deadline of 10 days to wrap up an affair that would normally take a couple of months to investigate. How do you criminalize an officer who follows the order to limit the witnesses he can call. How do you criminalize him when fails to call witnesses from the very country that is accused of the crime. When the writing is on the wall do you send an officer to jail for not ending his career over what is already a fait accompli?

      .

      Delete
    8. .

      Since your credibility is now in tatters and your little boat is with Davy Jones…,

      Lord, you are pompous ass.

      Geez, do you ever read this stuff before you put it out there?

      Pathetic.
      .

      Delete
    9. .
      As for my credibility, well at least I am in what I consider good company.

      From a list compiled by James Bamford[55]:

      • Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State at the time of the incident, wrote: "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."

      • Lieutenant General Marshall S. Carter, director of the National Security Agency at the time: "There was no other answer than it was deliberate."

      • Dr. Louis Tordella, the deputy director of NSA at the time: "I believed the attack might have been ordered by some senior commander on the Sinai Peninsula [where the massacres were taking place] who wrongly suspected that the Liberty was monitoring his activities." Tordella also scrawled across the top page of the formal Israeli "mistake" report, "A nice whitewash."

      • Major General John Morrison, NSA deputy director of Operations at the time: "Nobody believes that explanation. The only conjecture that we ever made that made any near sense is that the Israelis did not want us to intercept their communications at that time."

      • Walter Deeley, the senior NSA official who conducted an internal NSA investigation of the incident: "There is no way that they didn't know that the Liberty was American."

      • Captain William L. McGonnagle, the Liberty's commander: "After many years I finally believe that the attack was deliberate."

      • Richard Helms, Director of Central Intelligence at the time speaking to James Bamford: "Your chapter on the Liberty was exactly right."

      • George Christian, press secretary to President Johnson at the time: "I became convinced that an accident of this magnitude was too much to swallow."

      • Paul C. Warnke, Under Secretary of the Navy at the time: "I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units.... I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests."

      • David G. Nes, the deputy head of the American mission in Cairo at the time: "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.
      "
      • George Ball, Under Secretary of State at the time: "American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens."


      Add to the list, various well known writers, numerous articles from major newspapers, documentaries, millions of people worldwide, and most importantly the heroes that still survive from the attack on that day.

      Yea, I can live with the company I keep.

      .

      Delete
    10. A pompous blowhard who is legend in his own mind.

      Delete
    11. .

      As for WiO's correction above it came from my response to Bob that was posted on the previous stream.

      QuirkFri Feb 07, 06:09:00 PM EST

      .

      Bob: "WHY would Israel want to attack the Liberty maliciously?

      If you can give a cogent answer to that you would be taken more seriously."

      Bob, we have discussed the Liberty attack a dozen times here. What more does it take to get you off your ass and look into it yourself?

      The following article kind of lays out some of the theories as to why Israel might have attacked the USS Liberty.

      http://wikispooks.com/wiki/USS_Liberty_Incident

      Add to those, WiO's argument that the Liberty was taken over by rogue NSA pirates and that they were transmitting Israeli battle plans to the Egyptians and that was the reason Israel attacked them. The article also mentions the 13 'investigations' Allen talks about. The following gives in cursory summary of those 13 'investigations'.

      http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-okeefe.html

      As far as I was able to find the author, Christol, never came back with a rebuttal on the various reports that were put out on the true nature of the investigations he quoted in his book.

      There are a few Wiki articles out there talking about the Liberty incident, some of them more detailed than other. Here's just one.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

      If you are interested in why a supposed ally of the US would attack an American ship, look it up. I've given you some links to start you off. However, the question today is was the attack an accident?

      What does Occam's Razor tell you?

      You have what has been called one of the most easily recognized ships in the American fleet what with its massive radar and antenna displays clearly marked with US (not Egyptian) lettering cruising along in international waters at 5 knots on a clear day with an American flag flying and sailors sun bathing on the deck, when after some initial flybys they are attacked by Israeli planes and boats for between one and two hours as their communication was being jammed and their life boats strafed even though part way through the attack the crew went and got an even larger American flag and displayed it.

      To me the circumstance imply either that the Israeli army was either the most incompetent bunch of shits in the world (something argued against by the performance in the '67 war) or the attacked was intentional and all else is just lie and cover-up.


      .

      Delete
  2. That's a record. Not even one non-Israel post intervened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deuce can put up his own threads to be hijacked by the Conga Line, I'm through.

      Delete
    2. .

      Sorry, T.

      That's pretty nice music. I like it.

      .

      Delete
    3. Teresita RedingerFri Feb 07, 07:50:00 PM EST
      Deuce can put up his own threads to be hijacked by the Conga Line, I'm through.

      LOL again? is this the 12th time?

      Delete
    4. I'm with ya on that WiO. Too funny!

      Delete
    5. I can't imagine the number of time TzR has threatened to walk out on old man Redinger.

      He surely just yawns by now.

      Quirk, do not forget Admiral Thomas Moorer, Joint Chief, the only high name I can drop, whose was uncle to one of dad's law partners.

      Around here, I often think of Ash, good man, as our joint chief.

      ar,ar,ar

      Delete
    6. Ash, honorable man, my bison's butt is more attractive than your face.

      Delete
  3. As I've stated before, garbage in garbage out. 13 times 0 equals zero.
    You certainly did, and in this you are so right: garbage in garbage out – something you might think about.

    How can you slander a bunch of pencil pushing clerks that did what they were told to do.
    What were they told to do? Please share. Such a confident statement must be backed by fact. Yeah, what were they told to do, and by whom? Again, please share.

    perfidy : the quality or state of being faithless or disloyal : treachery
    Who was perfidious? To be fair, please share some evidence of Jewish perfidiousness from the record (that would not be Wiki).

    nearly 200 Americans killed
    You were only off by a factor of nearly six (6). Are you always so lose with facts when challenged? Might such temperamental disregard for accuracy inform your other feelings? You must be a fisherman?

    I have not read any of your comments; QuirkWed Nov 27, 11:33:00 AM EST is working out just fine.

    You Aint Seen Nothing Yet

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      How can you slander a bunch of pencil pushing clerks that did what they were told to do.

      As to the original hearing on the Liberty incident we have been through this numerous times and I have provided numerous pages of post that discussed the people involved and what they were instructed to do. I'm not going to go through it again. If you want I can list you a number of links, videos, documentaries, book references, articles that will explain it to you.

      Again.

      Now, if you are talking about the subsequent 'investigations', as I was when I made the statement, I have provided you with a couple links describing the so-called 'investigations' you cite that have occurred 'over the years' involving your 'innumerable' military personnel. Once you have a grasp of what these 'investigations' consisted of, it is clear that all that these legions of military were asked to do was provide copies of the transcripts from the previous review to the people holding hearings.

      Who was perfidious? To be fair, please share some evidence of Jewish perfidiousness from the record (that would not be Wiki).

      Obviously, Israel was perfidious.

      You have what has been called one of the most easily recognized ships in the American fleet what with its massive radar and antenna displays clearly marked with US (not Egyptian) lettering cruising along in international waters at 5 knots on a clear day with an American flag flying and sailors sun bathing on the deck, when after some initial flybys they are attacked by Israeli planes and boats for between one and two hours as their communication was being jammed and their life boats strafed even though part way through the attack the crew went and got an even larger American flag and displayed it.

      As to the proof, over the years we have posted here documentaries, book references, testimony from the individuals involved, affidavits, newspaper articles, books you name it. You are not looking for proof. You merely continue to state your silly 13-0 meme as if it will really convince anyone. Face it, no one here buys your bullshit on this (unless Bob still remains unconvinced after the links I gave him to read and research).

      nearly 200 Americans killed

      Obviously a careless error on my part as it should have read 'nearly 200 killed or injured'. I'm sure I can dig up plenty of posts where I have stated the exact numbers. But Quirk's making a careless remark is hardly the issue here is it? The issue is Allen trying to distract from the real issue, did Israel intentionally attack the USS Liberty in international waters. And the answer to that question appears pretty clear. Yes, they did.

      When I went back to see the context of that quote you put up, I noticed some quotes from you that were included in the next stream Deuce put up.

      allenWed Nov 27, 01:38:00 AM EST

      They may have a plan, but so do we.

      Israelis are well versed in history and Obama will not be the first emperor to get a face full of Jewish spit.

      Israel cannot win a war conventionally with the US. But we don't need to, because wecan destroy your civilization.

      Do yourself a favor and have a look at our tenacity in war.


      It was the use of the personal pronouns that struck me when I saw the post. I split the sentences and bolded the pronouns to emphasize the point. Reading this, it is clear to me why you continue to propagandize over the Liberty.

      You Aint Seen Nothing Yet

      Gosh, Allen, how bad can it get?

      .




      Delete
    2. Quirk,

      I quickly perused your comment above...nothing new.

      I spoke only to your single mischaracterization of our military personnel (27 Nov 2013) following 13 investigations over 47 years. Your effort to divert attention from this singular event will not work because I do not intend to participate.

      You have not addressed the issues of my rehearsal of your insulting comments about US military personnel: garbage purveyors, pencil/paper pushers, just following orders (Nuremburg defense).

      You made statements that you cannot now (or ever) prove with evidence. The character assassination of honorable men now long dead, e.g. Admiral McCain, is despicable.

      Your "error" on the number of dead is indicative of your method of debate: throw it against the wall and see what sticks. You really should take care not to let your visceral exertions get ahead of disciplined research.

      No, you have not shown that Israel was/is perfidious. Your egotistic ruminations are not dispositive.

      You may squirm as much as you please, but that will not exonerate your grossly insulting mischaracterization of the US military with reference ONLY to your statement of record, dated 27 Nov. 2013.

      You said what you said on that date; live with it.

      As the duplicity, disingenuity, and evasion contained in your statement above proves, there was no need for me to waste precious time reading and responding to the voluminous scribblings you posted beforehand. I doubt I shall.

      Again, I will stick with your statement of 27 Nov. 2013 to demonstrate your true colors. You were perfectly at ease denigrating the armed forces of your country, if it would cast mine in an unfavorable light. You have not nor will you succeed, as 13 conscientious investigations over 47 years would have proven to anyone other than a bigot with an agenda.

      I have no more to say on this matter.

      Delete
    3. .

      Rant on Allen, or read the material that was out there and learn.

      I have no more to say on this matter.

      Nonsense, who was it that brought up the issue tonight? Certainly, not me.

      Who was it that has brought it up so many times before?

      You will bring it up again. You can't help yourself. You are trying to defend the indefensible and convince others to your way of thinking. I imagine it gets a little frustrating when no one bites.

      No need for you "to waste precious time reading and responding to the voluminous scribblings" I posted beforehand? Of course not, that might destroy the only thing you have to hang on to, the meme of those 13 'investigations', two of which never occurred (talk about misstatements, 'something you will have to live with :) ), three of which were conducted by the Israelis (why would anyone suspect they might lie, hmmn, Lavon Affair anyone) and most of the others which offered nothing new and were only tangentially related to the actual attack.

      No, you will have more to say on the matter. You always do. Unfortunately, it is always the same theme. Trying to shift the argument from the deaths of American servicemen to the besmirching of the reputation of poor old Admiral McCain. (Although, I note you have no trouble besmirching the character of other members of the military, of Secretaries of States, of heads of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of US ambassadors, of CIA officials, of the head of the NSA, and the Liberty survivors, naw, no problem there.)

      Good luck with that.

      I'll talk to you again the next time you bring it up. Count on it.

      .



      Delete
    4. I sense seriousness and determination in q13 here.


      That preternatural feeling he exudes before engaging in true battle.

      At such times I have learned to:

      Watch out trouble is coming.

      I stand aside at such times.

      Delete
    5. Maria, that brave young woman, told me once, "that is the only time I really like Quirky, when he is really pissed at someone.......ooooooohhhh.......and he's never pissed at me........aaaaahhhh, he CAN be so coooool..."

      Delete
    6. Umatilla Jack always heads for his teepee at such times when the storm clouds are building........I try to remember to bring my camera.....the one with the really long distance telephoto lens........even Hamdoon, our Boss, generally heads for the nearest quiet bar..........we've all been there before.....

      Delete
    7. Quirk,

      Although, I note you have no trouble besmirching the character of other members of the military, of Secretaries of States, of heads of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of US ambassadors, of CIA officials, of the head of the NSA, and the Liberty survivors, naw, no problem there.)

      That, Sir, is a lie. I have not spoken ill of these people.

      What I have said is that the experience of the crew was real, but Israel's conduct was not malicious.

      Once again, you have let your temper overcome the evidence.

      I will expect you to prove your allegation.

      Delete
    8. Farmer BobSat Feb 08, 05:56:00 AM EST
      I stand aside at such times.

      Yes, Bob, I am quaking in my boots!

      I just called him a liar. I will expect him to prove me wrong. If I have spoken ill of those good men, he should have no trouble proving it. Since I have not, I stand by my assessment of the vermin.

      Delete
  4. Nice musical interlude.

    I now seem to dimly remember swearing off the Liberty argument several arguments ago. I am sticking with that. I don't know what the hell happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. And since it was nearly three generations ago, in the over all scheme of things, I don't much care.

      More concerned with the jihadis, Iran, our police state, etc.

      Delete
    3. It's in the 'Who Killed Kennedy" category for me.

      Delete
  5. Meanwhile in Australia good sense seems to be holding firm -

    Australia: Muslim who married 13-year-old girl has bail refused over child sex charges

    Robert Spencer Feb 7, 2014 at 9:25am Australia, child marriage Jihad Watch



    Despite the abundant attestation for child marriage in Islamic law, most non-Muslims remain completely ignorant of it, because Islamic apologists in the West routinely deny that it exists, insisting that Aisha was 18 when Muhammad married her, and claiming that the incidence of child marriage in Muslim countries is due solely to cultural factors (they hope you don’t notice that those cultures are Islamic). Those who point out that child marriage will come West with Muslim immigrants receive in response only ridicule and scorn as “bigots” and “Islamophobes.” But note that this story is from Australia, not Yemen or Iran or Saudi Arabia. And while Ahmad Chamma has been prosecuted, watch for pressure to amount to lower the legal marriage age, on the grounds of “multiculturalism” and “tolerance.”

    Few things are more abundantly attested in Islamic law than the permissibility of child marriage. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage:


    “The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).
    .
    Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:


    The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah”s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah”s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.

      Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today. And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.

      Likewise the influential website Islamonline.com in December 2010 justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but the Qur’an as well:


      The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur"an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur”an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.
      .
      Other countries make Muhammad’s example the basis of their laws regarding the legal marriageable age for girls. Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”

      Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.

      “Man who ‘married’ 13-year-old girl has bail refused over child sex charges,” from the Australian Associated Press, February 7 (thanks to Twostellas):


      A Sydney man has been refused bail after being charged over allegations of a live-in sexual relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

      Ahmad Chamma, 26, allegedly met a 12-year-old girl in the Hunter region in 2012 and became involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with her.

      The pair then allegedly moved to a house in Sydney’s south-west, where they continued the relationship.

      Police claim the man and child were married in a religious ceremony in NSW earlier this year and the schoolgirl is now 13.

      He was charged with 25 counts of sexual intercourse with a child between 10 and 14 years.

      The man made a brief appearance at Burwood local court on Friday and spoke via an Arabic interpreter.

      He made no application for bail and it was formally refused.

      The court heard he will make a bail application during his next court appearance on 12 February at the same court.

      The child has been taken into care.
      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/02/australia-muslim-who-married-13-year-old-girl-has-bail-refused-over-child-sex-charges?utm_source=Jihad+Watch+Daily+Digest&utm_campaign=cbd4405645-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ffcbf57bbb-cbd4405645-97529822

      .

      Delete
    2. Meanwhile the usual non sense and subversion holds firm under Obama in our sad nation -

      Obama Administration unilaterally eases restrictions on immigrants with ties to jihad terror groups

      Robert Spencer Feb 7, 2014 at 8:36am Barack Obama, Useful idiots Jihad Watch

      Militants of al Shabaab train with weapons on a street in the outskirts of Mogadishu

      Honey, the new neighbors are wearing ski masks, waving around AK-47s and screaming “Allahu akbar.” What could possibly go wrong? “Administration eases restrictions on asylum seekers with loose terror ties,” by Judson Berger for FoxNews.com, February 6 (thanks to all who sent this in):


      The Obama administration has unilaterally eased restrictions on asylum seekers with loose or incidental ties to terror and insurgent groups, in a move one senator called “deeply alarming.”

      The change, approved by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, was announced Wednesday in the Federal Register. It would allow some individuals who provided “limited material support” to terror groups to be considered for entry into the U.S.

      Supporters of the change, including Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., argued that the current ban on anyone who has ever aided terrorists has unfairly blocked thousands of refugees.

      “The existing interpretation was so broad as to be unworkable,” Leahy said in a statement. “It resulted in deserving refugees and asylees being barred from the United States for actions so tangential and minimal that no rational person would consider them supporters of terrorist activities.”

      But critics say despite the good intentions, the change raises security concerns, particularly after a report published Thursday on asylum fraud.

      Delete
    3. “In light of these and other facts, it is thus deeply alarming that the Obama administration would move unilaterally to relax admissions standards for asylum seekers and potentially numerous other applicants for admission who have possible connections to insurgent or terrorist groups,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a statement on Thursday. “We need to tighten security standards for asylum, not relax them even further.”

      Sessions also complained that the administration was, on its own, altering the Immigration and Nationality Act. “What is the point of Congress passing a law if the administration abuses its ‘discretion’ to say that law simply no longer applies?” he said.

      The change would apply to people the U.S. government does not consider a threat but could nevertheless be tied to terror groups, and therefore barred from entry. A Department of Homeland Security official said these individuals have been “adversely affected by the broad terrorism bars of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).”

      The official offered several examples of how the change might help otherwise innocent refugees — including a restaurant owner who served food to an opposition group; a farmer who paid a toll to such a group in order to cross a bridge or sell his food; or a Syrian refugee who paid an opposition group to get out of the country.

      “These exemptions cover discrete kinds of limited material support that have adversely affected refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants and other travelers: material support to non-designated terrorist organizations that was insignificant in amount, provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, or humanitarian interactions, or provided under significant pressure,” the official said.

      The official said the change would let the administration apply the exemptions on a “case-by-case basis” after a review that already includes rigorous security screening. “Our screening procedures check applicants’ names and fingerprints against a broad array of records of individuals known to be security threats, including the terrorist watch list, and those of law enforcement concern,” the official said.

      Though the change would apply to those who helped non-designated terror groups, Sessions noted that Al Qaeda, for example, was not officially designated as a foreign terror organization until 1999.

      Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, claimed the change was another effort to maximize the number of people being allowed into the country.

      “This administration no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt in making these kinds of rule changes,” he said. “The consequences are potentially dire for … public safety.”

      The Washington Times also reported Thursday that a 2009 fraud assessment found at least 70 percent of asylum applications had signs of fraud.
      .
      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/02/obama-administration-unilaterally-eases-restrictions-on-immigrants-with-ties-to-jihad-terror-groups?utm_source=Jihad+Watch+Daily+Digest&utm_campaign=cbd4405645-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ffcbf57bbb-cbd4405645-97529822

      Delete
    4. May all these wonderful moslem immigrants move to Mississippi and settle down the road from r2.

      Would serve him right.

      He might either to have to quit drinking, or risk death.

      Not wishing either choice on the old geezer r2, but it might wake him up from his deep slumbers.

      Delete
    5. Why do the Republicans keep calling this kind of shit 'worrisome' or 'deeply troubling'?

      Why don't they call it what it is - subversion and another effort to further the ruination of our country?

      Every Obama move is an effort to weaken the country in one way or another.
      '

      Delete
  6. Political music - Democrats Sucking Wind In Colorado



    Poll: Democrats sucking wind in Colorado

    posted at 11:53 am on February 7, 2014 by Guy Benson




    Vulnerable Democrats didn’t need Barack Obama’s permission to shun him through November; they were already doing so. Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) performed rhetorical back flips to avoid answering whether he’d like the president to campaign with him in the Rocky Mountain state on CNN last week, and the “why” is not a mystery. Ed touched on this earlier, but here are Quinnipiac’s new numbers:


    - The incumbent does not top 45 percent (which is also his job approval number) support against any hypothetical Republican challenger. He’s locked in virtual ties in the low 40′s against several.

    - The president’s job approval score is 22 points underwater (37/59), and (29/67) among independents.

    - Only 42 percent of Coloradans say Udall deserves to be re-elected. A majority of respondents said a candidate’s support for Obamacare would make them less likely to vote for that person.

    - Voters in the state disapprove of Obamacare generally by a (37/60) margin. This poll was taken before the CBO released its projection that the law will cost the US economy 2.3 million full-time workers.

    - By a 30-point margin (!) Coloradans said President Obama campaigning for Udall would make them less likely than more likely to back Udall.

    Toxic. Reading into 2016 presidential polling at this stage is ridiculous, but just for kicks, Hillary Clinton is either trails or is virtually tied with four potential GOP candidates in the battleground state:


    Clinton 43, Christie 42
    Clinton 44, Cruz 43
    Clinton 43, Rand Paul 47
    Clinton 43, Paul Ryan 48

    Seventy-seven percent of respondents said they’d heard about Christie’s bridge controversy, with 57 percent believing it would “damage” his presidential chances. Colorado voters split (36/42) on whether the New Jersey governor would make a good president, down from (48/29) in November. The feeding frenzy has taken its toll, and national Democrats are trying to plunge the dagger.


    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2014/02/07/poll-democrats-sucking-wind-in-colorado/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Cruz is an Android.

      If he were human, wouldn't he let a ray of sunshine touch his face?

      "Hispanic"

      The Most racist person I've met as an adult (didn't keep score as a kid, wasn't a big deal) was a Cuban guy.

      He called blacks the N word, never commented on Mexicans since none were owners of the Condos I managed here.

      Guy from Georgia also bitched to me about blacks - on the lawn about 2 floors below one of our black owners or guests.

      Delete
    2. If they try plunging a dagger into Christie (sic) the will be treated to a repeat of that exploding rotten whale.

      Is "Christy," or "Christie" more masculine, I ask you, dear reader.

      Delete
    3. "Christie" sounds like a Playmate Centerfold to me.

      ...then again, so does "Christy"

      Delete
  7. Ash (well named) is our Chief Joint.

    ReplyDelete
  8. About those phoney Admin Figures our left-wing asskissing troll plies this site with:


    Number of Obamacare sign-ups is greatly inflated


    First, Medicaid. This week, the health consulting firm Avalere found that only 1 to 2 million of the 6.3 million who signed up for Medicaid were new enrollees brought into the program by Obamacare. The rest were people who were eligible and would have signed up for Medicaid irrespective of Obamacare, in addition to people who were already on Medicaid but were renewing their status. (The researchers reached their conclusion by comparing the Obamacare sign-ups with a recent period before the new health law went into effect.)

    If the Avalere report is accurate — and experts are taking it seriously — then less than one-third, and perhaps less than one-quarter, of the new Medicaid sign-ups cited by the administration were previously uninsured people gaining coverage because of Obamacare.

    That's a major shortfall.

    ---

    Then there are the roughly three million people said to have signed up for private insurance. In mid-January, the Wall Street Journal reported that a relatively small percentage of the new sign-ups were previously uninsured Americans gaining coverage through Obamacare. The rest were people who were covered and lost that coverage in the market disruptions largely caused by Obamacare.

    A McKinsey and Co. survey cited by the Journal found that just 11 percent of private insurance signups were people who previously had no coverage. Other surveys found that about one-quarter of new sign-ups were previously uninsured.

    Whatever the precise number, it appears that a large majority of the activity in Obamacare private coverage sign-ups is essentially a churn operation: The system throws people out of their coverage, and then those people come to the system to sign up for new coverage, and that is reported as a gain for Obamacare.

    Put the two together — Medicaid and private insurance — and it's clear the response of the nation's uninsured to Obamacare has been far less enthusiastic than the administration claims. Which means that the Affordable Care Act has gotten off to a terrible start at its core mission, insuring the uninsured.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A McKinsey and Co. survey cited by the Journal found that just 11 percent of private insurance signups were people who previously had no coverage. Other surveys found that about one-quarter of new sign-ups were previously uninsured.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The system throws people out of their coverage, and then those people come to the system to sign up for new coverage, and that is reported as a gain for Obamacare.

      Sounds good to me.

      Delete
  10. DougSat Feb 08, 07:07:00 AM EST

    Ash (well named) is our Chief Joint.

    ******


    ar, ar, ar

    Not bad, n o t bad, if I says so me self......


    You hear that one there, Ashtray?.....ar, ar, ar......

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Breaking on Fox News this morning.......

      Now the Insurance Companies are dropping out of ObamaCare......

      First, you couldn't keep policy, even if you liked it

      Then, you couldn't keep your doctor, even if you liked your doc

      Now, you got no insurance company

      This means, you're shit out of luck.....

      Up shit crick without a paddle....

      Left twisting slowly, slowly in the wind.....

      But the death panels are still operative....

      Delete
    2. The Left's always been about twisting in the wind and dying.

      Delete
  12. "Bob, we have discussed the Liberty attack a dozen times here. What more does it take to get you off your ass and look into it yourself?"

    Pan Fried Potatoes Might Work

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we had had some Bikini Clads strapped to the masts, I might have checked it out.

      ...at least on YouTube

      Delete
    2. Doug,

      It's too early for babes. But I would take two eggs over-easy, a brazed chicken breast, and two slices of whole wheat toast - oh, and a cup of hot tea.

      :-)

      Delete
  13. Clint Eastwood saved a guy's life at Pebble, btw.

    Delivered the Heimlich to the Cheese Eating Porker.

    Porker, at 202 lbs exclaimed:

    "He tossed me into the air three times."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...this was the SECOND Time said porker had choked.

      Remedial Eating Classes are in order.

      Delete
  14. Quirk,

    I will try to simplify things.

    On 27 Nov 2013 you wrote:

    How can you slander a bunch of pencil pushing clerks that did what they were told to do.

    I responded,

    What were they told to do? Please share. Such a confident statement must be backed by fact. Yeah, what were they told to do, and by whom? Again, please share.

    Come on Quirk: Answer the two simple questions: 1) What orders were given the "pencil pushing clerks" and 2) By whom were these orders given?

    A Liberty authority like yourself should have no problem answering these questions, upon which your entire thesis of Jewish perfidy hang. Surely, Wiki has that information. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We need facts to prove Jews Perfidious?

      Since when?

      ...and don't go gettin the '37 and '14 Olympics confused.

      At least Hitler had toilets that flushed.

      Delete
    2. correcton: perfidy hangs...circumcised...

      "We need facts to prove Jews Perfidious?" It does ring rhetorical in Quirk's world, I know, Doug. In Quirk's world Jews all have long hooked noses, also is a known fact from the "research" he has supplied - except for me...I was cheated.

      Hey, Hitler was the man...thought he had it down, until that "darky" American mongrel cleaned his clock.

      Delete
    3. I heard he had his hair processed, to avoid any kinks.

      Delete
  15. Waiting at the far end of the ObamaCare Death Spiral ----->> The Death Panels......

    (the last man standing so to speak, ar, ar, ar)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Doug is on to something, the toilets probably did flush at Hitler's games, the Vodka drinking Roossians still haven't caught up........no wonder the Ukrainians want to join the west......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Things are bad when an r2 outhouse is an improvement in plumbing.........

      Delete
    2. "Most Expensive Olympics"

      Hell, 60 Billion is pocket change for Obammie.

      First Lady just dumps it in the trash.

      Maid's love her.

      Delete
    3. Hey, Hitler was into Alcohol, what's not for Rufie to like?

      ...methanol, not ethanol, but we won't tell r2 'til it's too late.

      "Point of Order, r2"

      Delete
  17. Farmer BobFri Feb 07, 04:08:00 PM EST
    What is your answer to this question, Quirk:

    WHY would Israel want to attack the Liberty maliciously?

    If you can give a cogent answer to that you would be taken more seriously.




    Bob,

    I have tried to cut my way through the rubble to see if you got an answer, cogent or otherwise. Where is that answer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I can tell, still undetermined by q13 at this time, but I'm pledged not get entangled in the argument.

      So, I'm 'out'.

      Delete
    2. Whatis your answer to this question, Quirk:

      WHY would Israel want to attack the Liberty maliciously?

      If you can give a cogent answer to that you would be taken more seriously.


      If Israel was attacking the Liberty purpose, why not sink it? No witnesses...

      Delete
    3. Actually a darn good point.

      Dead men tell no tales.

      Delete
    4. Why did the Israeli planes use napalm rather than bombs? Why didn't they return with bombs?

      Delete
  18. https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVmOtgoPDeG5EI4c5es_cFtnDqdHZrxQBh1XlQvcbhLmULJCoJ2A

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn, you can't even fish in the crapper what's this world coming to?

      Delete
    2. Re: cogent

      Bob,

      :-D)))

      Of course, you know this means war! :-D)))

      Brilliant response...

      Delete
    3. It always runs downhill. Someone probably did not take out the temporary commode/trap plugs; in which case it will run uphill. They should have stuck with Turkish toilets or chamber pots.

      Delete
  19. Lest we forget:

    "I didn't get a photo op with Hitler, but I didn't get one with FDR, either."

    Jesse Owens

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Father of Your Beloved Welfare State.

      Why do you trash your father?

      Delete
    2. Why must you make everything "personal?"

      You're a disappointment, Doug.

      Delete
  20. What does Occam's Razor tell you?

    If Israel was attempting to sink a ship it would have.

    The simplest explanation was mistake.

    Quirk argues that the USS Liberty was the easily recognizable as a US ship.

    "You have what has been called one of the most easily recognized ships in the American fleet what with its massive radar and antenna displays clearly marked with US (not Egyptian) lettering cruising along in international waters at 5 knots on a clear day with an American flag flying and sailors sun bathing on the deck, when after some initial flybys they are attacked by Israeli planes and boats for between one and two hours as their communication was being jammed and their life boats strafed even though part way through the attack the crew went and got an even larger American flag and displayed it."

    So during an active war, no nation has ever used deception when marking their ships?

    hmmm...

    Israel should trust that a ship, 9 miles off the coast of Gaza was friendly.

    I guess America has never had any friendly fire incidents.

    This does not absolve the NSA for violating fleet orders and putting the Liberty 200 in harms war.

    The USS Liberty was supposed to be 200 miles away, with the rest of the American fleet....

    Who is to say the Liberty was not Soviet, British, Egyptian, French?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another good point.

      Dang, I'm supposed to be staying out of it....

      That's my last.

      Delete
    2. Quirk loves to say that the IDF jets should have been able to see that the ship was American cause there were sailors sunbathing on the deck and there was an American flag..

      now that's proof during a war that the ship was friendly...

      /off sarcasm

      I know the Israelis have good eye sight but sunbathing sailers? and a FLAG?

      wow...

      Delete
  21. CBO estimates the Deficit will fall by another 24% this year.

    Calculated Risk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems you have a real love/hate relationship with the CBO.

      Delete
    2. The CBO's methodology is quite constrained, sometimes ridiculously, by law. On some things they are quite good, on some things, eh, and some things, notoriously shitty (multi-year predictions.)

      You take what you like *need,* and leave the rest (props to Robbie Robertson.)

      Delete
    3. "Take the case of a couple of 55-year-olds living in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, where the median household income is a little over $68,000," wrote the Weekly Standard's John McCormack. "Let's say that they earn $62,040 in 2014. They would pay $211 per month for the cheapest Obamacare plan available on healthcare.gov. But if they earn $62,041—just one dollar more—they would pay $1,342 per month. "That's an extra $13,572 per year for the same bare-bones insurance plan."

      The cost of earning more than the threshold varies based on age, McCormack noted. It could cost a couple in their 30s a little more than $4,000, but for a couple who are both 64, a year short of qualifying for Medicare, it could cost more than $20,000.

      "Whether or not it's a good thing to encourage workers to cut their hours or quit their jobs is a matter of debate among Obamacare's supporters and opponents," McCormack wrote. "Liberals point out that some people will gladly choose to work less now that they have greater economic security."

      lol

      Delete
    4. quantitative easing as easing the fed is only pumping 65 BILLION a month into the bond market...

      or 3/4's of a trillion a year...

      LOL

      Delete


  22. American Snowboarder Earns First Gold of Games


    By JOHN BRANCHFEB. 8, 2014





    Go to previous slide



    Go to next slide



    Go to slide 1 of 12
    Go to slide 2 of 12
    Go to slide 3 of 12
    Go to slide 4 of 12
    Go to slide 5 of 12
    Go to slide 6 of 12
    Go to slide 7 of 12
    Go to slide 8 of 12
    Go to slide 9 of 12
    Go to slide 10 of 12
    Go to slide 11 of 12
    Go to slide 12 of 12

    Sage Kotsenburg of the United States gets some air during his slopestyle run in the semi-finals Doug Mills/The New York Times


    KRASNAYA POLYANA, Russia — The snowboarder Sage Kotsenburg is not someone to hold big ambitions or make grand plans. Before winning a qualifying event last month that helped send him to the Winter Olympics in slopestyle, he had not won a snowboarding competition since he was 11.

    “A mega drought,” he called it.

    And when he stood at the top of the course at Rosa Khutor Extreme Park on Saturday, he was not sure which tricks he would attempt. The one that mattered was one he had never attempted.

    “I just kind of make things up,” he explained.

    It was just another way that Kotsenburg, 20, is playfully different than most of his competitors, who have spent all winter perfecting runs that they imagined for months. And now Kotsenburg, from Park City, Utah, stands apart from the rest for the most unexpected of reasons. He has a gold medal, the first of these Games and the first in the debut of snowboard slopestyle in the Olympics.



    Related Coverage





    Interactive Feature: What Gives Mark McMorris the Edge at Slopestyle?


    “Coming here and winning, I can’t even describe the feeling,” he said.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/sports/olympics/american-snowboarder-earns-first-gold-of-games.html?_r=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With a name like Sage Kotsenburg you know he's a wise Swedish/American from the mountainous parts of Nevada somewhere. Prolly grew up rounding up winter strays on the board.

      Delete
    2. Burned sage brush at night for warmth and wrote poetry and philosophy.

      A Light in the Darkness for our wandering youth.

      Delete
  23. Breaking just now from Fax News -

    Kid from Detroit just won the winter car jacking competition at Sochi Olympics.

    ReplyDelete
  24. What is "Occupation"Sat Feb 08, 10:38:00 AM EST

    "Take the case of a couple of 55-year-olds living in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, where the median household income is a little over $68,000," wrote the Weekly Standard's John McCormack. "Let's say that they earn $62,040 in 2014. They would pay $211 per month for the cheapest Obamacare plan available on healthcare.gov. But if they earn $62,041—just one dollar more—they would pay $1,342 per month. "That's an extra $13,572 per year for the same bare-bones insurance plan."

    The cost of earning more than the threshold varies based on age, McCormack noted. It could cost a couple in their 30s a little more than $4,000, but for a couple who are both 64, a year short of qualifying for Medicare, it could cost more than $20,000.

    "Whether or not it's a good thing to encourage workers to cut their hours or quit their jobs is a matter of debate among Obamacare's supporters and opponents," McCormack wrote. "Liberals point out that some people will gladly choose to work less now that they have greater economic security."


    I checked this out, and, according to the Kaiser Calculator, It's True.

    My apologies to Quirk; I pooh-poohed it when he brought it up, earlier.

    This is quite an astonishing thing, and is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . well, shit, I don't know "what" it is.

    Amazing. I'm glad I'm not in charge of fixing it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. QuirkFri Feb 07, 07:26:00 PM EST
    .

    You disappoint me WiO.

    I seem to recall the specifics rather clearly. But not to argue. Bob was asking for reasons why Israel would attack the Liberty. You have just given him your 'corrected' version.


    If your intent was "not to argue" then why add the smarted "CORRECT" ad lib.

    Please provide any example of where I ever said "rouge NSA" and I will duly apologize. As well as "transmitting Battle Plans" to the Egyptians. Your comprehension of my point is quite lacking.

    Til then I am not impressed with your "recall" abilities or your ability to understand my points.

    Maybe it's because you are in a rush to put me down and feel good about your superior abilities that restrict your comprehension skills.

    Slow down Quirk, insult me slowly and put me down with care, do a little better at reading my points, improve your comprehension...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You would think a guy who missed the KIA count by a factor of nearly 6 would show a little humility.

      Delete
  26. The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down (take what you need, and leave the rest - but they should have never taken the very best.)

    The Band

    ReplyDelete
  27. .

    My, where to start.

    Allen: I have no more to say on this matter.

    Quirk: Nonsense, who was it that brought up the issue tonight? Certainly, not me.

    Who was it that has brought it up so many times before?

    You will bring it up again. You can't help yourself. You are trying to defend the indefensible and convince others to your way of thinking. I imagine it gets a little frustrating when no one bites.



    Well, that didn't take long. In you first post this morning you brought up the matter.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      That, Sir, is a lie. I have not spoken ill of these people.

      It is not a lie. Not if we are consistent and apply the same standard you use in charging that I have accused the members of the initial tribunals and subsequent investigations of "betraying both their brothers in arms and their country".

      You gather this from my statement regarding pencil pushing which I mentioned was used in reference to the 'innumerable' military personnel involved in conducting the infamous 13 investigations at least those subsequent to the initial review. Of those instances, three were Israeli, there is no record that two of them ever occurred except in the imagination of Mr. Christol, and the rest were for reviews that were only tangentially related to the attack. No new information was added from the initial review. If any military personnel were involved it was in doing the job of clerks, providing those conducting the review with copies of the transcript they had requested and possibly talking them through the document.

      As for the initial review, I charge the review process as being corrupted not the people who were forced to conduct it under the constraints they were given in terms of time and access to key players. For example, the order that it be completed within 'one week' when counsel stated that any similar procedure would probably take six months.

      My estimate of the subsequent hearings after the initial one reflect the detail laid out in a couple of the links I provided yesterday. You can judge my comment on the original hearing by the time it takes to investigate something like
      Benghazi today where there is at least a modicum of interest at getting to the truth.

      .

      Delete
  28. Lest anyone think that I was devastated beyond being able to respond by hearing that I disappointed r2, truth is, I fell asleep at the mouse, and did not discover this tragedy until this moment.

    Once again, r2 has skated through by deflecting the argument.

    No wonder he worships Obammie.

    ReplyDelete
  29. .

    Come on Quirk: Answer the two simple questions: 1) What orders were given the "pencil pushing clerks" and 2) By whom were these orders given?

    A Liberty authority like yourself should have no problem answering these questions, upon which your entire thesis of Jewish perfidy hang. Surely, Wiki has that information. :-)


    Once again you refuse to recognize the distinction I made between the initial inquiry and the subsequent investigations you continuously bring up. The subsequent investigations are summarized in the following link

    http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-okeefe.html

    My reference to pencil pushing clerks referred to any military personnel involved in these subsequent investigations. None of them touched on culpability as the incident was already determined to be mistaken identity. The people involved merely took transcripts of the info they already had from the initial inquiry and walked the panels through the info.

    The initial review was another matter entirely. The inquiry started on June 10 before the Liberty had even reached dock. It was completed on June 18. It was completed so rapidly in compliance with Admiral McCain’s dictate that it be completed within ‘one week’, an order that surprised the lead counsel investigating facts in the inquiring as he expected that in an instance like this where numerous lives were lost that a more reasonable timeframe for the investigation would be six months or so. The truncated timeframe resulted in a limited investigation that didn’t include interviewing many of the crew or anyone from Israel that was involved in the affair. Some of those who were interviewed indicate that their testimony was cut from the final report. One example was the seaman who reported that when the crew attempted to abandon ship they and the lifeboats were raked with machine gun fire. The Navy’s judge advocate general, Adm. Merlin Staring, was asked to review the completed report before it was sent on to Washington; however, when he started to ask pointed question about the report instead of just rubber stamping it, the report was taken back from him. He describes it now as "a hasty, superficial, incomplete and totally inadequate inquiry." The fact that the initial notifications sent out to families of the Liberty crew mentioned that the attack was the result of the misidentification cause many to believe that the inquiry verdict was already pre-determined before the inquiry started especially since the notification was sent out on June 9, the day before the inquiry started.

    These are a few of the problems cited with regard to the initial investigation. Additional ones are included in the following Chicago Tribune article. It’s a little long but worth reading if you are actually interested in this affair.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,7326127.story?page=1


    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      (continued)


      Concurrent with the inquiry, there was a marked effort to control any information going out about the Liberty attack. Crew members were interviewed and then threatened with prosecution and jail time if they ever talked about it attack again. The crew was eventually reposted and no two members of the survivors ended up in the same location. The unit citation given to the crew merely said it was because of action they were in. Israel is not mentioned in the citation. The captain of the Liberty was given the Medal of Honor but rather than it being presented in the White House by the president it was presented without fanfare, away from the press in a naval yard by the Secretary of the Navy. There is no mention of Israel in the citation.

      Who do I blame in this? Primarily, I blame Lyndon Johnson. In my opinion, Robert McNamara probably didn’t have the balls to recall the two flights of jets that got launched to go to the aid of the Liberty except under Johnson’s orders.

      There is no telling how many of the 34 dead and 171 injured would have been spared had the jets been allowed to take down any planes or boats that participated in the attack. Even if none were helped, he still should have made the effort. It was the next day before any help got there for the Liberty.

      .

      Delete
  30. .

    What is "Occupation"Sat Feb 08, 09:22:00 AM EST

    Whatis your answer to this question, Quirk:

    WHY would Israel want to attack the Liberty maliciously?

    If you can give a cogent answer to that you would be taken more seriously.


    If Israel was attacking the Liberty purpose, why not sink it? No witnesses...

    Farmer BobSat Feb 08, 09:57:00 AM EST

    Actually a darn good point.

    Dead men tell no tales.


    allenSat Feb 08, 10:12:00 AM EST

    Why did the Israeli planes use napalm rather than bombs? Why didn't they return with bombs?


    You will pardon me taking these on together. I notice you guys were busy little bees this morning.

    It appears there are two questions:

    1. Why didn't the Israeli's sink the Liberty

    You will pardon me if I smile but it almost seems like you are implying that the Israelis were merely firing a few warning shots across the bow. The planes used rockets as well as napalm. Bombs? Hell, the PT boats fired 5 torpedoes one of which tore the gut out of the Liberty. The boats also strafed the Liberty with machine gun fire. The Liberty was riddled with holes, dead in the water, most of its communication gear destroyed, and at least some of its life boats riddled with machine gun fire. The attack lasted a couple hours. But the Liberty didn't sink.

    My opinion: The Liberty was the little boat that could, the Israelis were simply the army that couldn't.


    2.Why would Israel knowingly attack the Liberty.

    The theories are numerous and range from Israel was getting ready to attack the Golan heights and didn't want anyone to know about so they attacked the Liberty from obtaining info prior to their attack to Israel wanted to destroy the Liberty and blame it on Egypt in a false flag operation (something they are known for, to WiO's favorite that the NSA had taken over the Liberty and was using it to gather Israeli secrets and pass them on to Egypt. There are others.

    Bob thanked me for the link I provided which contained information on the various theories but evidently he was too busy to read them.

    I frankly could give a shit why Israel did it. My concern is that she did it.

    My anger is centered primarily on LBJ. First, he called back two flights of jets that were being sent to aid the Liberty. I would suspect that most Americans would feel the same. Instead of destroying the enemy attacking the ship, he left the Liberty to her fate. Relief didn't reach her until the next day.

    After that, I blame him for the active cover up of the incident.

    .



    ReplyDelete
  31. .

    If Israel was attempting to sink a ship it would have.

    Obviously, not.

    The simplest explanation was mistake.

    You have what has been called one of the most easily recognized ships in the American fleet what with its massive radar and antenna displays clearly marked with US (not Egyptian) lettering cruising along in international waters at 5 knots on a clear day with an American flag flying and sailors sun bathing on the deck, when after some initial flybys they are attacked by Israeli planes and boats for between one and two hours as their communication was being jammed and their life boats strafed even though part way through the attack the crew went and got an even larger American flag and displayed it.

    To me the circumstance imply either that the Israeli army was either the most incompetent bunch of shits in the world (something argued against by the performance in the '67 war) or the attacked was intentional and all else is just lie and cover-up.


    So during an active war, no nation has ever used deception when marking their ships?

    Well, I might consider your explanation the markings; however, I finding it kind of hard to reconcile the Israeli's story about thinking it was a specific Egyptian ship with the fact that that specific Egyptian ship was only a quarter the size of the Liberty and likely wouldn't have been arrayed with all the fancy smancy antennas, communication, and radar gear.

    I keep asking myself, could the Israelis really have been as stupid as they claim they were?

    hmmm...


    Israel should trust that a ship, 9 miles off the coast of Gaza was friendly.

    Actually, it was closer to 15 miles out and in international water.


    I guess America has never had any friendly fire incidents.

    Of course, she has. So what? Each one is viewed singly on the evidence available. At this point let me remark that I assume you are trying to confuse me here. In the last couple months you have argued that the Israeli attack was deliberate. Then you were defending Allen's position. Yesterday, you were talking about why Israel would deliberately attack the Liberty. And now you are insinuating it was an accident. Can't you make up your mind?


    This does not absolve the NSA for violating fleet orders and putting the Liberty 200 in harms war.

    Don't be absurd. The Liberty was an NSA ship fitted for spy duty but it was ordered into the area she was stationed by DOD in order to keep track of what was going on in the area. The initial investigation makes clear that the reason the Liberty didn't move was that she never received the order until after the attack due to Fubar in the communication channels. At least one of the 'investigations' Allen is always talking about was set up specifically to investigate why there was problems with the communications.


    Who is to say the Liberty was not Soviet, British, Egyptian, French?

    I've already answered the Egyptian question up above. What would give Israel the right to attack ships from any of those other countries while they were in international waters. hell, if they had attacked a Russian ship, they more than likely would have had their asses shot off. Engaging a Russian ship was one of Israel's main concerns at the time.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  32. .

    09:59:00 AM EST

    Another good point.

    Dang, I'm supposed to be staying out of it....

    That's my last.



    A smart move. Hopefully it is not like Allen's "That is all I have to say on the matter.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  33. .

    Quirk loves to say that the IDF jets should have been able to see that the ship was American cause there were sailors sunbathing on the deck and there was an American flag..

    now that's proof during a war that the ship was friendly...


    Not proof, but I would think an indication they weren't too concerned about being attacked since they were after all a neutral nation and didn't expect a surprise attack from an ally.


    I know the Israelis have good eye sight but sunbathing sailers? and a FLAG?

    It was a clear day and the flag was flying. The Israelis had been flying over flights for the entire day. The crew of the Liberty reported that the planes were flying as low as 200 feet and that they were waving at the pilots.

    Are you saying the Israelis were blind as well felony stupid?

    Wow.

    .


    ReplyDelete
  34. .

    Slow down Quirk, insult me slowly and put me down with care, do a little better at reading my points, improve your comprehension...


    I suggest you slow down, my friend.

    As for reading and comprehension

    What is "Occupation"Fri Feb 07, 07:09:00 PM EST

    quirk: Add to those, WiO's argument that the Liberty was taken over by rogue NSA pirates and that they were transmitting Israeli battle plans to the Egyptians and that was the reason Israel attacked them

    No I have said the OFFICIAL NSA folk, ordered the USS LIBERTY into the situation. Never have I ever said "rouge".



    Rogue?

    Rouge?

    Rogue?

    Rouge?

    Naw, I'll stick with rogue. Why would I call them red?

    .

    ReplyDelete