18 March, 2007

Gelded Congress Puts Israel First, America Last

Posted by alex in AIPAC, Congress, Congressmen, conservatives, Iran, jew appeasers, jewed Congress, jewed foreign policy, jewed law, jewish fifth column, jewish mafia, jewish terrorists & terrorism, jews in America at 3:53 am | Permanent Link

Your Congress ain’t yours. It belongs to Israel, bought and paid for by AIPAC. American Congressmen are bought cowards, just as “American” writers, like John Curbyshire (see lower on page), are bought hacks.

How do you tell if your country is the slave of another? Match the jewish Agenda point by point against your nation’s foreign and domestic policies. You will find they are identical. “Our” political class fears the jews because they are organized and can smear anyone who opposes them to reputation-death. The best book for understanding this state of affairs was put together by a Congressman who was funded and hounded out of office for advocating a pro-American policy toward the Middle East. The book, “They Dare to Speak Out,” recently republished in a third edition, provides the background you will need to flesh out what is hinted at in the following article about the recent AIPAC meeting in Washington, D.C., the starkest annual reminder of who calls the tune in our capitol.

Inside America’s powerful Israel lobby

AIPAC’s three-day summit included fiery evangelical oratory, adoration for Dick Cheney — and new plans for going after Iran.

By Gregory Levey

At the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this week in Washington, a conservative Christian couple from eastern Tennessee told me that their son had decided to join the Israeli army. It was one of many surreal moments during the three-day gathering hosted by AIPAC, the lobbying group devoted to ensuring close U.S.-Israel ties that remains extraordinarily influential in Washington. “We just love God, and we just love Israel,” the couple beamed, when I asked why they had come to the conference.

Amid an energized and at times almost circuslike atmosphere, just about everyone in attendance shared two main preoccupations: the 2008 U.S. presidential election and confronting Iran. And this year’s conference saw record attendance: more than 6,000 people, coming from every state in the country and exceeding last year’s crowd of around 5,000. Many of them were American Jews, of course, but the evangelical Christian community also made a strong showing. For those feeling apocalyptic about the turmoil in the Middle East, pastor John Hagee was there to greet them.
Of the many prominent speakers at the conference, Hagee got one of the most enthusiastic receptions.

“The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awoken!” Hagee proclaimed, taking the microphone at the opening dinner reception on Sunday. The electrified crowd — most of it Jewish — roared in support, pounding on the tables. Hagee went on to declare the United Nations a “political brothel” and asserted that Israel must never give up land. He agreed with Israeli writer Dore Gold that granting part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians would be “tantamount to turning it over to the Taliban.” And, after rebuking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he led the crowd in a chant of “Israel lives!” urging them to “shout it from the mountaintops!”

During Hagee’s oratory, an AIPAC delegate sitting near me said, “I’m going to vote for him instead of McCain.”

AIPAC, whose own literature notes that it has been described by the New York Times as “the most important organization affecting America’s relationship with Israel,” has been highly successful in building strong relationships with both U.S. political parties. This year’s conference was attended by everyone from Vice President Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and other 2008 presidential contenders), as well as former CIA director James Woolsey. Leaders from Congress were there, as were numerous officials from the State Department and White House.

On Monday morning, Cheney got a warm reception and forceful applause for familiar speech lines, such as his assertion that the “only option” against terrorists is to “go on the offensive.” Many rank-and-file members of AIPAC seemed to be spoiling for military action against Iran — “We have to do to them what we did to Saddam,” one delegate told me — but AIPAC’s leadership remained strikingly circumspect about it. No AIPAC leaders mentioned war with Iran in the speeches, receptions or panel discussions I attended, and very few of the prominent outside speakers did either. At times this put them at odds with the grass-roots delegates; Marvin Feuer, AIPAC’s director of policy and government affairs, was verbally attacked by a conference attendee as “weak” when he downplayed military options against Iran during a Q&A session.

But AIPAC leaders are pushing for a different kind of offensive against Iran: a new program of sanctions much harsher than any prior one imposed through the United Nations. The plan, which one panelist called a “quiet campaign” to strike at Iran on the financial battlefield, would include increased pressures on foreign allies who do business with Iran, a U.S.-wide campaign of divestment, and other measures intended to put crippling economic pressure on the Islamic republic. Sarah Steelman, the state treasurer of Missouri, described how she has worked to restrict the state’s investments in companies that do business with Iran, and urged AIPAC members to lobby their own state governments to institute similar policies. Steven Perles, a lawyer, explained how it was possible to tie up the assets of the Iranian government and financial institutions by engaging them in lawsuits for their funding of terrorist groups.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has for some time been pushing for such efforts, and in a closed-door briefing during the conference he said that they could prove fatal to Iran: “Fewer and fewer companies will enter Iran. More and more will leave. Investment dollars and the technology it buys will dry up. The lifeline of a hated regime will be cut, its future imperiled.”

In addition to the many panels at the conference, which often felt akin to pep rallies, delegates also attended “lobbying labs,” where AIPAC staff schooled them on how to effectively persuade their congressional representatives to follow AIPAC policies. These sessions were not open to the media, nor even mentioned on the schedule of events distributed to members of the press. But AIPAC leaders repeatedly urged delegates to attend them. And on Tuesday, the organization deployed its army of lobbyists to push for new sanctions against Iran, which are contained in a new bill called the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, introduced by Democrat Tom Lantos and Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

When the thousands of lobbyists descended on Capitol Hill, they were greeted by nearly every U.S. senator and more than half the members of the House of Representatives — approximately 500 meetings were held between AIPAC representatives and members of Congress on Tuesday alone. In addition to pushing for the sanctions plan, the goal was to showcase the strength of AIPAC and establish more ties for future communication and lobbying.

The AIPAC activists were aided in their mission by some members of Congress themselves, who advised them how to reach out to their colleagues.

“Our commitment to Israel defines us as a nation,” said Republican Norm Coleman of Minnesota, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, adding that the AIPAC lobbyists “help make sure that we don’t forget.”

Nita Lowey, a Democratic representative from New York, said the best strategy toward that goal was to keep pointing out to lawmakers that the relationship with Israel “is in the U.S. interest.”

“I don’t sit behind my desk and come up with this stuff,” Coleman said, stressing that he often consulted AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr for policy advice. Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat from Maryland, said that she, too, often spoke to Kohr and others in the AIPAC leadership. “They’re like daily phone calls,” she said, as other Democratic and Republican members of Congress onstage nodded in agreement.

Displays of bipartisan support filled the conference. Even if Democrats and Republicans bicker on every other issue, AIPAC leaders seemed constantly eager to stress that one thing on which the parties can come together is unswerving devotion to Israel. Tuesday morning, just before the AIPAC activists got ready to descend on Capitol Hill with their talking points in hand, for example, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Republican Minority Leader John Boehner each addressed the delegates, assuring them of a staunch commitment to Israel’s security. At one point, when Pelosi took the opportunity to criticize the Bush administration’s surge plan, she was booed by some of the assembled delegates. Boehner, meanwhile, got a standing ovation, after saying, “Who does not believe that failure in Iraq is not a direct threat to the state of Israel? The consequences of failure in Iraq are so ominous for the United States you can’t even begin to think about it.”

The closing gala dinner on Monday night was attended by a who’s who of Washington’s A-list. At that event, AIPAC’s executive members — accompanied by music that was fit for a Hollywood superhero movie — read what they excitedly referred to as “the roll call” of those in attendance. It took 13 minutes and included the bulk of Congress, as well as high-ranking officials from the White House, the State Department and the National Security Council. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert — addressing the crowd via teleconference from Jerusalem — waded into America’s debate over Iraq in a manner that the Israeli leadership has avoided until now. He openly urged AIPAC delegates to push Congress to support the Bush administration’s current strategy in Iraq. In the few days since, Olmert has been sharply criticized by the Israeli press and other members of his own government. (Many in Israel believe that it is inappropriate for an Israeli head of state to try to overtly influence an American debate.)

Much focus was on who will next sit in the Oval Office. Before and after the dinner, the presidential candidates and their colleagues from Congress schmoozed with the AIPAC delegates. Circulating through the crowd, Joe Biden made sure his presence was registered. “Hi, I’m Joe Biden!” he said repeatedly, adding several times, “I’ve been hanging out with AIPAC for years!”

When one European journalist saw the throng around Biden, he ran over, asking nobody in particular, “Is that Hillary?” A few moments later, he emerged looking disappointed. “No,” he said, in all seriousness, “I don’t know who that is, but I think it might be Charlton Heston.”

Following the dinner, Clinton and Obama held competing dessert receptions in the conference center — in rooms about 25 yards apart — both eager to highlight their pro-Israel credentials. Debates ensued over which one to attend. “I can’t decide,” one AIPAC delegate said. “I’d really like to see Obama in person, but Hillary is better for Israel.”

About 1,000 people attended Obama’s event, but so many attended Clinton’s that they spilled out into the hallway.

In their effort to maintain their image of bipartisanship, AIPAC’s leadership is remaining firmly on the sidelines in looking ahead to the 2008 elections. On the surface, at least, they are maintaining the position that all the candidates will be equally good for Israel. When I inquired about Barack Obama and the oft-raised notion that he lacks foreign policy experience, AIPAC’s spokesperson, Josh Block, quickly brushed this concern aside, saying that Obama “has a strong record from his time in the Senate.” There were those at the conference, however, who had made it their mission to make sure other delegates knew that Obama had recently said, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people” at a recent event in Iowa — a statement that served to anger some AIPAC delegates.

Particularly striking, though, was the predominant attitude at the conference about the administration still in office. During the opening night’s events, large video screens behind the speaker’s podium showed a chronological slide show of U.S. presidents and their Israeli prime minister contemporaries, and when the display eventually reached George W. Bush, the room erupted into applause — far more applause than the crowd had given for Reagan, Kennedy or even Truman. And when Cheney first appeared on the stage on Monday morning, the crowd immediately rose to its feet and filled the room with loud applause, which continued intermittently through his predictably hawkish speech.

It seemed a remarkable contrast to the currently dismal public opinion polls regarding Bush and Cheney. As one delegate standing nearby commented during the vice president’s speech, “This has got to be the last crowd that still greets him this way.”


  • 8 Responses to “Gelded Congress Puts Israel First, America Last”

    1. N.B. Forrest Says:

      “The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awoken!” (a yawning) Hagee proclaimed, taking the microphone at the opening dinner reception on Sunday, (while scratching his groin and emitting a loud fart that blew off Dore Gold’s yarmulke.)

      “OUR COMMITTMENT To ISRAEL DEFINES US AS A NATION”, said Republican Kike Leech Norm Coleman of Minnesota, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, adding that the AIPAC lobbyists “HELP MAKE SURE THAT WE DON’T FORGET.”

      Ehhh, constitution, schmonstitution…….

      “i DON’T SIT BEHIND MY DESK AND COME UP WITH THIS STUFF”, Coleman said, stressing that he often consulted AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr for policy advice. Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat from Maryland, said that she, too, often spoke to Kohr and others in the AIPAC leadership. “THEY’RE LIKE DAILY PHONE CALLS”, she said, as other Democratic and Republican members of Congress onstage nodded in agreement.

      When the rags finally light the fuse on the Big One, let’s hope they do it in the District o’ Cunts during the Annual Schmuck Sucking Festival.

    2. alex Says:

      USA foreign policy controlled by Israel, November 13, 2006
      Reviewer: ESMIKCIH (ZIMBABWE) – See all my reviews
      Imagine you’re a congressman or a senator. Israeli spies are everywhere. They hear everything you say to your fellow senators in the halls of the Capitol Hill. You refrain conveying an important memo over the phone since the lines are tapped by Israel. If you say anything slightly against Israel, the AIPAC the Israeli lobby threatens your political career by smearing you with being anti-semitic and pouring money to your rival in the upcoming election. You saw all these happened to other congressmen previously. So you approve butchering the budget which was intended to strengthen cockpit doors in commercial airliners just to release more aid money to Israel. You cut down aid money for poor 3rd world countries so that Israel should get more.

      Imagine you’re a top burocreaut working at Pentagon. The fighter jets will be equipped with a just-released a high-tech air-to-air missiles. It’s a top secret. Somehow Israel knows about them, and they want to have them. You say “No, there’s a law that prohibits the release a tech secret. Besides we have only one squadron equipped with those missiles”. Somehow they force you and they get the only squadron you have.

      Israel requests a particular tank, you look for everywhere but you can’t find it. When you tell them the USA doesn’t have that kind of tank, they tell you that you do have those tanks and tell you exactly where they are stored. They know what, where, everything.

      Imagine your father is one of those 280 something marines who were killed in Beirut in 1980’s in a single attack by a shiite muslim group. When you read the book you learn that MOSSAD (the CIA of Israel) knew that the attack was going to happen but deliberately doesn’t warn USA. What else comes to your mind?

      All these are in the book. One top government officer says If Americans knew what Israel is doing to USA, they would take up arms against Israel. The book was written by Paul Findley a former USA congressman with tons of corraborating evidence. Don’t think even a second. Buy it at every cost. You will thank me.

    3. alex Says:

      The Assault on “Assault”

      ALTHOUGH Israel’s lobby seems able at will to penetrate our nation’s strongest defenses in order to gain the secret information it wishes, when the lobby’s objective is keeping such information secret, our defenses suddenly become impenetrable.

      After seventeen years, James M. Ennes Jr., a retired officer of the U.S. Navy, is still having difficulty prying loose documents which shed light on the worst peacetime disaster in the history of our Navy. In this quest, he has encountered resistance by the Department of Defense, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the book publishing industry, the news media, and the Israeli Foreign Ministry. The resistance, seemingly coordinated on an international scale, is especially perplexing because Ennes’ goal is public awareness of an episode of heroism and tragedy at sea which is without precedent in American history.

      As the result of a program of concealment supported by successive governments in both Israel and the United States, hardly anyone remembers the miraculous survival of the USS Liberty after a devastating assault by Israeli forces on June 8, 1967, left 34 sailors dead, 171 injured, and the damaged ship adrift with no power, rudder or means of communication.

      The sustained courage of Captain William L. McGonagle and his crew in these desperate circumstances earned the Liberty a place of honor in the annals of the U.S. Navy. [Obituary of McGonagle] But, despite energetic endeavors, including those of Ennes, McGonagle’s officer of the deck that day, the entries remain dim and obscure. Ennes’s stirring book-length account of the attack, Assault on the Liberty, itself continues to be under heavy assault five years after publication.

      The episode and its aftermath were so incredible that Admiral Thomas L. Moorer, who became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a month after the attack, observes, “If it was written as fiction, nobody would believe it.”

      Certain facts are clear. The attack was no accident. The Liberty was assaulted in broad daylight by Israeli forces who knew the ship’s identity. The Liberty, an intelligence-gathering ship, had no combat capability and carried only light machine guns for defense. A steady breeze made its U.S. flag easily visible. The assault occurred over a period of nearly two hours-first by air, then torpedo boat. The ferocity of the attacks left no doubt: the Israeli forces wanted the ship and its crew destroyed.

      The public, however, was kept in the dark. Even before the American public learned of the attack, U.S. government officials began to promote an account satisfactory to Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee worked through Congressmen to keep the story under control. The President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, ordered and led a cover-up so thorough that sixteen years after he left office, the episode was still largely unknown to the public — and the men who suffered and died have gone largely unhonored.

      The day of the attack began in routine fashion, with the ship first proceeding slowly in an easterly direction in the eastern Mediterranean, later following the contour of the coastline westerly about fifteen miles off the Sinai Peninsula. On the mainland, Israeli forces were winning smashing victories in the third Arab-Israeli war in nineteen years. Israeli Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, announcing that the Israelis had taken the entire Sinai and broken the blockade on the Strait of Tiran, declared: “The Egyptians are defeated.” On the eastern front the Israelis had overcome Jordanian forces and captured most of the West Bank.

      At 6 a.m. an airplane, identified by the Liberty crew as an Israeli Noratlas, circled the ship slowly and departed. This procedure was repeated periodically over an eight-hour period. At 9 a.m. a jet appeared at a distance, then left. At 10 a.m., two rocket-armed jets circled the ship three times. They were close enough for their pilots to be observed through binoculars. The planes were unmarked. An hour later the Israeli Noraltas returned, flying not more than 200 feet directly above the Liberty and clearly marked with the Star of David. The ship’s crew members and the pilot waved at each other. This plane returned every few minutes until 1 p.m. By then, the ship had changed course and was proceeding almost due west.

      At 2:00 p.m. all hell broke loose. Three Mirage fighter planes headed straight for the Liberty, their rockets taking out the forward machine guns and wrecking the ship’s antennae. The Mirages were joined by Mystère fighters, which dropped napalm on the bridge and deck and repeatedly strafed the ship. The attack continued for over 20 minutes. In all, the ship sustained 821 holes in her sides and decks. Of these, more than 100 were rocket size.

      As the aircraft departed, three torpedo boats took over the attack, firing five torpedoes, one of which tore a 40-foot hole in the hull, killing 25 sailors. The ship was in flames, dead in the water, listing precariously, and taking water. The crew was ordered to prepare to abandon ship. As iife-rafts were lowered into the water, the torpedo boats moved closer and shot them to pieces. One boat concentrated machine-gun fire on rafts still on deck as crew members there tried to extinguish the napalm fires. Petty Officer Charles Rowley declares, “They didn’t want anyone to live.”

      At 3:15 p.m. the last shot was fired, leaving the vessel a combination morgue and hospital. The ship had no engines, no power, no rudder. Fearing further attack, Captain McGonagle, despite severe leg injuries, stayed at the bridge. An Israeli helicopter, its open bay door showing troops in battle gear and a machine gun mounted in an open doorway, passed close to the deck, then left. Other aircraft came and went during the next hour.

      Although U.S. air support never arrived, within fifteen minutes of the first attack and more than an hour before the assault ended, fighter planes from the USS Saratoga were in the air ready for a rescue mission under orders “to destroy or drive off any attackers.” The carrier was only 30 minutes away, and, with a squadron of fighter planes on deck ready for a routine operation, it was prepared to respond almost instantly.

      But the rescue never occurred. Without approval by Washington, the planes could not take aggressive action, even to rescue a U.S. ship confirmed to be under attack. Admiral Donald Fagen, then captain of the America, the second U.S. carrier in the vicinity, later explained: “President Johnson had very strict control. Even though we knew the Liberty was under attack, I couldn’t just go and order a rescue.” The planes were hardly in the air when the voice of Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara was heard over Sixth Fleet radios: “Tell the Sixth Fleet to get those aircraft back immediately.” They were to have no part in destroying or driving off the attackers.

      Shortly after 3 p.m., nearly an hour after the Liberty ‘s plea was first heard, the White House gave momentary approval to a rescue mission and planes from both carriers were launched. At almost precisely the same instant, the Israeli government informed the U.S. naval attaché, in Tel Aviv that its forces had “erroneously attacked a U.S. ship” after mistaking it for an Egyptian vessel, and offered “abject apologies.” With apology in hand, Johnson once again ordered U.S. aircraft back to their carriers. When the second launch occurred, there were no Israeli forces to “destroy or drive away.” Ahead for the Liberty and its ravaged crew were 15 hours of lonely struggle to keep the wounded alive and the vessel afloat. Not until dawn of the next day would the Liberty see a U.S. plane or ship. The only friendly visit was from a small Soviet warship. Its offer of help was declined, but the Soviets said they would stand by in case need should arise.

      The next morning two U.S. destroyers arrived with medical and repair assistance. Soon the wounded were transferred to the carrier hospital by helicopter. The battered ship then proceeded to Malta, where a Navy court of inquiry was to be held. The inquiry itself was destined to be a part of an elaborate program to keep the public from knowing what really had happened.

      In fact, the cover-up began almost at the precise moment that the Israeli assault ended. The apology from Israeli officials reached the White House moments after the last gun fired at the Liberty . President Johnson accepted and publicized the condolences of Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, even though information readily available showed the Israeli account to be false. The CIA had learned a day before the attack that the Israelis planned to sink the ship. Congressional comments largely echoed the president’s interpretation of the assault, and the nation was caught up in euphoria over Israel’s stunning victories over the Arabs. The casualties on the Liberty got scant attention. Smith Hempstone, foreign correspondent for the Washington Star, wrote from Tel Aviv, “In a week since the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty not one single Israeli of the type which this correspondent encounters many times daily-cab drivers, censors, bartenders, soldiers — has bothered to express sorrow for the deaths of these Americans.”

      The Pentagon staved off reporters’ inquiries with the promise of a “comprehensive statement” once the official inquiry, conducted by Admiral Isaac Kidd, was finished. Kidd gave explicit orders to the crew: “Answer no questions. If somehow you are backed into a corner, then you may say that it was an accident and that Israel has apologized. You may say nothing else.” Crew members were assured they could talk freely to reporters once the summary of the court of inquiry was made public. This was later modified; they were then ordered not to provide information beyond the precise words of the published summary.

      The court was still taking testimony when a charge that the attack had been deliberate appeared in the U.S. press. An Associated Press story filed from Malta reported that “senior crewmen” on the ship were convinced the Israelis knew the ship was American before they attacked. “We were flying the Stars and Stripes and it’s absolutely impossible that they shouldn’t know who we were,” a crew member said. The Navy disputed the story, saying the U.S. “thoroughly accepted the Israeli apology.”

      Testimony completed, Admiral Kidd handcuffed himself to a huge box of records and flew to Washington to be examined by the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral McDonald, as well as by Congressional leaders before the long-awaited summary statement was issued. When finally released, it was far from comprehensive. It made no attempt to fix blame, focusing almost entirely on the actions of the crew.

      The censored summary did not reveal that the ship had been under close aerial surveillance by Israel for hours before the attack and that during the preceding 24 hours Israel had repeatedly warned U.S. autborities to move the Liberty. It contained nothing to dispute the notion of mistaken identity. The Navy reported erroneously that the attack lasted only 6 minutes instead of 70 minutes and asserted falsely that all firing stopped when the torpedo boats came close enough to identify the U.S. flag. The Navy made no mention of napalm or of life-rafts being shot up. It even suppressed records of the strong breeze which made the ship’s U.S. flag plainly visible.

      The report did make one painful revelation: Before the attack the Joint Chiefs of Staff had ordered the Liberty to move further from the coast, but the message “was misrouted, delayed and not received until after the attack.”

      Several newspapers criticized the Pentagon’s summary. The New York Times said it “leaves a good many questions unanswered.” The Washington Star used the word “cover-up,” called the summary an “affront” and demanded a deeper and wider probe. Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, after a closed briefing by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, called the episode “very embarrassing.” The Star concluded: “Whatever the meaning of this, embarrassment is no excuse for disingenuousness.”

      In early July, the Associated Press quoted Micha Limor, identified as an Israeli reservist who had served on one of the torpedo boats, as saying that Israeli sailors noticed three numbers as they circled the Liberty but insisted the numbers meant nothing to them.

      Lieutenant James M. Ennes, Jr., a cypher officer recovering in a hospital from shrapnel wounds, was incredulous when he read the Limor story. He had been officer of the deck. He knew the ship’s name appeared in large letters on the stern and the hull number on the bow. He knew also that a breeze made the Stars and Stripes easily visible during the day. He had ordered a new 5-by-8 foot flag displayed early on the day of the attack. By the time the torpedo boats arrived, the original flag had been shot down but an even larger 7-by-13 foot flag was mounted in plain view from a yardarm. He knew that the attackers, whether by air or surface, could not avoid knowing it was a U.S. ship. Above all else, he knew that Liberty’s intercept operators had heard the Israeli reconnaissance pilots correctly reporting to Israeli headquarters that the ship was American.

      Disturbed by the Limor story and the exchange of public messages concerning the assault, Ennes determined to unravel the story. During the four months he was bedridden at Portsmouth, United Kingdom, he collected information from his shipmates. Later, while stationed in Germany, he recorded the recollections of other crew members. Transferred to Washington, D.C., he secured government reports under the Freedom of Information Act and also obtained the full Court of Inquiry report, which was finally, after nine years, declassified in 1976 from being top secret.

      The result was Ennes’s book, Assault on the Liberty, published in 1980, two years after he retired from the Navy. Ennes discovered “shallowness” in the court’s questioning, its failure to “follow up on evidence that the attack was planned in advance” — including evidence that radio interceptions from two stations heard an Israeli pilot identify the ship as American. He said the court, ignoring the ship’s log, which recorded a steady breeze blowing and confirming testimony from crewmen, concluded erroneously that attackers may not have been able to identify the flag’s nationality, because the flag, according to the court, “hung limp at the mast on a windless day.”

      Concerning Israeli motives for the attack, Ennes wrote that Israeli officials may have decided to destroy the ship because they feared its sensitive listening devices would detect Israeli plans to invade Syria’s Golan Heights. (Israel invaded Syria the day after the Liberty attack, despite Israel’s earlier acceptance of a ceasefire with its Arab foes.)

      Ennes learned that crewmen sensed a cover-up even while the court was taking testimony at Malta. He identified George Golden, the Liberty’s engineering officer and acting commanding officer, as the source of the Associated Press story charging that the attack was deliberate. Golden, who is Jewish, was so outraged at the prohibition against talking with reporters that he ignored it — risking his future career in the Navy to rescue a vestige of his country’s honor.

      The American embassy at Tel Aviv relayed to Washington the only fully detailed Israeli account of the attack-the Israeli court of inquiry report known as “Israeli Preliminary Inquiry 1/67.” The embassy message also contained the recommendation that, at the request of the Israeli government, it not be released to the American people. Ennes believes this is probably because both governments knew the mistaken identity excuse was too transparent to believe.

      Another request for secrecy was delivered by hand to Eugene Rostow, undersecretary of state for political affairs. It paralleled the message from the embassy at Tel Aviv imploring the Department of State to keep the Israeli court of inquiry secret because “the circumstances of the attack [if the version outlined in the file is to be believed] strip the Israeli Navy naked.” Although Ennes saw that message in an official file in 1977, by 1984 it had vanished from all known official files. Ennes believes Israeli officials decided to make the Israeli Navy the scapegoat in the controversy. With the blame piled on its Navy, the orphan service that has the least clout in Israel’s military hierarchy, Israel then asked the U.S. to keep the humiliation quiet. United States officials agreed not to release the text of the Israeli report.


    4. alex Says:

      See classic no-neck Hagee lick Israel’s ass here:


    5. Mark Says:

      So when is Hagee going to suit up and go fight for Israel? Right, he’s just a big-mouthed, pot-bellied Judas goat.

      “A Judas goat is a trained goat used at a slaughterhouse and in general animal herding. The Judas goat is trained to associate with sheep or cattle, leading them to a specific destination. In stockyards, a Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared. Judas goats are also used to lead other animals to specific pens and on to trucks. The term is a reference to the biblical ‘traitor’ Judas Iscariot.”

    6. Beast Says:

      What a bunch of fuckin’ poodles for Israel we have in our noble congress of citizen representatives. Here Representative Fifi, here The Honorable Fido, come get your AIPAC bribes and a pat on the head from your favorite AIPAC lobbyist. Good goyboy, good goyboy.

      Our commitment to Israel defines us a nation?

      Who put these jokers in three piece suits in charge? Oh, wait. Lemme guess. The Jewish media. Why do I ask these rhetorical questions?

      The FedZOG’s slavish cowardly thralldom to Kikeistan defines our slide into (third) world pariah and most hated country on Earth – right at the bottom of the human dungheap with the scary fuckers in Israel.

      Think of what Congress could do if they all just decided to grow some balls and throw every yid lobby in Washington OUT. No more! Think of the possibilities for those spineless jellyfish in district of criminals. They could redeem themselves overnight and set this country on a new course. But nooooooooooo. They’re only in it for their personal financial portfolios. Let history note.

    7. New America Says:

      in reply to beast:
      you wrote:
      Think of what Congress could do if they all just decided to grow some balls and throw every yid lobby in Washington OUT. No more! Think of the possibilities for those spineless jellyfish in district of criminals. They could redeem themselves overnight and set this country on a new course. But nooooooooooo. They’re only in it for their personal financial portfolios. Let history note.

      in reply:
      It might be more productive to deal in the idea of our own NATION, an independent Republic in a future American Union.

      Conservatives have been played for fools for the last seventy years trying to deal fairly and honestly with the demonic JEWS, and they have played right into the hands of their demonic RACIAL enemy.

      Let’s stop allowing our RACIAL enemy to define the issues for us; otherwise, we will end up like Charlie Brown, who ALWAYS has Lucy pull the football away, and NEVER did a damn thing about it.

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    8. Elizabeth Forrester Says:

      Please see my blog at http://aipac-watch.com.

      The point of it is that we should stop letting AIPAC and the ADL put us on the defensive with accusations of anti-Semitism. Instead, put them on the defensive with accusations of anti-Gentile racism. They have spent years lobbying for wars to benefit Israel and supporting military policies that shift the risk of dying for Isreal’s benefit from Jews onto European-Americans. If that isn’t racism and bigotry, what is?