The White House reportedly told the Defense Department that it needed to send away the the USS John McCain so that it was not around when President Donald Trump visited Japan. Named after Trump’s Republican critic, the ship had to be “out of sight” by the time Trump arrived for a visit to the Yokosuka base. Trump has denied knowing about the order, but did not say that he would find out who issued the order and fire them. The idea of White House staff dictating the movement of warships is extremely serious and the Navy should have refused. These warships have missions and are not props. Moreover, the people serving on these ships are not some collective pariah due to petty politics.
The McCain is an Arliegh Burke-class destroyer and part of the Destroyer Squadron 15 of the Seventh Fleet anchored at Yokosuka Naval Base.
I have actually long opposed the naming of ships (or other public properties) for politicians. I would love to see a ban on such practices. It is a way for agencies to curry favor and budget increases by appealing to the inexhaustible ego of politicians.
That however is not the issue here. According to the Wall Street Journal, in a May 15th email, an official at the US Indo-Pacific Command contacts US Navy and Air Force officials to note that the USS John McCain “needs to be out of sight” during Trump’s Memorial Day visit to Yokosuka base. The email sought confirmation that the demand “will be satisfied.”
One official said that he would seek more information from the White House so it appears that there were multiple communications made on this subject. It should not be hard to determine who gave his directive to the Navy.
The Journal published a photograph showing that McCain’s name was covered by a tarpaulin before Trump’s arrival and that sailors were ordered to remove any items with the late Senator’s name. However, the Navy said that the covering was removed by the time Trump arrived. It is not clear if the tarp was part of the original order. One report indicates that the tarp was used to fulfill the order to cover up McCain’s name but the action was later reversed. Yet, a barge was moved closer to the ship and blocked the name.
The tarpaulin idea was so ham-handed that one has to wonder if someone in the Navy had a wicked passive aggressive streak. The tarp would have attracted every reporter to the ship and frankly I would respect such a “be-careful-what-you-ask-for” response from the Navy.
This is all an utter disgrace. The acting Secretary of Defense denies knowledge of the order and the White House will not respond to further questions. I do not consider this to be a trivial matter. Moving warships and ordering sailors to conceal identifying features for political purposes is unacceptable. It is not simply petty politics. It is an abuse of power. The acting Secretary is saying that they are “looking into the matter.“
It was an allegation reminiscent of the “Fala” scandal where Franklin Delano Roosevelt was accused of sending a destroyer to retrieve his dog from the Aleutian Islands, an allegation that proved untrue and led to FDR’s famous Fala speech. This destroyer story however appears to be true and lacks a cute dog — just the protection of what staffers viewed as a raw and vulnerable ego.
Regardless of whether Trump ordered the move, the White House appears behind the disrespectful order. It not only made our service personnel into props but made our military look like fawning servants to the fragile ego of a leader. I have no reason to doubt Trump’s denial. This is not the type of thing that reached the Oval Office as an action item. However, that is not enough. Trump needs to pledge to find the responsible people and remove them from federal service.
Well, if true, that was petty.
Now you’re gettin’ it.
Now you’re gettin’ it.
(…related to “Brevity is the soul of wit.”)
i know two aviators shot down and incarcerated for a long time as POWs at the infamous Hỏa Lò Prison. That’s what they actually called the “hanoi hilton.”
They took their lumps and went on to normal, respectable, quiet civilian lives.
McCain helped make his rep on that and boy did he milk it.
All honor to your friends, but were they offered early release and turn it down?
McCain and Dole attracted a good deal of attention because they had interesting stories. Also, leftover impairments were quite visible to reporters covering them. An antagonistic reporter who met Dole for the first time in 1987 said what hits you in the face about him and seems to define him is that one side of his body doesn’t match the other.
I don’t recall Dole making too much of it all things considered. He presented himself as a Capitol Hill apparatchik with a ‘record’, as in ‘stop lying about my record’. In McCain’s case, the Navy was his life until he was 45 years old. In presenting himself to electorates de novo, he had to say what he’d done for a living.
McCain’s career did have a corrupt foundation: his campaigns were financed by the father of his mistress, and run in a jurisdiction in which he’d never lived. John Kerry had a similarly problematic foundation. The four years he spent on active duty were the basis of his early campaigns. As late as 2004 he was parading around boat mates he hadn’t worked alongside of in 35 years.
Tabby, McCain, like so many raised in military families, had no regular home state. If Arizona was okay with that, I think the country benefits by having a few senators who have lived in many places. In fact, America might do better if ‘more’ senators had a larger perspective of the country.
In fact, America might do better if ‘more’ senators had a larger perspective of the country.
And less of a perspective of their own ego.
Both Doles were figures in official Washington. Some of Elizabeth Dole’s few proximate relatives were back in North Carolina, but she herself hasn’t lived there since 1957, in spite of representing it in Congress. She’d never actually lived any place in Kansas her husband had lived; his hometown has lost 30% of it’s population since 1950 and doesn’t offer much to anyone who didn’t grow up there. Also, his daughter lives in NoVa, as does at least one set of her closest relations (a nephew with a family).
So, it’s not terribly surprising they didn’t retire to Kansas or North Carolina. However, it does underline how meagre were the actual personal ties either had to places they’d ‘represented’. Pat Roberts, who also was elected to the Senate from Kansas, had a bogus address in Dodge City of all places. He’d first arrived in Washington in 1969 and his wife has had a business to run in NoVa (real estate). Nancy Kassebaum, another Kansas Senator, eventually retired to Nashville after marrying Howard Baker (who did live back in Middle Tn. part time).
He’d never lived there, Peter. His mistress lived there. Retired Navy settle in various places, San Diego and the Florida Space Coast among them.
His 1st wife was from Philadelphia; they married in Pensacola, and she waited out the VietNam War for him in an exurb of Jacksonville. She’s been an awfully good sport about him all these years.
Is there anything you DON’T know?
Probably sittin’ in a cubicle somewhere…
JT: “Trump needs to pledge to find the responsible people and remove them from federal service.”
Why don’t you pick a fight with someone your own size for once? How about demanding the firing of some of your colleagues in DC instead of some soldier overseas? JT needs some hair on his balls.
Ivan, what in God’s name are you trying to say here?!
You think Turley is a ‘bully’ for featuring this matter? Like we shouldn’t know that White House staffers are cultivating an imperial presidency?
And ‘who’ are these colleagues in D C that Turley should turn on? ‘The teaching staff at George Washington University’?? Those are Turley’s colleagues, you fool! He’s not a congressman!!
Posts like your’s make me wonder if some of the commenters here are idiots in a very literal sense. It helps explain how Trump rose to the national stage.
We’re seeing the Left’s activities to defame Pres Trump get bolder as we inch closer to the truth about Obama’s thug administrstion’s role in the Russia hoax.
And notice how uncurious the media is about Hillary and Obama’s central roles in this fiasco. They can run, but they can’t hide for long.
“And notice how uncurious the media is…”
…uncurious about many things, and willing to hide or distort the truth at times, as well
it seems like James Bamberg in his book about the NSA said McCain’s daddy had something to do with suppressing the USS Liberty incident in which an NSA spy ship armed only with 4 50 cal MGs was sunk and then the survivors strafed by the Israeli Navy who claimed they “mistook it for an Egyptian warship”
i won’t bother to look it up, but you can. i wasted enough of my life on stories like these.
What i have learned is that people that don’t like the bad news will just say its a conspiracy theory.
The USS Liberty is a favorite topic for conspiracy fetishists who loathe Jews. Adding in the McCain family is red meat for the alt-right / palaeo types, who despise the McCains and the Jews in equal measure.
and like a dog trained to salivate at the sound of a bell announcing a treat, you reflexively reject anything called a conspiracy perhaps just as reflexively as some nutjobs embrace them
go read bamberg’s book if you think it’s a conspiracy and then let me know exactly how it’s wrong.
i think it’s not this book but an earlier one that covered the incident
https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Factory-NSA-Eavesdropping-America/dp/0307279391
did Israel sink it and shoot up the survivors in the water? yes. fact
was it an egyptian warship? no
did it look like one? not at all
did Israel have a strategic reason to want to sink it? yes
was it a political embarrassment for both nations after the fact? yes
were there efforts to cover it up? yes
the only thing I am not sure about is whehter or not old Daddy McCain had a role in that. Seems like he did, but I can’t recall the details. Maybe what he did was righteous, who knows. But i doubt it.
so those are facts. another fact you cite which I admit is that jew haters like the story and repeat it often. that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. a lot of jew haters like the Gospel of John too. of course a lot of Jews hate the Gospel and consider it antisemitic too. well, I can see why some Jews feel that way. And I can see why the sailors on the USS LIberty who got sunk and strafed and survived remain pissed off about it decades later
a wise person should be less concerned about all the hate and more concerned about facts. just a thought, maybe i am naive
Israel didn’t sink the ship or shoot survivors in the water. You need better sources.
how can a guy who is so smart be so ignorant? you really didn’t know?
I don’t want to rub this in, but you need to read up, admit you were wrong, or lose credibility fast
here’s the wikipedia article just first paragraph. wiki is open source editing and it’s scoured daily. professors may not like it but it has solid sourcing. you can read it and let me know if you have proof that all the official government sources etc which are duly noted were in fact fabrications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War.[2] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two marines, and one civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[3] At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][4]
Israel apologized for the attack, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship.[5] Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship’s identity,[6] Others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate.[7]
In May 1968, the Israeli government paid US$3.32 million (equivalent to US$23.9 million in 2018) to the U.S. government in compensation for the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. In March 1969, Israel paid a further $3.57 million ($24.4 million in 2018) to the men who had been wounded. In December 1980, it agreed to pay $6 million ($18.2 million in 2018) as the final settlement for material damage to Liberty itself plus 13 years of interest.[8]
I wonder do you consider the US government a solid source for these facts?
you need not thank me for informing you, you are a smart guy but sometimes we all can learn.
more from wiki
Investigations of the attack
There were several investigations conducted into the incident by the U.S. Navy, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the U.S. House and Senate, the NSA, and the Israeli government. All investigations into the matter similarly blamed lack of communications and found no reason for anyone involved to face criminal charges.[58]
U.S. government investigations
Torpedo damage to Liberty’s research compartment (Starboard side)
American inquiries, memoranda, records of testimony, and various reports involving or mentioning the Liberty attack include, but are not limited to, the following:
U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry of June 1967
Joint Chief of Staff’s Report of June 1967.
CIA Intelligence Memorandums of June 1967
Clark Clifford Report of July 1967
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony during hearings of the 1967 Foreign Aid Authorization bill, July 1967
House Armed Services Committee Investigation of 1971
The NSA History Report of 1981
The U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry record contains testimony by Liberty crew members, exhibits of attack damage photographs, and various reports.[59] The court concluded that the testimony record revealed “a shallow investigation, plagued by myriad disagreements between the captain and his crew”.[60] According to the Navy Court of Inquiry’s record of proceedings, four days were spent hearing testimony: two days for fourteen survivors of the attack and several U.S. Navy expert witnesses, and two partial days for two expert U.S. Navy witnesses.[61] No testimony was heard from Israeli personnel involved.[61][58]
The official U.S. records of the Liberty incident were designated top-secret and closed to the general public.[58] The U.S. government and Israel jointly stated: “That the Israeli attack upon the USS Liberty had been the result of error, and nothing more.”[58] Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time of the Liberty incident, said that he, “cannot accept the claim by the Israelis that this was a case of mistaken identity”.[58]
The CIA Memoranda consists of two documents: one dated June 13, 1967, and the other dated June 21, 1967. The June 13 memorandum is an “account of circumstances of the attack … compiled from all available sources”.[62] The June 21 memorandum is a point-by-point analysis of the Israeli inquiry findings of fact.[62] It concludes: “The attack was not made in malice toward the U.S. and was by mistake, but the failure of the IDF Headquarters and the attacking aircraft to identify the Liberty and the subsequent attack by torpedo boats were both incongruous and indicative of gross negligence.”[62]
The Clark Clifford report concluded: “The unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished.”[58]
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony contains, as an aside during hearings concerning a foreign aid authorization bill, questions and statements from several senators and responses from then Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, about the Liberty attack. For the most part, the senators were dismayed about the attack, as expressed by Senator Bourke B. Hickenlooper: “From what I have read I can’t tolerate for one minute that this [attack] was an accident.” There was concern about obtaining more information on the attack, as expressed by Committee chairman J. William Fulbright: “We asked for [the attack investigation report about two weeks ago and have not received it yet from Secretary Rusk. … By the time we get to it we will be on some other subject.” Secretary McNamara promised fast delivery of the investigation report, “… you will have it in four hours”, and concluded his remarks by saying: “I simply want to emphasize that the investigative report does not show any evidence of a conscious intent to attack a U.S. vessel.”[63]
The House Armed Services Committee investigation report, “Review of Department of Defense Worldwide Communications”[64][65] was not an investigation focused on the Liberty attack, although it contains a section describing the flow of communications connected with the Liberty incident.[64][65]
The National Security Agency (NSA) history report is, as its name denotes, a historical report that cites the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry record, various military and government messages and memorandum, and personal interviews for its content.[65] The report ends with a section entitled, “Unanswered Questions”, and comes to no conclusion regarding culpability.[65] However, it included declassified documents which stated: “Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag—and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification.”[66]
The USS Liberty Veterans Association, composed of veterans from the ship, states that U.S. congressional investigations and other U.S. investigations were not actually investigations into the attack, but rather reports using evidence only from the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, or investigations unrelated to culpability that involved issues such as communications.[58] In their view, the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry is the only actual investigation on the incident to date.[61] They say it was hastily conducted, in only ten days, even though the court’s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take six months to conduct properly.[61] The inquiry’s terms of reference were limited to whether any shortcomings on the part of the Liberty’s crew had contributed to the injuries and deaths that resulted from the attack.[61]
The National Archives in College Park, Maryland includes no evidence to suggest that information obtained by the Liberty augmented Washington’s already detailed picture of events on the Golan front and Israel’s intentions there.[58]
the israeli aircraft torpedoed it and sunk it and then strafed the survivors in water. the israelis admitted it. why would you deny this? oh you foolishly assumed it was just a conspiracy theory i guess. wake up buddy.
admit the facts and make humble apology for once in all your arrogant commentary here day after day for years. most of which I enjoy and thank you for. one this one you bit at it and broke your tooth. its ok we are all wrong sometimes
The ship was never sunk, nor were sailors strafed in the water. The ship was attacked. No clue how you got the idea it was sunk. When Israeli air force pilots saw it was an American ship, they turned around and went home, but the Israeli Navy was not notified in time.
He’s a takedown of Bamford’s thesis (which he was flogging as early as 1982).
https://newrepublic.com/article/61217/unfriendly-fire
you got me on the sunk error. they did not sink it. after they shot it up and napalmed it, it did not sink, but there were men in the water and they were strafed.
the new republic piece is wrong. the USS Liberty was flying an American flag the whole time.
the new republic piece is an attempted takedown not a takedown., it was a weak wrestler shooting for a leg which ended up in a faceplant and a burn from the mat.
bamford’s thesis is grounded in fact and the well informed opinions of Admiral Moorer who went on to become CNO shortly after and eventually to JCS. I take Moorer’s opinion of this as authoritative not the New Republic.
“There is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.”
–Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 14 January 2004
Bamford elaborated on the strategic necessity for the attack, from the Israeli point of view. There was a sneak attack on the Egyptians that had to succeed. In the minds of certain shot callers, the Liberty posed a serious potential threat to success. They took their choice and acted. Of course it was a violation of law against an ally and they had to apologize and say it was a mistake. I can accept that diplomatic situation. The Israelis are a strong and determined nation who were intent on defeating an imminent threat, which was the Egyptian armed forces (and Jordan and Syria). They took a hard choice and succeeded., The gamble may have been worth it for them. It’s easy to see how they massively succeeded in the 1967 war. They are not monsters. This is understandable history.
They are a sovereign government. Hard choices happen every day. Is America a sovereign too? Let us make whatever hard choices we have to make when the time comes, too.
Americans covering it up, denying it, fudging it, and essentially saying that Bamford is an antisemite, are weak-winded, not the Israelis.
Bamford’s thesis is grounded in the biases of ‘investigative journalists’. If there is no scandal, they’ve got no book. Israel is also hated by a motley collection of people. And an abstraction cannot sue for libel.
The thesis is insane except to people whose assumption is that Israel is a source of pointless malevolence. Israel had no standing conflicts with the United States and the notion it was covering something up is a repair to the imagination. In 52 years, you haven’t come up with an actual occurrence they would be concealing from the U.S. military with such fervor that they’d be tossing torpedos at a Navy ship.
I like your reply here to Ax8.
My trouble is I can’t always tale who the trolls are, who can or can’t admit they made a mistake & who will never come out of their cognitive dissonance.
Oky1 in the case of the Liberty there are too many advocates on too many sides. Many of the facts are known but not enough to tell one exactly what happened and in the end it might be that the US comitted a no no and a lower ranking Israeli responded tactically not based on the big picture. That would lead to both parties saying it was a mistake, closing the case and keeping it secret.
Tying the facts together is difficult but if you are interested read the Loftus book, “The Secret War Against the Jews”. It discusses other situations that have been reported one way but that reporting may have been inaccurate as all the facts were never revealed. A very interesting read. I questioned some of the things but had an hour long discussion with the author who was darned credible and clearly stated what was known fact, presumed fact but not proven and what was mistakened fact. He then presents his theory very carefully never forgetting the facts while his theory progressed.
“the israeli aircraft torpedoed it and sunk it and then strafed the survivors in water. the israelis admitted it.”
The Israeli’s admitted what? That a ship that wasn’t sunk was sunk? There are pictures available that prove the ship wasn’t sunk and no credible person said it was. The mind can create crazy history when it is inclined to do so. One has to ask why are you making things up or why are you so blind?
According to the New Republic: “Yet Body of Secrets has no more basis in fact than its predecessors. Indeed, it may be the shoddiest screed of all.”
Repeating this by “Mr Kurtz” who isn’t at all naive:
“a wise person should be less concerned about all the hate and more concerned about facts. just a thought, maybe i am naive”
TIA is the naive one.
ok they didn’t sink it they disabled it. i got that wrong. they strafed it and napalmed it. good work finding an error. thank you for correcting me. now correct yourself on the rest
Kurtz, were the bombs napalm bombs? I don’t know the answer rather I wonder why they would use a napalm balm. Do you have a citation for that.
Do you know when they strafed the Liberty? At the beginning before the bombs hit that specific place on the Liberty. Would more people have been killed if they didn’t run for their stations due to the straffing?
i am no expert on this, just repeating what i have learned over years. you can see i was in error that it actually sunk
nonetheless, in spite of new republic’s hatchet job, bamford’s book is the thing to read. it’s very well sourced and he’s a very credible historian and not the least bit an antisemite.
here’s what wiki says about the details
“After being cleared to attack, the Mirages dove on the ship and attacked with 30-mm cannons and rockets.[35] The attack came a few minutes after the crew completed a chemical attack drill, with Captain McGonagle on the command bridge.[36] The crew was in “stand-down mode”, with their helmets and life jackets removed.[22] Battle readiness “modified condition three” was set, which meant that the ship’s four .50 caliber machine guns were manned and ammunition was ready for loading and firing.[37][38] Eight crewmen were either killed immediately or received fatal injuries and died later, and 75 were wounded.[39] Among the wounded was McGonagle, who was hit in the right thigh and arm.[40] During the attack, antennas were severed, gas drums caught fire, and the ship’s flag was knocked down. McGonagle sent an urgent request for help to the Sixth Fleet, “Under attack by unidentified jet aircraft, require immediate assistance”.
The Mirages left after expending their ammunition, and were replaced by two Dassault Mysteres armed with napalm bombs, flown by Captain Yossi Zuk and his wingman, Yaakov Hamermish. The Mysteres released their payloads over the ship and strafed it with their cannons. Much of the ship’s superstructure caught fire.[22][32] The Mysteres were readying to attack again when the Israeli Navy, alerted by the absence of return fire, warned Kislev that the target could be Israeli. Kislev told the pilots not to attack if there was any doubt about identification, and the Israeli Navy quickly contacted all of its vessels in the area. The Israeli Navy found that none of its vessels were under fire, and the aircraft were cleared to attack. However, Kislev was still disturbed by a lack of return fire and requested one last attempt to identify the ship. Captain Zuk made an attempt at identification while strafing the ship. He reported seeing no flag, but saw the ship’s GTR-5 marking. Kislev immediately ordered the attack stopped. Kislev guessed that the ship was American.[22]”
________________
note 22 is the michael oren book on the war, and 23 is the idf report
__________________
the USS Liberty was US flagged before the attack. however, the israelis say they didn’t see it. Or didnt see it at first? Some of the facts about the flagging and markings are in dispute. credible Americans like Adm Moorer were convinced that the attack was deliberate.
Fair enough Kurtz. There are multiple theories, but did he explain why the spy ship was away from its group? A theory should make logical sense. What would be the reason for the Israeli’s to attack an American spy ship? Why did the two nations agree as to how the event would be managed?
no clue why it was away from its group as you say. never heard of that.
motivation: fear was that NSA signals interceptions would detect the imminent attack on Egyptian air force and leak it to Egyptians.
Why not just tell America not to leak the upcoming attack? Because they could not ask for permission. America might have squelched the plan somehow. Government was not as pro Israeli back then like it is today. So in that context, to even mention this to the Americans in advance might have compromised security just as much. the sneak attack was a daring and outright genius strategy that proved successful in the war. they maintained successful element of surprise.. the theory is that they took the hard decision to neutralize the ship to prevent the potential leak to Egypt.
As an American I side with America. But I can appreciate the hard choice they took and why they (the Israelis) had to pretend like it was a mistake when they apologized and made restitution. I can even understand why our goverment cut them slack over this thing.
Now your third question: how it would be managed. For America this was after the fact because it’s clear that if the NSA didnt know it was coming then probably nobody on our side did.
So it was a decision to pretend that it was a mistake essentially for diplomatic reasons. The policy at the time was to draw closer to Israel than administrations had in the past. This choice was consistent with the policy.
A different choice, to openly admit and spell out what really happened would have lead to a toxic backlash in the population. So it was suppressed. In retrospect, that seems like it was a smart bet on a winner.
People in armed and intelligence services are assets. sometimes the assets get sacrificed for the greater good. that’s the calculation. I believe if the hypothesis is correct that the truth was suppressed by the Navy and US government at the time, as many suggest, that was the context in which this calculation was made.
nonetheless, I have sympathy for those who lost their lives. Them and their families are our fellow Americans who have a right to their opinions, and to have the true facts be known especially this far in retrospect.
Executive choice and action in reality, in real time and on the ground, often has to be a choice between ugly alternatives. That’s why they get paid, to make the tough choices.
this often reminds me of the hypothesis that FDR had prior warning from our radar signals and other intelligence, that the Japs were launching an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor? That case was made in the book “Day of Deceit” that he did. And he let it roll, to justify entry into the war.
Mostly this was based on some radar detection that did actually happen, as it’s proven in the book. and went up the ladder, but seems to have been ignored.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/99/12/12/daily/121599stinnett-book-review.html?scp=98&sq=idea%2520of%2520the%2520day&st=cse
On balance, I think the main flaw in that theory is the notion that FDR wanted a big ugly success for the Japs. Well, I think he wanted them to attack eventually, that’s clear enough from the ABCD encirclement, which probably made it inevitable. But, any violent attack would have been enough, and there was no need to leave so many ships parked in harbor. So overall I was not sold on the theory.
Kurtz, we cannot be sure of the motivation especially since none of it is documented. One of the key points in my mind was why the spy ship was in the position it maintained and why there was no contact between the fleet and the Israeli’s. I am satisfied with whatever BS answer that is provided by both nations in agreement. Sometimes bad things happen, but bad relationships cause continuous mishaps and the US and Israel seem to deal well together. Nations getting along is what is important.
You are right about the US not being friendly to the Israeli’s in those years. If you remember Eisenhower stopped the 1956 war at the Suez when France and Britain engaged as well. Oil determined friendships and Israel had no oil. That book had some interesting reading about other things that surprised me. Remember, however, theory is not fact.
In one of the articles quoted, I forget which, it was mentioned that there was a change in shift and everything was wiped out and restarted which might have been the confusion that set off the unfortunate event. That brings up another book I may have mentioned before “Sources of Power” by Gary Klein. A small portion of the book writes about the Iranian passenger plane that was shot down by the Vincennes. An important lesson can be learned from that incident. Two planes apparently were labelled with the same number as the board changed. Thus the plane appearing to be a threat was within seconds of being able to sink the Vincennes. The captain asked if the plane was going up (it had just taken off) or going down. The new number said going down (attack mode) and the captain fired. He was blamed for the mishap but the new number was another plane that was going down. Reading Klein’s evaluation one might learn that people cover for themselves and the brass covers its a$$ so Captain Rodgers was blamed. Klein provides a large amount of information that makes one realize that Captain Rodgers did nothing wrong and those that covered their A$$ perhaps had more blame than they were willing to accept. This is a story you would like and my understanding is that Klein is an expert. I think you might be able to read a portion of the event on Amazon by searching the book with Vincennes.
All in all there are very few countries that have been great and acted decently. The US and Israel are two of those countries.
DSS, Kurtz below seems enamored with Wikipedia. This incident is highly controversial and both Israel and the US wanted to put the incident behind them even if that meant keeping the details secret. It has been investigated numerous times with numerous conclusions. The best explanation I have read was by Tom Loftus who was given code secret permission to look at files and data. He reported on what he found and his theory as to what happened in the book “The Secret War Against the Jews” which is a very interesting book and educational. I won’t go into every detail he mentions but one must recognize that the Liberty seems to have been too far away from its group and was a spy ship that seldom strays. The first thing one has to deal with is why was it where it was? Another factor was why were the deaths of sailors contained in a small area of the ship. Leaving out many other details mentioned by Loftus why were the Israeli’s unable to sink the ship knowing that the Israelis have some of the finest pilots in the world.
It appears the program is no longer saving my name.
Allan, those are good questions. i am not familiar with Loftus. I may get that book and check it out, it looks interesting.
maybe the israeli fear that the NSA would leak a warning of the attack to Egyptians was well founded? perhaps that is what you are suggesting. that does not make it a lawful act of war against the US ally
nonetheless I can accept that the Israelis saw it as a threat and acted according to perceived necessity. that seems to be what Bamford suggested too if I recall. I can understand that. I do not think that makes them monsters. But it does mean that they initiated an unlawful attack of war on American non-combattants. To me that is unjust and certainly was unlawful. They apparently have admitted as much and made compensation and apologies.
Israeli forces mistook it for an Egyptian vessel. This isn’t that complicated.
gee, Admiral Moorer didn’t think so. but you know better than him.
Kurtz I don’t remember the book as clearly as when it was released about 2 decades ago but my memory is that the Israeli army had already defeated most of the Egyptian army and was moving to another front against Syria. (Israel was fighting a three front war against massive enemies when compared to Israeli area and population) The ship was a spy ship just off the coast and far away from its group which is not the normal location for any spy ship. They intercepted signals to Egyptian command thought to be revealing Israeli troop movements which would mean the Egyptians would be likely to counterattack at which point the Syrian front would be in jeopardy. Israel was also fignting on the Jordanian front. This is an impossible situation for a very small army with a small population base facing countries with populations of hundreds of millions.
The Israeli’s tried every means possible to contact US command and the mother ship. They got no responses from anyone which if true indicates the US was doing something covert. In Israel a lot of command decisions come from lower ranking officers who are responsible for a specific sector. That might be where the order came from. Israeli planes circled the ship more than once and received no change in ship status. The straffing was potentially to get as many people out of harms way as possible. The bomb targetted the area that had the communications and spying equipment. That is where most or everyone was killed.
The Israelis ceased any attacks that would injure Americans after that portion of the ship was destroyed. The rest of the ship was intact. The Israeli airforce could have easily sunk a ship that was not in evasive mode and even then it would have sunk it but that apparently wasn’t their mission. From then on the idea was to save lives. There are more details to back up the theory but from what is known there is no certainty. A lot of people say a lot of things even when they are ignorant of the facts and details. They have their own reasons and prejudices.
Hmm, i don’t think so, rather, i think this was all part of the sneak attack on the air force of Egypt.
Michael Oren’s book is one of the sources in the wiki article. He’s mentioned in this article about the larger context of the war
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/
“Hmm, i don’t think so,”
That is the key we can only think. We don’t know the truth. Both nations were hurt and both nations agreed to a story. That is not a bad resolution.
as you say however, yes, the lower level officers may have made the call, certainly. doesn’t change my estimation.
as for it being covert, i don’t see how that matters. of course it was covert. it was an American spy ship. the NSA does not fly a NSA flag. but it flew an American flag. at whatever level, it seems an unavoidable conclusion the Israelis knew or suspected it was an American spy ship, which it was, which might detect their attack, which was a valid tactical concern, and maybe leak it to egypt somehow. ok maybe that was a possibility. and they made the call to neutralize the threat to their security.
I am sure that Friendly nations sometimes do things like that on purpose. for their own good reasons. that’s the nature of a sovereign. it makes these kinds of choices because it can and it must.
In the actions of Israel, we can see how a sovereign operates, to secure the interests of the nation state. It is often an ugly thing and involves tough calls.
I understand that Israel used Jonathan Pollard to obtain roomfuls of classified materials, which the Israelis leaked to the Russians, who in turn eliminated American assets. That’s why Pollard is still in jail.
And the Israelis knew he was about to be arrested, they denied him asylum, and threw him under the bus. because it was about bigger things than one spy and his fate.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/peres-and-rabin-knew-pollard-was-planted-in-us-armed-forces/
All you young folks out there interested in volunteering to be police, armed forces, spies, etc, to say nothing of any kind of snitch or informant, just understand this: you volunteer and you are thus expendable. That’s part of the gig. But when the Devil gets his due, people are often bitter about it.
“as you say however, yes, the lower level officers may have made the call, certainly. doesn’t change my estimation.”
What is your estimation?
Of course covert matters. The Iranian military jets were covertly taking off in the shadow of commercial airlines. That became a part in that commercial airline that was shot down. It might have also led to a lack of contact between the Israeli’s and the Liberty’s command. Covertness certainly matters.
Jonathan Pollard no longer is in jail. He was released several years ago. How do you know Pollard’s information was released to the Russians? Details like this matter. The Liberty wasn’t sunk and I don’t know that Pollard’s information was given to Russia. Pollard was released from jail. I’m obnoxious, as you say, because I like people to stick to the facts. People don’t like that so they sometimes call others names.
yep you’re right i guess they let him out in 2015. i forgot. my how time flies.
i didnt say you were obnoxious. i think you are polite, at least to me you are. LOL
“i didnt say you were obnoxious. i think you are polite, at least to me you are. LOL”
I’ll accept that but the email had the response to my name and on the blog it appeared you were speaking to me. You must have been talking to anonymous.
allan im sure i was talking to absurd. he is obnoxious.
say by the way, this is the most interesting article i read on pollard, ever, since i was made familiar with his story long time ago. i linked it once but don’t miss it
http://www.timesofisrael.com/peres-and-rabin-knew-pollard-was-planted-in-us-armed-forces/
what do gay mayor pete and pollard have in common? both born in south bend indiana. both their dads worked at notre dame. prof. pollard was the first jewish professor tenured there or so i have heard
seems like professors kids often make a name for themselves, one way or another
Kurtz, you might find this of great interest. 20 stories deep. They have engineering skills.
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/IDF-destroys-Hezbollahs-last-largest-cross-border-attack-tunnel-591019
What, are you some inbred pakistani or ole Crazy Eyes AOC’s brother?
The only reason anyone pulls out that Jew crap on these msg bb is the are or have ties to a Islamic govt/cult.
BTW: Keep checking infowars.com & you can educate yourself.
It’s not alt-right, it’s just right.
InfoWars, Oky..?? We got your number now.
I didn’t write this, but it sums it up well enough:
“Body of Secrets” — Attack on the USS Liberty
On June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab States, Israeli fighter planes and torpedo boats attacked the U.S. Navy intelligence ship Liberty for 90 minutes in international waters, following several hours of low-level reconnaissance flights by Israeli aircraft. In the incident, 34 American servicemen were killed and 171 more wounded.
Israel maintains that the attack was a mistake. The Liberty’s surviving crew members, as well as a number of former U.S. government officials — including then-CIA Director Richard Helms and then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk — assert that the attack was deliberate and that Israel knew the ship was American.
Throughout the attack, the Liberty was flying a large American flag. It also had its name painted in English in five-foot letters across the stern.
The following text on the incident is excerpted from the book, Body of Secrets by James Bamford:
In the days following the attack, the Israeli government gave the U.S. government a classified report that attempted to justify the claim that the attack was a mistake. On the basis of that same report, an Israeli court of inquiry completely exonerated the government and all those involved. No one was ever court-martialed, reduced in rank, or ever reprimanded. On the contrary, Israel chose instead to honor Motor Torpedo Boat 203, which fired the deadly torpedo at the Liberty. The ship’s wheel and bell were placed on prominent display at the naval museum, among the maritime artifacts of which the Israeli navy was most proud. . . .
The [Israeli] torpedo-boat crew claimed that they had mistaken the Liberty for an Egyptian troop transport, El Quseir. At the time of the attack, the Egyptian ship was rusting alongside a pier in the port of Alexandria, 250 miles from where the Liberty was attacked, and along that pier El Quseir remained throughout the war. The location of every Egyptian ship would have been a key piece of intelligence before Israel launched its war. According to the long-secret 1981 NSA [National Security Agency] report:
The fact that two separate torpedo boat commanders made the same false identification only raises the question of the veracity of both commanders. The El-Kasir [El Quseir] was approximately one-quarter of the Liberty’s tonnage, about one-half its length, and offered a radically different silhouette. To claim that the Liberty closely resembled the El-Kasir was most illogical. The Department of State expressed its view of the torpedo attack in these words:
“The subsequent attack by Israeli torpedo boats, substantially after the vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces, manifests the same reckless disregard for human life. The silhouette and conduct of USS Liberty readily distinguished it from any vessel that could have been considered hostile. . . . It could and should have been scrutinized visually at close range before torpedoes were fired.”
Finally the NSA report, fifteen years after the fact, added:
A persistent question relating to the Liberty incident is whether or not the Israeli forces which attacked the ship knew that it was American . . . not a few of the Liberty’s crewmen and [deleted but probably “NSA’s G Group”] staff are convinced that they did. Their belief derived from consideration of the long time the Israelis had the ship under surveillance prior to the attack, the visibility of the flag, and the intensity of the attack itself.
Speculation as to the Israeli motivation varied. Some believed that Israel expected that the complete destruction of the ship and killing of the personnel would lead the U.S. to blame the UAR [Egypt] for the incident and bring the U.S. into the war on the side of Israel . . . others felt that Israeli forces wanted the ship and men out of the way.
“I believed the attack might have been ordered by some senior commander on the Sinai Peninsula who wrongly suspected that the Liberty was monitoring his activities,” said [NSA deputy director, Dr. Louis] Tordella. His statement was amazingly astute, since he likely had no idea of the war crimes being committed on the Sinai at the time, within easy earshot of the antenna groves that covered the Liberty’s deck.
On the morning of June 8, the Israeli military command received a report that a large American eavesdropping ship was secretly listening only a few miles off El Arish. At that same moment, a scant dozen or so miles away, Israeli soldiers were butchering civilians and bound prisoners by the hundreds, a fact that the entire Israeli army leadership knew about and condoned, according to the army’s own historian. Another military historian, Uri Milstein, confirmed the report. There were many incidents in the Six Day War, he said, in which Egyptian soldiers were killed by Israeli troops after they had raised their hands in surrender. “It was not an official policy,” he added, “but there was an atmosphere that it was okay to do it. Some commanders decided to do it; others refused. But everyone knew about it.”
Israel had no way of knowing that NSA’s Hebrew linguists were not on the ship, but on a plane flying high above. Nevertheless, evidence of the slaughter might indeed have been captured by the unmanned recorders in the NSA spaces. Had the torpedo not made a direct hit there, the evidence might have been discovered when the tapes were transmitted or shipped back to NSA. At the time, Israel was loudly proclaiming — to the United States, to the United Nations, and to the world — that it was the victim of Egyptian aggression and that it alone held the moral high ground. Israel’s commanders would not have wanted tape recordings of evidence of the slaughters to wind up on desks at the White House, the UN, or the Washington Post. Had the jamming and unmarked fighters knocked out all communications in the first minute, as they attempted to do; had the torpedo boat quickly sunk the ship, as intended; and had the machine gunners destroyed all the life rafts and killed any survivors, there would have been no one left alive to tell any stories.
That was the conclusion of a study on the Liberty done for the U.S. Navy’s Naval Law Review, written by a Navy lawyer, Lieutenant Commander Walter L. Jacobsen. “To speculate on the motives of an attack group that uses unmarked planes and deprives helpless survivors of life rafts raises disturbing possibilities,” he wrote, “including the one that the Liberty crew was not meant to survive the attack, and would not have, but for the incorrect 6th Fleet radio broadcast that help was on its way — which had the effect of chasing off the MTBs [motor torpedo boats].”
Since the very beginning, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, appointed Chief of Naval Operations shortly after the attack, has also been convinced that the assault was deliberate. “I have to conclude that it was Israel’s intent to sink the Liberty and leave as few survivors as possible,” he said in 1997, on the thirtieth anniversary of the assault. “Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American.”
And in a CIA report received by that agency on July 27, 1967, a CIA official quotes one of his sources, who seems to be an Israeli government official:
[Regarding the] attack on USS LIBERTY by Israeli airplanes and torpedo boats . . . He said that, “You’ve got to remember that in this campaign there is neither time nor room for mistakes,” which was intended as an obtuse reference that Israel’s forces knew what flag the LIBERTY was flying and exactly what the vessel was doing off the coast. [Deletion] implied that the ship’s identity was known six hours before the attack but that Israeli headquarters was not sure as to how many people might have access to the information the LIBERTY was intercepting. He also implied that [deletion] was no certainty on controls as to where the intercepted information was going and again reiterated that Israeli forces did not make mistakes in their campaign. He was emphatic in stating to me that they knew what kind of ship the USS LIBERTY was and what it was doing offshore.
The CIA called the document “raw intelligence data,” and said it was one of “several which indicated a possibility that the Israeli Government knew about the USS Liberty before the attack.”
In fact, another CIA report, prepared in 1979, indicates that Israel not only knew a great deal about the subject of signals intelligence during the 1967 war, but that Sigint was a major source of their information on the Arabs. “The Israelis have been very successful in their Comint [communications intelligence] and Elint [electronic intelligence] operations against the Arabs,” said the report. “During the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israelis succeeded in intercepting, breaking, and disseminating a tremendous volume of Arab traffic quickly and accurately, including a high-level conversation between the late President Gamal Abdel Nasser of the UAR and King Hussein of Jordan. Over the years the Israelis have mounted cross-border operations and tapped Arab landline communications for extended periods. The Israelis have also on occasion boobytrapped the landlines.”
The same CIA report also made clear that after collecting intelligence on the Arab world, spying on the United States was Israel’s top priority: “The principal targets of the Israeli intelligence and security services are:… (2) collection of information on secret U.S. policy or decisions, if any, concerning Israel.”
A mistake or mass murder? It was a question Congress never bothered to address in public hearings at the time. Among those who have long called for an in-depth congressional investigation was Admiral Thomas Moorer, who went on to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Congress to this day,” he said, “has failed to hold formal hearings for the record on the Liberty affair. This is unprecedented and a national disgrace.” Perhaps it is not too late, especially for a Congress that rushes into lengthy hearings on such momentous events as the firing of a few employees from a travel office in the White House.
“I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation…. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.”
–former U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk
“The evidence was clear. Both Adm. Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack … was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew…. Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded — a war crime….”
–affidavit of U.S. Navy Captain Ward Boston, 9 January 2004
“There is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.”
–Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 14 January 2004
“Nearly as bizarre as the attack itself was the reaction of the American government to the incident. A foreign nation had butchered American servicemen, sending thirty-four to their graves…. A virtually unarmed American naval ship in international waters was shot at, strafed with rockets, torpedoed, set on fire … then left to sink as crazed gunners shot up the life rafts. The foreign nation then says, sorry about that, and offers an explanation so outrageous that it is insulting, and the American government accepts it, sweeps the whole affair under a rug, then classifies as top secret nearly all details concerning it.”
–James Bamford, The Puzzle Palace
“Yet the ultimate lesson of the Liberty attack had far more effect on policy in Israel than in America. Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If America’s leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.”
–George Ball, U.S. Undersecretary of State at the time, The Passionate Attachment
“Is there any criminal act that Israel can do without being protected from criticism from the United States? If there is I haven’t seen it. And I haven’t seen it from the Bush Administration or from the Clinton Administration or from any administration before them. But when you consider the influence of Israel’s lobby and its political action committees and the more than $41 million they’ve given to Congress and the White House, is it any wonder Israel is shielded from any shame?”
–U.S. Brigadier General James J. David (Ret.)
“On June 8, 1967, the Israeli government learned that it could get away with murder, literally, and the crime would be covered up, so strong is the influence of the Israel Lobby in our Congress — and indeed, in the White House. And those USS Liberty veterans who survived well enough to call for an independent investigation have been hit with charges of, you guessed it, anti-Semitism.”
–Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst
“To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn’t identify the ship is … ridiculous…. Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument.”
–Admiral Thomas Moorer, former chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited in The Washington Post, 15 June 1991, p. 14
A link would have sufficed.
TIA’s true colors are showing today.
“Regardless of whether Trump ordered the move, the White House appears behind the disrespectful order. It not only made our service personnel into props but made our military look like fawning servants to the fragile ego of a leader. I have no reason to doubt Trump’s denial.”
*******************************
Ironically, John McCain was a central figure in yet another catastrophic Navy cover-up. Through his negligence (he crashed three planes in training while “clowning” when only one is needed to wash out) or faintness of heart, McCain aided mightily in blowing up an aircraft carrier — the Forrestall — resulting in 134 deaths and which the Navy dutifully covered up for the son and grandson of noted admirals. While sitting in his cockpit, McCain panicked and hit the wrong switches after a Zuni rocket from an F4 Phantom struck an adjacent, parked A-4’s fuel tank and then plummeted into the ocean. The mistakes caused his sole M-65 bomb to drop and split open intensifying the already ignited A4 fuel. For his part, McCain left the inferno and watched scores of his shipmates, many untrained in fire suppression, battle the fire from the pilot’s ready room despite not being injured. The next day McCain then boarded a helicopter with a NYT reporter and flew to Saigon as the fires raged out of control and men died for what he said was “some welcome R&R.”
There’s a name for that in the Navy and it rhymes with Howard. What’s another Navy “cover-up” involving McCain’s “good” name? Kismet?
You need to quit recycling stuff from the Wacky World of Websites.
TIAx8:
Actually, I first heard this story sometime ago on a charter bus ride to Arlington Cemetery from two Navy vets who served with sailors on the Forestall. I was interested so I did some research, found the Navy report full of surmise and glossing, and then went to the TruthDig site. The article by award-winning historian Mary Hershberger seems very plausible to me and I did confirm with an ex-F4 pilot friend of mine (who was cross-certified on the A-4) that the plane’s bomb mechanism does require activation of two switches as well as the fact that McCain himself admitted that his bomb(s) ( He said two; the Navy said one) did deploy in his book “Faith of Our Fathers.”
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/investigating-john-mccains-tragedy-at-sea/
Sorry, you’re assessment of your sources stinks.
TIAx8:
“Sorry, you’re assessment of your sources stinks.”
************************
I’ll gladly defer to any of your better credentialed, disinterested ones. I think you’re confusing the bogus anti-McCain “wet-start” tale about the cause of the fire with the official one that Hershberger clarifies. The Navy agrees with her in most respects except the actions of McCain which are glossed over or not addressed.
the actions of McCain which are glossed over or not addressed.
The first order of business for McCain would have been to get out of the plane and away from the fire.
“The first order of business for McCain would have been to get out of the plane and away from the fire.”
*******************************
It was especially so given burning fuel nearby and the bomb’s detonation just 90 seconds after the drop. However, it was not the order of business to panic and disengage a 2000 pound bomb that will not drop absent the activation of two switches. The Navy made no mention of the reason for the bomb drop in the report though this event almost assuredly turned a bad situation into a conflagration. Mistaking the canopy release and the bomb release may have been excusable negligence but it should have been noted. The real item that should be trumpeted was leaving a mortally wounded ship for some “R & R” when his role in the disaster was not yet fully determined.
Again, this is far too technical a complaint for you to be trusting the source you’re trusting.
“…the actions of McCain which are glossed over or not addressed.”
______________________________________________________
Can you say two Admirals; one a father; one a grandfather?
In the good old days, one of the first written questions recruits were compelled to answer upon intake processing was whether they had parents or relatives in military, government or elected office. The military branch demanded to know if and how the recruit was “connected.” The first consideration was if the military was inducting a child of an influential person and the second was exactly who the influential person was.
I found that a bit odd. The military was fully prepared to show favor for and deference to their political superiors.
RHIP.
Thank you, mespo……..good to know!
Cathy, it’s not “good to know” BS, which is what that story is. Supposed “patriots” smear the military records of men twice their size for political means. Disgraceful.
1) My name is not Cathy
2) I was not addressing you
1) My name is not Cathy
As in “Chatty Cathy” maybe?
2) I was not addressing you
Then perhaps you should have had a private convo with your friend mespo. Anyone is free to comment on a blog.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Chatty%20Cathy
“Any woman (or man) who wont shut up. Sometimes it’s interesting, sometimes it’s not. Mostly not.”
Anonymous……..You’re obsessed with me, and it’s actually kinda cute.
It’s always that way with five-year-olds. Obnoxious but cute!
😁
Or “Anonymous” might be like one of those “problem kids” in dysfunctional families*… — the one who tells the truth.
*like this little blog “family”
“You’re obsessed with me…”
You (and Karen S) are such dreamers.
No one is obsessed with you.
“The truth hurts, but the truth will set you free.”
– Rev. Ralph David Abernathy
Then somebody ought to tell historian Mary Hersberger that it was debunked.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/investigating-john-mccains-tragedy-at-sea/
She has no background in military history or the relevant technology. I don’t know why you’d disregard an official report by Navy professionals and pay attention to this woman. That’s on the level of The New York Review of Books commissioning work from an English professor critiquing the National Transportation Safety Board (and yes, they did this repeatedly).
“I don’t know why you’d disregard an official report by Navy professionals and pay attention to this woman.”
******************
Still clinging to that Clayton Hardwick smear job that the Navy “reported” after the Iowa explosion, I see. You really need to get over that naïveté thing. Disinterested and accomplished women historians trump interested organizational investigator’s most every time.
Hey you want some Tobacco Institute studies about the safety of smoking?
“Hartwig”
So Mespo, let me get this straight: “Trump was right to want this ship removed because McCain was such a disgrace’..??
This comment illustrates that Trump supporters will perform acrobatics of logic in defending Trump. It appears that no premise is far-fetched enough.
You must have bullfrog legs to jump to the conclusions you do.
The ship was named after John McCain farther, Admiral John McCain.
One cannot go much “FARTHER” in betraying one’s country and one’s party, the Republican party, than John McShame did on Obongocare.
There’s a hint of “dysfunctional family” by and large allowing us to safely overlook that minor technicality.
Navy reports that it wasn’t done so what’s the big deal? It’s hard to see streets and schools named after politicians that were part of the plan to take down a sitting president that won fair and square with no collusion. It just is. McCain played a part in it with the dossier.
“These warships have missions and are not props.” True, their missions are imperialism, maintaining U.S. domination of the region, and recklessly increasing the possibility of war (nuclear, that is) with China, or Russia, or North Korea, or any country that purports to contest, or even just object to, the United States not keeping to itself and telling other countries what kind of societies they should have.
“Moreover, the people serving on these ships are not some collective pariah due to petty politics.” Maybe, maybe not. This is a point that requires further support.
The concealment of one egomaniac’s name by another, in other words, is the least important issue raised by this whole episode. We’re talking about form here, not substance. Everybody who is paying any attention knows that the U.S. military owns U.S. politics lock, stock, and barrel, is the spearhead of a grotesque empire with no moral justification, and this buzz about things that may have happened outside the proper chain of command of the civilian leadership is just playacting. We need to grow up and face reality if we ever hope to have democracy restored.
Everybody who is paying any attention knows that the U.S. military owns U.S. politics lock, stock, and barrel, is the spearhead of a grotesque empire with no moral justification,
There is no empire outside your imagination and military expenditure is the one sort of federal spending whose share of available revenues is responsive to objective circumstances and reliably goes down as well as up. Contrast that with (say) farm subsidies or higher education subsidies.
You know nothing.
why do you think it’s not an empire? do what you like but if it were me, I would try and not just insult people
here’s a decent essay that asserts America is a HEGEMON, not an empire.
i can see the argument that it’s an empire, but this article makes a good point
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1237
Paul Schroeder
Mr. Schroeder is Professor Emeritus of History, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
At the January meeting of the American Historical Association Professor Schroeder gave an electrifying address on the differences between imperialism and hegemony. AHA President Lynn Hunt ran up to him afterwards to implore him to write an op-ed. At our request, he did so.
American Empire is the current rage–whether hailed or denounced, accepted as inevitable or greeted as an historic opportunity. Common to the discourse is an assumption, shared also by friends and foes abroad, that America already enjoys a world-imperial position and is launched on an imperial course.
But that assumption involves another: that America is already an empire simply by being the world’s only superpower, by virtue of its military supremacy, economic power, global influence, technological and scientific prowess, and world-wide alliances. The term “empire,” in short, describes America’s current condition and world status, and is equivalent to phrases like “unipolar moment” or “unchallenged hegemony.”
This is a misleading, unhistorical understanding of empire, ignoring crucial distinctions between empire and other relationships in international affairs and obscuring vital truths about the fate of empires and bids for empire within the modern international system. A better understanding of empire can point us to historical generalizations we ignore at our peril.
First a definition: empire means political control exercised by one organized political unit over another unit separate from and alien to it. Many factors enter into empire–economics, technology, ideology, religion, above all military strategy and weaponry–but the essential core is political: the possession of final authority by one entity over the vital political decisions of another. This need not mean direct rule exercised by formal occupation and administration; most empires involve informal, indirect rule. But real empire requires that effective final authority, and states can enjoy various forms of superiority or even domination over others without being empires.
This points to a critical distinction between two terms frequently employed as synonyms: hegemony and empire. These are two essentially different relationships. Hegemony means clear, acknowledged leadership and dominant influence by one unit within a community of units not under a single authority. A hegemon is first among equals; an imperial power rules over subordinates. A hegemonic power is the one without whom no final decision can be reached within a given system; its responsibility is essentially managerial, to see that a decision is reached. An imperial power rules the system, imposes its decision when it wishes.
Powerful implications flow from this definition and distinction. First, hegemony in principle is compatible with the international system we now have, composed of autonomous, coordinate units enjoying juridical equality (status, sovereignty, rights, and international obligations) regardless of differences in power. Empire is not.
Second, those who speak of an American empire bringing freedom and democracy to the world are talking of dry rain and snowy blackness. In principle and by definition, empire is the negation of political freedom, liberation, and self-determination.
This empire/hegemony dialectic yields some profound historical lessons, offered here without proof, though historical evidence is abundant:
1) There are circumstances (the absence or breakdown of inter-state or inter-community order) under which empires have historically provided a certain order and stability, though almost always accompanied by overt and latent violence, disorder, and war. Where, however, a relatively stable international system of autonomous units already exists, attempts to make that system work and endure through empire have not only regularly failed, but overwhelmingly produced massive instability, disorder, and war.
2) Recurrently throughout modern history leading powers have at critical junctures chosen empire over hegemony, and thereby triggered large-scale disorder and war. In some instances, the choice was conscious and demonstrable, in many others less clear-cut and more debatable. Nonetheless, the historian can point to repeated instances over the last five centuries where leader and powers, having the option between empire and hegemony, chose the path of empire, and thereby ruined themselves and the system.
3) The converse also holds. Where real advances in international order, stability, and peace have been achieved (and they have been), they have been connected with choices leading powers have made for durable, tolerable hegemony rather than empire.
4) Recent developments reshaping the international system (e.g., globalization, the rise of new states, the growth of non-governmental actors and international institutions, developments in weaponry, etc.) reinforce this longstanding trend, making empire increasingly unworkable and counterproductive as a principle of order, and hegemony more possible, more needed, and more potentially stable and beneficial.
These are not academic propositions. They illuminate the choice for America today. It is not an empire–not yet. But it is at this moment a wannabe empire, poised on the brink. The Bush Doctrine proclaims unquestionably imperialist ambitions and goals, and its armed forces are poised for war for empire–formal empire in Iraq through conquest, occupation, and indefinite political control, and informal empire over the whole Middle East through exclusive paramountcy. The administration pursues this path even in the face of a far graver challenge by North Korea to both its imperial pretensions and its own and the world’s security.
History here warrants a prediction, based not on analogies or examples from the past but on sober analysis of what can and cannot succeed in this international world. If America goes down the path of empire, it will ultimately fail. How, when, and with what consequences, no one can tell–but fail it will, and harm itself and the world in the process. Not the least harm will come from thereby wrecking an American hegemony now clearly possible, needed, and potentially durable and beneficial.
In July 1878, at the end of the Berlin Congress that patched up peace in the Balkans after a Russo-Turkish war, Prince Bismarck told an Ottoman delegate, “This is your last chance–and if I know you, you will not take it.” Bismarck’s words, slightly altered, apply today. This is our best chance–and knowing us, we will not take it. But there is hope. Circumstances, the frictions of war, the pressures and pleas of allies, the maneuvers and resistances of opponents, new foreign dangers, challenges, and distractions, and domestic problems and politics could yet deter this country from a potentially tragic choice of empire and compel it to settle for hegemony. In other words, that special Providence Bismarck once said was reserved for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America may again come to our rescue. “
The babble about ’empire’ has several sources: (1) leftoids engaging in polemics; (2) alt-right / palaeo types engaging in polemics; and (3) academics manufacturing terms of art for self-aggrandizing reasons.
An ’empire’ properly understood consists of assembling by conquest (or other means) dissimilar populations, or consists of assembling territory and population formerly sovereign, or consists of assembling a portfolio of overseas dependencies. Our ‘dissimilar populations’ were scattered aboriginal bands who haven’t in context carried much demographic weight in 200 years. You could include modest Cajun and hispanic populations (in New Orleans, St. Augustine, Santa Fe), which also didn’t carry a great deal of weight in context. There were no formally sovereign territories incorporated into the United States bar the voluntary accession of Vermont (which had a five-digit population at the time). As for overseas dependencies, our investment in that activity was (in absolute terms) modest in comparison with that of Britain, France, Japan, and the Netherlands and (relative to the population of the metropole) Germany and Belgium as well. Nearly 90% of the population of our set of dependencies ca. 1922 was to be found in the Philippines, which were never intended to be held permanently. The Philippines were relinquished 70-odd years ago. Separatist sentiment in the residue has always been modest or non-existent.
We’ve had, over time, overseas military deployments. Since 1946, these have varied between 13% and 30% of our total manpower. A dozen years ago, over 85% of our troops abroad were to be found in about five countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Germany, and Japan). Germany and Japan were not under our ‘political control’, and what was most notable about Iraq and Afghanistan was a deficit of control.
you make a lot of good points
you are also right to point to the acquisition of the Phlip. as an exception to your point.
But maybe it was not really an exception but the essence of the point itself. I have heard some people argue that was the moment of transition to Empire, the Spanish American war 1898. But that too had its origin in the Monroe Doctrine.
About postwar occupation of Germany and Japan, as of a few years after, perhaps since then they did not operate under our direct political control. But rather under political boundaries that were absolutely set down by the US as conditions to rebuilding and investment and the reconstitution of their sovereign governments in the first place. These boundaries persist today as does a strong form of indirect control arising out of economic relations.
if America is not an Empire, if it is a hegemon only perhaps as the professor argued, but it is more powerful than Empires of the past, in so many interesting ways, that mostly do not persist on the basis of overt military control. but we have a lot of that too.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make the argument America is an Empire. And it’s often just an entry ramp to a finer point.,
to me more interesting questions about empire versus hegemon are a) what does this mean in the context of centuries of the erosion of the spatial order which existed after Westphalia– i guess you could call it national sovereignty (Nomos of the Earth by Carl Schmitt covers this some and b) what is the future outlook for the nation state as such, particularly, compared to the rising relative power of nonstate actors? that’s the subject of Martin Van Creveld’s book I think its called “Decline of the state”
a third topic that i find interesting along these lines, is the degree and ways by which technological integration for purposes of finance and telecommunications, has one the one hand eroded sovereignty for less powerful states, and on the other hand for larger states like the US or China, increased international power
do what you like but if it were me, I would try and not just insult people
An observation is not an insult. I have not time for people who recycle polemical literature.
ha ha you got about an hour a day at least for people who do that every single day on this website
“I have no reason to doubt Trump’s denial.”
Then why does this incident rise to such a high profile in your mind leaving so many more important issues left unsaid?
News article: Cat kicked across the street from Trump Tower.
JT blog: I have no reason to believe Trump kicked the cat.
(Washington Post: Trump was not at the White House in Washington when the cat was kicked.)
(CNN: Black SUV’s in the area when a man looking like Trump kicked the cat)
Drudge: Trump returning from Japan today.
LMAO
Touche
So Prof Turley has no problem with someone in the Navy/govt leaking to the media US ship Orders & movements!
Also demanding more people govt be insubordinate & disobey the executive branch of govt., like there hasn’t been enough them already.
Hell, I need to get LeftO the Clown on the phone & see what he thinks about this Turley, heck we can just release to the world media/foreign govts all troop, ship movement & the launch codes. lol
BTW: I think Trump should rename that renamed ship, the McCain & forever call it the USS Forrestal in honor the men injured & killed by that idiot/traitor McCain.
BTW: I think Trump should rename that renamed ship, the McCain & forever call it the USS Forrestal in honor the men injured & killed by that idiot/traitor McCain.
He wasn’t a traitor and the notion that he’s responsible for the Forrestal disaster is a mixture of conjecture and fantasy.
Off hand I don’t recall every action McCain took against the US, but is a matter of record, with pictures/press statements by McCain that he was in with Obama/Hillary arming/Aiding , Alqaeda/ISIS, declared enemies of the US.
US troops were killed because of McCain’s action in those cases.
oh he loved a good “regime change.” that’s why he was handing out cookies in maidan square to the azov battallion.
maybe i have that wrong. maybe he was just meeting with his ally in the coup, operator Tyahnybok. look that one up and lmk if I have it wrong
We need a ship named after a fellow with the last name Korematsu. Do any of you legal bloggers on the blog recall that name?
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of their citizenship. In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the government,[2]
“I have no reason to doubt Trump’s denial.”
Other then his persistent lying about every other thing?
The denial was strong and powerful. Statements made in such a manner must be true.
There is no bottom to what Trump will do and what Republican politicians will support
Anonymous
The USS John S. McCain was named after the Senator’s grandfather and father who were both distinguished naval officers — not after the senator whose naval service record was checkered at best. His POW “brand” was first derided in 1999 in an HBO special by comedian Chris Rock (a fervent Obama supporter) who stated that he didn’t like “heroes that got captured.” Senator McCain’s legislative record is notably controversial and thin (Keating Five and McCain Feingold).
Apparently you forgot it was Trump who made the prefer not captured not Chris Rock!!!!!
tRump isn’t that original
USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_S._McCain_(DDG-56)
USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer currently in the service of the United States Navy. She is part of the Destroyer Squadron 15 …
L4D says–Excerpted from the article linked above:
On 11 July 2018, at a rededication ceremony, Senator John McCain was added as a namesake, along with his father and grandfather.
Are you sure it is not #FakeNews?
Rename it the “John Mc-Make-it-Rain.”
Not to comment on this in particular but the mis-use of government property and the even worse insulting manner in which previous presidents have regarded our flag and military personnel seemed to go unnoticed by most but this maverick president is constantly under criticism, not because he is worse but because he is not part of the DC establishment. Get over yourselves, the military hated 44 and the love 45.
They love 45. Really? Now I think that’s fake news.
McCain’s father and grandfather were prominent admirals.
Should be noted in this regard that the Democratic Party has made use of the Navy as a toy theatre for their social fantasies. The result has been manifest performance failures. Haven’t seen you complaining.
you’re being petty, Jonathan. So much for elevating discourse in our public forum.
Our president is petty and vindictive. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out.
The Navy should rename the ship: USS Fake Bone-Spur So Someone Else Can Go to War And I Like Soldiers Who Weren’t Captured Happy Memorial Day Tremendous
They’d have to make the “aft” as wide as Trump’s [redacted].
L4D says–The un-redacted version of The Robert Burns Report on Trump’s “Aft Ton”
Flow gently, Tweet Aft Ton! amang thy green brays,
Flow gently, I’ll sing thee a song in thy praise;
My Mary’s asleep by thy murmuring stream,
Flow gently, Tweet Aft Ton, disturb not her dream.
Robert Burns Country: Sweet Afton :
http://www.robertburns.org/works/340.shtml
Flow gently, sweet Afton! amang thy green braes, Flow gently, I’ll sing thee a song in thy praise; My Mary’s asleep by thy murmuring stream, Flow gently, sweet …
L4D says–Pop Quiz:
How might Trump’s “Aft Ton” disturb Mary’s dream?
A) [redacted for Peripheral Privacy.]
B) [redacted for Harm To Ongoing Matter]
C) [redacted for Rule 6(E) Grand Jury Material]
D) [redacted for Classified Information]