Then followed the comments of Capt. Ernest Castle, the U.S. naval attaché at the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv in 1967, who strongly endorsed the mistake theory. Then the voice-over by Bloomstein, the commentator, mentioned the allegations that Moshe Dayan ordered the attack: “If there was a high level conspiracy to destroy the ‘Liberty,’ an inevitable suspect was the Minister of Defense, Moshe Dayan. But on the 8th of June, Dayan was the only voice in the Israeli Cabinet against an attack on Syria. It was not until the next morning, when he learnt that Egypt, Jordan and Syria had agreed to a cease-fire that he gave the order to invade the Golan 16 hours after the ‘Liberty’ was attacked.”4 The program was aired on Tuesday, January 27, 1987, at 10:30 p.m. on British television.
Just a few weeks after it was broadcast in England, the Thames documentary was aired on Israeli television on February 15, 1987, on an evening program titled Mabat Shaine,5 which is an Israeli magazine-format show similar to 20/20 or 60 Minutes. The program began with the following introductory comment:
Good evening. The tragedy of the Intelligence Ship Liberty left a deep scar on U.S.-Israeli relationship. . . .
[A]s we will shortly see, former Secretary of State Mr. Dean Rusk claims that “Israel’s Air Force and Navy intentionally attacked the ship . . . this was a premeditated scheme. . . .” This opinion is shared by many American Navy men as well as those who served aboard the Liberty along with the 171 who were injured and family members of the 34 crew members that were killed. The rest blame Israel and the U.S. for conspiring to keep the records of the incident under complete secrecy.
The film we are about to see was aired by BBC Second Network a few weeks ago. Israeli diplomats in London were concerned at the time that the program will [would] raise anti-Israel feelings, especially after the recent revelation of the Vaanunu affair and the supply of arms to Iran scandal. In retrospect, these concerns were proven uncalled for. The newspaper comment after the broadcast concluded that Israel did not intentionally attack the ship, “It was a mistake.” The work of the Thames team proved to be fair and objective and the producer, Rex Bloomstein, coordinated an outstanding investigation that we put on now for you.
Both the Liberty crew members who had initiated this production and the IDF Spokesman who changed his position and opened up to the Thames team were disappointed with the production, as each expected it to completely adopt their respective versions of the event.
In May 1987, the Iraqi attack on the U.S. guided-missile frigate Stark generated interest in the Liberty incident on the part of the producers of the ABC-TV program 20/20. ABC News bought the rights to the Thames TV program and produced a segment aired on 20/20 that consisted of an edited version of the Thames program, cut from fifty-three minutes seventeen seconds to a little under thirty minutes. The 20/20 segment, produced with voice-overs by Barbara Walters and Hugh Downs, aired on May 21, 1987.
By the time 20/20 acquired the program, Thames producer Rex Bloomstein, who served as a technical adviser for the 20/20 production, had shifted from his neutral position and had become convinced that the attack on the Liberty was made in error by the Israelis.6 Whether Bloomstein’s opinion went with the sale of the videotape is unknown, but Barbara Walters opened the program with the remark, “The similarities to this week’s attack on the USS Stark are uncanny.”7 Certainly the tenor of the program seemed to adopt the mistake theory. Walters and Downs explained and commented on the footage shown and concluded the program with the following colloquy:
Barbara Walters: “You know, there are unanswered questions about the Liberty. There will probably be unanswered questions about the Stark for years to come, but Hugh, if there is a lesson, couldn’t one of them be that in time of war, even if it’s not your war, you have to behave as if you might very well be the target, behave that way all the time?”
Hugh Downs: “Somebody once said, ‘We learn from history that we do not learn from history.’ I hope that’s not true and I think there’s a deeper lesson here, and that points to the urgent necessity of arms reduction in an age of high-tech weaponry, where a mistake can be so devastating. I think humanity has the potential to accomplish this and owes it to itself. . . .”
Barbara Walters: “Because there are mistakes.”
Hugh Downs: “You bet!”8
The “Liberty” newsletter reported that “Walters and Downs . . . repeatedly described the attack as a ‘terrible accident.’” The article characterized the film as misleading because of what it described as the absence of effective rebuttal to the Israeli arguments and because of other alleged omissions.9
Shortly before the twenty-fourth anniversary of the Liberty incident, June 8, 1991, the Liberty Veterans Association extended an invitation to the NBC program The Story behind the Story to attend the association’s annual meeting, which was held in Washington, D.C., that year, and to tape a program. Christopher Carlson, a producer working with NBC Television, and his team attended. A number of the Liberty crew members were videotaped on the afternoon of June 7, 1991. The producer, on his own, also obtained an on-camera appearance by Michael Shiloh,10 Deputy Chief of Mission at the Embassy of Israel in Washington, D.C., who responded to each of the association members’ allegations. Capt. William McGonagle, U.S. Navy (Ret.), the commanding officer of the Liberty at the time of the attack, met with the producer in the suite of George Golden, the president of the association. Captain McGonagle was quite firm in his position that he would go on tape only to talk about the professionalism and heroism of his crew in saving the ship and that he would not discuss theories of the attack.
The final format of the program was a segment of allegations followed by the Israeli rebuttal.11 The program included Seth Mintz telling a modified version of his story and Cdr. David Lewis giving his account of his conversation with Rear Admiral Geis. James Ennes Jr. also told his story about the Liberty having been promised jet air cover overhead in ten minutes in the event of trouble.
The Liberty veterans had high hopes for this production, but they were extremely disappointed when the program aired on the evening of January 27, 1992. The program seemed to refute all their claims and support the mistake theory. The program began with the following opening statement by the commentators:
Jane Wallace: “On the fourth day of the Six Day War, an American ship, the Liberty, was patrolling off the coast of the Gaza Strip.”
Richard Kiley: “Simultaneously, reports came in that a nearby Israeli position was being shelled from the sea. The Israeli high command believed they were under attack by Arab forces. Naval and Air units were sent to investigate and a counterattack was launched. The USS Liberty was in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
The program was not fully researched and contained a number of misstatements of fact. Nevertheless, it was a reasonably accurate account and came to the conclusion that the incident was a tragic mistake, much to the distress of the Liberty crew members who had initiated the interest of NBC.
In the spring of 1992, an independent producer, Justin Sturken, heard the Liberty veterans’ story and was very much persuaded by it. He taped the comments of two of the Liberty crewmen who told the “intentional attack on a U.S. ship” story. For balance, he taped the public affairs officer of Israel’s embassy, Ruth Yaron, at the embassy in Washington, D.C. The program ran seven minutes, forty-eight seconds and was aired on April 14, 1992, on the Geraldo Rivera show Now It Can Be Told.12 Geraldo introduced the tape with the comment:
The year was 1967, and the tiny state of Israel was in a battle for its very existence. Surrounded by Arab enemies who cut off vital supply routes and then promised to push the Jews into the sea, Israel launched a blitz that became known as the Six Day War. On the fourth day of that intense and bloody conflict, Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats attacked an American spy ship that was located in the Mediterranean Sea. Thirty-four Americans were killed. Scores more were wounded. As our Craig Rivera now reports, many survivors believe this incident has been covered up for political reaso
ns ever since that awful day.
Craig Rivera then commented, “It’s been almost a quarter of a century since the USS Liberty left American shores and began its fateful voyage to the Middle East . . . and for all those years Israel has maintained that the attack on the Liberty was a tragic case of mistaken identity. But now, more than ever, the Liberty survivors and their backers think otherwise.”
The program does little more than present the unsubstantiated allegations of two crew members, James Kavanaugh and Richard Sturman, interviewed by Sturken with voice-over by Craig Rivera, and the response of the Embassy of Israel public affairs officer. Geraldo Rivera’s closing remarks suggest that he leans toward the mistake theory. He concluded the program, “Israeli officials admit their confusion at the time, including the identification of the Liberty at one point as a Russian vessel. Israeli sources also mention the fact that their war planes bombed and strafed their own troops in an incident just before the Liberty attack. This is further evidence of a tragic mistake that can often occur in the heat and fog of war.” Geraldo Rivera’s comments certainly do not coincide with the very strong views held by Justin Sturken, the producer.13
On August 9, 2001, at 8:00 p.m. EDT the History Channel aired a program produced by Andrew Rothstein and David Siegel entitled Cover-Up: Attack on the USS Liberty. The producers produced anything but history. The program is not a professional documentary but rather a professional hatchet job. The program was produced with inadequate research and is infected with errors, misrepresentations, and charges not supported by any evidence. All of the conspiracy theories presented in this program have been previously refuted, disproved, or discredited.
The program lacks balance, in that the producers interviewed only a half-dozen of the Liberty crew members.14 The program failed to disclose that the positions presented are not unanimously supported by the entire Liberty crew. Not a single Israeli with firsthand involvement in the event was interviewed. If the producers did not wish to take the necessary time or go to the expense of such interviews, numerous interviews of Israelis with firsthand knowledge of the event were available on videotape from the Thames TV or 20/20 programs on the subject. Of course, those programs presented a very different picture of the event than this production.
The story told by Lloyd Painter, an officer who was on the bridge of the Liberty at the time she was attacked, was apparently not checked against his testimony under oath at the U.S. Navy court of inquiry thirty-four years before. Painter’s sworn testimony varies widely from his comments in the program, but no mention was made of the difference.
Although probably not by design, the production does contain one enlightening sequence of footage looking past a copilot’s helmet in a helicopter slowly flying clockwise around the Liberty, first from stern to bow down the port side and then from bow to stern down the starboard side. This helicopter is flying at only a few hundred feet, permitting the viewer to observe the areas where the flag was hoisted on Liberty’s halyard, the letters and numbers on her bow and stem, and the name Liberty on her curved stern. It is readily apparent that the flag is not discernible; that the letters GTR are almost impossible to read, while the larger number 5 is more discernible; and that the curved stern makes it very difficult to read the name except from close in, directly astern. If these identification points are that difficult to see from a slow-moving helicopter within a few hundred feet of the ship and only a few hundred feet in the air, then it is apparent that a plane flying fast and high at a distance of a quarter of a mile or more would have little chance of identifying the ship from the flag, the hull marks, or the name on the stern.
The narrator, Arthur Kent, talks about, and attributes motives to, the actions of Robert McNamara, the U.S. secretary of defense in June 1967, but he neither interviews McNamara nor discloses his testimony about the event before Congress. Some excerpts from that testimony that conflict with the program’s inferences are:
Secretary McNamara. . . . But I have examined the record of investigation, and I find no intent by the Israeli Government, and no intent by any representative of the Israeli Government to attack a U.S. vessel. . . .
Secretary McNamara. . . . In the case of the attack on the Liberty, it was the conclusion of the investigatory body headed by an admiral of the Navy in whom we have great confidence that the attack was not intentional.
I read the record of the investigation, and I support that conclusion, and I think this, therefore . . . It was not a conscious decision on the part of either the Government of Israel . . . [t]o attack a U.S. vessel.15
The most outrageous false statement by Arthur Kent is: “Unidentified torpedo boats suddenly began firing. McGonagle sent a man to the ship’s machine gun to fire back.” The program thus accuses the Israeli torpedo boats of suddenly opening fire on Liberty and has the Liberty responding by firing back at the torpedo boats. Until this program was aired, it has not been disputed for thirty-four years that the torpedo boats arrived, stopped, and began signaling the Liberty, whereupon the Liberty opened fire on the torpedo boats. The sworn testimony of Commander McGonagle to that effect is in the record of the U.S. Navy court of inquiry, easily available to, but ignored by, the producers.16 In addition, this author provided a copy of the Thames TV documentary Attack on the “Liberty” to producer David Siegel via a letter dated August 10, 2000. The tape contains footage of Commander McGonagle at a press conference in 1967 on board the Liberty with various crew members seated around him. In the tape, McGonagle confirms that the Liberty opened fire on the torpedo boats while the boats were “attempting to signal the ship.”17 In his court of inquiry testimony referred to above, Commander McGonagle said, “As far as the torpedo boats are concerned, I am sure that they felt that they were under fire from USS Liberty.”
Another gross misstatement attacks the quality of the U.S. Navy court of inquiry investigation. Narrator Arthur Kent starts with, “During the formal inquiry aboard ship, it becomes apparent to the crew that the Navy is not interested in conducting an in-depth investigation.” Since the court of inquiry was conducted behind closed doors, Kent does not explain how the intent of the Navy became apparent to the crew during the investigation. Next, crew member John Hrankowski appears on screen and comments, without any further explanation, “The Court of Inquiry was a farce.” There is no mention of the fact that the court was convened by order of Adm. John S. McCain Jr., the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe, and swiftly went into session in London at 2314 London time on the evening of June 10 and took testimony until 0250 the following morning of June 11. The court then left immediately for Valletta, Malta, to meet the Liberty.
There is no mention of Admiral Kidd and his counsel flying to the Liberty while she was still at sea en route to Malta and boarding her at sea on June 12, or of how the court worked continuously after the Liberty’s arrival in Malta, taking testimony on June 14 and 15 and then flying back to London, where it took further testimony until 1645 on June 16. Following deliberations the court’s report was presented to Admiral McCain, who endorsed it and dispatched Admiral Kidd to personally rush-deliver it to the Chief of Naval Operations in Washington, D.C. The actions of Admiral McCain, Admiral Kidd, and the Navy do not suggest a lack of interest in conducting the investigation. The record of the court of inquiry is available upon request from the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. It consists of hundreds of pages, including 158 pages of testimony and forty-nine exhibits, many of which are lengthy. It concludes with fifty-two findings. These findings were endorsed by Admiral McCain with the following conclusion: “The foregoing comments by the convening authority lead to an overall conclusion that the attack was in fact a mistake.” (See chapter 12 for more detail on the court of inquiry.)
It is respectfully suggested that any reasonable person who reads the record and examines the exhibits considered by the court of inquiry would agree that the quality of the report is outstanding. In fact, over thirty years later this author remains impressed by the vast s
cope of the investigation and its drafters’ ability to gather the facts, deliberate on them, and complete the court’s conclusions in the brief time in which the work of the court was accomplished.
Some Liberty conspiracy theorists complain that the court of inquiry did not take testimony from any Israeli witnesses. This is not unusual. After the Gulf War, the United States did not permit U.S. military personnel to appear or testify at the British inquiry into the deaths of nine British military personnel killed by U.S. friendly fire.18 The Israelis did permit their pilots to talk to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (see chapter 12).
Former crew member James Ennes claims in the documentary that no one on the court of inquiry talked to any of the crew. The program fails to mention that the court of inquiry called and took the testimony of nineteen witnesses, of whom fourteen were Liberty crew members.19
The program does not mention that Ennes was wounded in the first minutes of the air attack and taken below deck, where he remained until he was transferred to the America the next day. He was presented on the program speaking in the first person about events that occurred out of his presence with no disclosure that his narrative was pure hearsay. Commander McGonagle remained on the Liberty’s bridge commanding the ship and ultimately sailed her out of harm’s way to a rendezvous with Sixth Fleet destroyers the following morning. Under such circumstances one would assume that Commander McGonagle observed and knew more of what took place during the air and torpedo-boat attacks than Ennes. But the program does not give the viewer the opportunity of learning what Commander McGonagle saw, testified about under oath, and recorded in an official record.
The Liberty Incident Revealed Page 24