Has Nader Gone Round the Bend?

In this clip, Ralph Nader expresses his opinion that the U.S.S. Liberty incident of 1967 was a deliberate attack by Israel, but presents this interpretation as established fact. It is not. While many false flag operations have been exposed, the Liberty incident is not one of them. It’s still up in the air. Some crew members believed it was an unprovoked attack by the Israelis, but others believed it was an accident, so McCain’s choosing of a side has nothing whatsoever to do with “honor, duty, patriotism”, etc. McCain may genuinely believe the accidental-attack explanation. Even if he doesn’t buy into it and was being deceptive when he wrote the promotional blurb for The Liberty Incident, it seems to me he might have been defending his father’s memory rather than being in thrall to the “AIPAC pro-Israel lobby” as Nader implies. I find the insinuation that McCain was somehow bullied by Jewish people into supporting a theory he knows to be false offensive and unwarranted. Politicians write blurbs of their own free will, and if they don’t want to promote a particular book that someone has asked them to endorse, they simply decline.

While Nader’s opinion on this matter is not overtly anti-Semitic, his eagerness to pin the blame for McCain’s alleged role in an alleged cover-up onto pro-Israel partisans disturbs me. The anti-Semitic statements recently made by some otherwise intelligent politicianshave me wondering if Nader could be veering in that direction.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Has Nader Gone Round the Bend?

  1. I’ve never heard that there ever was any disagreement among the Liberty survivors whether or not the attack was a mistake. The only voice I ever heard was that it couldn’t be.If I missed something, could someone show me where I’m missing something.

  2. Interesting that Nader, the King of “consumer protection”, morphed into not only a politician but a multiple run Presidential candidate. “Consumer protection” is a completely non-partisan, selfless benificence – just like “health promotion” – isn’t it? Technocrats in these fields don’t have any agendas whatsoever, other than “helping” people – right? Wrong.

  3. Anon, “believe” should and will be amended to the past tense. Initially there were many crew members who believed the attack was a mistake, but it seems there are currently no dissenting voices. However, before leaping to the defense of every Liberty survivor, please keep in mind that a few of them – notably Phil Tourney – work closely with blatantly anti-Semitic organizations and individuals (perhaps out of ignorance or political expediency, but that doesn’t make their involvement any less discrediting).SoG, I truly want to think the best of Nader. Really I do. He still does a tremendous amount of good, nonprofit work and I think he was one of the best consumer advocates the U.S. ever had. But, he’s a politician now and I simply don’t trust politicians. It’s very awkward. If he had said this stuff about the Liberty 20 years ago, perhaps it would have been more credible…

  4. sme please, a single shred of proof that there was ever, or now, any dissent among the Liberty survivors. As the only American eyewitnesses to the event, I think they deserve more credibility than you give them.As far as Phil Tourney and blatantly anti-semitic cohorts goes, I suppose you’d include the VFW? Good commenters don’t resort to name-calling. Shame.

  5. Anon, is your Google finger broken…?I’ll break it down for you.Phil Tourney collaborates with Mark Glenn, a contributor to The American Free Press. They often give joint speeches and interviews. If you are not familiar with the history and aims of the AFP, please acquaint yourself with them before deciding it’s a perfectly legit publication. Tourney was also a speaker at the 14th Institute for Historical Review conference. Enough said. Also, I have found a “dissenter” among the Liberty survivors, Maurice Bennett. He worked with Cristol, author of The Liberty Incident. Some Liberty survivors initially thought the attack was accidental, as evidenced in their personal testimonies and in statements given close to the time of the attack. As I don’t have time right now to dig all that up for you, I suggest you read some survivor testimonies yourself. You’ll see what I mean. I support the Liberty survivors in their quest for truth and justice. Most of them firmly reject the anti-Semitic activity of fellow survivors, conspiracy theorists, etc. As I mentioned in the post, it is entirely possible that the Liberty incident was intentional – but that has not been officially proven yet. In fact, 10 official U.S. investigations found it to be a case of mistaken identity. What I will NOT support is anti-Jewish sentiment and unfounded accusations masquerading as “anti-Zionism” or “criticism of Israel”. I’ve done some homework. Now you go do some before commenting again, eh?

  6. Here in the West, the term antisemitism is smeared on anyone not marching in lockstep with the Israeli right wing, from Likud on, so the charge has lost much of its relevance. Fortunately, there are enough Israeli (and American Jewish) lefties equally critical of the Israeli handling of the Liberty affair to make any mention of antisemitism unworthy in a fair forum, and serves only to divert the conversation.Bad things happen in war. No country comes out of any war with clean hands including Israel and the US. But, but if the American government is truly participating in a 40-year coverup in detriment to its own military personnel (on behalf of Israel or any other foreign country) we have a right to know and hold it accountable in any forum available to us. Sad to say, it looks like it is.Thanks for the pointer to Mr. Bennett. I’ll use my Google finger when it heals (not entirely a metaphor).Shalom

  7. the term antisemitism is smeared on anyone not marching in lockstep with the Israeli right wing, from Likud on, so the charge has lost much of its relevance.Nonsense. This only appears to be true if you listen to anti-Semites themselves, who constantly whine about being persecuted or marginalized for their “anti-Zionist” or “anti-Israel” beliefs. People who legitimately criticize actions/policies of Israel, WITHOUT condemning the entire nation, rarely experience such problems. Of course I didn’t say that anyone who supports the false flag theory of the Liberty incident is anti-Semitic. That would be absurd. And if there is a cover-up, of course I want it to be exposed so that we can have a more accurate portrait of history.I simply pointed out a few individuals who, while not blatantly expressing anti-semitic opinions, could be sliding in that direction. This post was barely about the Liberty incident at all; it was about Ralph Nader’s eagerness to condemn an entire nation for a decision that was made by one man. I would be equally offended if he said that Canadians, or Uruguayans, or Saudi Arabians forced John McCain to write a book blurb.I would like to retain some respect for Ralph Nader, but that’s just about impossible to do at the moment…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s