Return to Norfolk Liberty Questions About the Liberty Two Accounts The Israeli Account Contradictions The Rescue Flights Recall of the Flights The Naval Hearing Washington View   Press Control Press Reactions The Crew Organizes

The American press was often critical of Israel and skeptical about Israeli claims in the first few weeks after the attack on the Liberty. However, this original critical view did not result in any follow up by journalists. No paper or magazine sent a reporter to contact the crew, and the press criticism remained speculative and unverified. From June 10 to 28, while the Navy worked to organize the Naval Court report, there was much journalistic speculation. On June 16 Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson wrote in their syndicated column that the attack had been planned in advance and was too well coordinated to have been accidental. On June 19 NEWSWEEK'S "Periscope" stated that "some high Washington officials" suspected that the attack was deliberate; the ship had been attacked because it had evidence that Israel had begun the fighting. On June 26 US NEWS said that US officials did not believe that the attack was accidental. The reason for the attack was not clear, however, and the magazine said that "the full story may never be told". (Here was an odd instance of surrendering before the battle was begun; a magazine which sends no reporters to contact the crew complains that the full story may never be told). On June 27 William Buckley in NATIONAL REVIEW issued to most emphatic and angry statement of all the commentators: "Is the LIBERTY episode being erased from history? So it would seem.... What has happened to our prying journalistic corps and our editors, normally so indignant at suppression of the news?....We believe that a joint select committee of Congress should investigate the strange case of the USS LIBERTY....It remains logically possible that the Israeli command ordered the attack".... On June 28 the Naval Court Summary was published, and it was criticized in most papers and magazines for failing to answer important questions. However, after this date the press began to increasingly favor the Israelis in their comments, for reasons which are not clear. For instance, the journals accepted the Israeli claims that the LIBERTY had no flag or other signs of identification, despite the testimony of the crew and the statements in the Summary. The stories which at first seemed to promise vigorous investigation fizzled out without results. Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson never followed up on their original claim that the attack was planned in advance, and in fact never referred again to the topic. (Years later, when LIBERTY crewmen asked him for more information on the topic, Anderson claimed to have no memory of the issue and could provide no information.) Similarly, NATIONAL REVIEW did not follow up on Buckley's original claims. There were no more articles on the subject in NATIONAL REVIEW until September 5, when James Kilpatrick wrote "June 8 at 1400 Hours". Although Buckley had called for aggressive reporting, Kilpatrick was bland and hesitant. He reviewed some of the questions concerning the attack, without reaching any conclusion, and decided that "the questions beg for answers" but provided no answers. (Several years later I wrote to Buckley to ask why the magazine had changed its view so radically, but I received only a frivolous answer that "NATIONAL REVIEW chooses its battles".) There were no more stories on the issue in 1967, and only two in 1968, both closing the books on the case. US NEWS and NEWSWEEK in their final articles ignored any previous skepticism and accepted as fact the Israeli claims that LIBERTY showed no flag or other signs of identification. We should note also the record of the NEW YORK TIMES on the LIBERTY issue. First, there is the TIMES editorial of June 10, 1967, declaring that the attack was accidental. At this time the ship was beginning its journey to Malta for an investigation. The editors knew nothing except that the ship had been attacked; Israel had claimed the attack was accidental; and wounded seamen (quoted in the TIMES of June 10, in fact) had declared that the attack was intentional. Nevertheless the TIMES never hesitated to declare the attack an accident, prior to all investigation, and has never wavered in this stand. The TIMES on June 18 printed contradictory stories side by side but did not investigate to see which story was true, and did not show much interest. On July 7, 1967 it printed the account by Micha Limor, which conflicted with all accounts to date, but did not seem to be concerned about the conflict. THE TIMES for over three decades has had a policy of avoiding any mention of THE LIBERTY insofar as possible, as is illustrated by the following Orwellian account. In late August 1967 the American Legion met in Boston for its annual convention. The Legion passed a dozen resolutions, most of them relating to the Vietnam War. However, Resolution No. 508 dealt with THE LIBERTY and demanded an official inquiry into the attack. THE TIMES covered the convention in detail and wrote about the various resolutions debated and adopted. There was no mention, however, of No. 508, the LIBERTY resolution. During the summer of 1967 there was much discontent in the State Department and the National Security Council over the LIBERTY matter. Secretary Rusk and Congressman Abernathy said that the Congress was enraged and absorbed in the issue, and that there was much hostility toward the official story. Rusk told his colleagues in Luxembourg that the attack was deliberate, and Hickenlooper and other senators were still angry in July when confronting McNamara. None of this discontent or political current was reported in the TIMES at the time, but was only discovered and reported later by the LIBERTY men and their newsletter. The record of the press on the LIBERTY issue is an odd one, with silences, unexplained reversals of view, and especially failure to investigate by contacting the crew. The case presented by the US and Israeli governments was a flimsy one, and one crusading journal determined to find the truth could have destroyed the entire official history.