Ready, get ready, Okay, September twenty four, twenty twenty five.
Allegedly, according to that thing we call a counter, I might be a little loud there, so I'm going to tone it down for those of you who went, oh god, he just burst into my ears. But anyway, minor technical thing went to Airly doesn't matter. It's Wednesday and I am live on the stream, but you're most likely catching the podcast, so you don't care what day it is, but I gave it to you anyway. Larry Hancock is with me, Larry dash Handcock dot com. Some of you guys,
I know you got it. You got a nickname for Larry, and that's fine. We talked about that just before air actually, and maybe maybe we'll discuss it on another episode because I want to get to this one. This is definitely a different opportunity to go over things with Larry. And what are we going to be talking talking about tonight. Well, the main issue here to me is the USS liberty and again, follow Larry's blog, follow Larry's work, and also take a look at all of his books, which I
all highly recommend. And he does take up a lot of physical space on my bookshelf. But he's not just taking up space. It's quite a comprehensive education actually on a bunch of things. And tonight, which book would we be looking at if we wanted to grab one off of the Larry Hancock section of your bookshelf? Surprise attack? All right, what is that about? Well, if I remember correctly, we're talking everything from a range of like Pearl Harbor
all the way to ben Ghazi. And yeah, that covers a bit of modern American history for sure, but yeah, maybe some other aspects of history as well, and who knows what it is we got to discuss. But somewhere in that book you got to find a section that talks about the USS liberty. Now, I've talked about it on this show with Joan Mellon in the past. I've talked about it with other people in the past in much shorter forms. Her book was called Blood in the Water,
and I still think it is a book of value. However, you're going to get a slightly different look at it, I think, with Larry and maybe some other things along the way. So enough out of me again. Larry Hyphenhancock dot com or Larry dash Handcock dot com. Hyperlinks and all that in the show notes. Go ahead and click on it, follow his blog and obviously, if you don't have all of his books, what are you doing? Get them? And you might have old versions too, so get the
updates as well. Anyway, that's where we're focusing. But there's many other books we could be talking about, even Creating Chaos, etc. But I think we're gonna hover over Surprise Attack tonight. Larry. How are you doing? Though?
First I'm doing fine, Chuck, I'm ready for fall all the still pretty warm here in the nineties.
But nope, doing fine.
Excellent, excellent, And look, Larry might be a little loud too, And I just tapped and adjusted again because it's okay. We can make Larry as loud as you want. But nobody needs their ear drums broken when they've got their air pods or cheap headset but plugged in or whatever. Well they're listening to this, so apologies. But I was explaining before that, you know, using different modes of communication
on this show, et cetera. Yeah, they don't all adjust to the same sound levels, so sorry about that, but I know we're fine now, and Larry's great loud or soft and he's usually not a loud speaker, so that's my fault anyway, Larry, So why would it be? And I love how this is actually very relevant to today.
Maybe you want to start there, like, why is it we should even be talking about these historical events, because a lot of people do that to you right where they say, you know, that's history, and that's great to study, and maybe you can learn something from it, but it's not what I need to focus on what's in front of us now. And people do that with the JFK assassination,
with the other assassinations in the sixties and elsewhere. People talk about, you know what, I don't need to focus on the history of it, because you know, I got this right in front of me. Okay, I get it, But you know, don't we study history as a matter of trying to learn from it, et cetera. And I'll start from that very stupid and over simplified point and handed to you.
What we do.
And I think one of the things one of the reasons we do that is because it gives us a baseline.
It's a baseline.
The reason I got into writing Surprise Attack was really based on my interest in the Kennedy assassination, because one of my one of my questions was, you know, did the things that happened after twelve thirty Central time in Dallas, Texas where they anomalous or not in terms of command and control, in terms of what the new president did or the setting president did, or the Secretary of Defense did, what the what the joint chiefs did, Because obviously there's
a real question, you know, was there anything to see there that's different than basically I won't call it standard practice because one of the things you see quickly when you dig into this is there's no standard It's when you're talking about surprise attack. Yes, there are always plans, and there's always drills, and there's always contingencies, and nobody ever really follows them well at all because it is a surprise.
So baseline is important.
And I think one of the things I would say right off is when I started looking at what happened after Dallas in comparison to basically everything from Pearl Harbor
to Bighazi, unfortunately it stands out as routine. People panic, people don't follow practices, they don't talk to the right people, communications fail, and that kind of brings us to the current events, because I think everybody agrees we are living in a dangerous world right now, probably more dangerous than we have for a few decades, and we're in a situation where there may be a surprise military action. Our president has said, yes, Rush is violin airspace of different
European countries. Yes, they have every right to shoot those aircraft or other aerial objects down at will because they're over their territory and they're not responding. You know, when that sort of thing happens, life gets real quick, and especially it gets real quick.
Go ahead. Yeah, I'm sorry I need to interject here because I think people fail to recognize that, Look, there's a commonality here and whether there are gunshots in the streets somewhere that target a particular individual, and I don't just mean the Kennedy assassination, but even in real time, when somebody's got a grudge and shows back up somewhere and fires a gun, okay, at people, what is the
immediate action that takes place? There is confusion, okay, And there is confusion because even if people witnessed it directly, quite honestly, they don't necessarily know what they saw. Even even the people that were right there. Now, when it comes to a larger action like something, let's go outside of the scope that we mentioned here, but within the timeline nine to eleven. Okay, that happened, and people went what the hell is going on? First? Okay, that was
the initial reaction. Then you're horrified. Okay, this is the order, and then almost immediately what is the first question? What the hell just went wrong? What went wrong that? This is the outcome? And I think this is a template from which you could fit all of this stuff. Okay, whether you're talking about the unnamed attack you know, through gunfire on a street somewhere, or if you want to apply it to the Kennedy assassination, it is a what
the hell just happened? And horror and shock. And I know I'm over simplifying, but finally, what is the first question? What in the hell just went wrong? People will ask that question even if there is a military engagement that suddenly spills over and wow, this turned into a larger attack. This isn't just the exchange of gunfire or one bullet
being fired at somebody. No, no, this turns into many weapons being discharged, a larger amount of destruction, or it is the killing of a significant individual one way or another, or you know what, hate to bring it up, but people would say the whole Charlie Kirk thing, the fact that the public reacted, how did they react? Oh my god, what just happened? Then horrified? We need to grieve, we need to be upset this and that one way or another.
Why are you not upset enough? Not getting into the debate or trying to pull you into it, Larry, But then what is the next question? Almost immediately what went wrong? Now that turns into who to blame and everything else? But those are branches off of the same tree. I look at all of these events in exactly that context.
Do you think that I'm incorrect? And this is this not a way that we sort of create a digestible narrative for any of it again, whether it be Pearl Harbor, or it be the Kennedy assassination, or it'd be BEng Ghazi or nine to eleven or etc. And so on at nauseam? Right, isn't that about the template that people seem to deal with these things until they die into the details. Isn't that just about a fair kind of oversimplification of it? Or do you think I'm wrong.
I think it's fair, Chuck. But I would say that there are actually three templates.
Okay.
One I would call the command and control templament template. That's, you know, something of national security consequence happens that you know, of national impact, whether it's an individual, a military whatever, it's of national impact. The first template is how does the national security institution you know, learn about it? How quickly do they learn about it, and how do they respond? So that's one thing that kind of sets by itself because that information is in one thread. You know, the
general public is not hearing this, right. Then there's another template that I would say that is kind of like the oh, I don't know, the the organizational, the political control because those people are embedded in that first one. Right, the president learns about it, you know, various senior politicians learn about it. Senators learn about it, and how do they respond to it? They're going to be responding a little bit later, you know, because they're not upfront in it.
But then they get to make some decisions. And finally there's the public template and how that's deal with the public. And they used to be very discreet and one rule always whether you like it or not, was you don't make things worse by making immediate statements that are inflammatory, right, And I would say I find that all the way across the board. You don't anything you say right, wrong
and different. It could be creating a problem. Well, unfortunately, and I'll just well, I want to offer this observation.
Right now, we have thrown that in the trash, right.
And people at the highest administrative levels are making observations that they should not make. You know, you don't start fanning the flames without the data. Well that's a big change.
Yeah, see, that is a huge change. And that is unfortunate because sink back in the old days, somebody would say, look, we know that we were attacked. We're aware of everything, we believe, we know who did this, but they didn't name people right away. They would say we have our suspicions, and reporters would say, well, do you suspect this nation state? Do you suspect this terrorist organization? Do you suspect this individual?
They would say these things and unless there was a publicly observable capture of that information, and even then they might say, well, look there were planes that were you know, clearly this kind of plane which only these countries use. They would still say, look, look, look we still don't know for certain yet. Even if they did know, they didn't say it because fanning the flames in public, there might be nuances to it. I'll give you it weird.
For instance, you see megs, right, Russian, the Russian megs. The jets they were kind of a well known thing, and they were sort of one of those things that everybody thought of as only Russia had only the Soviet Union used, and you know, high tech and this and that, and we could get into that argument later if you want. But somebody would say, well, that obviously means the communist you know, the communist Russian block, their military is involved.
But that's not necessarily true because somebody else could have been flying those jets that they got from the Soviets. And we know, yeah, those jets were there, but we're not saying that because that information is leading. You know, it's like a leading question in a courtroom. Right, Obviously you're inferring this by asking that question or by offering this piece of information. You're inferring it without saying it. Good job. But that's not the way that they used
to deal with these things in the public. It used to be okay, fine, you observed that, but there may be more that you didn't observe. So we're still working on it. And they held back things even if they did know them. Now some people would say, well, that's them hiding stuff and they're not being transparent. But it was kind of more intelligent, especially because you might be informing your enemy of your level of knowledge. Right if you do that right out in public, all they got
to do. I mean I used to laugh at the whole thing with the desert storm, you know, because people said Al Saddam saying has to do is turn on CNN and he'll know what's happening. Yeah, but not really because if they're smart, they don't let CNN see everything that's happening, because that way your enemy can't get open source intelligence on you for free. Okay, and maybe adjust things you're currently doing or adjust to your response because
they now know. You know. I know that sounds crazy and maybe somebody goes, chuck, what did you just say? But Larry, and you're your good at sorting me out, so you know.
I think that the simple, the simple derivative of that is if you say too much, too soon, and in a knee jerk fashion.
It allows you to be manipulated.
Yes, and we who talk about the JFK assassination know that one of the things that happened in the first twenty four hours was there were a whole lot of lines of information feeding into the press, and differently the press in particular, that were associating Oswald with Castro and essentially painting this as a Cuban or Communist assassination. Now, you may not like it that nobody jumped into that and attacked Cuba, which is probably a good thing that
they didn't. But the point is if you if you do, and you do give into that temptation and you jump, you will you're exposing yourself to being used. So I think that's an example of why, yeah, none of us like withholding information. The press always wants the you know, law enforcement to immediately tell them everything about a crime, all the deep details. When the law enforcement is saying, well, how can I investigate the darn thing? If I give all the information away? You know, I'm going to be
communicating through you guys, to the bad guys. You know, there are reasons for these things, So that.
That's why I.
Said there are there are three levels of dealing with these situations, and it's good to keep them apart. And sometimes we may not like part of it, but there's a reason to do so. It's also one of the reasons why in some cases, unfortunately we don't learn the real truth about some of these incidents because what you and I would think should happen is they waited for sufficient time. Let's take an example Vietnam. Okay, for ten years, we know that we're probably not going to win this war,
and it's all in the Pentagon papers. Okay, You and I as citizens would say, well, they've been telling the president that when is he going to share it? And then he didn't, so somebody ultimately had to leak the Pentagon papers. You know, we would like it if it were like the time of scale for transparency was moved up a little bit.
It would make you feel better. But you know, that's a separate issue.
And when we're talking about the liberty, and I will say that the liberty is not the only example of a national security situation over a period in the mid sixties. They all have something in common that goes all the way from the Gulf of Tonkin with the destroyers there, through the liberty, through the Pueblo off North Korea.
If those of.
You were old enough to remember that, there are a lot of these things that were held in common, and you know, you can you can look at all of them to see if there's a pattern going on there in terms of all three levels that we just talk about. You know, was the response accurate and correct and timely? Was it shared with the You know, it's a very interesting dialogue to talk about all three at the same level, or any of the three at the same level.
And I talk about all three in the book. I must, because the thing is five hundred page, just long, right, and just which I don't know how I ever lived through.
But okay, well you always seem to live through five six hundred pages, and you do it quite well and with with excellent and consistent work. So how you live through it? Hey, look, I can't. I'm not inside you, so I don't know how you are. But man, oh man, what you're putting out is rather consistent and steady, so it almost looks easy, you know, for you. But just as a quick remind to people in case you're unaware, or you don't remember the exact facts, a quick refresher
as follows. On June eight, nineteen sixty seven, Okay, you know, there was a combined air and sea attack against a ship called the USS Liberty, which was effectively an NSA ship flying with a US flag on it. Okay, at a certain point and under certain conditions, you could say that.
And as to whether it was identifying itself or letting itself be known, and all of that, these are the controversies, okay, in international waters okay, north of the Sinai Peninsula, all right, just as a couple of points here, and it was attacked quite brutally in my estimation, by Israeli military elements in the air and the sea. So would you call that their navy and their air force? I'm not sure, but either way, I'm describing it as best they can.
And there was let's see a few other things that went on. This is all during the time period of the Six Day War. All right, if you don't know what that is, go look it up. You know, just saying this is a six day conflict between Israel and about what a whole lot of nations in the Arab world. Let's say, and it did indeed last six days, all right, from the fifth to the tenth of June nineteen sixty seven.
So there is your what they used to call the encyclopedia entry, the brief one, or at least the synopsis of what was going on in the context of the USS Liberty and the NSA ship. Here was a communications vessel, as I recall. But then again, now we're going into
things where I'm not quite sure of the details. But I do know that there were actions taken here that in some cases would be classified as a war crime, including the strafing of lifeboats after individuals attempt to flee the ship, and things like that, which are classified as war crimes in the international courts. Ok. And those things occurred. Meanwhile, just minor entry. The US and Israel are supposed to be allies, so somebody would say, why the hell did
this happen? And there's quite a bit of controversy about it. Now, that is the best sanitized version I can possibly voice. Firing, Is that a fair quick synopsis of what we're talking about here with the Liberty.
The bullet points are absolutely accurate, but for a little bit of more of our standard context for those that wouldn't know these kind of details. The Liberty was a signal intelligent ship. Its whole role in life is to say.
Around.
The Liberty in particular, was the signed to Africa and had been operating on the east coast of Africa and had been reassigned because a couple of other ships were being worked on and it had been sailed all the way around Africa and moved into the Mediterranean because you could see that the war was developing, so it was being moved in position off the coast of Egypt and Israel to collect signals traffic and primarily what it was
looking for and what the interest were in. There was a great fear that the Russians were going to intervene in a massive way against Israel. And I was in the Air Force, not at the time, but I was monitoring things from that perspective, and there was a great concern that the Russians would actually intervene directly, not just supplying Israel, but coming in with combat forces and participating themselves.
Against grave concern about that. A big role that the ship was supposed to be playing was monitoring signal traffic on Russian transmissions. See if they're showing up now, just again.
A little bit more depth than anybody would ever want to know.
One of the problems with this whole exercise is all of these signals intelligence ships, whether they were off Vietnam or off Korea or were actually crude and the people on board had equipment from the NSA, and.
There the role that.
They're playing, they're tasking everything is from the NSA. The ship itself is a Navy ship demanded by a Navy captain, flagged with the US flag, you know, displayed as very clear and as it's traveling around the world, it is constantly identifying itself.
As a US Navy vessel.
So there's no doubt at all, you know, there's nothing covert going on here.
This is very.
Obvious that it's the US Navy vessel. But it's tasking where it sailed and what it's told to do. Is it really coming from the Navy and it's not coming from the essay. It was coming from something called the Joint Resources Command that had charges of all types of signal collections and signals intelligence, and wasn't just ships that we were We're flying Navy signals intelligence aircraft over the Mediterranean out of Italy. So a lot going on here in terms of trying to collect intelligence.
The liberty was.
Not by itself, but unfortunately it was by itself militarily. It was unarmed, it had no escorts, there was no air cover in immediate call for the ship, which was you know, it's at risk.
And one of the one.
Of the sad things about the whole thing is once people began to realize how dangerous things were, was repeatedly ordered to move further offshore, further back into the Mediterranean. None of those messages got to the ship, and it remained in harm's way and closer than it should have been,
even when some people were trying to recall it. That's common phenomenons during this period of time, and unfortunately it might still be true where you've got multiple parties involved in an operation with no single person sitting there saying I'm the one who's responsible for these people in this ship, and I get to make the decisions to keep them
out of harm's way. That just didn't happen here. And when that decision was made, the message to move them totally till like two hundred miles off shore was sent through the wrong channel.
And held up.
And they didn't get it, and that the attack was actually the message was routed through Hawaii and it never got there. Very sad situation, but again, probably more context than is needed, but it's part of the backstory as to why it was as much risk as it was.
And I'll add one other part of that. Unfortunately, that naval signals intelligence ship or aircraft that I mentioned earlier was monitoring the Israeli jets, and the operators on the aircraft knew quite well that the Israelis in their traffic, we're talking about attacking a US ship. There was absolutely no doubt that they had observed the flag, they'd observed the signage on the vessel. They absolutely knew that they were attacking an American ship. The problem being is that
that aircraft did not know what ship it was. It was not informed of the liberties mission. It had no way even if it had known, It had none of the frequencies, no way to communicate with a ship.
So unfortunately that a couple of bad things going on here.
The ship is being attacked, we even know it's the Israelis attacking it, and that's how it really all goes bad.
Well, and oddly. Another piece of context here, that is the reason that signals monitoring that you were just talking about, that is the reason why we know at least one of the pilots did request clarification on the orders to fire upon the ship, because they were like, wait a minute, we know it's a US flag ship, though we don't know anything else, but are you sure you want to do this? Basically is what he asked command, and you
know they told him yes. And one last piece of context, just to get it all correct, is that as according to my notes, now, I may have these numbers slightly off, but this is close to as accurate as the casualties could be counted. Thirty four crew members were killed and that included naval officers, seamen, and two marine and one civilian NSA employee, and one hundred and seventy one crew members were wounded during this action as far as my
notes tell me, and I believe they're close to accurate. Anyway. I could be off on my numbers a little bit, but it is an accurate representation of what the casualties look like. I'm certain of that anyway. But Larry, this is important because you know, I look again we're always asking this question later, right, is this something that was done intentionally, et cetera. And to me, you know, again, my judgment on this is it does look to be something less than a wholesome mistake.
All right, let's I would I have to argue the different proposition, Chuck. If you look at the book, there are a dozen different mistakes that were made by different people over course of a week. That all, I mean, there were recalls issued and they simply didn't go through the right communications channels. A large part of it is because there are three different organizations that are involved with that ship, right, and none of them are talking with
each other effectively. But so I would I would have to argue that putting that ship in that position and not being able to get it out, which i'd writ I mean, they tried repeatedly to get messages to it, the wrong frequencies were used. Bottom line is it would have been awfully complex to leave this many loose ends that look like it's just stupidity.
No fair enough. But and for the record, right, the Israeli and the US government both concluded that this was a result of mistakes, essentially due to the Israeli confusion over the ship's identity.
I would I would counter that also. Okay, when we're talking about these tiers that are involved, the U government i e. President Johnson and the Joint chiefs of Staff absolutely knew that it was no accident as a matter of fact, and we have this as a matter of record. One of the staff officers in Washington, when President Johnson gave the order to sink the Liberty, like told our
navy to sink the Liberty to eliminate the evidence. That officer went as far as writing a memo to himself and locking into his desk so it could not be destroyed.
So back to those.
Tiers that we were talking about earlier, No, there was no doubt whatsoever, regardless of what might have been said in public, that the Israelis had done this intentionally.
Yeah, I'm smiling while you say that, because that's what we call lining that one up for Larry to just knock it down easy. And I wanted to say that because a lot of people are under the impression that only survivors of the attack, you know, contradict that conclusion, because that's generally the defense of this among many mainstream historians. Look, this was just a mistake, and both of our governments agreed.
I've seen that in you know, other people's assessments here, particularly an author writing about Lyndon Johnson in particular, right who said this, And we have audio that contradicts that. Now, we also have other documentation that contradicts that. Now. But was it known at the time, not necessarily Now, it's difficult to know because you don't see as much news coverage of this as you say, do the Kennedy assassination or that kind of thing. Okay, but here we go
with the contradictions and what is the reality. I dare say that what you just said, Larry is you know, a lot closer. But then you've got to sort out the contradiction there, don't you, And what do we do? Well?
One of the things that's very important for that is this was a very consistent behavior for Lyndon Johnson. We absolutely now know for dead sure that in the Gulf of Tonkin. It was verified all the way up the chain of command. Even you had an admiral in the area telling Johnson that the North Vietnamese had not attacked.
This was a mistake.
We have NSA intercepts that were altered by the Johnson administration to destroy that evidence. So I guess one of the things I'd have to offer in terms of the baseline of considering this, in all three of these instances under the Johnson leadership, there was a consistent pattern of not responding knowingly and covering it up. Yeah, and not just Johnson, the Secretary of Defense allowed that to happen.
I mean, this was a known thing at the highest level of the Joint chiefs and certainly the Secretary of Defense and the naval personnel. So I just tossed that into the pot, saying, you know this, if it were I might give it for one off thing. I might accept that it was just a mistake. But Johnson did it three different times.
Right, And I believe that I am not using hyperbole when I say that this is the use of It's not exactly a false flag attack. But when it comes to the appomatics and the Turner Joy and how it was ordered to constantly do things that were going to provoke a reaction, and then when they didn't get one,
they basically invented one. Okay, I'm sorry. It's the use of false flag methodology in order to justify something, and that is precisely what our government did regarding now we have a justification to do X Y Z, And that's what happened there regarding the Vietnam War. I don't feel bad at all saying our government lied about a provocation in order to create a condition where they would be justified in taking an action they already intended to take.
And I don't think for a second that that's hyperbolic. And people see, you know, don't like to hear that. But it's not crazy in my mind to say that. Now, maybe you disagree, Larry, but I don't think so.
No, I don't disagree, because it really wasn't our government.
It was one man. It was Lyndon Johnson. When you really dig into the history, you find everybody in the military side lined up telling Johnson, no, don't do this, this isn't what happened, and Johnson making the decision for political purposes to go in a given direction. The same thing relates to the liberty just one of the dangers is that you know, regardless of what factual information be being prepared to the commander in chief, the commander in chief is in a position of allowing.
Good better indifferent.
I mean, some people might say that was the right call to make, you know, allowing events and incidents to be influenced by political and strategic decisions that you know, not military decisions. So no, I wouldn't disagree. Again, I that sounds like I'm being harsh on Linda Johnson, so be it right.
Well, look, you gotta be you gotta be harsh on someone who is harsh. Uh. And I'm just saying, you know, you have to act in kind here. If you see things like this, you gotta you gotta describe them as they are. And I've even seen the the you know, excuse my language for a moment here, Larry, but I've even seen the quote out there that Johnson literally said
to people during that the event regarding the liberty. You know, I want that goddamn thing to the bottom, uh, something very similar to that when he was talking about the USS liberty. He wanted it sunk. And I believe that's preserved in that memo you mentioned. Now, I don't know if that quote is accurate, but it seems as though that is the spirit of what was being communicated.
Having studied for Johnson, having studied Johnson for all these years.
If he didn't say it that way, I wouldn't believe it. I mean, Johnson, Johnson does not make any other kind of statement than that.
That's got to be Johnson.
So yeah, I would speak to the accuracy in terms of again, consistent, consistent behavior.
Right, And here here's that's the point to be made here is that quite honestly, even if that's not exactly correct in the quotation, guaranteed that's the way it was expressed. It is very similar, if not worse. Okay, just saying language wise, you know, the coldness and directness and the absolute insistence and built into the statement. Yeah, I believe that entirely because that would be consistent with his you know, not public behavior, all right, you know public behavior. I
will do my best to do. Yeah, that's his public behavior, uh, not in public and sometimes in public, but not always in public. Is stuffed a lot more closely resembling what I just said. All right, now, enough of that, let's get into this. And also, you know, this is not the only incidents that might be worthy of mention here.
But let's keep breaking this situation down if you don't mind, because again, like I say, there is the control you know, the controversy or controversy over there in England, you know, regarding what in the hell happened here? Right? What what does this mean? Why would a US president want one of our naval ships sunk by one of our allies? What is going on? And how do you even you know, get hold of what this incident meant, what it was meant to do? Okay, fine, it's a strategic decision for
some What is this strategy and play here? I mean, there's a lot of questions, Larry, So I'm just going to kind of lean back, shut my mouth and take a listen to you know, how it is you would describe this if you don't mind, And you know, we're about halfway through our time, but we might get time to mention another incident or two before this is all done. So you know, how would you express this to people
listening and saying, Okay, I've got the idea. I'm familiar or at least now I'm a little more familiar with the USS liberty when it happened, Why some of the players involved, who actually died, et cetera. What are we looking at here, Larry? Please?
Well, I think just to set the stage again, as far as the Liberty itself is concerned, I think one of the reasons this was so shocking for the captain and the ship is the aircraft had been under surveillance
for hours before the attack happened. They had watched and Israli aircraft fly over their own signal intelligence people had monitored the aircraft transmission, and so they knew that they've been observed and that they'd been monitored and nothing happened, But so they it was a real shock again because there had been so much time delay, several hours that this had happened, especially because the NSA intercepts reveal that the Israelis.
Had flown that aircraft.
And you know, even at that first point in time, not later when you're talking about verification for the attack orders, that the slip ship.
Had been known to be American.
But there's several things that happened over a couple of hour period. Obviously, the Liberty did immediately the captain get on and report to act fually Commander in Chief of the Mediterranean, and this was past the Navy ships and the Mediterranean to both the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga, and they received that the message. But on those ships, it was almost an hour before any air aircraft were launched.
Now one of the problems there that you've got to face, and if you know some military background for the period, those ships did not they weren't flying combat at her patrols. You know, they had no planes in the air. They were not you know, at risk. They were far removed
from any combat normally. The only attack aircraft that they have are they're essentially what are called ssyop aircraft, and these are the nuclear armed aircraft that they have ready to launch at an instant, you know, because again, if we're the whole SIP response plan says, if we have a prevent preemptive attack nuclear attacked on us, all of our assets have got to be ready to launch within fifteen minutes to respond.
Right now, I have a sort of ships. Yeah, I have a question, huh about the aircraft that was launched, because I have read in several places that there were aircraft launched even though permission was asked, should we launch some aircraft to command? And I believe they were told no, and then they launched aircraft anyway at one point. This is what I read in some accounts. There's different versions of this, folks. So yeah, the.
Best I could offer, the best I could offer, Chuck, is certainly the captains of those carriers requested permission to launch. I mean, this is as I said, Really, the Liberty is not a Navy mission. It's a Navy ship, not under name control, not under control of those admirals, you know. So they've got to go back to headquarters and say, all right, I want to launch.
Can I do affirmission to launch these armed aircraft? This is a big deal.
Okay, because they're going to go into combat. It was fifty minutes before they got a response that they could go ahead and launch, So that doesn't mean they didn't ask to launch. That was how long the chain of command was delayed in giving them authority to launch armed aircraft. One of the reasons for that, and this is pure speculation on my part, is the only armed aircraft that they had on deck ready to launch may have been
nuclear armed. And although this is not documented in any of the traffic, somebody may have had to make a decision go ahead and launch those siop aircraft, or no, I want you to put up a couple of non nuclear aircraft and send those off and nobody really discusses that that I been able to find.
Okay, And that would be because, look, there are certain instances where you would require a different level of what's happening to launch. In other words, you can't just launch everything with every kind of weapon on it. If you launch something that is not armed with a nuclear warhead, that is a different engagement.
Okay, yeah, you fluck, it's a different weapons load, and and a it would be ineffective, okay, because what are you going to do with it.
You're not going to chase off fighters. You need a different weapons load.
Right now. You might say I'm going to.
Fire a nuclear armed aircraft out there and fly it over the liberty and maybe they'll go away. But by this time, you know this has been a progres.
You know.
But and what if they shoot down my nuclear armed aircraft? Is this a good thing?
So you know, I can't get into anybody's head, but I can see that these are all a process of that might go in to the decision making.
Well, fair enough, But what about the accusation that there was a recall.
Of oh, there there was a recall, Okay, absolutely, I just thought, let me go a little bit a little bit separate.
So fifteen minutes it's taken it.
We've launched aircraft and they're on the way to the Liberty, and communications have been going. You know, these communications are strictly here in the Mediterranean within the Navy. Back at the Washington d C took It was some fifteen minutes after receipt that aircraft had been launched and we're responding to the Liberty. Johnson got the message at the same time Secretary mcmara got the message.
Okay. It took fifteen.
Minutes more for him to connect the Navy and find out what they were actually doing, because again, this is Liberty's not a Navy ship on a mission. It's being run by you know, this is not something that's on the Operation Sport at the Pentagon, you know, as a
special mission that's going on. And by the time that this is all over and Johnson was actually informed that the planes were approaching Liberty, he ordered they be recalled right, okay, And at that point in time, one of the things to add to the confusion is nobody knew who the attackers were. Remember I said in the beginning of this that there was a great fear that the Russians might
be intervening militarily. So one of the things that had to be straightened out for mcnamarian Johnson right off the bat is who are the Russians attacking our ship? And if we engage? Are we now engaged in war with Russia? Or if we engage or we engaged with the Egyptians right or we engaged, you know, So it did take some pars time to parse out, Oh, it's the Israelis. And apparently as soon as Johnson was told it was the Israelis, it's like, bring the planes back, okay.
But also there's something else to mention here in context. I mentioned Russian MiGs earlier because they were most commonly the ones who would have been flying them at that point for sure. But if you identified, say hypothetically, because I've read this as well, that there were those type of attack aircraft in the area and didn't know which aircraft hits you, guess what, you don't know which aircraft necessarily hits you in the midst of smoking fire and whatever.
You know, whether it was napalm or white phosphorus, because I've seen both claimed having been dropped on the deck in the midst of that it might be difficult to sort out which plane actually dropped the stuff on you.
Okay, is that and the Egyptians are flying Soviet aircraft A good point. I mean, that's that was who. Yeah, so that's that's your point. You you absolutely wouldn't know. It's one of three by aircraft type. It certainly could either have been the Egyptians or the Russians. And quite frankly, the Egyptians had filed several complaints about the liberty already.
That's one of the reasons the orders had been issued that didn't get there for them because the Egyptians, probably rightly enough, We're assuming that the US was in support of Israel and that this ship was there providing intelligence. So it's like move your darn ship, or will attack it. So the first thought may well have been, well, the Egyptians told us to move it, and we didn't move it, so they're attacking it.
And again the context is this is the Sixth Day War, where Israel, who is an ally of the US, is engaged actively in warfare with Egypt. Just saying so you might say, well, look, there's the Israeli ally ship, and that might make sense that they would attack, So I'm just just throwing that in for context. Larry, Sorry to delay you again with a question, but I thought it
was necessary. Please continue on, though, because I know you got a lot more you want to get to in the next like say, twelve minutes, so you know, go ahead.
Yeah, yeah.
I think what that really boils down to is when this is written about most people that write about it, you know, this should actually be written about by military historians because they understand the decision making process and the communications channels and the whatever. Because otherwise, you know, it seems so simple, somebody's attacking us, sendplanes and shoot them down.
Well okay, it's not that.
Simple, just to get the right message, because you know, there's no direct that this is not a situation where this ship is in direct control of a military group.
You know.
And and one of the reasons I brought.
In in the Pueblo, which is probably not time to talk about, is the Pueblo was much the same operating off North Korea.
It had been.
The ship had been threatened by the North Koreans, just as the Liberty had been essentially threatened by the Egyptians.
We had no military support directly available to it. On call.
Uh. There were people in Navy aircraft monitoring what was going on, but they they had no command authority. They didn't have the right, you know, the Pueblo. They couldn't just call up the Pueblo and say, oh, we called and help us on the way.
They didn't have that command authority.
They can only circulate it through channels and and all of that is fine for situations where you have, you know, a couple of hours or half a day to make a decision to commit forces. But when your ship is already under attack, it's a different ballgame. And that's what we were looking at with a liberty. So the only thing I'm inserting here is that it's it's best to look at what the military historians are writing about it.
And I think you will find the military historians that write about both those incidents as well as these days about the Gulf of Conkent are extremely critical and they're not giving anybody breaks.
Right. But the Pueblo occurred in nineteen sixty eight, just for the record, and it was seized along with its crew eighty three crew members, I believe, and you know, you're looking at a different atmosphere in which it occurred, but similar and parallel circumstances could be could be recognized here as well.
Right, Well, actually I would say not that that much different, Chuck, because at the time it was sent against North Korea, North Korea had just attacked South Korea overtly with several sabotage missions. They'd attempted to assassinate the South Korean president.
So the the temperature on the Korean print peninsula was not quite as hot as it was you know with Israel in Egypt, but it was it was hot, right, And and the problem being that again you're you're sending unarmed vessels with with no immediate military support.
I guess it.
It gives back to the argument why are you doing this? Are you trying to be deniable? Well, no, you're flying your flag. So if you're going to do that, the only ring, as I bring this forth, is that we're going to be running in and already been running into this same thing in Europe right with surveillance aircraft, and we're still we're still playing these high risk games with flying are unarmed intelligence craft directly against armed Russian interceptors, you know, and things can.
Go bad, well, and some people might argue that that is a good way to get a provocation, because if an armed Russian aircraft shoots down an unarmed US aircraft, then we have a serious problem here, don't we, or at least if that's what's reporting, or.
My response to that would be that that is a you have no choice, your only choice, and that is do you go collect intelligence and have it if something goes bad? Or do you not collect intelligence? And you know that's it's do or don't?
You're damned.
I mean, if it's easy to explain why you didn't do it, well, I didn't want to put anybody at risk, or if something goes bad, then you say, well I didn't have the information, and I'll take.
You all the way back to Pearl Harbor.
When they did not conduct the reconnaissance missions off of y that had been planned and missed the Japanese fleet. That's hard to explain too, right, you know, there's simple. Simple answers are not usually the best hanstress in these situations.
No, not at all. But the counter argument, obviously is we are capable of flying drones so that you don't have to risk human life and the drones don't have to be armed or they could be armed. Okay, but here we go. These are different decisions. And now did you provoke because you were armed, or did you provoke because you invaded space? Or did you provoke because you were spying? And all of these questions become valid depending on the circumstance. I would suggest that we should be
utilizing our drone forces. I'll lot more heavily here to not risk life to collect intelligence. But some people would argue the drones are not quite ready to collect the nuanced.
The drones are definitely not quite ready.
We do not have drone platforms with anywhere near the signals intelligence capability. It's not even it's fantasizing to think that you could do that right now.
In fact, I mean you're talking about.
Flying plane loads of signals intelligence personnel and collections. And we can do photo intelligence with the drones pretty effectively, so that you can handle with the drones, but signals intelligence is much tougher, and especially if you're trying to do like real time signals and intelligence and elent electronics intelligence.
We just it would be nice if you could do that all from space or you know, but right at the moment, and I will tell you The argument is all over military discussions, is when could we get there? Do we really need to build the next generation of this aircraft or can we do it all from satellites? You know that argument is in play today.
Yes, so I just bring it up because I think it's worthy of discussion to just at least demonstrate exactly how layered and nuanced these discussions are required to be.
How about convoluted? He can we throw that into.
We can throw it convoluted to Look, you can get to a convoluted point with all this, because it is exhausting, quite honestly, these are not simple. This is what pisses me off. But Larry, I'm sorry to you know, editorialize real quick here. But very simple minded people, you know, you might say that they are less complicated and therefore clarity is great. You might admire it. But they have simple answers for things, but they do not answer anything
correctly if they don't recognize the complexity of the circumstance. Look, I could just tell you there's a good guy and a bad guy, and we should always side with the good guy. But that is not a clear demarcation unless you're five years old. Larry, I mean, it's just that simple. You know, there's a reason why we are allied with some people that are somewhat despicable morally, sometimes because they're necessary in order to not allow something more despicable to emerge.
That is something that I don't like. I'm not in love with any of that concept, you know, Like, why is it we're supporting this strong man over here? Yeah, I know why, but it doesn't mean it's always justified. But it also does not mean it's always unjustified. Okay, And this is the problem with facing these decisions. Okay, Ai is not going to do it for you. You want that, you really go ask groc how you fix this? Fine,
but I'm not living that way. We need intelligent people to be able to sort through these things, and we needed them then and we need them now. So anyway, I'm sorry. I know I took up a whole minute of your time with that, but I think it's necessary to say and please continue on though, I mean, because we're going to want to tie a bow on this in the next couple of minutes. I think, just to give people a snapshot. I mean, obviously there is a
much more nuanced discussion that we could have. We could probably just discuss the uss liberty for the next three hours, Larry, without too much effort getting into different details, different let's call them time periods in the timeline of this entire incident, and talk about mistakes that were made, talk about things that might be represented as mistakes which were intentional, and everything else. And we could talk about it and really waste no time doing it, going over brand new things
all the way through. But what is the point of our discussion tonight is really where I think we should kind of conclude this, if you don't mind, And I mean, obviously take up as much time as you want or as little as you see fit, but I think it's relevant and I think we at least touched on some of this stuff. We didn't complete the entirety of the discussion by any means, but you know, do you think that's fair enough? You want to take extra time? You want to conclude?
Now?
All on you, Larry. I leave it to you now.
And I think I might expand it just a little bit. And we earlier on in the in the book kind of like, Okay, why did you write the book Surprise Attack?
Well?
I wanted to see if we always behave the same way every time.
Does it get better?
And there are different different emergencies, you know, do we
how do we sprun it each time? Was Dallas anomaloust Okay fine answered that question in the book, but that wasn't ended up getting in the same question that you're talking about right now, Chuck, and as that's what can we learn from this and what should we concern ourselves about and what could we take away from our reactions to all these different types of national security level surprise attacks, threats, whatever that might do us some good in this day
and time. And I'll say something that's not going to happen, but what really should happen and what can be learned from all of this is every new president who takes the role of commander in chief assumes the military responsibility. Now, some of our presidents, Ice Ainower, Kennisy had some ideas and had ideas about you know, chains of command communications issues. You know, when John Kennedy said, you know, I'm going to order everybody to stand down, and you know, but
some sobs going to get the message. So, you know, McNamara and Bobby, would you get over to sink Atlantic and make sure they don't sink any Russian submarines. He knew what was going on, He understands, understood how things operate, and so he was cautious and he was educated. Most of our presidents don't have that experience, don't have a
military experience. So it has been kind of a rule that new administrations go through essentially I will call them training, but a certainly education on these practices, on command and control, practices, on the nuclear response.
You know what is the what is the bomb book? What's in it? What is the sye op?
What you know if if we come to you like they did to a president on nine to eleven, and you're in a kindergarten with a group of kids reading books, and they come to you and say, we're under attack, mister president, what do you want us to do? You should have thought about this before. You should have let them run you through some drills, some simulations. You know where to go, you don't insist on staying where you are, and it needs to have been addressed before the event happens,
if you have even a halfway chance of responding. This is supposed to be part of the training for new administrations. In many cases, the Secretary of Defense can be helpful if their former military of the right level, you know, they've got to have the kind of experience Eisenhower did up there at that level of the Pentagon. But what concerns me right at the moment is some administrations have done that and have taken that training and we're prepared.
I'm totally uncertain that the current administration has prepared itself to handle these kind of contingencies.
Well.
Also, we used to have.
Sorry, but Kennedy had enough experience even though you know, people say, oh, you know, he was just given a job in the Navy and all that, but his experience was enough to let him know to inform him that somewhere along the chain of command, guess what stuff gets missed. And someone who didn't have that experience might not be aware that that's the thing. Okay, they might think of the military as you know, infallible when it comes to
communicating orders and they're ordered, therefore they do it. I think Kennedy had enough experience to know that that informed that decision to send Macnamara to do what he did. Unless I'm crazy, I mean, could you not see it that way? God?
No, absolutely needed to have that experience or or you have to here. Here's another example. I think it's a good example.
We all, all of us who have historically dealt with the Nixon administration knew that that, you know, Nixon was.
Pretty gung ho. He was even.
Considered a madman philosophy, talking strictly to Kissinger and stopped talking to McNamara, and that took us into a really risky space because he started doing things that we really intended to convince that the Soviets, we were really in China to go nuclear in Vietnam, you know so. But he did that without on his own being advised strictly by Henry Kissinger, who had no appropriate experience. Ronald Reagan started going off on the same track, doing some pretty
dangerous things strategically to impress the Soviets. But interestingly, this is just it shows you how much things can change. He was he had done an appearance, I think it was in Florida and something. In any event, he scheduled to fly back to d C on the Nuclear Command aircraft,
the Kneecap aircraft, the Strategic Emergency Response aircraft. And while he was on his flight, they actually said, tell me this thing works, and so they ran him through a nuclear attack drill and showed him the displays cities being destroyed, went through the syop with him, and it scared him to death, rightly so, and it changed that along with watching the movie about a renuclear attack, changed his total approach. Then moved us into negotiations.
That was the day after which coincidentally provoked me to write a letter to President Reagan. And that's how I got on the FBI file and everything. But ahead, yeah, go ahead, I was twelve.
That's the way this is supposed that's the way this is supposed to happen. If you have a commander in chief, they're supposed to get deep enough into this. I won't say to get scared, but to understand the consequences, because it's always about the consequences. Now, consequences will be can sometimes be when you do need to respond.
Okay, Like.
I know, I get all over the place, but it's like Roosevelt and the War Department messaged our commander in the Philippines that Hawaii had been attacked, and in ten hours, with ten hours of warnings, MacArthur did absolutely nothing, you know, So sometimes it's good to react to a situation he let all his bombers be clobbered on the ground. Sad story there, So it can swing either way. Sometimes you have to react. Sometimes it's better not.
To react, but they have to be educated.
So the way I would tie a bowl about it right now, as you often ask me what concerns me, and what concerns me right at the moment, is I am personally convinced that neither our current secretary of Defense nor our commander in chief have had the strategic education that they need to have had gone.
Through the drills.
After nine to eleven, we even the administrations established a series of drills that they're literally that. Let's simulate different you know, domestic crises, you know, major earthquake or hurricane, how do we respond to that, how do you work that situation? Foreign threats again, al Qaeda type attacks, major incidents like that, and educated themselves at least spending you know, one or two days doing those sorts of things, so they had a clue.
I am not. I'm not convinced that's even happening up to now.
I've been able to search when I wrote Surprise Attack and find examples of those exercise is being held I don't see them now, so I hope they are, but that if you.
Want me to tie a bow on it.
After five hundreds of pages of Surprise Attack, seeing what we did right and what we did wrong, and after nine to eleven what we almost started doing right, I'm sincerely concerned that we've continued it fair enough.
What is this is the reddish hued cover love Larry's books. If you're looking at Larry's books online, it's the one that jumps out at you because it's red. The whole thing is different shades of red and darker red and a little bit of black maybe yellow lettering. Anyway, the full name of it Surprise Attack from Pearl Harbor to nine to eleven to Benghazi. Okay, just saying that's what it is. What is the photo there that is in this red shade, like as if I'm wearing red hued glasses.
That would be Pearl Harbor.
Yeah, okay, because I definitely recognize, Yeah, I recognize it as a ship under attack, looks like you know, based on the way the photo is there. But it's again all in red and all in shades of red. But there you go, seeing it through one particular set of lenses. And what you're talking about here is the lack of a lens where you get a hint as to what the consequences might be of different decisions, communications, and in fact provocative actions. And that is something that what has
not changed. You know, there are consequences to the actions you take when you are the command.
And there are responsibilities, their responsibilities as you know, this commander in chief thing goes all the way down to the Senate, you know. And on two occasions that I write about the guy that was third in command when the Secret Service went to get them after a national disaster, well after one of these things, basically said no thanks,
I'm staying here in my apartment. What you know, I just it's like, come on, guys, there there are there are should be expectations, you know, the secrets you're you're now if things go bad, you'll be you know, like the designated stay behind guy.
You know, are you prepared for this? Have you been through training? Don't?
Don't designate the Secretary of agriculture.
You know when she hasn't?
What's a sigh out? What's a you know? What is our what are our contingency plans?
Who?
Who's people.
People need to be worried about some of these things than some of the things they seem.
To be right, And God help us all, there is a reason why a continuity of government you know, uh drill exists as well. Where they come up with the scenario, what if we lost or couldn't get action out of or communication with the upper echelon of the command structure, then we have to what, yeah, continuity of government. They always take somebody out of the direct you know, succession and the presidential uh you know, in the presidential succession, excuse me.
And that's actually easier today than it's ever has been, right, I was I always watching it.
Actually.
Selensky made a very good point of this at the un Selensky said, you all need to learn from our experience. Drones are so dangerous and are are going to be so long range, and they can be so precisely targeted that if you're not aware of the.
Threat, you know, you can.
Preemption and decapitation are no longer just atomic issues, right, you can do all of that with it pretty cheap and available drump zones. And it's only going to get worse. So some of those things that we thought about during the Cold War that we were preparing for, and we said, oh, well, we don't really have to be worried about that anymore, because nobody would be stupid enough to use a hydrogen weapon.
Yeah, but they might.
Be stupid enough to use, you know, a two thousand dollars jet drone and decapitate everybody who's you know, and I don't know, some public appearance where the president and secretive Area Defense might show up together.
Yeah, and you know, decapitate and throw into chaos. You know, your enemy might actually be a whole lot more financially affordable. Actually now, you know, it used to cost a lot to get the stuff that you had to do that, you know, but you could maybe do it on the cheap now. So that's something you need to keep in mind.
It's maybe more economically viable for many different nation states or many different groups of individuals with just enough money and the right technology to attempt to accomplish the same goal. So there you go, Larry, I really thank you for this. I know I took you over time a bit, but you wanted to take a few extra minutes to put context on it. And I think that is the current modern relevance once again. I'll give you links in the
show notes to Surprise Attack. And again it is that book that is read jumps right out at you because it's you know, it's not the only one of Larry's books that has read, but this whole thing is read with just the little gold lettering over it that says Surprise Attack. Once again, full title is Surprise Attack from Pearl Harbor to nine to eleven to Benghazi, and it
is definitely worth the read. However it is you pick it up, and covers all those events and many more, including what we discussed tonight to some degree, and doesn't cover things after the Obama administration, because gee, what year was it put out there? What year was this book issued?
I'm sorry, Oh heavens, I'll probably say two twelve, but let me look.
I happen to have it in hand, so.
Yeah, take a look, because although see there it is fifteen, twenty fifteen, so this is pre Trump, pre Biden, pre Trump. Okay, just saying pre drone and pre drone being common. I mean, drones were available in the eighties and nineties, but you know, they were like big, huge things. Now they're very small and again, very economical.
So I actually even wrote about that in the book amazingly enough, and what the Secret Service should be preparing to do, because that was at least predictable back then. But I visualized nothing like these long range I'm just reading, you know, four hundred one thousand mile jet powered drones that can be get it, you know, to go in a particular window that was in science fiction book magazines I was reading back in nineteen fifty seven.
There you go, and a lot more smarter than ye old smart bomb from an era that seems like one hundred years ago. Now remember the smart bomb? Yeah, oh boy, yep, lots smarter than the smart bomb. So what does that make it the genius bomb? I don't know. I'm just throwing it out there. But Larry, again, it's really great to sit down and talk with you once again and put history into context and also remind people that, of course, if you don't want history to repeat itself, you better
learn from it. At least that's the way I word it. Anyways. I don't have the best words, but I try any little little jab there. But Larry Hancock was my guest tonight once again. Larry dash Handcock dot Com the book we recommend to focus on this discussion would be surprise attack. But don't heard calling.
I'm just hid in the truth about the assassination.
Right, Well, what do you want to know.
Daddy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew?
Ruby and Barrie answer weapons? Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon.
But okay, Oswald was on the building and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Come on now has a.
Real effort on the DAFA assassination.
Book into claims.
Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence in the case to get at well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judithbary Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at ki as jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims. Judith Ary Baker in her own words.
Thank you for all the great information.
Do you like history? Real history that you were never taught in school. Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson is.
What would I Do?
Revelation through conversation in a radio show slash podcast. You want the good news? Listen to the o'helly effect. Check o'celly is the most underrated voice in all media, news, education, and entertainment. The daily bread from o'ceelly dot com. Go there, save yourself from ignorance ochelly dot com. But we all agreed to put o'chelly dot com on and listen to the o'helly effect. Revelation through conversation o'helly dot com ge.
Revel through com sage.
Here oh.
Ll o Shelly.
Say that my Jay R in the World.
The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the Times and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state. Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third warld World War, and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy
was up against. For more information, the Warstate dot Com.
In Denial Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial rips the cover off, many of them using new files.
It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not learn from it. It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light.
In Denial secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larryhancock. For more information go to Larry hyphen Hancock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical.
Dot com radio network.
Relation conversation, you are effect conversation.
Silence broken, broken.
Commission demonstation relation conversation.
That the conversation falls, bring straight conversation.
All strength of the jury of my relation to conversation a vision to call first of relation to conversation the doctor.
The hotest place of raps for the whole the medicine years. My main preparation after Okay, demolishment was called my combasador of my faith.
By the chapter of My Soul. You are the.
Relation through conversation, changing me copy about religion before at home, give you say if I'm doing so because I can't go to.
Do.
I really got the marker and decided that fire t peop.
Conversation had.
The effect.
The compensation train show the effect.
That's never got ap for my.
In the concent I have not nor fire alone, can't quit money, but I'm bo the effect story.
Really effect, relation to conversation, conversation.
All pray.
Straight show off.
Relation the conversation, abation through first that may be for my.
In the concistor, I have not went nor cry aloud in suggest bloody.
The effects, the effect, revelation, the.
Conversation, conversation, the conversation, compilation, conversation, what the effect.
The design is broken.
Revelation through conversation.
Oh Chili dot com.
M h if I can tell you what a time? The track I've never own on Gabby shall him my bad. I got away from making a fast joy. I made my mom my talent.
You buckcast down, never.
Call back all I tell you go away, shy waiting ducks. I got exeas to you tonight, got my clocks.
M from the blanks that.
He had in the slang fight. I look back, I made what I'm down. I'll do what you want to say. Just at urn down on you. Let's go back, go back where I'll go, go giants, I have to go. That's what you say when you say it's not what I'm afraid that.
The child I don't yahn.
Shot up like my bad.
I got away from me the first. So I not about to tell us my couch a bucket down, No boy, bucky, nois go a.
Spropulation to conversation?
What the effect broken.
Stolationalsationproa fotop your lies?
Shall fact revelation, fasation, a devastation.
Revelation through conversation?
The effects are the effects.
Conversation all raised a stranger, sell the fact, revelation, conversation through a titian through conversation, or.
Shall effect revelation conation?
John had forgotten?
Show you a fact beyond this place of rapt and fears, horror of a shade.
The mess of years.
Find that shall find me unafraid. And that is not a free decade.
Charge with hos scroll.
I am the master of my fate.
I am the it's enough my soul shoe.
On the effect relations through conversation.
Brother can of Horse continued cashing in and teachers about religion, keeping scoring at home. Who are people you'd like to see even by wolves.
Dis dropped him, dying soon the tangles my taco ticks and his continued.
Ghost storming tour and winning a streak, says God sparred him and decided a firefighter dies. In the.
Revelation conversation Shelly effect, you are the effect.
You are the effects relation through conversation, but all praise nor straight no revelation through conversation.
Through conversation, all raised astral effect.
Revelation through conversation.
Through conversations tell effect, Revelation through conversation.
As the dead from poles, whatever done for my indalkable soul.
In the constant circumstance, I have not wasted. No I allow needs a chance. My head bloody about. You are the effect, the actually effect.
Revelation through conversation.
Revelation, conversation.
Effect.
You are the effect.
You are the effect. Revelation through conversation balls No. Three of revelation through conversation.
Through conversations, rasonable
Selgi effects revelation and took on the SAT revel