Speaker 1: Ready, get ready, Okay, September twenty four, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: Allegedly, according to that thing we call a counter, I
Speaker 2: might be a little loud there, so I'm going to
Speaker 2: tone it down for those of you who went, oh god,
Speaker 2: he just burst into my ears. But anyway, minor technical
Speaker 2: thing went to Airly doesn't matter. It's Wednesday and I
Speaker 2: am live on the stream, but you're most likely catching
Speaker 2: the podcast, so you don't care what day it is,
Speaker 2: but I gave it to you anyway. Larry Hancock is
Speaker 2: with me, Larry dash Handcock dot com. Some of you guys,
Speaker 2: I know you got it. You got a nickname for Larry,
Speaker 2: and that's fine. We talked about that just before air actually,
Speaker 2: and maybe maybe we'll discuss it on another episode because
Speaker 2: I want to get to this one. This is definitely
Speaker 2: a different opportunity to go over things with Larry. And
Speaker 2: what are we going to be talking talking about tonight. Well,
Speaker 2: the main issue here to me is the USS liberty
Speaker 2: and again, follow Larry's blog, follow Larry's work, and also
Speaker 2: take a look at all of his books, which I
Speaker 2: all highly recommend. And he does take up a lot
Speaker 2: of physical space on my bookshelf. But he's not just
Speaker 2: taking up space. It's quite a comprehensive education actually on
Speaker 2: a bunch of things. And tonight, which book would we
Speaker 2: be looking at if we wanted to grab one off
Speaker 2: of the Larry Hancock section of your bookshelf? Surprise attack?
Speaker 2: All right, what is that about? Well, if I remember correctly,
Speaker 2: we're talking everything from a range of like Pearl Harbor
Speaker 2: all the way to ben Ghazi. And yeah, that covers
Speaker 2: a bit of modern American history for sure, but yeah,
Speaker 2: maybe some other aspects of history as well, and who
Speaker 2: knows what it is we got to discuss. But somewhere
Speaker 2: in that book you got to find a section that
Speaker 2: talks about the USS liberty. Now, I've talked about it
Speaker 2: on this show with Joan Mellon in the past. I've
Speaker 2: talked about it with other people in the past in
Speaker 2: much shorter forms. Her book was called Blood in the Water,
Speaker 2: and I still think it is a book of value. However,
Speaker 2: you're going to get a slightly different look at it,
Speaker 2: I think, with Larry and maybe some other things along
Speaker 2: the way. So enough out of me again. Larry Hyphenhancock
Speaker 2: dot com or Larry dash Handcock dot com. Hyperlinks and
Speaker 2: all that in the show notes. Go ahead and click
Speaker 2: on it, follow his blog and obviously, if you don't
Speaker 2: have all of his books, what are you doing? Get them?
Speaker 2: And you might have old versions too, so get the
Speaker 2: updates as well. Anyway, that's where we're focusing. But there's
Speaker 2: many other books we could be talking about, even Creating Chaos, etc.
Speaker 2: But I think we're gonna hover over Surprise Attack tonight. Larry.
Speaker 2: How are you doing? Though?
Speaker 3: First I'm doing fine, Chuck, I'm ready for fall all
Speaker 3: the still pretty warm here in the nineties.
Speaker 4: But nope, doing fine.
Speaker 2: Excellent, excellent, And look, Larry might be a little loud too,
Speaker 2: And I just tapped and adjusted again because it's okay.
Speaker 2: We can make Larry as loud as you want. But
Speaker 2: nobody needs their ear drums broken when they've got their
Speaker 2: air pods or cheap headset but plugged in or whatever.
Speaker 2: Well they're listening to this, so apologies. But I was
Speaker 2: explaining before that, you know, using different modes of communication
Speaker 2: on this show, et cetera. Yeah, they don't all adjust
Speaker 2: to the same sound levels, so sorry about that, but
Speaker 2: I know we're fine now, and Larry's great loud or
Speaker 2: soft and he's usually not a loud speaker, so that's
Speaker 2: my fault anyway, Larry, So why would it be? And
Speaker 2: I love how this is actually very relevant to today.
Speaker 2: Maybe you want to start there, like, why is it
Speaker 2: we should even be talking about these historical events, because
Speaker 2: a lot of people do that to you right where
Speaker 2: they say, you know, that's history, and that's great to study,
Speaker 2: and maybe you can learn something from it, but it's
Speaker 2: not what I need to focus on what's in front
Speaker 2: of us now. And people do that with the JFK assassination,
Speaker 2: with the other assassinations in the sixties and elsewhere. People
Speaker 2: talk about, you know what, I don't need to focus
Speaker 2: on the history of it, because you know, I got
Speaker 2: this right in front of me. Okay, I get it,
Speaker 2: But you know, don't we study history as a matter
Speaker 2: of trying to learn from it, et cetera. And I'll
Speaker 2: start from that very stupid and over simplified point and
Speaker 2: handed to you.
Speaker 5: What we do.
Speaker 3: And I think one of the things one of the
Speaker 3: reasons we do that is because it gives us a baseline.
Speaker 4: It's a baseline.
Speaker 3: The reason I got into writing Surprise Attack was really
Speaker 3: based on my interest in the Kennedy assassination, because one
Speaker 3: of my one of my questions was, you know, did
Speaker 3: the things that happened after twelve thirty Central time in Dallas,
Speaker 3: Texas where they anomalous or not in terms of command
Speaker 3: and control, in terms of what the new president did
Speaker 3: or the setting president did, or the Secretary of Defense did,
Speaker 3: what the what the joint chiefs did, Because obviously there's
Speaker 3: a real question, you know, was there anything to see
Speaker 3: there that's different than basically I won't call it standard
Speaker 3: practice because one of the things you see quickly when
Speaker 3: you dig into this is there's no standard It's when
Speaker 3: you're talking about surprise attack. Yes, there are always plans,
Speaker 3: and there's always drills, and there's always contingencies, and nobody
Speaker 3: ever really follows them well at all because it is
Speaker 3: a surprise.
Speaker 4: So baseline is important.
Speaker 3: And I think one of the things I would say
Speaker 3: right off is when I started looking at what happened
Speaker 3: after Dallas in comparison to basically everything from Pearl Harbor
Speaker 3: to Bighazi, unfortunately it stands out as routine. People panic,
Speaker 3: people don't follow practices, they don't talk to the right people,
Speaker 3: communications fail, and that kind of brings us to the
Speaker 3: current events, because I think everybody agrees we are living
Speaker 3: in a dangerous world right now, probably more dangerous than
Speaker 3: we have for a few decades, and we're in a
Speaker 3: situation where there may be a surprise military action. Our
Speaker 3: president has said, yes, Rush is violin airspace of different
Speaker 3: European countries. Yes, they have every right to shoot those
Speaker 3: aircraft or other aerial objects down at will because they're
Speaker 3: over their territory and they're not responding. You know, when
Speaker 3: that sort of thing happens, life gets real quick, and
Speaker 3: especially it gets real quick.
Speaker 2: Go ahead. Yeah, I'm sorry I need to interject here
Speaker 2: because I think people fail to recognize that, Look, there's
Speaker 2: a commonality here and whether there are gunshots in the
Speaker 2: streets somewhere that target a particular individual, and I don't
Speaker 2: just mean the Kennedy assassination, but even in real time,
Speaker 2: when somebody's got a grudge and shows back up somewhere
Speaker 2: and fires a gun, okay, at people, what is the
Speaker 2: immediate action that takes place? There is confusion, okay, And
Speaker 2: there is confusion because even if people witnessed it directly,
Speaker 2: quite honestly, they don't necessarily know what they saw. Even
Speaker 2: even the people that were right there. Now, when it
Speaker 2: comes to a larger action like something, let's go outside
Speaker 2: of the scope that we mentioned here, but within the
Speaker 2: timeline nine to eleven. Okay, that happened, and people went
Speaker 2: what the hell is going on? First? Okay, that was
Speaker 2: the initial reaction. Then you're horrified. Okay, this is the order,
Speaker 2: and then almost immediately what is the first question? What
Speaker 2: the hell just went wrong? What went wrong that? This
Speaker 2: is the outcome? And I think this is a template
Speaker 2: from which you could fit all of this stuff. Okay,
Speaker 2: whether you're talking about the unnamed attack you know, through
Speaker 2: gunfire on a street somewhere, or if you want to
Speaker 2: apply it to the Kennedy assassination, it is a what
Speaker 2: the hell just happened? And horror and shock. And I
Speaker 2: know I'm over simplifying, but finally, what is the first question?
Speaker 2: What in the hell just went wrong? People will ask
Speaker 2: that question even if there is a military engagement that
Speaker 2: suddenly spills over and wow, this turned into a larger attack.
Speaker 2: This isn't just the exchange of gunfire or one bullet
Speaker 2: being fired at somebody. No, no, this turns into many
Speaker 2: weapons being discharged, a larger amount of destruction, or it
Speaker 2: is the killing of a significant individual one way or another,
Speaker 2: or you know what, hate to bring it up, but
Speaker 2: people would say the whole Charlie Kirk thing, the fact
Speaker 2: that the public reacted, how did they react? Oh my god,
Speaker 2: what just happened? Then horrified? We need to grieve, we
Speaker 2: need to be upset this and that one way or another.
Speaker 2: Why are you not upset enough? Not getting into the
Speaker 2: debate or trying to pull you into it, Larry, But
Speaker 2: then what is the next question? Almost immediately what went wrong?
Speaker 2: Now that turns into who to blame and everything else?
Speaker 2: But those are branches off of the same tree. I
Speaker 2: look at all of these events in exactly that context.
Speaker 2: Do you think that I'm incorrect? And this is this
Speaker 2: not a way that we sort of create a digestible
Speaker 2: narrative for any of it again, whether it be Pearl Harbor,
Speaker 2: or it be the Kennedy assassination, or it'd be BEng
Speaker 2: Ghazi or nine to eleven or etc. And so on
Speaker 2: at nauseam? Right, isn't that about the template that people
Speaker 2: seem to deal with these things until they die into
Speaker 2: the details. Isn't that just about a fair kind of
Speaker 2: oversimplification of it? Or do you think I'm wrong.
Speaker 3: I think it's fair, Chuck. But I would say that
Speaker 3: there are actually three templates.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: One I would call the command and control templament template. That's,
Speaker 3: you know, something of national security consequence happens that you know,
Speaker 3: of national impact, whether it's an individual, a military whatever,
Speaker 3: it's of national impact. The first template is how does
Speaker 3: the national security institution you know, learn about it? How
Speaker 3: quickly do they learn about it, and how do they respond?
Speaker 3: So that's one thing that kind of sets by itself
Speaker 3: because that information is in one thread. You know, the
Speaker 3: general public is not hearing this, right. Then there's another
Speaker 3: template that I would say that is kind of like
Speaker 3: the oh, I don't know, the the organizational, the political
Speaker 3: control because those people are embedded in that first one. Right,
Speaker 3: the president learns about it, you know, various senior politicians
Speaker 3: learn about it. Senators learn about it, and how do
Speaker 3: they respond to it? They're going to be responding a
Speaker 3: little bit later, you know, because they're not upfront in it.
Speaker 3: But then they get to make some decisions. And finally
Speaker 3: there's the public template and how that's deal with the public.
Speaker 3: And they used to be very discreet and one rule
Speaker 3: always whether you like it or not, was you don't
Speaker 3: make things worse by making immediate statements that are inflammatory, right,
Speaker 3: And I would say I find that all the way
Speaker 3: across the board. You don't anything you say right, wrong
Speaker 3: and different. It could be creating a problem. Well, unfortunately,
Speaker 3: and I'll just well, I want to offer this observation.
Speaker 4: Right now, we have thrown that in the trash, right.
Speaker 3: And people at the highest administrative levels are making observations
Speaker 3: that they should not make. You know, you don't start
Speaker 3: fanning the flames without the data. Well that's a big change.
Speaker 2: Yeah, see, that is a huge change. And that is
Speaker 2: unfortunate because sink back in the old days, somebody would say, look,
Speaker 2: we know that we were attacked. We're aware of everything,
Speaker 2: we believe, we know who did this, but they didn't
Speaker 2: name people right away. They would say we have our suspicions,
Speaker 2: and reporters would say, well, do you suspect this nation state?
Speaker 2: Do you suspect this terrorist organization? Do you suspect this individual?
Speaker 2: They would say these things and unless there was a
Speaker 2: publicly observable capture of that information, and even then they
Speaker 2: might say, well, look there were planes that were you know,
Speaker 2: clearly this kind of plane which only these countries use.
Speaker 2: They would still say, look, look, look we still don't
Speaker 2: know for certain yet. Even if they did know, they
Speaker 2: didn't say it because fanning the flames in public, there
Speaker 2: might be nuances to it. I'll give you it weird.
Speaker 2: For instance, you see megs, right, Russian, the Russian megs.
Speaker 2: The jets they were kind of a well known thing,
Speaker 2: and they were sort of one of those things that
Speaker 2: everybody thought of as only Russia had only the Soviet
Speaker 2: Union used, and you know, high tech and this and that,
Speaker 2: and we could get into that argument later if you want.
Speaker 2: But somebody would say, well, that obviously means the communist
Speaker 2: you know, the communist Russian block, their military is involved.
Speaker 2: But that's not necessarily true because somebody else could have
Speaker 2: been flying those jets that they got from the Soviets.
Speaker 2: And we know, yeah, those jets were there, but we're
Speaker 2: not saying that because that information is leading. You know,
Speaker 2: it's like a leading question in a courtroom. Right, Obviously
Speaker 2: you're inferring this by asking that question or by offering
Speaker 2: this piece of information. You're inferring it without saying it.
Speaker 2: Good job. But that's not the way that they used
Speaker 2: to deal with these things in the public. It used
Speaker 2: to be okay, fine, you observed that, but there may
Speaker 2: be more that you didn't observe. So we're still working
Speaker 2: on it. And they held back things even if they
Speaker 2: did know them. Now some people would say, well, that's
Speaker 2: them hiding stuff and they're not being transparent. But it
Speaker 2: was kind of more intelligent, especially because you might be
Speaker 2: informing your enemy of your level of knowledge. Right if
Speaker 2: you do that right out in public, all they got
Speaker 2: to do. I mean I used to laugh at the
Speaker 2: whole thing with the desert storm, you know, because people
Speaker 2: said Al Saddam saying has to do is turn on
Speaker 2: CNN and he'll know what's happening. Yeah, but not really
Speaker 2: because if they're smart, they don't let CNN see everything
Speaker 2: that's happening, because that way your enemy can't get open
Speaker 2: source intelligence on you for free. Okay, and maybe adjust
Speaker 2: things you're currently doing or adjust to your response because
Speaker 2: they now know. You know. I know that sounds crazy
Speaker 2: and maybe somebody goes, chuck, what did you just say?
Speaker 2: But Larry, and you're your good at sorting me out,
Speaker 2: so you know.
Speaker 3: I think that the simple, the simple derivative of that
Speaker 3: is if you say too much, too soon, and in
Speaker 3: a knee jerk fashion.
Speaker 4: It allows you to be manipulated.
Speaker 3: Yes, and we who talk about the JFK assassination know
Speaker 3: that one of the things that happened in the first
Speaker 3: twenty four hours was there were a whole lot of
Speaker 3: lines of information feeding into the press, and differently the
Speaker 3: press in particular, that were associating Oswald with Castro and
Speaker 3: essentially painting this as a Cuban or Communist assassination. Now,
Speaker 3: you may not like it that nobody jumped into that
Speaker 3: and attacked Cuba, which is probably a good thing that
Speaker 3: they didn't. But the point is if you if you do,
Speaker 3: and you do give into that temptation and you jump,
Speaker 3: you will you're exposing yourself to being used. So I
Speaker 3: think that's an example of why, yeah, none of us
Speaker 3: like withholding information. The press always wants the you know,
Speaker 3: law enforcement to immediately tell them everything about a crime,
Speaker 3: all the deep details. When the law enforcement is saying, well,
Speaker 3: how can I investigate the darn thing? If I give
Speaker 3: all the information away? You know, I'm going to be
Speaker 3: communicating through you guys, to the bad guys. You know,
Speaker 3: there are reasons for these things, So that.
Speaker 4: That's why I.
Speaker 3: Said there are there are three levels of dealing with
Speaker 3: these situations, and it's good to keep them apart. And
Speaker 3: sometimes we may not like part of it, but there's
Speaker 3: a reason to do so. It's also one of the
Speaker 3: reasons why in some cases, unfortunately we don't learn the
Speaker 3: real truth about some of these incidents because what you
Speaker 3: and I would think should happen is they waited for
Speaker 3: sufficient time. Let's take an example Vietnam. Okay, for ten years,
Speaker 3: we know that we're probably not going to win this war,
Speaker 3: and it's all in the Pentagon papers. Okay, You and
Speaker 3: I as citizens would say, well, they've been telling the
Speaker 3: president that when is he going to share it? And
Speaker 3: then he didn't, so somebody ultimately had to leak the
Speaker 3: Pentagon papers. You know, we would like it if it
Speaker 3: were like the time of scale for transparency was moved
Speaker 3: up a little bit.
Speaker 4: It would make you feel better. But you know, that's
Speaker 4: a separate issue.
Speaker 3: And when we're talking about the liberty, and I will
Speaker 3: say that the liberty is not the only example of
Speaker 3: a national security situation over a period in the mid sixties.
Speaker 3: They all have something in common that goes all the
Speaker 3: way from the Gulf of Tonkin with the destroyers there,
Speaker 3: through the liberty, through the Pueblo off North Korea.
Speaker 4: If those of.
Speaker 3: You were old enough to remember that, there are a
Speaker 3: lot of these things that were held in common, and
Speaker 3: you know, you can you can look at all of
Speaker 3: them to see if there's a pattern going on there
Speaker 3: in terms of all three levels that we just talk about.
Speaker 3: You know, was the response accurate and correct and timely?
Speaker 3: Was it shared with the You know, it's a very
Speaker 3: interesting dialogue to talk about all three at the same level,
Speaker 3: or any of the three at the same level.
Speaker 4: And I talk about all three in the book. I must,
Speaker 4: because the thing is five hundred page, just long, right,
Speaker 4: and just which I don't know how I ever lived through.
Speaker 2: But okay, well you always seem to live through five
Speaker 2: six hundred pages, and you do it quite well and
Speaker 2: with with excellent and consistent work. So how you live
Speaker 2: through it? Hey, look, I can't. I'm not inside you,
Speaker 2: so I don't know how you are. But man, oh man,
Speaker 2: what you're putting out is rather consistent and steady, so
Speaker 2: it almost looks easy, you know, for you. But just
Speaker 2: as a quick remind to people in case you're unaware,
Speaker 2: or you don't remember the exact facts, a quick refresher
Speaker 2: as follows. On June eight, nineteen sixty seven, Okay, you know,
Speaker 2: there was a combined air and sea attack against a
Speaker 2: ship called the USS Liberty, which was effectively an NSA
Speaker 2: ship flying with a US flag on it. Okay, at
Speaker 2: a certain point and under certain conditions, you could say that.
Speaker 2: And as to whether it was identifying itself or letting
Speaker 2: itself be known, and all of that, these are the controversies, okay,
Speaker 2: in international waters okay, north of the Sinai Peninsula, all right,
Speaker 2: just as a couple of points here, and it was
Speaker 2: attacked quite brutally in my estimation, by Israeli military elements
Speaker 2: in the air and the sea. So would you call
Speaker 2: that their navy and their air force? I'm not sure,
Speaker 2: but either way, I'm describing it as best they can.
Speaker 2: And there was let's see a few other things that
Speaker 2: went on. This is all during the time period of
Speaker 2: the Six Day War. All right, if you don't know
Speaker 2: what that is, go look it up. You know, just
Speaker 2: saying this is a six day conflict between Israel and
Speaker 2: about what a whole lot of nations in the Arab world.
Speaker 2: Let's say, and it did indeed last six days, all right,
Speaker 2: from the fifth to the tenth of June nineteen sixty seven.
Speaker 2: So there is your what they used to call the
Speaker 2: encyclopedia entry, the brief one, or at least the synopsis
Speaker 2: of what was going on in the context of the
Speaker 2: USS Liberty and the NSA ship. Here was a communications vessel,
Speaker 2: as I recall. But then again, now we're going into
Speaker 2: things where I'm not quite sure of the details. But
Speaker 2: I do know that there were actions taken here that
Speaker 2: in some cases would be classified as a war crime,
Speaker 2: including the strafing of lifeboats after individuals attempt to flee
Speaker 2: the ship, and things like that, which are classified as
Speaker 2: war crimes in the international courts. Ok. And those things occurred. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: just minor entry. The US and Israel are supposed to
Speaker 2: be allies, so somebody would say, why the hell did
Speaker 2: this happen? And there's quite a bit of controversy about it. Now,
Speaker 2: that is the best sanitized version I can possibly voice. Firing,
Speaker 2: Is that a fair quick synopsis of what we're talking
Speaker 2: about here with the Liberty.
Speaker 3: The bullet points are absolutely accurate, but for a little
Speaker 3: bit of more of our standard context for those that
Speaker 3: wouldn't know these kind of details. The Liberty was a
Speaker 3: signal intelligent ship. Its whole role in life is to say.
Speaker 4: Around.
Speaker 3: The Liberty in particular, was the signed to Africa and
Speaker 3: had been operating on the east coast of Africa and
Speaker 3: had been reassigned because a couple of other ships were
Speaker 3: being worked on and it had been sailed all the
Speaker 3: way around Africa and moved into the Mediterranean because you
Speaker 3: could see that the war was developing, so it was
Speaker 3: being moved in position off the coast of Egypt and
Speaker 3: Israel to collect signals traffic and primarily what it was
Speaker 3: looking for and what the interest were in. There was
Speaker 3: a great fear that the Russians were going to intervene
Speaker 3: in a massive way against Israel. And I was in
Speaker 3: the Air Force, not at the time, but I was
Speaker 3: monitoring things from that perspective, and there was a great
Speaker 3: concern that the Russians would actually intervene directly, not just
Speaker 3: supplying Israel, but coming in with combat forces and participating themselves.
Speaker 3: Against grave concern about that. A big role that the
Speaker 3: ship was supposed to be playing was monitoring signal traffic
Speaker 3: on Russian transmissions. See if they're showing up now, just again.
Speaker 4: A little bit more depth than anybody would ever want
Speaker 4: to know.
Speaker 3: One of the problems with this whole exercise is all
Speaker 3: of these signals intelligence ships, whether they were off Vietnam
Speaker 3: or off Korea or were actually crude and the people
Speaker 3: on board had equipment from the NSA, and.
Speaker 4: There the role that.
Speaker 3: They're playing, they're tasking everything is from the NSA. The
Speaker 3: ship itself is a Navy ship demanded by a Navy captain,
Speaker 3: flagged with the US flag, you know, displayed as very
Speaker 3: clear and as it's traveling around the world, it is
Speaker 3: constantly identifying itself.
Speaker 4: As a US Navy vessel.
Speaker 3: So there's no doubt at all, you know, there's nothing
Speaker 3: covert going on here.
Speaker 4: This is very.
Speaker 3: Obvious that it's the US Navy vessel. But it's tasking
Speaker 3: where it sailed and what it's told to do. Is
Speaker 3: it really coming from the Navy and it's not coming
Speaker 3: from the essay. It was coming from something called the
Speaker 3: Joint Resources Command that had charges of all types of
Speaker 3: signal collections and signals intelligence, and wasn't just ships that
Speaker 3: we were We're flying Navy signals intelligence aircraft over the
Speaker 3: Mediterranean out of Italy. So a lot going on here
Speaker 3: in terms of trying to collect intelligence.
Speaker 4: The liberty was.
Speaker 3: Not by itself, but unfortunately it was by itself militarily.
Speaker 3: It was unarmed, it had no escorts, there was no
Speaker 3: air cover in immediate call for the ship, which was
Speaker 3: you know, it's at risk.
Speaker 4: And one of the one.
Speaker 3: Of the sad things about the whole thing is once
Speaker 3: people began to realize how dangerous things were, was repeatedly
Speaker 3: ordered to move further offshore, further back into the Mediterranean.
Speaker 3: None of those messages got to the ship, and it
Speaker 3: remained in harm's way and closer than it should have been,
Speaker 3: even when some people were trying to recall it. That's
Speaker 3: common phenomenons during this period of time, and unfortunately it
Speaker 3: might still be true where you've got multiple parties involved
Speaker 3: in an operation with no single person sitting there saying
Speaker 3: I'm the one who's responsible for these people in this ship,
Speaker 3: and I get to make the decisions to keep them
Speaker 3: out of harm's way. That just didn't happen here. And
Speaker 3: when that decision was made, the message to move them
Speaker 3: totally till like two hundred miles off shore was sent
Speaker 3: through the wrong channel.
Speaker 4: And held up.
Speaker 3: And they didn't get it, and that the attack was
Speaker 3: actually the message was routed through Hawaii and it never
Speaker 3: got there. Very sad situation, but again, probably more context
Speaker 3: than is needed, but it's part of the backstory as
Speaker 3: to why it was as much risk as it was.
Speaker 3: And I'll add one other part of that. Unfortunately, that
Speaker 3: naval signals intelligence ship or aircraft that I mentioned earlier
Speaker 3: was monitoring the Israeli jets, and the operators on the
Speaker 3: aircraft knew quite well that the Israelis in their traffic,
Speaker 3: we're talking about attacking a US ship. There was absolutely
Speaker 3: no doubt that they had observed the flag, they'd observed
Speaker 3: the signage on the vessel. They absolutely knew that they
Speaker 3: were attacking an American ship. The problem being is that
Speaker 3: that aircraft did not know what ship it was. It
Speaker 3: was not informed of the liberties mission. It had no
Speaker 3: way even if it had known, It had none of
Speaker 3: the frequencies, no way to communicate with a ship.
Speaker 4: So unfortunately that a couple of bad things going on here.
Speaker 3: The ship is being attacked, we even know it's the
Speaker 3: Israelis attacking it, and that's how it really all goes bad.
Speaker 2: Well, and oddly. Another piece of context here, that is
Speaker 2: the reason that signals monitoring that you were just talking about,
Speaker 2: that is the reason why we know at least one
Speaker 2: of the pilots did request clarification on the orders to
Speaker 2: fire upon the ship, because they were like, wait a minute,
Speaker 2: we know it's a US flag ship, though we don't
Speaker 2: know anything else, but are you sure you want to
Speaker 2: do this? Basically is what he asked command, and you
Speaker 2: know they told him yes. And one last piece of context,
Speaker 2: just to get it all correct, is that as according
Speaker 2: to my notes, now, I may have these numbers slightly off,
Speaker 2: but this is close to as accurate as the casualties
Speaker 2: could be counted. Thirty four crew members were killed and
Speaker 2: that included naval officers, seamen, and two marine and one
Speaker 2: civilian NSA employee, and one hundred and seventy one crew
Speaker 2: members were wounded during this action as far as my
Speaker 2: notes tell me, and I believe they're close to accurate. Anyway.
Speaker 2: I could be off on my numbers a little bit,
Speaker 2: but it is an accurate representation of what the casualties
Speaker 2: look like. I'm certain of that anyway. But Larry, this
Speaker 2: is important because you know, I look again we're always
Speaker 2: asking this question later, right, is this something that was
Speaker 2: done intentionally, et cetera. And to me, you know, again,
Speaker 2: my judgment on this is it does look to be
Speaker 2: something less than a wholesome mistake.
Speaker 3: All right, let's I would I have to argue the
Speaker 3: different proposition, Chuck. If you look at the book, there
Speaker 3: are a dozen different mistakes that were made by different
Speaker 3: people over course of a week. That all, I mean,
Speaker 3: there were recalls issued and they simply didn't go through
Speaker 3: the right communications channels. A large part of it is
Speaker 3: because there are three different organizations that are involved with
Speaker 3: that ship, right, and none of them are talking with
Speaker 3: each other effectively. But so I would I would have
Speaker 3: to argue that putting that ship in that position and
Speaker 3: not being able to get it out, which i'd writ
Speaker 3: I mean, they tried repeatedly to get messages to it,
Speaker 3: the wrong frequencies were used. Bottom line is it would
Speaker 3: have been awfully complex to leave this many loose ends
Speaker 3: that look like it's just stupidity.
Speaker 2: No fair enough. But and for the record, right, the
Speaker 2: Israeli and the US government both concluded that this was
Speaker 2: a result of mistakes, essentially due to the Israeli confusion
Speaker 2: over the ship's identity.
Speaker 3: I would I would counter that also. Okay, when we're
Speaker 3: talking about these tiers that are involved, the U government
Speaker 3: i e. President Johnson and the Joint chiefs of Staff
Speaker 3: absolutely knew that it was no accident as a matter
Speaker 3: of fact, and we have this as a matter of record.
Speaker 3: One of the staff officers in Washington, when President Johnson
Speaker 3: gave the order to sink the Liberty, like told our
Speaker 3: navy to sink the Liberty to eliminate the evidence. That
Speaker 3: officer went as far as writing a memo to himself
Speaker 3: and locking into his desk so it could not be destroyed.
Speaker 4: So back to those.
Speaker 3: Tiers that we were talking about earlier, No, there was
Speaker 3: no doubt whatsoever, regardless of what might have been said
Speaker 3: in public, that the Israelis had done this intentionally.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm smiling while you say that, because that's what
Speaker 2: we call lining that one up for Larry to just
Speaker 2: knock it down easy. And I wanted to say that
Speaker 2: because a lot of people are under the impression that
Speaker 2: only survivors of the attack, you know, contradict that conclusion,
Speaker 2: because that's generally the defense of this among many mainstream historians. Look,
Speaker 2: this was just a mistake, and both of our governments agreed.
Speaker 2: I've seen that in you know, other people's assessments here,
Speaker 2: particularly an author writing about Lyndon Johnson in particular, right
Speaker 2: who said this, And we have audio that contradicts that. Now,
Speaker 2: we also have other documentation that contradicts that. Now. But
Speaker 2: was it known at the time, not necessarily Now, it's
Speaker 2: difficult to know because you don't see as much news
Speaker 2: coverage of this as you say, do the Kennedy assassination
Speaker 2: or that kind of thing. Okay, but here we go
Speaker 2: with the contradictions and what is the reality. I dare
Speaker 2: say that what you just said, Larry is you know,
Speaker 2: a lot closer. But then you've got to sort out
Speaker 2: the contradiction there, don't you, And what do we do? Well?
Speaker 3: One of the things that's very important for that is
Speaker 3: this was a very consistent behavior for Lyndon Johnson. We
Speaker 3: absolutely now know for dead sure that in the Gulf
Speaker 3: of Tonkin. It was verified all the way up the
Speaker 3: chain of command. Even you had an admiral in the
Speaker 3: area telling Johnson that the North Vietnamese had not attacked.
Speaker 4: This was a mistake.
Speaker 3: We have NSA intercepts that were altered by the Johnson
Speaker 3: administration to destroy that evidence. So I guess one of
Speaker 3: the things I'd have to offer in terms of the
Speaker 3: baseline of considering this, in all three of these instances
Speaker 3: under the Johnson leadership, there was a consistent pattern of
Speaker 3: not responding knowingly and covering it up. Yeah, and not
Speaker 3: just Johnson, the Secretary of Defense allowed that to happen.
Speaker 3: I mean, this was a known thing at the highest
Speaker 3: level of the Joint chiefs and certainly the Secretary of
Speaker 3: Defense and the naval personnel. So I just tossed that
Speaker 3: into the pot, saying, you know this, if it were
Speaker 3: I might give it for one off thing. I might
Speaker 3: accept that it was just a mistake. But Johnson did
Speaker 3: it three different times.
Speaker 2: Right, And I believe that I am not using hyperbole
Speaker 2: when I say that this is the use of It's
Speaker 2: not exactly a false flag attack. But when it comes
Speaker 2: to the appomatics and the Turner Joy and how it
Speaker 2: was ordered to constantly do things that were going to
Speaker 2: provoke a reaction, and then when they didn't get one,
Speaker 2: they basically invented one. Okay, I'm sorry. It's the use
Speaker 2: of false flag methodology in order to justify something, and
Speaker 2: that is precisely what our government did regarding now we
Speaker 2: have a justification to do X Y Z, And that's
Speaker 2: what happened there regarding the Vietnam War. I don't feel
Speaker 2: bad at all saying our government lied about a provocation
Speaker 2: in order to create a condition where they would be
Speaker 2: justified in taking an action they already intended to take.
Speaker 2: And I don't think for a second that that's hyperbolic.
Speaker 2: And people see, you know, don't like to hear that.
Speaker 2: But it's not crazy in my mind to say that. Now,
Speaker 2: maybe you disagree, Larry, but I don't think so.
Speaker 4: No, I don't disagree, because it really wasn't our government.
Speaker 3: It was one man. It was Lyndon Johnson. When you
Speaker 3: really dig into the history, you find everybody in the
Speaker 3: military side lined up telling Johnson, no, don't do this,
Speaker 3: this isn't what happened, and Johnson making the decision for
Speaker 3: political purposes to go in a given direction. The same
Speaker 3: thing relates to the liberty just one of the dangers
Speaker 3: is that you know, regardless of what factual information be
Speaker 3: being prepared to the commander in chief, the commander in
Speaker 3: chief is in a position of allowing.
Speaker 4: Good better indifferent.
Speaker 3: I mean, some people might say that was the right
Speaker 3: call to make, you know, allowing events and incidents to
Speaker 3: be influenced by political and strategic decisions that you know,
Speaker 3: not military decisions. So no, I wouldn't disagree. Again, I
Speaker 3: that sounds like I'm being harsh on Linda Johnson, so
Speaker 3: be it right.
Speaker 2: Well, look, you gotta be you gotta be harsh on
Speaker 2: someone who is harsh. Uh. And I'm just saying, you know,
Speaker 2: you have to act in kind here. If you see
Speaker 2: things like this, you gotta you gotta describe them as
Speaker 2: they are. And I've even seen the the you know,
Speaker 2: excuse my language for a moment here, Larry, but I've
Speaker 2: even seen the quote out there that Johnson literally said
Speaker 2: to people during that the event regarding the liberty. You know,
Speaker 2: I want that goddamn thing to the bottom, uh, something
Speaker 2: very similar to that when he was talking about the
Speaker 2: USS liberty. He wanted it sunk. And I believe that's
Speaker 2: preserved in that memo you mentioned. Now, I don't know
Speaker 2: if that quote is accurate, but it seems as though
Speaker 2: that is the spirit of what was being communicated.
Speaker 4: Having studied for Johnson, having studied Johnson for all these years.
Speaker 3: If he didn't say it that way, I wouldn't believe it.
Speaker 3: I mean, Johnson, Johnson does not make any other kind
Speaker 3: of statement than that.
Speaker 4: That's got to be Johnson.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I would speak to the accuracy in terms
Speaker 3: of again, consistent, consistent behavior.
Speaker 2: Right, And here here's that's the point to be made
Speaker 2: here is that quite honestly, even if that's not exactly
Speaker 2: correct in the quotation, guaranteed that's the way it was expressed.
Speaker 2: It is very similar, if not worse. Okay, just saying
Speaker 2: language wise, you know, the coldness and directness and the
Speaker 2: absolute insistence and built into the statement. Yeah, I believe
Speaker 2: that entirely because that would be consistent with his you know,
Speaker 2: not public behavior, all right, you know public behavior. I
Speaker 2: will do my best to do. Yeah, that's his public behavior, uh,
Speaker 2: not in public and sometimes in public, but not always
Speaker 2: in public. Is stuffed a lot more closely resembling what
Speaker 2: I just said. All right, now, enough of that, let's
Speaker 2: get into this. And also, you know, this is not
Speaker 2: the only incidents that might be worthy of mention here.
Speaker 2: But let's keep breaking this situation down if you don't mind,
Speaker 2: because again, like I say, there is the control you know,
Speaker 2: the controversy or controversy over there in England, you know,
Speaker 2: regarding what in the hell happened here? Right? What what
Speaker 2: does this mean? Why would a US president want one
Speaker 2: of our naval ships sunk by one of our allies?
Speaker 2: What is going on? And how do you even you know,
Speaker 2: get hold of what this incident meant, what it was
Speaker 2: meant to do? Okay, fine, it's a strategic decision for
Speaker 2: some What is this strategy and play here? I mean,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of questions, Larry, So I'm just going
Speaker 2: to kind of lean back, shut my mouth and take
Speaker 2: a listen to you know, how it is you would
Speaker 2: describe this if you don't mind, And you know, we're
Speaker 2: about halfway through our time, but we might get time
Speaker 2: to mention another incident or two before this is all done.
Speaker 2: So you know, how would you express this to people
Speaker 2: listening and saying, Okay, I've got the idea. I'm familiar
Speaker 2: or at least now I'm a little more familiar with
Speaker 2: the USS liberty when it happened, Why some of the
Speaker 2: players involved, who actually died, et cetera. What are we
Speaker 2: looking at here, Larry? Please?
Speaker 3: Well, I think just to set the stage again, as
Speaker 3: far as the Liberty itself is concerned, I think one
Speaker 3: of the reasons this was so shocking for the captain
Speaker 3: and the ship is the aircraft had been under surveillance
Speaker 3: for hours before the attack happened. They had watched and
Speaker 3: Israli aircraft fly over their own signal intelligence people had
Speaker 3: monitored the aircraft transmission, and so they knew that they've
Speaker 3: been observed and that they'd been monitored and nothing happened,
Speaker 3: But so they it was a real shock again because
Speaker 3: there had been so much time delay, several hours that
Speaker 3: this had happened, especially because the NSA intercepts reveal that
Speaker 3: the Israelis.
Speaker 4: Had flown that aircraft.
Speaker 3: And you know, even at that first point in time,
Speaker 3: not later when you're talking about verification for the attack orders,
Speaker 3: that the slip ship.
Speaker 4: Had been known to be American.
Speaker 3: But there's several things that happened over a couple of
Speaker 3: hour period. Obviously, the Liberty did immediately the captain get
Speaker 3: on and report to act fually Commander in Chief of
Speaker 3: the Mediterranean, and this was past the Navy ships and
Speaker 3: the Mediterranean to both the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga,
Speaker 3: and they received that the message. But on those ships,
Speaker 3: it was almost an hour before any air aircraft were launched.
Speaker 3: Now one of the problems there that you've got to face,
Speaker 3: and if you know some military background for the period,
Speaker 3: those ships did not they weren't flying combat at her patrols.
Speaker 3: You know, they had no planes in the air. They
Speaker 3: were not you know, at risk. They were far removed
Speaker 3: from any combat normally. The only attack aircraft that they
Speaker 3: have are they're essentially what are called ssyop aircraft, and
Speaker 3: these are the nuclear armed aircraft that they have ready
Speaker 3: to launch at an instant, you know, because again, if
Speaker 3: we're the whole SIP response plan says, if we have
Speaker 3: a prevent preemptive attack nuclear attacked on us, all of
Speaker 3: our assets have got to be ready to launch within
Speaker 3: fifteen minutes to respond.
Speaker 2: Right now, I have a sort of ships. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: have a question, huh about the aircraft that was launched,
Speaker 2: because I have read in several places that there were
Speaker 2: aircraft launched even though permission was asked, should we launch
Speaker 2: some aircraft to command? And I believe they were told no,
Speaker 2: and then they launched aircraft anyway at one point. This
Speaker 2: is what I read in some accounts. There's different versions
Speaker 2: of this, folks. So yeah, the.
Speaker 3: Best I could offer, the best I could offer, Chuck,
Speaker 3: is certainly the captains of those carriers requested permission to launch.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is as I said, Really, the Liberty
Speaker 3: is not a Navy mission. It's a Navy ship, not
Speaker 3: under name control, not under control of those admirals, you know.
Speaker 3: So they've got to go back to headquarters and say,
Speaker 3: all right, I want to launch.
Speaker 4: Can I do affirmission to launch these armed aircraft? This
Speaker 4: is a big deal.
Speaker 3: Okay, because they're going to go into combat. It was
Speaker 3: fifty minutes before they got a response that they could
Speaker 3: go ahead and launch, So that doesn't mean they didn't
Speaker 3: ask to launch. That was how long the chain of
Speaker 3: command was delayed in giving them authority to launch armed aircraft.
Speaker 3: One of the reasons for that, and this is pure
Speaker 3: speculation on my part, is the only armed aircraft that
Speaker 3: they had on deck ready to launch may have been
Speaker 3: nuclear armed. And although this is not documented in any
Speaker 3: of the traffic, somebody may have had to make a
Speaker 3: decision go ahead and launch those siop aircraft, or no,
Speaker 3: I want you to put up a couple of non
Speaker 3: nuclear aircraft and send those off and nobody really discusses
Speaker 3: that that I been able to find.
Speaker 2: Okay, And that would be because, look, there are certain
Speaker 2: instances where you would require a different level of what's
Speaker 2: happening to launch. In other words, you can't just launch
Speaker 2: everything with every kind of weapon on it. If you
Speaker 2: launch something that is not armed with a nuclear warhead,
Speaker 2: that is a different engagement.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, you fluck, it's a different weapons load, and
Speaker 4: and a it would be ineffective, okay, because what are
Speaker 4: you going to do with it.
Speaker 3: You're not going to chase off fighters. You need a
Speaker 3: different weapons load.
Speaker 4: Right now. You might say I'm going to.
Speaker 3: Fire a nuclear armed aircraft out there and fly it
Speaker 3: over the liberty and maybe they'll go away. But by
Speaker 3: this time, you know this has been a progres.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: But and what if they shoot down my nuclear armed aircraft?
Speaker 4: Is this a good thing?
Speaker 3: So you know, I can't get into anybody's head, but
Speaker 3: I can see that these are all a process of
Speaker 3: that might go in to the decision making.
Speaker 2: Well, fair enough, But what about the accusation that there
Speaker 2: was a recall.
Speaker 3: Of oh, there there was a recall, Okay, absolutely, I
Speaker 3: just thought, let me go a little bit a little
Speaker 3: bit separate.
Speaker 4: So fifteen minutes it's taken it.
Speaker 3: We've launched aircraft and they're on the way to the Liberty,
Speaker 3: and communications have been going. You know, these communications are
Speaker 3: strictly here in the Mediterranean within the Navy. Back at
Speaker 3: the Washington d C took It was some fifteen minutes
Speaker 3: after receipt that aircraft had been launched and we're responding
Speaker 3: to the Liberty. Johnson got the message at the same
Speaker 3: time Secretary mcmara got the message.
Speaker 4: Okay. It took fifteen.
Speaker 3: Minutes more for him to connect the Navy and find
Speaker 3: out what they were actually doing, because again, this is
Speaker 3: Liberty's not a Navy ship on a mission. It's being
Speaker 3: run by you know, this is not something that's on
Speaker 3: the Operation Sport at the Pentagon, you know, as a
Speaker 3: special mission that's going on. And by the time that
Speaker 3: this is all over and Johnson was actually informed that
Speaker 3: the planes were approaching Liberty, he ordered they be recalled right, okay,
Speaker 3: And at that point in time, one of the things
Speaker 3: to add to the confusion is nobody knew who the
Speaker 3: attackers were. Remember I said in the beginning of this
Speaker 3: that there was a great fear that the Russians might
Speaker 3: be intervening militarily. So one of the things that had
Speaker 3: to be straightened out for mcnamarian Johnson right off the
Speaker 3: bat is who are the Russians attacking our ship? And
Speaker 3: if we engage? Are we now engaged in war with Russia?
Speaker 3: Or if we engage or we engaged with the Egyptians
Speaker 3: right or we engaged, you know, So it did take
Speaker 3: some pars time to parse out, Oh, it's the Israelis.
Speaker 3: And apparently as soon as Johnson was told it was
Speaker 3: the Israelis, it's like, bring the planes back, okay.
Speaker 2: But also there's something else to mention here in context.
Speaker 2: I mentioned Russian MiGs earlier because they were most commonly
Speaker 2: the ones who would have been flying them at that
Speaker 2: point for sure. But if you identified, say hypothetically, because
Speaker 2: I've read this as well, that there were those type
Speaker 2: of attack aircraft in the area and didn't know which
Speaker 2: aircraft hits you, guess what, you don't know which aircraft
Speaker 2: necessarily hits you in the midst of smoking fire and whatever.
Speaker 2: You know, whether it was napalm or white phosphorus, because
Speaker 2: I've seen both claimed having been dropped on the deck
Speaker 2: in the midst of that it might be difficult to
Speaker 2: sort out which plane actually dropped the stuff on you.
Speaker 3: Okay, is that and the Egyptians are flying Soviet aircraft
Speaker 3: A good point. I mean, that's that was who. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so that's that's your point. You you absolutely wouldn't know.
Speaker 3: It's one of three by aircraft type. It certainly could
Speaker 3: either have been the Egyptians or the Russians. And quite frankly,
Speaker 3: the Egyptians had filed several complaints about the liberty already.
Speaker 3: That's one of the reasons the orders had been issued
Speaker 3: that didn't get there for them because the Egyptians, probably
Speaker 3: rightly enough, We're assuming that the US was in support
Speaker 3: of Israel and that this ship was there providing intelligence.
Speaker 3: So it's like move your darn ship, or will attack it.
Speaker 3: So the first thought may well have been, well, the
Speaker 3: Egyptians told us to move it, and we didn't move it,
Speaker 3: so they're attacking it.
Speaker 2: And again the context is this is the Sixth Day War,
Speaker 2: where Israel, who is an ally of the US, is
Speaker 2: engaged actively in warfare with Egypt. Just saying so you
Speaker 2: might say, well, look, there's the Israeli ally ship, and
Speaker 2: that might make sense that they would attack, So I'm
Speaker 2: just just throwing that in for context. Larry, Sorry to
Speaker 2: delay you again with a question, but I thought it
Speaker 2: was necessary. Please continue on, though, because I know you
Speaker 2: got a lot more you want to get to in
Speaker 2: the next like say, twelve minutes, so you know, go ahead.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: I think what that really boils down to is when
Speaker 3: this is written about most people that write about it,
Speaker 3: you know, this should actually be written about by military
Speaker 3: historians because they understand the decision making process and the
Speaker 3: communications channels and the whatever. Because otherwise, you know, it
Speaker 3: seems so simple, somebody's attacking us, sendplanes and shoot them down.
Speaker 4: Well okay, it's not that.
Speaker 3: Simple, just to get the right message, because you know,
Speaker 3: there's no direct that this is not a situation where
Speaker 3: this ship is in direct control of a military group.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 4: And and one of the reasons I brought.
Speaker 3: In in the Pueblo, which is probably not time to
Speaker 3: talk about, is the Pueblo was much the same operating
Speaker 3: off North Korea.
Speaker 4: It had been.
Speaker 3: The ship had been threatened by the North Koreans, just
Speaker 3: as the Liberty had been essentially threatened by the Egyptians.
Speaker 4: We had no military support directly available to it. On call.
Speaker 3: Uh. There were people in Navy aircraft monitoring what was
Speaker 3: going on, but they they had no command authority. They
Speaker 3: didn't have the right, you know, the Pueblo. They couldn't
Speaker 3: just call up the Pueblo and say, oh, we called
Speaker 3: and help us on the way.
Speaker 4: They didn't have that command authority.
Speaker 3: They can only circulate it through channels and and all
Speaker 3: of that is fine for situations where you have, you know,
Speaker 3: a couple of hours or half a day to make
Speaker 3: a decision to commit forces. But when your ship is
Speaker 3: already under attack, it's a different ballgame. And that's what
Speaker 3: we were looking at with a liberty. So the only
Speaker 3: thing I'm inserting here is that it's it's best to
Speaker 3: look at what the military historians are writing about it.
Speaker 3: And I think you will find the military historians that
Speaker 3: write about both those incidents as well as these days
Speaker 3: about the Gulf of Conkent are extremely critical and they're
Speaker 3: not giving anybody breaks.
Speaker 2: Right. But the Pueblo occurred in nineteen sixty eight, just
Speaker 2: for the record, and it was seized along with its
Speaker 2: crew eighty three crew members, I believe, and you know,
Speaker 2: you're looking at a different atmosphere in which it occurred,
Speaker 2: but similar and parallel circumstances could be could be recognized
Speaker 2: here as well.
Speaker 3: Right, Well, actually I would say not that that much different, Chuck,
Speaker 3: because at the time it was sent against North Korea,
Speaker 3: North Korea had just attacked South Korea overtly with several
Speaker 3: sabotage missions. They'd attempted to assassinate the South Korean president.
Speaker 3: So the the temperature on the Korean print peninsula was
Speaker 3: not quite as hot as it was you know with
Speaker 3: Israel in Egypt, but it was it was hot, right,
Speaker 3: And and the problem being that again you're you're sending
Speaker 3: unarmed vessels with with no immediate military support.
Speaker 2: I guess it.
Speaker 3: It gives back to the argument why are you doing this?
Speaker 3: Are you trying to be deniable? Well, no, you're flying
Speaker 3: your flag. So if you're going to do that, the
Speaker 3: only ring, as I bring this forth, is that we're
Speaker 3: going to be running in and already been running into
Speaker 3: this same thing in Europe right with surveillance aircraft, and
Speaker 3: we're still we're still playing these high risk games with
Speaker 3: flying are unarmed intelligence craft directly against armed Russian interceptors,
Speaker 3: you know, and things can.
Speaker 2: Go bad, well, and some people might argue that that
Speaker 2: is a good way to get a provocation, because if
Speaker 2: an armed Russian aircraft shoots down an unarmed US aircraft,
Speaker 2: then we have a serious problem here, don't we, or
Speaker 2: at least if that's what's reporting, or.
Speaker 3: My response to that would be that that is a
Speaker 3: you have no choice, your only choice, and that is
Speaker 3: do you go collect intelligence and have it if something
Speaker 3: goes bad? Or do you not collect intelligence? And you
Speaker 3: know that's it's do or don't?
Speaker 4: You're damned.
Speaker 3: I mean, if it's easy to explain why you didn't
Speaker 3: do it, well, I didn't want to put anybody at risk,
Speaker 3: or if something goes bad, then you say, well I
Speaker 3: didn't have the information, and I'll take.
Speaker 4: You all the way back to Pearl Harbor.
Speaker 3: When they did not conduct the reconnaissance missions off of
Speaker 3: y that had been planned and missed the Japanese fleet.
Speaker 3: That's hard to explain too, right, you know, there's simple.
Speaker 3: Simple answers are not usually the best hanstress in these situations.
Speaker 2: No, not at all. But the counter argument, obviously is
Speaker 2: we are capable of flying drones so that you don't
Speaker 2: have to risk human life and the drones don't have
Speaker 2: to be armed or they could be armed. Okay, but
Speaker 2: here we go. These are different decisions. And now did
Speaker 2: you provoke because you were armed, or did you provoke
Speaker 2: because you invaded space? Or did you provoke because you
Speaker 2: were spying? And all of these questions become valid depending
Speaker 2: on the circumstance. I would suggest that we should be
Speaker 2: utilizing our drone forces. I'll lot more heavily here to
Speaker 2: not risk life to collect intelligence. But some people would
Speaker 2: argue the drones are not quite ready to collect the nuanced.
Speaker 4: The drones are definitely not quite ready.
Speaker 3: We do not have drone platforms with anywhere near the
Speaker 3: signals intelligence capability. It's not even it's fantasizing to think
Speaker 3: that you could do that right now.
Speaker 4: In fact, I mean you're talking about.
Speaker 3: Flying plane loads of signals intelligence personnel and collections. And
Speaker 3: we can do photo intelligence with the drones pretty effectively,
Speaker 3: so that you can handle with the drones, but signals
Speaker 3: intelligence is much tougher, and especially if you're trying to
Speaker 3: do like real time signals and intelligence and elent electronics intelligence.
Speaker 3: We just it would be nice if you could do
Speaker 3: that all from space or you know, but right at
Speaker 3: the moment, and I will tell you The argument is
Speaker 3: all over military discussions, is when could we get there?
Speaker 3: Do we really need to build the next generation of
Speaker 3: this aircraft or can we do it all from satellites?
Speaker 3: You know that argument is in play today.
Speaker 2: Yes, so I just bring it up because I think
Speaker 2: it's worthy of discussion to just at least demonstrate exactly
Speaker 2: how layered and nuanced these discussions are required to be.
Speaker 4: How about convoluted? He can we throw that into.
Speaker 2: We can throw it convoluted to Look, you can get
Speaker 2: to a convoluted point with all this, because it is exhausting,
Speaker 2: quite honestly, these are not simple. This is what pisses
Speaker 2: me off. But Larry, I'm sorry to you know, editorialize
Speaker 2: real quick here. But very simple minded people, you know,
Speaker 2: you might say that they are less complicated and therefore
Speaker 2: clarity is great. You might admire it. But they have
Speaker 2: simple answers for things, but they do not answer anything
Speaker 2: correctly if they don't recognize the complexity of the circumstance. Look,
Speaker 2: I could just tell you there's a good guy and
Speaker 2: a bad guy, and we should always side with the
Speaker 2: good guy. But that is not a clear demarcation unless
Speaker 2: you're five years old. Larry, I mean, it's just that simple.
Speaker 2: You know, there's a reason why we are allied with
Speaker 2: some people that are somewhat despicable morally, sometimes because they're
Speaker 2: necessary in order to not allow something more despicable to emerge.
Speaker 2: That is something that I don't like. I'm not in
Speaker 2: love with any of that concept, you know, Like, why
Speaker 2: is it we're supporting this strong man over here? Yeah,
Speaker 2: I know why, but it doesn't mean it's always justified.
Speaker 2: But it also does not mean it's always unjustified. Okay,
Speaker 2: And this is the problem with facing these decisions. Okay,
Speaker 2: Ai is not going to do it for you. You
Speaker 2: want that, you really go ask groc how you fix this? Fine,
Speaker 2: but I'm not living that way. We need intelligent people
Speaker 2: to be able to sort through these things, and we
Speaker 2: needed them then and we need them now. So anyway,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I know I took up a whole minute
Speaker 2: of your time with that, but I think it's necessary
Speaker 2: to say and please continue on though, I mean, because
Speaker 2: we're going to want to tie a bow on this
Speaker 2: in the next couple of minutes. I think, just to
Speaker 2: give people a snapshot. I mean, obviously there is a
Speaker 2: much more nuanced discussion that we could have. We could
Speaker 2: probably just discuss the uss liberty for the next three hours, Larry,
Speaker 2: without too much effort getting into different details, different let's
Speaker 2: call them time periods in the timeline of this entire incident,
Speaker 2: and talk about mistakes that were made, talk about things
Speaker 2: that might be represented as mistakes which were intentional, and
Speaker 2: everything else. And we could talk about it and really
Speaker 2: waste no time doing it, going over brand new things
Speaker 2: all the way through. But what is the point of
Speaker 2: our discussion tonight is really where I think we should
Speaker 2: kind of conclude this, if you don't mind, And I mean,
Speaker 2: obviously take up as much time as you want or
Speaker 2: as little as you see fit, but I think it's
Speaker 2: relevant and I think we at least touched on some
Speaker 2: of this stuff. We didn't complete the entirety of the
Speaker 2: discussion by any means, but you know, do you think
Speaker 2: that's fair enough? You want to take extra time? You
Speaker 2: want to conclude?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 2: All on you, Larry. I leave it to you now.
Speaker 3: And I think I might expand it just a little bit.
Speaker 3: And we earlier on in the in the book kind
Speaker 3: of like, Okay, why did you write the book Surprise Attack?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 3: I wanted to see if we always behave the same
Speaker 3: way every time.
Speaker 4: Does it get better?
Speaker 3: And there are different different emergencies, you know, do we
Speaker 3: how do we sprun it each time? Was Dallas anomaloust
Speaker 3: Okay fine answered that question in the book, but that
Speaker 3: wasn't ended up getting in the same question that you're
Speaker 3: talking about right now, Chuck, and as that's what can
Speaker 3: we learn from this and what should we concern ourselves
Speaker 3: about and what could we take away from our reactions
Speaker 3: to all these different types of national security level surprise attacks, threats,
Speaker 3: whatever that might do us some good in this day
Speaker 3: and time. And I'll say something that's not going to happen,
Speaker 3: but what really should happen and what can be learned
Speaker 3: from all of this is every new president who takes
Speaker 3: the role of commander in chief assumes the military responsibility. Now,
Speaker 3: some of our presidents, Ice Ainower, Kennisy had some ideas
Speaker 3: and had ideas about you know, chains of command communications issues.
Speaker 3: You know, when John Kennedy said, you know, I'm going
Speaker 3: to order everybody to stand down, and you know, but
Speaker 3: some sobs going to get the message. So, you know,
Speaker 3: McNamara and Bobby, would you get over to sink Atlantic
Speaker 3: and make sure they don't sink any Russian submarines. He
Speaker 3: knew what was going on, He understands, understood how things operate,
Speaker 3: and so he was cautious and he was educated. Most
Speaker 3: of our presidents don't have that experience, don't have a
Speaker 3: military experience. So it has been kind of a rule
Speaker 3: that new administrations go through essentially I will call them training,
Speaker 3: but a certainly education on these practices, on command and control, practices,
Speaker 3: on the nuclear response.
Speaker 4: You know what is the what is the bomb book?
Speaker 4: What's in it? What is the sye op?
Speaker 3: What you know if if we come to you like
Speaker 3: they did to a president on nine to eleven, and
Speaker 3: you're in a kindergarten with a group of kids reading books,
Speaker 3: and they come to you and say, we're under attack,
Speaker 3: mister president, what do you want us to do? You
Speaker 3: should have thought about this before. You should have let
Speaker 3: them run you through some drills, some simulations. You know
Speaker 3: where to go, you don't insist on staying where you are,
Speaker 3: and it needs to have been addressed before the event happens,
Speaker 3: if you have even a halfway chance of responding. This
Speaker 3: is supposed to be part of the training for new administrations.
Speaker 3: In many cases, the Secretary of Defense can be helpful
Speaker 3: if their former military of the right level, you know,
Speaker 3: they've got to have the kind of experience Eisenhower did
Speaker 3: up there at that level of the Pentagon. But what
Speaker 3: concerns me right at the moment is some administrations have
Speaker 3: done that and have taken that training and we're prepared.
Speaker 3: I'm totally uncertain that the current administration has prepared itself
Speaker 3: to handle these kind of contingencies.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 4: Also, we used to have.
Speaker 2: Sorry, but Kennedy had enough experience even though you know,
Speaker 2: people say, oh, you know, he was just given a
Speaker 2: job in the Navy and all that, but his experience
Speaker 2: was enough to let him know to inform him that
Speaker 2: somewhere along the chain of command, guess what stuff gets missed.
Speaker 2: And someone who didn't have that experience might not be
Speaker 2: aware that that's the thing. Okay, they might think of
Speaker 2: the military as you know, infallible when it comes to
Speaker 2: communicating orders and they're ordered, therefore they do it. I
Speaker 2: think Kennedy had enough experience to know that that informed
Speaker 2: that decision to send Macnamara to do what he did.
Speaker 2: Unless I'm crazy, I mean, could you not see it
Speaker 2: that way? God?
Speaker 4: No, absolutely needed to have that experience or or you
Speaker 4: have to here. Here's another example. I think it's a
Speaker 4: good example.
Speaker 3: We all, all of us who have historically dealt with
Speaker 3: the Nixon administration knew that that, you know, Nixon was.
Speaker 4: Pretty gung ho. He was even.
Speaker 3: Considered a madman philosophy, talking strictly to Kissinger and stopped
Speaker 3: talking to McNamara, and that took us into a really
Speaker 3: risky space because he started doing things that we really
Speaker 3: intended to convince that the Soviets, we were really in
Speaker 3: China to go nuclear in Vietnam, you know so. But
Speaker 3: he did that without on his own being advised strictly
Speaker 3: by Henry Kissinger, who had no appropriate experience. Ronald Reagan
Speaker 3: started going off on the same track, doing some pretty
Speaker 3: dangerous things strategically to impress the Soviets. But interestingly, this
Speaker 3: is just it shows you how much things can change.
Speaker 3: He was he had done an appearance, I think it
Speaker 3: was in Florida and something. In any event, he scheduled
Speaker 3: to fly back to d C on the Nuclear Command aircraft,
Speaker 3: the Kneecap aircraft, the Strategic Emergency Response aircraft. And while
Speaker 3: he was on his flight, they actually said, tell me
Speaker 3: this thing works, and so they ran him through a
Speaker 3: nuclear attack drill and showed him the displays cities being destroyed,
Speaker 3: went through the syop with him, and it scared him
Speaker 3: to death, rightly so, and it changed that along with
Speaker 3: watching the movie about a renuclear attack, changed his total approach.
Speaker 3: Then moved us into negotiations.
Speaker 2: That was the day after which coincidentally provoked me to
Speaker 2: write a letter to President Reagan. And that's how I
Speaker 2: got on the FBI file and everything. But ahead, yeah,
Speaker 2: go ahead, I was twelve.
Speaker 3: That's the way this is supposed that's the way this
Speaker 3: is supposed to happen. If you have a commander in chief,
Speaker 3: they're supposed to get deep enough into this. I won't
Speaker 3: say to get scared, but to understand the consequences, because
Speaker 3: it's always about the consequences. Now, consequences will be can
Speaker 3: sometimes be when you do need to respond.
Speaker 4: Okay, Like.
Speaker 3: I know, I get all over the place, but it's
Speaker 3: like Roosevelt and the War Department messaged our commander in
Speaker 3: the Philippines that Hawaii had been attacked, and in ten hours,
Speaker 3: with ten hours of warnings, MacArthur did absolutely nothing, you know,
Speaker 3: So sometimes it's good to react to a situation he
Speaker 3: let all his bombers be clobbered on the ground. Sad
Speaker 3: story there, So it can swing either way. Sometimes you
Speaker 3: have to react. Sometimes it's better not.
Speaker 4: To react, but they have to be educated.
Speaker 3: So the way I would tie a bowl about it
Speaker 3: right now, as you often ask me what concerns me,
Speaker 3: and what concerns me right at the moment, is I
Speaker 3: am personally convinced that neither our current secretary of Defense
Speaker 3: nor our commander in chief have had the strategic education
Speaker 3: that they need to have had gone.
Speaker 4: Through the drills.
Speaker 3: After nine to eleven, we even the administrations established a
Speaker 3: series of drills that they're literally that. Let's simulate different
Speaker 3: you know, domestic crises, you know, major earthquake or hurricane,
Speaker 3: how do we respond to that, how do you work
Speaker 3: that situation? Foreign threats again, al Qaeda type attacks, major
Speaker 3: incidents like that, and educated themselves at least spending you know,
Speaker 3: one or two days doing those sorts of things, so
Speaker 3: they had a clue.
Speaker 4: I am not. I'm not convinced that's even happening up
Speaker 4: to now.
Speaker 3: I've been able to search when I wrote Surprise Attack
Speaker 3: and find examples of those exercise is being held I
Speaker 3: don't see them now, so I hope they are, but
Speaker 3: that if you.
Speaker 4: Want me to tie a bow on it.
Speaker 3: After five hundreds of pages of Surprise Attack, seeing what
Speaker 3: we did right and what we did wrong, and after
Speaker 3: nine to eleven what we almost started doing right, I'm
Speaker 3: sincerely concerned that we've continued it fair enough.
Speaker 2: What is this is the reddish hued cover love Larry's books.
Speaker 2: If you're looking at Larry's books online, it's the one
Speaker 2: that jumps out at you because it's red. The whole
Speaker 2: thing is different shades of red and darker red and
Speaker 2: a little bit of black maybe yellow lettering. Anyway, the
Speaker 2: full name of it Surprise Attack from Pearl Harbor to
Speaker 2: nine to eleven to Benghazi. Okay, just saying that's what
Speaker 2: it is. What is the photo there that is in
Speaker 2: this red shade, like as if I'm wearing red hued glasses.
Speaker 4: That would be Pearl Harbor.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, because I definitely recognize, Yeah, I recognize it
Speaker 2: as a ship under attack, looks like you know, based
Speaker 2: on the way the photo is there. But it's again
Speaker 2: all in red and all in shades of red. But
Speaker 2: there you go, seeing it through one particular set of lenses.
Speaker 2: And what you're talking about here is the lack of
Speaker 2: a lens where you get a hint as to what
Speaker 2: the consequences might be of different decisions, communications, and in
Speaker 2: fact provocative actions. And that is something that what has
Speaker 2: not changed. You know, there are consequences to the actions
Speaker 2: you take when you are the command.
Speaker 3: And there are responsibilities, their responsibilities as you know, this
Speaker 3: commander in chief thing goes all the way down to
Speaker 3: the Senate, you know. And on two occasions that I
Speaker 3: write about the guy that was third in command when
Speaker 3: the Secret Service went to get them after a national disaster,
Speaker 3: well after one of these things, basically said no thanks,
Speaker 3: I'm staying here in my apartment. What you know, I
Speaker 3: just it's like, come on, guys, there there are there
Speaker 3: are should be expectations, you know, the secrets you're you're
Speaker 3: now if things go bad, you'll be you know, like
Speaker 3: the designated stay behind guy.
Speaker 4: You know, are you prepared for this? Have you been
Speaker 4: through training? Don't?
Speaker 3: Don't designate the Secretary of agriculture.
Speaker 4: You know when she hasn't?
Speaker 3: What's a sigh out? What's a you know? What is
Speaker 3: our what are our contingency plans?
Speaker 7: Who?
Speaker 4: Who's people.
Speaker 3: People need to be worried about some of these things
Speaker 3: than some of the things they seem.
Speaker 2: To be right, And God help us all, there is
Speaker 2: a reason why a continuity of government you know, uh
Speaker 2: drill exists as well. Where they come up with the scenario,
Speaker 2: what if we lost or couldn't get action out of
Speaker 2: or communication with the upper echelon of the command structure,
Speaker 2: then we have to what, yeah, continuity of government. They
Speaker 2: always take somebody out of the direct you know, succession
Speaker 2: and the presidential uh you know, in the presidential succession,
Speaker 2: excuse me.
Speaker 3: And that's actually easier today than it's ever has been, right,
Speaker 3: I was I always watching it.
Speaker 4: Actually.
Speaker 3: Selensky made a very good point of this at the
Speaker 3: un Selensky said, you all need to learn from our experience.
Speaker 3: Drones are so dangerous and are are going to be
Speaker 3: so long range, and they can be so precisely targeted
Speaker 3: that if you're not aware of the.
Speaker 4: Threat, you know, you can.
Speaker 3: Preemption and decapitation are no longer just atomic issues, right,
Speaker 3: you can do all of that with it pretty cheap
Speaker 3: and available drump zones. And it's only going to get worse.
Speaker 3: So some of those things that we thought about during
Speaker 3: the Cold War that we were preparing for, and we said, oh, well,
Speaker 3: we don't really have to be worried about that anymore,
Speaker 3: because nobody would be stupid enough to use a hydrogen weapon.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but they might.
Speaker 3: Be stupid enough to use, you know, a two thousand
Speaker 3: dollars jet drone and decapitate everybody who's you know, and
Speaker 3: I don't know, some public appearance where the president and
Speaker 3: secretive Area Defense might show up together.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know, decapitate and throw into chaos. You know,
Speaker 2: your enemy might actually be a whole lot more financially affordable.
Speaker 2: Actually now, you know, it used to cost a lot
Speaker 2: to get the stuff that you had to do that,
Speaker 2: you know, but you could maybe do it on the
Speaker 2: cheap now. So that's something you need to keep in mind.
Speaker 2: It's maybe more economically viable for many different nation states
Speaker 2: or many different groups of individuals with just enough money
Speaker 2: and the right technology to attempt to accomplish the same goal.
Speaker 2: So there you go, Larry, I really thank you for this.
Speaker 2: I know I took you over time a bit, but
Speaker 2: you wanted to take a few extra minutes to put
Speaker 2: context on it. And I think that is the current
Speaker 2: modern relevance once again. I'll give you links in the
Speaker 2: show notes to Surprise Attack. And again it is that
Speaker 2: book that is read jumps right out at you because
Speaker 2: it's you know, it's not the only one of Larry's
Speaker 2: books that has read, but this whole thing is read
Speaker 2: with just the little gold lettering over it that says
Speaker 2: Surprise Attack. Once again, full title is Surprise Attack from
Speaker 2: Pearl Harbor to nine to eleven to Benghazi, and it
Speaker 2: is definitely worth the read. However it is you pick
Speaker 2: it up, and covers all those events and many more,
Speaker 2: including what we discussed tonight to some degree, and doesn't
Speaker 2: cover things after the Obama administration, because gee, what year
Speaker 2: was it put out there? What year was this book issued?
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, Oh heavens, I'll probably say two twelve, but
Speaker 3: let me look.
Speaker 4: I happen to have it in hand, so.
Speaker 2: Yeah, take a look, because although see there it is fifteen,
Speaker 2: twenty fifteen, so this is pre Trump, pre Biden, pre Trump. Okay,
Speaker 2: just saying pre drone and pre drone being common. I mean,
Speaker 2: drones were available in the eighties and nineties, but you know,
Speaker 2: they were like big, huge things. Now they're very small
Speaker 2: and again, very economical.
Speaker 3: So I actually even wrote about that in the book
Speaker 3: amazingly enough, and what the Secret Service should be preparing
Speaker 3: to do, because that was at least predictable back then.
Speaker 3: But I visualized nothing like these long range I'm just reading,
Speaker 3: you know, four hundred one thousand mile jet powered drones
Speaker 3: that can be get it, you know, to go in
Speaker 3: a particular window that was in science fiction book magazines
Speaker 3: I was reading back in nineteen fifty seven.
Speaker 2: There you go, and a lot more smarter than ye
Speaker 2: old smart bomb from an era that seems like one
Speaker 2: hundred years ago. Now remember the smart bomb? Yeah, oh boy, yep,
Speaker 2: lots smarter than the smart bomb. So what does that
Speaker 2: make it the genius bomb? I don't know. I'm just
Speaker 2: throwing it out there. But Larry, again, it's really great
Speaker 2: to sit down and talk with you once again and
Speaker 2: put history into context and also remind people that, of course,
Speaker 2: if you don't want history to repeat itself, you better
Speaker 2: learn from it. At least that's the way I word it. Anyways.
Speaker 2: I don't have the best words, but I try any
Speaker 2: little little jab there. But Larry Hancock was my guest
Speaker 2: tonight once again. Larry dash Handcock dot Com the book
Speaker 2: we recommend to focus on this discussion would be surprise attack.
Speaker 2: But don't heard calling.
Speaker 5: I'm just hid in the truth about the assassination.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, what do you want to know.
Speaker 4: Daddy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew?
Speaker 2: Ruby and Barrie answer weapons? Really, I imagine I could claim
Speaker 2: I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon.
Speaker 1: But okay, Oswald was on the building and trying to
Speaker 1: prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Speaker 5: Come on now has a.
Speaker 4: Real effort on the DAFA assassination.
Speaker 5: Book into claims.
Speaker 2: Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her
Speaker 2: own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy
Speaker 2: of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words
Speaker 2: and the known evidence in the case to get at
Speaker 2: well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judithbary
Speaker 2: Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed
Speaker 2: if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at ki
Speaker 2: as jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book
Speaker 2: and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims. Judith
Speaker 2: Ary Baker in her own words.
Speaker 8: Thank you for all the great information.
Speaker 9: Do you like history? Real history that you were never
Speaker 9: taught in school. Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
Speaker 9: Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
Speaker 9: new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
Speaker 9: events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War
Speaker 9: Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
Speaker 9: five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Speaker 9: Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike
Speaker 9: Swanson is.
Speaker 5: What would I Do?
Speaker 8: Revelation through conversation in a radio show slash podcast. You
Speaker 8: want the good news? Listen to the o'helly effect. Check
Speaker 8: o'celly is the most underrated voice in all media, news, education,
Speaker 8: and entertainment. The daily bread from o'ceelly dot com. Go there,
Speaker 8: save yourself from ignorance ochelly dot com. But we all
Speaker 8: agreed to put o'chelly dot com on and listen to
Speaker 8: the o'helly effect. Revelation through conversation o'helly dot com ge.
Speaker 5: Revel through com sage.
Speaker 7: Here oh.
Speaker 5: Ll o Shelly.
Speaker 6: Say that my Jay R in the World.
Speaker 10: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 10: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 10: the context of the Times and reveals never before published
Speaker 10: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 10: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 10: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 10: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 10: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 10: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 10: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 10: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 10: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 10: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 10: led to a Third warld World War, and they wanted
Speaker 10: to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael
Speaker 10: Swanson reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy
Speaker 10: was up against. For more information, the Warstate dot Com.
Speaker 11: In Denial Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks by
Speaker 11: Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 11: operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial
Speaker 11: rips the cover off, many of them using new files.
Speaker 12: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 12: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 12: really failed and why the United States did not learn
Speaker 12: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 12: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 12: that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 2: In Denial secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larryhancock.
Speaker 2: For more information go to Larry hyphen Hancock dot com.
Speaker 2: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 2: com in digital or physical.
Speaker 11: Dot com radio network.
Speaker 13: Relation conversation, you are effect conversation.
Speaker 5: Silence broken, broken.
Speaker 13: Commission demonstation relation conversation.
Speaker 5: That the conversation falls, bring straight conversation.
Speaker 13: All strength of the jury of my relation to conversation
Speaker 13: a vision to call first of relation to conversation the doctor.
Speaker 14: The hotest place of raps for the whole the medicine years.
Speaker 14: My main preparation after Okay, demolishment was called my combasador
Speaker 14: of my faith.
Speaker 5: By the chapter of My Soul. You are the.
Speaker 14: Relation through conversation, changing me copy about religion before at home,
Speaker 14: give you say if I'm doing so because I can't
Speaker 14: go to.
Speaker 4: Do.
Speaker 5: I really got the marker and decided that fire t peop.
Speaker 6: Conversation had.
Speaker 7: The effect.
Speaker 5: The compensation train show the effect.
Speaker 6: That's never got ap for my.
Speaker 14: In the concent I have not nor fire alone, can't
Speaker 14: quit money, but I'm bo the effect story.
Speaker 15: Really effect, relation to conversation, conversation.
Speaker 7: All pray.
Speaker 6: Straight show off.
Speaker 5: Relation the conversation, abation through first that may be for my.
Speaker 14: In the concistor, I have not went nor cry aloud
Speaker 14: in suggest bloody.
Speaker 5: The effects, the effect, revelation, the.
Speaker 16: Conversation, conversation, the conversation, compilation, conversation, what the effect.
Speaker 2: The design is broken.
Speaker 8: Revelation through conversation.
Speaker 9: Oh Chili dot com.
Speaker 6: M h if I can tell you what a time?
Speaker 6: The track I've never own on Gabby shall him my bad.
Speaker 6: I got away from making a fast joy. I made
Speaker 6: my mom my talent.
Speaker 15: You buckcast down, never.
Speaker 6: Call back all I tell you go away, shy waiting ducks.
Speaker 6: I got exeas to you tonight, got my clocks.
Speaker 16: M from the blanks that.
Speaker 6: He had in the slang fight. I look back, I
Speaker 6: made what I'm down. I'll do what you want to say.
Speaker 6: Just at urn down on you. Let's go back, go
Speaker 6: back where I'll go, go giants, I have to go.
Speaker 6: That's what you say when you say it's not what
Speaker 6: I'm afraid that.
Speaker 2: The child I don't yahn.
Speaker 13: Shot up like my bad.
Speaker 6: I got away from me the first. So I not
Speaker 6: about to tell us my couch a bucket down, No boy, bucky,
Speaker 6: nois go a.
Speaker 16: Spropulation to conversation?
Speaker 2: What the effect broken.
Speaker 16: Stolationalsationproa fotop your lies?
Speaker 7: Shall fact revelation, fasation, a devastation.
Speaker 16: Revelation through conversation?
Speaker 9: The effects are the effects.
Speaker 7: Conversation all raised a stranger, sell the fact, revelation, conversation
Speaker 7: through a titian through conversation, or.
Speaker 5: Shall effect revelation conation?
Speaker 6: John had forgotten?
Speaker 7: Show you a fact beyond this place of rapt and fears,
Speaker 7: horror of a shade.
Speaker 6: The mess of years.
Speaker 5: Find that shall find me unafraid. And that is not
Speaker 5: a free decade.
Speaker 16: Charge with hos scroll.
Speaker 7: I am the master of my fate.
Speaker 5: I am the it's enough my soul shoe.
Speaker 7: On the effect relations through conversation.
Speaker 5: Brother can of Horse continued cashing in and teachers about religion,
Speaker 5: keeping scoring at home. Who are people you'd like to
Speaker 5: see even by wolves.
Speaker 13: Dis dropped him, dying soon the tangles my taco ticks
Speaker 13: and his continued.
Speaker 5: Ghost storming tour and winning a streak, says God sparred
Speaker 5: him and decided a firefighter dies. In the.
Speaker 7: Revelation conversation Shelly effect, you are the effect.
Speaker 5: You are the effects relation through conversation, but all praise
Speaker 5: nor straight no revelation through conversation.
Speaker 7: Through conversation, all raised astral effect.
Speaker 5: Revelation through conversation.
Speaker 7: Through conversations tell effect, Revelation through conversation.
Speaker 14: As the dead from poles, whatever done for my indalkable soul.
Speaker 5: In the constant circumstance, I have not wasted. No I
Speaker 5: allow needs a chance. My head bloody about. You are
Speaker 5: the effect, the actually effect.
Speaker 2: Revelation through conversation.
Speaker 5: Revelation, conversation.
Speaker 7: Effect.
Speaker 6: You are the effect.
Speaker 5: You are the effect. Revelation through conversation balls No. Three
Speaker 5: of revelation through conversation.
Speaker 16: Through conversations, rasonable
Speaker 7: Selgi effects revelation and took on the SAT revel