the logic of A. J. Cristol

Submitted by Bryan (Canada), Apr 9, 2006 at 21:05

Having closely read Cristol's book it is very hard not to agree with his conclusions. Some of you call for a new investigation into the entire matter. Why? If both sides do an "open and transparent" investigation and come up with the same conclusion that the incident was a mistake, most of you (Ennes and Co.) will simply dismiss the investigation as a white wash or just further evidence of a coverup as you have will all other investigations, including Cristol's.

As a Canadian, and a professional historian, I feel I am pretty unbiased in the matter. I have read the reports and the investigations. And looked at the various works on the subject and have reached very much the same conclusions as Cristol.

Ennes: I am proud of your enthusiasm, but have you ever thought that you are chasing ghosts? What is the motive that you are looking for? Why did you turn down an interview with Cristol? This was your opportunity to offer your side of the story to him. What were you hiding? Just because he has a different interpretation of the events does not mean that your account would not be taken into consideration. That is how a balanced historical work is written. You have to take both sides of the argument, weigh them against the facts and draw the most logical conclusion. Ennes, your book "Assault on the Liberty" recieved exactly this criticism in 1980, why have you not taken these criticisms, by actual professional historians, into consideration? The answer is simple: because historical analysis of the facts proves otherwise.

Cristol's book lays this matter to rest.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".