Iraq whistleblower Dr. Kelly WAS murdered to silence him, says British MP

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: London Evening Standard

Iraq whistleblower Dr Kelly WAS murdered to silence him, says MP
20.10.07

Weapons expert Dr David Kelly was assassinated, an MP claims today. Campaigning politician Norman Baker believes Dr Kelly, who exposed the Government's "sexed-up" Iraq dossier, was killed to stop him making further revelations about the lies that took Britain to war. He says the murderers may have been anti-Saddam Iraqis, and suggests the crime was covered up by elements within the British establishment to prevent a diplomatic crisis.

The LibDem MP, who gave up his front bench post to carry out his year-long investigation, makes his claims in a book serialised exclusively in the Daily Mail today and next week.

The official Hutton Inquiry into the death of Dr Kelly ruled in 2004 that he slashed one of his wrists with a garden knife and took an overdose after being "outed" as the mole who revealed the flawed argument for invading Iraq. But Norman Baker is convinced the scientist was murdered. He says he was told by a secret informant that British police knew about the plot but failed to act in time and that the death was later made to look like a suicide to prevent political and diplomatic turmoil.

The highly-respected MP's personal quest to uncover the truth about Dr Kelly's death was prompted by deep concerns over the circumstances surrounding the apparent suicide. He - and a group of eminent doctors - were greatly troubled by the evidence presented to Lord Hutton....

Read more: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23417404-details/Iraq+whistleblower+Dr+Kelly+WAS+murdered+to+silence+him%2C+says+MP/article.do

[Joanne98]

1. I think it was Brit intell that murdered him.. But I'll support anybody that

moves this investigation forward!

[pennylane100]

2. I had often wondered about his death.

His suicide was just too convenient.

[aquart]

7. I never wondered if it was murder or not.

No one could make me believe he would kill himself just before his daughter's wedding.

I only wondered exactly who did it and if there was any way to get them.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. Me neither. Whoever it was, the trail will lead right back to the pigs of this administration. nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

59. In answer to your last question, I would say no. There would be no way of getting them

(unless the prime movers, here, in addition to Blair, fell out of favour with their superiors on account of our involvement in the war and were to be sanctioned in some way by them). Otherwise, why would they have left such a glaringly obvious trail?

Whichever security service was responsible, the conclusion that they wanted people to know Dr Kelly was murdered, seems unavoidable. Our secret service in the UK is extremely professional, and the idea that they could have left so many incriminating clues by accident is laughable.

The reason for this was presumably to warn other high-profile individuals with hard evidence of the chicanery involved in justifying the Iraq War, that should they go down the Kelly path, like everyone else, ultimately they would die of heart failure - 'cep in their case it would occur very soon and, most likely, very prematurely.

In a programme on the topic, a very high-power British lawyer was one of a number of peripheral people voicing their suspicion that Dr Kelly had been murdered. But the bizarre thing was that he actually proudly pointed to a telephone on his desk which he stated was a hotline to Cheney!

So the question I am left with are, why this is coming out now, after so much else is known about the faux casus belli.

[disndat]

60. Probably because Blair is out

and they can get to the evidence without his hindrance.

[Joe Chi Minh]

62. Yes, and the knowledge that it would only lead to a brick wall - which we are

used to, in any case, in all sorts of less understandably protected contexts. But our enquiries are a wonderful source of job-creation for the likes of lawyers, pathologists, etc - and no harm done!. "The lamp broke...". An unending line of fragile lamps.

[xchrom]

3. recommend

[BornagainDUer]

4. K&R!Another one for the "People who knew too much file".

:scared:

[acmavm]

5. For such a smart guy his method of suicide alwasy struck me as pretty

stupid (for lack of a better term). And damn convenient.

[Lint Head]

6. This is what happened to the German people in the 1930's

We are letting the fascist criminals take over. The problem is that there is no one to come to our rescue. Back when we were America, with individual rights, we were able to help rescue the world from Tojo, Hitler and Mussolini. We had a purpose to come together. Now we are dominated by corporate interests that do not want us to have individual rights. I hope Leo Strauss has a front row seat in hell. :dem:

[goclark]

8. It is just so sad that we seem to be taking one step

forward and 8 steps backward in Amerika.

[CoffeeCat]

40. You bring up a good point...

...who will save US?

We saved the world from Hitler and the other dictators that you describe.

Who will stand up to US? Who will save our country?

It's a daunting question.

[defendandprotect]

9. Please tell me we're at the end of the time when people simply can't believe this --- ??? please ??

I don't see anyone waving "tin foil hats" here --
but I'm not quite sure yet that everyone is seeing the long trail of political violence that has brought fascism to our threshold.

Far fewer Americans, I hope, still believe that this is conspiracy-free America -- ????

[frylock]

10. anti-saddam iraqis, eh..

hokay. :eyes:

[Amonester]

12. Yes, the "meet the new boss; same as the ol' boss" types...

Or like "meet the new Mafia; same as the ol' Mussolina-mafia..." to be more specific...

[Dover]

21. A CAMPAIGNING POLITICIAN taps into a hot-button issue and "believes"

Kelly was murdered. However, this guy's story doesn't point to the British government or inside channels....nooooooo.
It's those darned "anti-Saddam Iraqis", don't ya know. His "secret informant" told him so. And anyway, it makes for good reading in his new book.

So another politician exploits a hot-button issue that is steeped in public suspicion to further his career, while simultaneously pointing away from the truth. Very clever. And of course those who have smelled a rat in the Kelly case from the get-go are more than willing to go along with him as he offers them a voice and a justification of their own suspicions of the official answer they were given.

But once again they are being used as just a new political target group to corral.

There are plenty of situations here in the U.S. that would provide a similar opportunity.
And BTW, whose to say that Kelly's murderer wasn't U.S. or Israeli intelligence doing the Brits 'a favor' that would benefit everyone?

[Raster]

36. Kelly was murdered.

Our doubts about Dr Kelly's suicide

Tuesday January 27, 2004

The Guardian

As specialist medical professionals, we do not consider the evidence given at the Hutton inquiry has demonstrated that Dr David Kelly committed suicide.

Dr Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist at the Hutton inquiry, concluded that Dr Kelly bled to death from a self-inflicted wound to his left wrist. We view this as highly improbable. Arteries in the wrist are of matchstick thickness and severing them does not lead to life-threatening blood loss. Dr Hunt stated that the only artery that had been cut - the ulnar artery - had been completely transected. Complete transection causes the artery to quickly retract and close down, and this promotes clotting of the blood.

The ambulance team reported that the quantity of blood at the scene was minimal and surprisingly small. It is extremely difficult to lose significant amounts of blood at a pressure below 50-60 systolic in a subject who is compensating by vasoconstricting. To have died from haemorrhage, Dr Kelly would have had to lose about five pints of blood - it is unlikely that he would have lost more than a pint.

Alexander Allan, the forensic toxicologist at the inquiry, considered the amount ingested of Co-Proxamol insufficient to have caused death. Allan could not show that Dr Kelly had ingested the 29 tablets said to be missing from the packets found. Only a fifth of one tablet was found in his stomach. Although levels of Co-Proxamol in the blood were higher than therapeutic levels, Allan conceded that the blood level of each of the drug's two components was less than a third of what would normally be found in a fatal overdose.

We dispute that Dr Kelly could have died from haemorrhage or from Co-Proxamol ingestion or from both. The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, has spoken recently of resuming the inquest into his death. If it re-opens, as in our opinion it should, a clear need exists to scrutinise more closely Dr Hunt's conclusions as to the cause of death.

David Halpin
Specialist in trauma and orthopaedic surgery

C Stephen Frost
Specialist in diagnostic radiology

Searle Sennett
Specialist in anaesthesiology

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1131833,00.html

[Dover]

39. I agree. I just don't buy what this politician is selling as far as what happened.

We need to be careful not to jump onboard the bandwagon of the first person who declares
they'll bring out the 'truth'. I just don't think anyone is really reading what is being said in that article anymore than you read (understood) my post. You read my post to say that Kelly wasn't murdered. You read that article and understood it saying that he WAS, which no doubt validated your own suspicions. But did you stop there? Or did you evaluate the other details he presented?

Do you believe Kelly was murdered by anti-Saddam Iraqis? Do you buy everything this guy says?


A little wariness as to what, exactly, they're bringing and why is a good thing. We all want the truth on a number of things and that makes us vulnerable to snakeoil salesmen declaring they have the cure and will be our voice.

[Raster]

41. Thanks for the lecture.

[Dover]

43. Okay

fair enough...that was preachy. But I am curious whether you agree with this guy's story.

I guess I'm just a little surprised and concerned that no one in this thread seems to be asking any questions. I don't think this guy is exposing the real lie or the truth.

[Raster]

45. Agree with his version? No. Kelly murdered? Absolutely.

Who did it? Someone that obviously wanted Kelly silent. Forever.

[Raksha]

37. Chalabi would fit the profile of an "anti-Saddam Iraqi"

and I guess some of his people could have been involved in the conspiracy. It's hard to believe they would have been the ringleaders, though.

[Judi Lynn]

11. It's still as sad as the day it happened. The way Norman Baker reveals his belief allows

the truth he was murdered to come through, while warding off any active accusation of the British government. He appears to be allowing them to save face.

Any step closer to the truth can only help.

[mod mom]

13. Perhaps Investigators should talk to Judith Miller:

More on the Judith Milller/David Kelly saga:



You may recall the story of David Kelly, the British scientist and expert in WMD, who committed suicide in July 2003 while being investigated as the possible source for a BBC story that suggested (of all things) that the Blair government had doctored the intelligence about Saddam's WMD programs.

Judith Miller filed a story about Kelly on July 21, 2003:
Scientist Was the 'Bane of Proliferators'. The article painted a sympathetic portrait of Kelly and hinted that he believed Saddam did indeed maintain a WMD program despite the fact that no evidence of it had yet been found. Nothing in the article suggested that Miller had had contact with Kelly, nor that she had ever known him. Her story concluded with this passage:



Dr. Kelly's wife, Jan, said he had been under enormous pressure, but in e-mails sent hours before his death, he gave no hint of that, telling an associate, for instance, that he looked forward to returning to Iraq.


Thanks to news articles written by others we know more about Kelly's e-mails than Judith Miller revealed to readers of The New York Times... and more importantly, we know that Kelly wrote at least one e-mail that Miller failed to write about.

Jamie Macaskill, for example, filed a story in The London Sunday Mail on July 20, 2003 entitled: Dark Actors Playing Games:



SUICIDE scientist Dr David Kelly warned a friend that "dark actors" were working against him just hours before his death.
Dr Kelly revealed his fears shortly before killing himself after being dragged into the row over the Government's justification for war in Iraq.
In an email to American author Judy Miller, sent just before he left his home for the last time, he referred to "many dark actors playing games".
But, according to Miller, Dr Kelly gave no indication he was depressed or planning to take his own life.
He told her he would wait "until the end of the week" before deciding his next move following his traumatic appearance before a House of Commons select committee...

-snip

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/3/17138/30618

[lovuian]

18. Fitzgerald never asked her about Kelly maybe he should

have and Tony Blair is running for EU's president

[DeepModem Mom]

20. Thanks for posting this info, mod mom. nt

[MetaTrope]

14. "to prevent political and diplomatic turmoil" - and hasten the murder of 1 million Iraqis

Thank you, mother country.

[lovuian]

15. Yes he was and Britain covered it up and ordered it

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZbNW_oXwohE


and he was involved with Judith Miller

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BLMQOu0o6TA

of Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby conviction

these people are Killers

[understandinglife]

16. Finally, the truth (that many of us suspected) emerges ...

[lovuian]

17. And if they can kill Kelly they are capable of Killing Diana

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNjEWYcYRPQ

its all about shutting them up

[Usrename]

25. Certain individuals.

It's difficult to imagine that the world could be in the mess it's in if certain individuals were still alive.

Diana is one, Paul Wellstone another.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

30. May I add John F. Kennedy, Jr.?

:cry: MKJ

[midnight]

35. That is an interesting point that you make. Diana was trying to

bring an end to land mines.

[0007]

44. I thought it was cluster bombs.......

[Dover]

23. The truth? Or just a new story that benefits a campaigning politician?

Read that article carefully and notice where it leads.

1) A political career boost
2) A best seller
3) A new (but not necessarily true) story.
4) A new culprit in the murder.
5) A new political group defined by the discontent with the Kelly official story.

Those who have become skeptical (and therefore marginalized by their suspicions, labeled "conspiracy theorists") are, like the fundamentalists, being exploited as just another target group to corral for political purposes.

[TroubleMan]

19. After this and the Plame revelation today, nobody should ever call anybody a conspiracy nut again.

Us so called "CT's" have been right time after time after time.

[seemslikeadream]

22. one more thing we knew long ago

[lovuian]

24. Bingo

Its not a career Boost if he wanted a career Boost he keep quiet

The man didn't have fingerprints on the pen knife that was suppose to have killed him and that was news that was suppressed

Just like Plame was taken out because of her husband

WAKE UP
Kelly died at the most convenient time

[Dover]

31. I think Kelly WAS murdered, just don't believe this politician's story

or motives. And it WILL benefit him amd his party politically to take a position that opposes the current regime and questions their motives.

If some politician running for office here in the U.S. began to address all those of us who question the official 9-11 story,
saying he/she was determined to uncover the truth, they would get a similar response....cheers and support.
But if he/she put together a story like the one this guy is trying to pass off as the "new" truth, then I'd be wary of hidden agendas. We all desperately want the 'truth', but that can be seen as a commodity to exploit by those seeking power, or trying to re-invent the 'truth' to put a troubling story to bed for good.

Just advising caution.

[Twist_U_Up]

26. One more reason to question the 911 official fairy tale

Murder is thier MO

[biscotti]

27. Hope this makes it to the U S press

At the time it happened many people who knew about the case drew the same conclusion. He finally gets justice for his name and reputation. Wonder how Judy Miller took the new news?:sarcasm:

[MsMagnificent]

28. Only 42 recommends?

Someone murdered to help those criminals in power, and only 42 recommends? *shaking head*

[jeff30997]

33. 52 now.

:)

[MsMagnificent]

57. up to 86

:)
guess it was a slow starter

[Karenina]

29. Duh. Ya think?

[Gman]

34. Gee... whatever happened to small planes?

[Amonester]

38. Maybe Norman Baker should stay out of 'em now.

And maybe by falsely saying "anti-saddams" did it, he's trying to not make too much "noise" about it so he will still be able to fly in 'em while campaigning...

[Daphne]

42. Was it George or the Brits?

There's a real question that will only lead to more questions.

[TroglodyteScholar]

46. flash back to 2003:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/18/international/worldspecial/18CND-BRITISH.html?ex=1193112000&en=205a0e6fa2a9f81f&ei=5070

[defendandprotect]

47. Do we know where the Downing Street Memos leaked from ....?

Kelly seemed to have a lot of info ---

Do we have any idea -- Anthrax, as well, I believe -- how extensive his info may have been?

And, wouldn't he have known enough about Judith Miller from her NYT writings to distrust her?

What could she have been selling him to have a friendship with him? I don't get it -- ???

Was he part of the Valerie Plame network -- ???????

[Peace Patriot]

50. Defendandprotect, David Kelly wanted Saddam ousted. He supported the war.

This is what makes his whistleblowing all the more remarkable. I think his whistleblowing was motivated by something he found out in spring 2003, after the invasion. It was a very dramatic turnaround, on the war, on his part. Prior to the invasion, he did try to make the pre-war intel docs more accurate and honest, but he did not go public with his criticisms, BECAUSE he wanted Saddam removed. AFTER the invasion, he then started criticizing the pre-war intel--the justification for an action (the war) that he had supported. Why did he do that? That is the question. One theory (which I lay out below) is that he found out about a Blair/Bush scheme to PLANT nukes in Iraq, after the invasion. He had been publicly silent about the "sexed up" pre-war intel, but a deception like planting the weapons would have been something else entirely--a crossing of his ethical line.

It's important to know who Kelly was, in all his complexity. For one thing, he was a true believer in his own WMD counter-proliferation work. (Thus, a scheme to plant the weapons would likely have appalled him.) He was also well-known as an excellent scientist, and very tough UN weapons inspector. He went nose to nose with the Russians, and with Saddamn, on WMD inspections. Very steady guy. Very undauntable. He also underwent a conversion to the Bahai faith around the time of the war--perhaps indicating that something was bothering him. (There is a whole complicated story about his conversion, involving a female USAF spy who recruited him to that religion. Possibly Bahai leaders were trying to use him in some way? I couldn't quite follow it all, but that faith has deep ties to Iraq, and Saddam persecuted them and took their property.)

Judith Miller used Kelly as a major quoted source in her book "Germs"--about germ warfare--which she published just after 9/11. I'm not sure if that's how they met, but that was in fact a collaboration. He really co-wrote the book. That's how they became close friends. He corresponded with her.

As to your questions: Didn't he read her shitface lying NYT articles about Saddam's WMDs, and realize that his friend and collaborator was a Neo-Con operative? Short answer: no, he didn't realize that. He was on her side. He hated Saddam. He wanted him ousted. But HIS motives were more genuine. He had made friends in Iraq (as a UN weapons inspector) and wanted something better for the Iraqi people, and likely thought that the war would be a surgical removal of a real bad guy, with minimal collateral damage. Perhaps THAT is what turned him around--"shock and awe," and increasing realization that the Bush Junta intended great evil (--although his turnaround was so dramatic that it more likely had a specific cause--such as the betrayal of the WMD scientists, by a scheme to plant the weapons). Or, he may have thought Saddam would be ousted short of an invasion--that the pressure of the big US military buildup, and the tougher UN inspections, would be sufficient. Reviewing his statements about these things, I can't imagine that he wanted half a million Iraqis slaughtered, and thousands of innocents tortured. I get the feeling that Kelly was a tough guy, on the one hand, but naive about what a Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld war against Iraq would be like. So he signed off on "sexed up" science, in the pre-war intel, but later had his eyes opened.

Finally, I think it's possible that his email to Miller, written on the day he died--the one in which he expressed concern about the "many dark actors playing games"--was intended as bitter and ironical, that is, that he had realized or discovered that she was one of the "dark actors." She writes to him, first, telling him that his "fan club" in England (whoever that was--no names mentioned) had reported that he had done very well in his hearing before the parliamentary committee (where he was forced to partially recant). But he didn't do well at all. He was visibly disturbed. His response to her email is very curt, very short, and very dark (compared to his other emails that day). If this is the case--that he was telling her that he knew that she was one of the "dark actors" (possibly the one who had outed him to his bosses as the BBC whistleblower?), then he had realized it too late.

It's easy, in hindsight--and from the perspective of outsiders--to see things more clearly. Why didn't he blow the whistle on the "sexed up" intel BEFORE the war? Well, he got sucked in, that's why. He was part of "the team," doing work he loved. Why didn't he realize that Miller was a liar? How could he be a friend of hers? He got sucked in there as well. They seemed to share goals. But they were not really very alike, as people. He still had principles and lines he wouldn't cross.

I think his whistleblowing to the BBC, after the invasion, was an attempt to apprise the public that something had gone terribly wrong with the whole project. Many of us knew this from the beginning. But he only realized it after the invasion. And his murder certainly points to his knowing something far more damaging than that the intelligence had been "sexed up."

[DeepModem Mom]

54. Thanks for this post, Peace Patriot. nt

[defendandprotect]

73. Your comments are very interesting and have prompted me to look further into the Kelly situation . .

This is a list of dead scientists . . . not DIRECTLY linked to Kelly, but this subject of "depopulation" agenda has been mentioned to me before ---

back later ---


QUOTE:
Dead Scientists . . .
http://deadscientists.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_archive.html



My hunch, and perhaps I'm stating the obvious, is that these microbiologists are being killed off -- after creating these gene-specific diseases -- because they are the ones who might come up with a cure. (Or perhaps they're being killed off because they might come up with a cure for a disease that someone else created.)

I've often heard of the "depopulation" agenda (which has probably been in full swing for some time now). Killing off a generation of microbiologists would mean we'd have to wait for the next generation to come up with a cure. That would give enough time to thin out the population through whatever disease(s) they plan to unleash on us. (Scary thought.)

Either way, statistically speaking, being a microbiologists has to be the most hazardous occupation around, eh?

What's your take? Do you think there's something more to it than just "silencing" certain individuals?


Jim Rarey's reply:

There are microbiologists all over the world who are working on breaking down the gene and dna structure of various diseases and strains of diseases. Most of them believe their information will be used to find cures and/or develop vaccines to conquer the disease. Once they have isolated the information, their job is done as far as the eugenics crowd is concerned and they become a liability.

With the breakthrough that Don Wiley made, they can now take that information and create killer viruses and bacteria that attack specific dna characteristics. That's why I said Don Wiley's death is the most troubling of all.

Hopefully some of the microbiologists are beginning to realize that once they are successful in reaching the goal of their research, they are immediate candidates for elimination. UNQUOTE

[defendandprotect]

74. Repercussions at BBC were quite serious -- !!!!

British Govt tried to kill BBC reporter Gilligan: ex-BBC official Greg Dyke

Posted by DeaconBenjamin
On News/Activism 10/17/2004 4:52:49 PM PDT · 34 replies · 983+ views

Hindustan Times ^
Greg Dyke, former director general of the BBC, has claimed that the British Government "tried to kill" Andrew Gilligan. Reporter Gilligan broke the story that British intelligence had "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq that sought to justify Britain's support for US-led invasion of the country. "The Government tried to kill him," claimed Dyke about Gilligan, who was forced out of his job at the BBC in January in the wake of the Hutton report that inquired into the death of scientist David Kelly. Kelly was the main source for Gilligan. Dyke was speaking at the Cheltenham Festival of Literature...

And ...

BBC BOSS QUITS AS BRIT PROBE BARES PHONY WAR STORY

Posted by kattracks
On News/Activism 01/29/2004 2:35:46 AM PST · 9 replies · 95+ views

New York Post ^ | 1/29/04 | Post Wire Services
<p>January 29, 2004 -- LONDON - The chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation Gavyn Davis resigned yesterday and the broadcaster apologized for some of its reporting on the buildup to the war in Iraq after it was lambasted in an inquiry by a senior judge. The inquiry by Lord Hutton criticized journalist Andrew Gilligan, the BBC's management and its supervisory board of governors, for a radio report saying the government "sexed up" intelligence in a dossier on Iraqi weapons. Hutton said the BBC report was unfounded.</p>


D&P: Reports are that like NPR/PBS here in America, there is an ongoing effort to undermine/dismantle the BBC ---


And . .. Gilligan looks like a Dan Rather -- he threatened that he would expose the top guys at the BBC who outed Kelly.

I still don't get this because the Downing Street Memos certainly make clear that Bush was "fixing the intelligence" to meet his needs -- and that the British intelligence/Blair people KNEW this!!???


Also - Kelly knocks them out on the "labs" . . .

Kelly believed it was most likely that Iraq had retained some biological weapons after the end of inspections.<3> After the end of the ground war, he was invited to join the inspection team trying to find any trace of weapons of mass destruction programmes, and was apparently enthusiastic about resuming his work there. He made two attempted trips to Iraq. The first was on 19 May 2003, when he was prevented from entering Iraq from Kuwait because he did not have the proper documentation.

The second trip was from 5 June 2003 - 11 June 2003, when Kelly went to view and photograph the two mobile weapons laboratories as a part of a third inspection team. Kelly was unhappy with the description of the trailers and spoke off the record to The Observer, which, on 15 June 2003, quoted "a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq". The expert said,

They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.<1>

[defendandprotect]

75. Kelly: "I will probably be found dead in the woods" . . ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly

NOTE: Dead In The Woods (2007) <14> Investigative documentary that explores the links between Kelly's death and a global bio-weapons conspiracy. Scheduled for international theatrical release and broadcast in 2008. Produced by Transformer Films <15>

VIDEO: http://www.deadinthewoods.com/
*****************************************



Eerily, during the Hutton inquiry, David Broucher, a British ambassador, reported a conversation he recalled having with Dr Kelly at a Geneva meeting in February 2003. Broucher had asked Kelly what would happen if Iraq were invaded, and Kelly had replied, 'I will probably be found dead in the woods.'


D&P: Given the fact, I continue to see that he was a "hawk" and in favor of toppling Saddam and invading Iraq . . . this is rather confusing -- but so is a lot surround his positions.


http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t78580.html


-------

Also . .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

Downing Street Memo/Minutes -- July 23 2002

The "Downing Street memo" -- sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo", <1> is the note of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting of senior United Kingdom Labour government, defense and intelligence figures discussing the build-up to the war, which included direct reference to classified United States policy of the time.

The memo recorded the head of MI6 as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It also quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult.

The memo was first published in The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005, during the last days of the UK general election campaign. Whilst its authenticity has never been seriously challenged, the British and American governments have both attempted to argue that the contents do not accurately reflect their official policy positions at the time.

"the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of removing Saddam Hussein from power, which was taken to show that US intelligence on Iraq prior to the war was deliberately falsified, rather than simply mistaken.<3>


As this issue began to be covered by American media (Los Angeles Times on page 3 May 12, 2005, Washington Post on page 18 May 13, 2005<4>), two other main allegations stemming from the memo arose: that the UN weapons inspection process was manipulated to provide a legal pretext for the war, and that pre-war air strikes were deliberately ramped up in order to soften Iraqi infrastructure in preparation for war, prior to the October congressional vote permitting the invasion.<5>

Both UK and US officials have since either refused to affirm or deny its content, or else have tacitly validated its authenticity (as when Tony Blair replied to a press conference question by saying "That memo was written before we went to the UN.")

The minutes were meant to be kept confidential and are headed "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents." It deals with the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, and comes at a point at which it becomes clear to those attending, that US President George W. Bush intended to remove Saddam Hussein from power by force.



NOTE:
QUOTE: "that the UN weapons inspection process was manipulated to provide a legal pretext for the war..." UNQUOTE

[defendandprotect]

77. UN weapons inspection manipulated to provide legal pretext for the war ---

NOTE:
QUOTE: "that the UN weapons inspection process was manipulated to provide a legal pretext for the war..." UNQUOTE


HERE . . .
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/operationrockingham.htm

We have this interesting revelation by Kelly ---
"Within the Defence Intelligence Services I liaise with the Rockingham cell..."
Evidence given by Dr David Kelly, in closed session 16 July 2003
To The British Intelligence and Security Committee

AND . . .

Here's Scott Ritter telling us what Rockingham is all about -- !!! Love Scott Ritter!!!

"The 1994 Scott Inquiry into Britain's illegal supply of arms to Saddam Hussein found that deception was widespread among senior British officials and diplomats. One of those commended by Sir Richard Scott for the honesty of his evidence was the former head of the Iraq Desk in Whitehall, Mark Higson, who described 'a culture of lying' in the Foreign Office."
IRAQ: THE LYING GAME
The Mirror, 27 August, 2002

"Britain ran a covert 'dirty tricks' operation designed specifically to produce misleading intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to give the UK a justifiable excuse to wage war on Iraq. Operation Rockingham, established by the Defence Intelligence Staff within the Ministry of Defence in 1991, was set up to 'cherry-pick' intelligence proving an active Iraqi WMD programme and to ignore and quash intelligence which indicated that Saddam's stockpiles had been destroyed or wound down. The existence of Operation Rockingham has been confirmed by Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector, and a US military intelligence officer. He knew members of the Operation Rockingham team and described the unit as 'dangerous', but insisted they were not 'rogue agents' acting without government backing. 'This policy was coming from the very highest levels,' he added....Ritter and other intelligence sources say Operation Rockingham and MI6 were supplying skewed information to the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) which, Tony Blair has told the Commons, was behind the intelligence dossiers that the government published to convince the parliament and the people of the necessity of war against Iraq. Sources in both the British and US intelligence community are now equating the JIC with the Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the US Pentagon. The OSP was set up by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to gather intelligence which would prove the case for war....Many in British intelligence believe the planned parliamentary inquiry by MPs on the Intelligence and Security Committee will pass the blame for the use of selective intelligence to the JIC, which includes senior intelligence figures. Intelligence sources say this would be unfair as they claim the JIC was following political instructions."
Revealed: the secret cabal which spun for Blair
Sunday Herald, 8 June 2003


ALSO -- Scott Ritter and David Kelly worked together on UN inspections in Iraq --
Here's what Ritter said of the "suicide"....

Scott Ritter, who worked with him as part of the UN weapons inspections team in Iraq, said he was a man of "integrity, character, and somebody who cared deeply about his country. I will never forget the way he always insisted to me, no matter what political pressure that was put on us, that we had to tell the truth, absolutely the truth. Maybe that is why this terrible event took place."

AND -- here's another reference to the strange quote . . . the up is down quote . . .
Eerily, during the Hutton inquiry, David Broucher, a British ambassador, reported a conversation he recalled having with Dr Kelly at a Geneva meeting in February 2003. Broucher had asked Kelly what would happen if Iraq were invaded, and Kelly had replied, 'I will probably be found dead in the woods.'

This is interesting, as well, given the clumsiness -- to put it kindly -- of the "suicide."

QUOTE: His friend took him outside, and as they stood in the cool air, told him Dr Kelly's death had been "a wet operation, a wet disposal".

He also warned him in very strong terms to leave the matter well alone. This time he decided to heed the warning.

I asked my contact to explain what he understood by the terms his friend had used. Essentially, it seems to refer to an assassination, perhaps carried out in a hurry. UNQUOTE

http://hiddenmysteries.net/geeklog/article.php?story=20071020053207592

[defendandprotect]

78. Edit to Boucher comment . . ..

Diplomat David Broucher told the Hutton inquiry that he interpreted Dr Kelly's remark about being found "dead in the woods" to mean that "he was at risk of being attacked by the Iraqis in some way".

Dr Kelly's friend Mai Pederson confirmed to the police that the scientist had received death threats from supporters of Saddam Hussein, who regarded him as an enemy on account of his past success at uncovering their weapons programmes.

[defendandprotect]

82. $44 BILLION in biological warfare research/War Profiteering: Bayer, Anthrax +International Trade --

http://deadinthewoods.tumblr.com/

Funding to prevent attacks like the 2001 anthrax crisis has given more people access to toxic substances -- and brought more accidents.

[DeepModem Mom]

53. Thanks for posting this article, CGV. nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

58. Also a follow-up article from the next day...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E6DA113CF93AA25754C0A9659C8B63

[inkymo]

66. David Kelley

if you really want to get a sense of deja vu all over again...I copied the news from the bottom of the Times article...this is July 18, 2003:

TOP WORLD ARTICLES
. 12 Turkish Soldiers Killed in Rebel Attack
. In Myanmar, Fear Is a Constant Companion
. News Analysis: In Pakistan Quandary, U.S. Reviews Stance
. Iran’s Nuclear Envoy Resigns; Talks in Doubt

The more things change, the more they're the same!!

Kelley suicide story always had the stink of rotting fish....

[inkymo]

69. david kelley

Re my previous post....deja vu and all that...an error of fact! Not clicking on the links to confirm led me to make the mistake of assumptions....Wish I could delete it all except for the reference to David Kelley...icon for red face?????????
...

[Peace Patriot]

48. I think Brown's suggestion that anti-Saddam liars and criminals (like Chalabi) may have

done it is self-protective, and not any cynical pandering to those in the Blair and/or Bush governments who may have ordered it or had a hand in it; nor is Brown covering for them, nor is he motivated by money or fame.

Consider this: How could M16 have permitted a Chalabi-type hit team to operate on their island without their okay--especially in the more vigilant, more paranoid, post-9/11 world? And, if such a hit team DID whack an insider white guy like Kelly, without M16 and Blair's okay, M16 would be furious and would pursue the killers relentlessly. WHY would M16 cooperate in a coverup--if this hit was not okayed? "Diplomatic reasons," my ass.

Bear in mind that David Kelly was first of all hunted down within government, interrogated at a "safe house," threatened with the Official Secrets Act, and then outed to the press (!)--who were avid to know his name--and was sent home without protection--without even a warning that he had been outed to the press--and apparently without surveillance (!). This latter is the giveaway, in my view. Of course they were surveilling Kelly! And where was his surveillance team, while Kelly bled to death all night under a tree near his home? These actions of the Blairites, M16 and Kelly's military bosses clearly point to their either instigating the hit or giving their okay to it. But Brown cannot say that, without risking prosecution under the Official Secrets Act himself (treason), prosecution under the UK's strict libel laws (ruinous), and/or getting whacked himself. Brown's pointing to anti-Saddam elements seems to me to be a clever way to point to both governments, while avoiding the danger of getting prosecuted or getting killed. He has also been onto this subject for a long time--several years or more. He showed great courage in talking about it early on. So I don't buy Dover's suggestion that his motives are ambition or money.

Brown is dealing here with a conspiracy that may ALSO involve the Bush Junta and why it outed Valerie Plame and the entire CIA Brewster-Jennings network of covert agents and contacts who were tracking and trying to stop the proliferation of WMDs around the world. I don't think we yet know the real reason for that. This conspiracy may involve treason and assassination by BOTH of the regimes that foisted this horrible war upon us all. So the danger to Brown may be doubly serious.

I believe there IS a connection between the Plame outings and Kelly's death, and here is why:

May-June 2003: Kelly starts whistleblowing around the time Scooter Libby and Judith Miller were having clandestine meetings. Kelly is outed to his bosses in late June and interrogated in the first week of July.

July 6, 2003: Wilson publishes his article exposing the phony Niger/Iraq nuke connection.

July 7, 2003 (the next day): Blair is informed that David Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things"--not HAD said, COULD say (Hutton Report).

July 14, 2003 (four days later): Valerie Plame is outed (by Novak).

July 18, 2003 (four days later): Kelly is found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances; his office and computers are searched.

July 22, 2003 (four days after that): Novak ADDITIONALLY outs the entire Brewster-Jennings network, putting all of its covert agents/contacts at great risk of getting killed, and disabling all their WMD counter-proliferation projects.


This is just too much coincidence. It was all happening in the same two-week period! And does it sound to you like EITHER thing--the treasonous outing of a CIA network, or the assassination of the Brits' top WMD expert, would be precipitated by a bit of bad publicity about pre-war lies, in a newsstream that the warmongers completely controlled at that point? I think there was something much bigger at risk of being exposed, back in July 2003, and it is still at risk of being exposed.

My guess: They were trying to PLANT nukes in Iraq, after the invasion. (And it may well have involved Chalabi and buds of his like Manucher Ghorbanifar, the notorious Iran/Contra arms dealer, and several of the more rabid Neo-cons.) That rotten scheme got foiled. The Bushites and the Blairites panicked--at fear of being exposed--and were also furious at having their nifty little political scheme (to justify the war) stopped. A UN weapons inspector like Kelly, and the Brewster-Jennings WMD counterproliferation network, would have been in prime positions to detect and stop illicit weapons movements, perhaps not even knowing who was behind them. The Bushites/Blairites may not have been able to pin down who foiled their scheme, and thus took a shotgun approach and blew the whole network away.

This theory has many investigative uses, but chief among them is that it provides adequate MOTIVE for both events--the Plame/B-J outings, and murder of Kelly. An op-ed column in the NYT is NOT adequate motive for putting covert agents' lives at risk and risking the wrath of the CIA. A few anonymous-sourced BBC news bits about the "sexed up" pre-war intel is NOT sufficient motive for offing an insider white guy. Desperation to cover up a failed scheme to PLANT the weapons in Iraq, however, WOULD be adequate motive.

Brown does not connect these dots in his book (from all reports of its content). But he has enough to do--and enough risk to take on--just laying out the case for murder rather than suicide, in a matter that the Blairites went to extraordinary trouble to cover up. And by pointing at anti-Saddam elements, he is, in fact, pointing at the Bushites, and Rumsfeld in particular, who had Chalabi & Co. all on the Pentagon payroll.

[DeepModem Mom]

55. Amazing! Thanks again, Peace Patriot. nt

[Dover]

84. Very impressive!

Thank you for potentially connecting those dots and filling in some important gaps. Certainly very plausible. If true about plans for planting of weapons I wonder why Plame did not put these dots together, or if they have, why they didn't blow the whistle?

I also wonder, IF Bushco had planned to plant the weapons in Iraq would that also serve the dual purpose of having those weapons available in Iraq for use on Iran?

Any connection to the recent nuclear 'accidental' warhead movement to Louisianna?

So many threads......

BTW - my main point about this politician was that we are vulnerable to 'truth tellers' who would like to exploit our suspicions for various purposes. Just a caution to ask questions. I think you've made a good argument for this guy and certainly know more about this story than I.

[Peace Patriot]

49. A word about people who undertake dangerous investigations and publish their

findings.

Yes, they seek publicity. It is their only protection. And it is the whole point of what they are doing--getting the facts out there. And, yes, revenue from their publication--and from any speaking engagements--may be welcome. A person like Brown who takes a year off to undertake an investigation can't live on nothing. Investigation is EXPENSIVE. And life is expensive. Such a person may also have professional ambitions. So what? Do we expect a whistleblower to be a saint? To have only the purest of pure motives, unlike the rest of humanity?

As I recall, Joseph Wilson was also accused of similar venal motives, when he published HIS book. It is an easy and cheap way to try to debunk someone who is making accusations.

This accusation of Dover's, above--against Norman Brown--has really annoyed me. He bases it on the fact that Brown points at the Iraqi anti-Saddam operatives, rather than directly at Blair or Bush. But he is not thinking it through. WHO employed the Iraqi anti-Saddam operatives? Would those operatives DARE kill a man like David Kelly without the direction or at least the complicity of those who employed them? Brown IS pointing to Rumsfeld in particular, and by extension to the Bush and Blair governments. And the reason he would do so INDIRECTLY is rather obvious.

I don't know Norman Brown, and can't say for sure what his motives are. But, for godssakes, give the man a break! I can understand being wary of ANY politician--we have all be so horribly betrayed by so many of them. But he is out there on his own, right now, BLAZING LIGHT upon the Blair coverup of this crime, and will be under withering attack by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and won't likely even a get a fair hearing from the BBC, which has been much more "corporate" lately, after the Blairites' attack upon it. Attributing bad motives to him is unfair. He does not deserve such accusations, and has done nothing to merit them--and they undermine his ability to get this truth told: that the Hutton inquiry was coverup.

[DeepModem Mom]

68. What you said. nt

[L. Coyote]

51. What? "anti-Saddam Iraqis" Give me a break. They did not do the invasion!

[Canuckistanian]

52. "Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein"

Hello, Ahmed Chalabi....

[fedsron2us]

56. Question - if the British government wanted Kelly dead

why did they first expose him as a whistle blower and then let him testify before a House of Commons committee before rubbing him out in a clumsy suicide set up that was bound to attract suspicion ? Surely, it would have simpler to arrange an unfortunate 'accident' long before his name was ever widely known to the public. I am not saying he was not murdered, I just do not buy the argument that it was done at the behest of Tony Blair (much as I dislike him). All rational explanations gratefully accepted.

[Gregorian]

61. That House of Commons hearing was very interesting and full of turmoil.

When I saw that I knew something sinister was up. But to maybe hint at an answer, I think the turmoil and highly heated atmosphere was an indication. Now that you ask, I think they expected something different out of Kelley at that committee meeting. I imagine they expected him to back down. But he didn't. Perhaps that's why they held it. Maybe they even warned him in advance. It's only speculation. But I was impressed with the seriousness and argumentative air there.

[fedsron2us]

63. The reason why I do not buy the idea Blair was behind Kelly's death

was because his exposure to the press was clearly orchestrated by Downing Street not the MOD. This discrediting of enemies by spinning the media is the classic tactic of Blair's press chief Alistair Campbell who was one the chief targets of Kelly's original leak in the dodgy dossier affair. Having outed Kelly and then seen him savaged by the Foreign affairs committee it makes absolutely no sense to then murder him using a clumsy suicide as cover. Suspicions about his death circulated almost immediately and the whole affair became a complete PR disaster for Blair's administration. The fact that it remains a hot topic several years later shows how damaging it has been to the British government. Perhaps someone else wanted Kelly removed in such a way that the finger of blame would point at Downing Street.

[Gregorian]

64. I always assumed it was a poorly executed murder.

But you raise an interesting question. Did Bush have him killed? He revealed a CIA agent for similar reasons. Perhaps they hired Murder-R-Us, and the guys weren't very good at their work. After all, I don't know if CIA just run around killing people.

It's all speculation. And you obviously know a lot more about it than I do. But we know one thing. Bush had to have war.

[defendandprotect]

80. My reading, so far, takes me to where you are here -- BUSH was the threatened party . . .

Note that when the Downing St Memos come out -- maybe in retaliation for the Kelly murder --
it is Bush who is the bad guy -- and the British who are the guys nailing what's going on ....

????

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CJCRANE]

65. However

the Hutton inquiry into Kelly's death was a very useful distraction - away from demands for an inquiry into the pre-war intel.

Blair used the classic tactic of having the MSM focus on one person's story thus obscuring the bigger picture.

[Peace Patriot]

72. An interesting and novel idea--that the murder was set up to point the finger

at Blair and Campbell. I haven't heard this one before. And Byzantine, back alley, backstabbing, bewildering motives, ruinations and deaths are certainly common fair in BushWorld. But the facts you point to--that killing Kelly so blatantly, after all the publicity--could also be explained by a different set of circumstances. For instance, the Blairites thought that the publicized hunt for him within government, and the "safe house" interrogation and threats would be sufficient to curtail Kelly, and prevent him from revealing much more damaging information (such as a plan to plant the weapons in Iraq--or whatever Blair was told that Kelly "could say"), but something--perhaps Kelly's testimony--convinced them that they couldn't risk his running free, that he had to be eliminated. And bear in mind that there appears to have been haste and panic involved (as with the Plame/B-J outings). This could account for the suspicious death scene (haste, or use of less than skillful operatives).

There is also an even simpler explanation for the suspicious death scene, that they WANTED to point to this murder--as a warning to other potential whistleblowers. That has certainly been discussed as one very plausible motive for the Plame/B-J outings. I tend to think that there was a more specific trigger to both events--possibly the same trigger--and that the Bush and Blair regimes were not all that worried about the "sexed up" pre-war intel (being accused of lying--a thing they could spin--and which they DID spin, by changing the justifications for the war), but were very worried, and probably both panicked and furious about something ELSE. A foiling of their deceptive scheme to plant the weapons in Iraq and "find" them there, and fear of exposure of such a scheme, would fit the bill. (It fits their behavior, supplies a better motive for the risks taken in both cases, and "fits the moment"--what was happening at the time: the "hunt" for the WMDs that everybody knew weren't there.)

But thanks for this original idea. It sets me to wondering who would benefit from Blair/Campbell being set up as murderers of one of their own. It's good to switch things around like that, in trying to come up with a good investigative theory, in Bush's bizarro world--or any theory, really--to look at it from an opposite point of view. It clears the mind. Could it have been a warning from Rumsfeld to the Blairites, to get better control of the rumblings within their own government and military, as if to say, "We can get any of you at any time, directly or through setting you up. Be warned!")

[DeepModem Mom]

67. I don't dismiss the new idea here about

As I read it, the MP is saying that they were likely culprits, and then maybe British intelligence, if they even suspected foul play from that source, would prefer the facts not come out. "Anti-Saddam Iraqis" had a lot to gain -- in both power and money -- from a war to take Saddam out.

But I also respect Peace Patriot's thoughts on this, and he/she has a different view.

[Peace Patriot]

70. But Kelly's whistleblowing started well AFTER the war was underway.

That, I think, is the key to understanding his motive for whistleblowing, and perhaps the motive of his killers. He went along with the whole thing--kept his mouth shut--until three months into the war. And what was happening in Iraq at that point (and prominent in the corporate news)? The phony "hunt" for the WMDs.

Some bad publicity about the "sexed up" pre-war intel was not going to stop the war. So whatever money and power interests that the Iraqi anti-Saddam elements had, in the war, would go forward. Nothing David Kelly actually said to the BBC would have stopped the war, or affected it in any way. But what he MIGHT HAVE known, and what he MIGHT HAVE said, COULD HAVE HAD a more profound impact on the course of the war, on the war profiteers, and on Bush and Blair's political fortunes, and if Kelly had a hand in FOILING their WMD-planting scheme, they would have been furious at him as well as afraid of what he--as the Hutton Report stated, and as Blair was told--COULD say.

I'm not attached to my theory. I think it's useful. But it could be wrong (or partly wrong). But I do think that, in the Plame and Kelly matters, we have to try to account for all the facts--such as WHEN Kelly started whistleblowing--as well as thinking back to conditions at that time--such as Bushite control of the newsstream (--why would they be so freaked out by an op-ed in the NYT, or by some anonymous dissent on the BBC? They had their war; they controlled and spun most news to a lapdog press; "trade secret voting machines, controlled by Bushite corporations, were being put in place to guarantee their continuance in power in 2004...so, WHAT were they so worried about?)

I think, in Kelly's case, these motivational factors, and the timing of Kelly events, point to him knowing something MORE than he was saying--something more dangerous. And it makes a lot of sense, as well, that Rumsfeld's OSP was not just pushing forged WMD documents, but were planning to follow up with planting the weapons in Iraq and having them "found." At one point, Kelly told his bosses that he was not about to reveal "any state secrets." He was trying to reassure them. But he was already "off the reservation"--already a whistleblower (--with the motivation, I think, of alerting the public to things in Iraq having gone way wrong).

Others have suggested Cheney-Rumsfeld illicit nuke weapons dealings, and money tracks to 9/11--as things that Kelly (and also Plame/B-J) could have known. Or perhaps dirt about their torture in Iraq (torture for fun and profit)--something Kelly could have learned from his friends in Iraq. (This was before the Abu Ghraib revelations.) I favor the weapons-planting theory, for various reasons, but I could be wrong. And it could be that the sole motive, in killing him, was to warn off OTHER whistbleblowers--that is, that it wasn't something Kelly knew, that got him killed, but something--or many things--that others might know. This may explain the publicity that the Blairites fostered--their public outing of him--and also the crude, seemingly amateurish "suicide" that immediately aroused suspicions. Perhaps they were deliberately trying to call attention to it--as a warning. It could also possibly explain the Bushites' shotgun blast at Valerie Plame and network--fear of many different things being revealed--and doing it in a newspaper column, for all to see. (There are other ways to bully, blackmail, silence and kill people.) But considering the great risks taken, in both cases--risk of treason and murder charges--and the signs of panic (the haste, the precipitous action, the hastily cooked up cover stories and whitewashes), I favor a specific trigger, connected to this phony "hunt" for the weapons, that summer, that they were so trumping up in the news.

What I'm saying is that, whoever had motives to kill Kelly, and whoever did the actual killing, the Bushites and the Blairites had the MOST motive, and the MOST to lose, in JULY 2003--in that time period--from an unspinnable revelation that they were trying to plant the weapons. They could spin "sexed up intel." They could not spin trying to plant the weapons (and being foiled), even with a lapdog press. It would have brought down the Blair government, and might have produced such a landslide in the U.S. against Bush/Cheney in 2004, as to blow the rigged voting machines right out of the water. (I emphasize "might have," cuz they had that pretty sewed up.) At the least, it could have caused the Bushites major trouble, and defections, going into the 2004 election (making the election less stealable, and difficult backup plans--terrorist attacks, martial law--more necessary, to retain power).

The blast-type destruction of a CIA network, and the murder of Kelly--in the same two-week period, both having to do with WMDs, the BIG TOPIC in the news at that time--points to the Bush and Blair regimes, the top perpetrators and commanders of the war. Rogue operatives may have been used (--as with the Niger/Iraq nuke forgeries), and it IS possible (though less likely, in my view) that a rogue group killed Kelly on their own (with Blair/M16 et al covering it up, for various reasons, not having initiated it), but I don't see how you explain what the M16 Kelly surveillance team was doing while he lay bleeding to death all night. If they had not ordered or okayed his murder, why didn't they act to save him? His death occurred within 48 hours of their releasing him from unofficial custody. They clearly (in the record) suspected him of knowing more secrets and feared his further revelations. It would have been mind-bogglingly stupid of them not to have watchers right on his tail--unless they were complicit in the murder, and a) called off his watchers, while the murder took place, or b) the watchers WERE the murderers.

And if the Blair regime committed this murder (or let it happen)--and I think one or the other is the case--they would not have done so without an okay (or direction) from Washington DC. It was all-of-a-piece with the Plame/B-J outings (and likely deaths of some of the B-J agents/contacts).

[DeepModem Mom]

71. You make a powerful case, PP...

and I have little knowledge of all this. (Also, I apologize for my truncated post. We were working on some computer problems when I posted, and I didn't realize it was as screwy as it was.)

I hope you'll gather all your thoughts on this, if you haven't already, and present it here or elsewhere all in one piece. I think what you have to say on this matter is really interesting, and valuable for more eyes to see.

[defendandprotect]

76. Quite a post . . . !!!! Can you explain this further -- ?????

QUOTE: Others have suggested Cheney-Rumsfeld illicit nuke weapons dealings, and money tracks to 9/11--as things that Kelly (and also Plame/B-J) could have known. UNQUOTE

I'm REALLY interested in the first part of the sentence --
but also the latter . . . do we know of any Plame/Kelly connections -- maybe thru Brewster Jennings?
Was Kelly a source for Plame? And vice verse?


MEANWHILE . . . I may have missed a lot somewhere/? but I really think that the idea that Kelly went to the BBC with a story that basically he could go along with the Blair notion that Saddam could have nukes in air in a day or a week -- but that he had to HALT with the notion of 36 hours.
It just sounds lame. Not realistic.

So ... a program was created based on the differnce between the LIES
1 -- that Saddam could do it in a day or a week, or
2 -- that Saddam could it it in 36 hours

and the DIFFERENCE was "sexing" it up ---

Big story???

There is also a suggestion in the stories that Kelly seemed to be saying that he was in some part speaking for "intelligence souces" . . . ?????

[defendandprotect]

81. Joe Wilson threat also came after the war had started . . . but pointed to LIES . . .

as Wilson asked . . . "What else are they hiding?"


Then the Plame outing --

[defendandprotect]

79. Answer: Don't know . . . but ....

Suppose the White House felt threatened by the closeness of "sexed up" to "fixed" ....
and wanted to make sure that BLAIR and the BBC and Kelly would all shut up --- ?????


hmmm....????