Weapons Inspector who Opposed Iraq Invasion was Murdered, say Six Top Doctors

[Are_grits_groceries]

From Daily Kos:
The Anomaly's diary :: ::

Lord Falconer, a former roommate of Tony Blair, had suspended the initial inquest, performed through the Hutton Inquiry, which concluded that Dr Kelly had sliced his own wrist.

However, leading medical experts believe that suicide was unlikely.

"The primary cause of death is given as hemorrhage. And we do not believe, as surgeons, that such hemorrhage would have been so rapid or so voluminous that Dr Kelly would have died from that. We want to see an inquest for Dr Kelly. I think it’s highly likely it will be found that there was foul play," says Dr David Halpin, an orthopedic surgeon...

The Hutton Inquiry was legally unique, using its own rules and procedures to examine the cause of a single death.

A British member of parliament says the normal rules for inquests were not applied.

"No one was required to give evidence under oath, nobody could be found guilty of perjury, there was no proper cross-examination and all the normal safeguards related to a coroner’s inquest were simply not present. A proper inquest into the death of David Kelly, that’s not happened. And even if you don’t subscribe to my view that he was murdered, you would agree, I hope, that everybody is entitled to an inquest if they die a violent death," says Norman Baker, a Liberal Democrat MP.

More at this link:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/12/16391/647

Don't tell me that there isn't skullduggery afoot everywhere. I may be wrong sometimes, but not as much as people tell me. Getting an appropriate tinfoil chapeau from my collection.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

1. A letter from 3 doctors in the Guardian 1/2004

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2004/jan/27/guardianletters4

Tuesday 27 January 2004 03.02 GMT


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

[JohnyCanuck]

2. K&R n/t

[eridani]

3. Link fixed

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/12/16391/647

[formercia]

4. The king's men are always about.

It's one of the reasons the American Colonies had a Revolution.

[mod mom]

5. still wondering about the connection to Judith Miller. rec'd

[defendandprotect]

6. Of course, he was murdered . . .

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. How will Tony Blair feel about this once they confirm Kelly was murdered?

[Peace Patriot]

8. Kelly did not oppose the Iraq invasion. In fact, one of the most interesting aspects

of this case is WHY he changed his mind about the war AFTER the invasion. Though he had expressed internal objections to the "Dodgy Dossier," he signed off on it, basically because he wanted Saddam to be toppled. The invasion occurred in March 2003. And he didn't begin objecting to pre-war "sexing up" of the WMD intel until May 2003, well into the invasion/occupation. At that point, he began whistle-blowing to the BBC, anonymously, about the "sexed up" intel that had been used to justify the invasion. Why?

He had supported the war. Why did he seek to undermine its justification after it was already well under way?

I think this is a very important thing to understand about Dr. Kelly. What could have provoked him (a war supporter) to do what he did in May 2003?

I have one theory about it--but there are other plausible theories. My theory has to do with the coincidence of dates of Kelly's death and the Plame/Brewster-Jennings outings in the US. Valerie Plame was outed on 7/14/03. Kelly was found dead four days later on 7/18/03. His office and computers were searched. Then, four days after that, on 7/22/03, Novak additionally outed the entire Brewster-Jennings network that Plame headed.

So, in about one week's time--while the phony 'hunt' for WMDs in Iraq was still going on--the US/UK lost one of the UK's very top WMD counter-proliferation experts (Kelly), the CIA's top WMD counter-proliferation agent (Plame) and the CIA's entire network of eyes and ears around the world (all of Plames agents/contacts) for WMD counter-proliferation (who would have to go silence in fear for their lives, or who may well have been killed for their association with B-J.)

The conclusion of this theory is that the Bushwhacks (and Blairites) were trying to PLANT nukes in Iraq, to be "found" by the US troops who were "hunting" for them (with Judith Miller as their enthusiastic "leader"--seeking that "big scoop"). Such a "find" would have cemented Bush/Blair's political fortunes. And--if this theory is true--may also have been designed to point to Iran, to justify extending the war into Iran at that time. (There is evidence that Manucher Ghorbanifar was trying to lead the CIA in that direction. Ghorbanifar is the notorious Iran/Contra arms dealer who was present at the Rome meeting where many suspect that the Niger/Iraq nuke forgeries were cooked up.)

This theory helps explain Dr. Kelly's whistleblowing in May 2003. Kelly was an excellent, highly regarded scientist, devoted to his profession, and also a very tough WMD inspector. He had worked for UN inspection teams (in Russia and Iraq). I think that a plan to PLANT the evidence in Iraq would have appalled him. I also think that merely whistleblowing about the pre-war exaggerations would not have gotten him killed. He likely knew something more. After the Blairites had hunted him down, he was interrogated at a "safe house" and threatened with the Official Secrets Act. This was a week before Plame was outed. Wilson's op-ed (on the Niger forgeries) appeared almost simultaneously. The op-ed was published on 7/6/03. On 7/7/03, Tony Blair was informed (re the result of Kelly's interrogation) that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things" (if he were to testify to the Parliamentary defense committee). (Note "could" say, not "had said.") Kelly then testified under obvious distress, half-recanting what he'd told the BBC (about the "sexed up" pre-war intel). The Blairites outed him to the public, and sent him home without protection and apparently without surveillance (I'll get to that in a minute).

Judith Miller (a friend and colleague of Kelly's) emailed him, after his testimony, something to this effect (can't recall the exact wording): 'Your fan club in the UK thought you did great in the hearing.' (Kelly was obviously, visibly distressed during the committee hearing--he didn't do well at all.) Kelly then replied to her (on the day he died, 7/17/03) expressing his concern about "the many dark actors playing games" but expecting the controversy to blow over soon. In emails to others, he was upbeat, looking forward to his daughter's wedding in the fall and intending to return to Iraq.

One big question I have is about surveillance of Kelly. He was at the center of an Official Secrets Act/Iraq War firestorm. He was whistleblowing on the government. They were so worried about him that they had put him through the wringer at a "safe house" and forced him to testify to the committee. And they (after outing him to the press) sent him home not only without protection, but without surveillance? That is simply not credible. And if they had surveillance on him, what were his watchers DOING while he supposedly slit his own wrist, outdoors, and bled to death all night under a tree near his house?

An anonymous phone call would have saved his life (if his watchers didn't want to reveal themselves). Why didn't they call it in? Where were they? Who were they? What were they doing? And if there was no surveillance, what is the explanation for that? Who decided against it, and why?

This issue was never raised in the Hutton inquiry (along with so many other issues that were ignored). The lack of protection for Kelly (after the Blairites outed his name to the press) was somewhat raised, but not really dealt with. He was a highly respected government servant whose name had just shot around the world. It is simply unconscionable that he was given no protection--and totally unbelievable that he was not being watched by government agents.

The coincidence of dates with the Plame outings is just too coincidental, if you know what I mean. I think what it may point to is PANIC on the part of the Bushites and Blairites about SOMETHING that we don't yet know. A bit of noise in the corpo-fascist media "river of forgetfulness" about pre-war exaggerations does not explain the smell of panic that these events give off, when they are placed together, in their tight timeline.

Neither Wilson's op-ed nor Kelly's rather mild criticism of the "Dodgy Dossier" (that it had been "sexed up") sufficiently explains the outing of an entire CIA program nor Kelly's murder--nor his suicide. (And why would he kill himself if--as he thought and stated in emails--the whole thing was going to blow over by the end of the week? No suicide note. No signs of despair. Just a bit of puzzlement--about the "many dark actors playing games," to one correspondent.) The Bushites had totally controlled the media, to write their own narrative of the war, and, indeed, they are still controlling it. They didn't need to out Plame and then the entire CIA counter-proliferation network, to enforce "forgetfulness" of their pre-war lies. All they had to do was drop it (--ignore Wilson). And if it was political punishment that they were after, there are a lot less dangerous ways of punishing people than incurring the undying ire of the CIA by outing their agents.

And the same applies to the Blairites and Kelly. Although the British media is a bit more tenacious, the Blairites had already ignored some 80% of the British population who opposed the war. Why didn't they just go on ignoring it? Why take the extraordinary measure of murdering one of their own, for his relatively mild criticisms--or of driving him to suicide, if that's what they did?

I'm pretty much convinced, though--99%--that it wasn't suicide. The known forensic evidence points to murder and away from suicide. Kelly was not only a very good bio-chem scientist, and a very unlikely candidate for a wrist-slitting, he was near retirement; he had played their game with the committee; he went home still a government employee, with his pension in tact. He was forward-looking about work and his daughter. Why would he commit suicide? --unless, possibly, someone had threatened his family because he knew something more, and he knew they no longer trusted him to keep it a secret. He did say, at one point--to a friend--that he'd promised not to reveal any "state secrets." If he decided, toward the end of the week, that his family was going to live under constant threat, that might be motive for him to remove himself as the threat to them. However, this really is just speculation, and everything else points to murder.

So, what WAS it that could have caused this simultaneous panic on both sides of the Atlantic, about counter-proliferation experts?

I tend to think, these days, that Iran was more the issue than Iraq. They were already in Iraq. It was a done deal--WMDs or no WMDs. So perhaps they had some plan to justify pushing the war into Iran, and it involved illicit movement of WMDs, and a false "find." Maybe Plame's network foiled that plot (maybe even inadvertently, not knowing who was behind it)? And Kelly found out about the plan (and was now in a professional dilemma, having been roped into the "Dodgy Dossier," but this was going too far--as a scientist, he couldn't support it)? (Note: Plame, it turns out, was deeply involved in Iranian counter-proliferation efforts. Also, Kelly had made friends with Iraq's weapons scientists, on previous inspections--he was connected in Iraq, and could have learned something that way.)

If some such scenario is what occurred, think of it from the Bushwhacks' point of view (and the Blairites), at the time? They had a plan to push into Iran, based on a false "find" of WMDs that pointed to Iran, and suddenly they were beset with whistleblowers from both directions, OR with a foiling of their plan? They would be panicked at the potential disclosure of their plan, or infuriated that it had been prevented. And THAT sort of motivation WOULD BE sufficient for what happened next.

[Peace Patriot]

11. I want to discuss a related theory on Rumsfeld's ouster and no nuking of Iran circa 2006.

The importance to the Bushwhacks of having an excuse to nuke, bomb and/or invade Iran might be more visible if we could penetrate the true reasons for Rumsfeld's resignation, in Dec 2006, shortly after the Democrats won ( or were permitted to win) the 2006 Congressional elections. Rumsfeld resigned, with no change of policy in Iraq. The Democratic Congress then fully endorsed and funded the Bushwhack war on Iraq. So, why did Rumsfeld resign? (He certainly didn't do so in deference to the American people. That is laughable.) Most likely, it was an internal counter-coup of some kind, about Iran. Attacking Iran seemed quite imminent during this period (2005-2006). Then Rumsfeld resigned. Then attacking Iran went away (very quickly, within three months). Apparently, the military brass--given that Iran is much better defended than Iraq was--could not see how to do it without using nukes, and they opposed using nukes (possibly because China and Russia threatened to come into it, on Iran's side). But what if Cheney-Rumsfeld were going to order them to do it anyway?

Enter Daddy Bush, who had been following all this very closely, with his "Iraq Study Group" (an assemblage of notables--including Leon Panetta (old CIA?)--who were allegedly trying to fix all the Cheney-Rumsfeld disasters in Iraq). Cheney-Rumsfeld are about to drag Junior into a potential armageddon (and who knows what-all here, maybe martial law), and a military/CIA counter-coup is gathering. So, a Big Honcho group, led by Daddy Bush, puts the following to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld: You don't nuke Iran and we will guarantee your immunity from impeachment/prosecution; Rumsfeld must resign, and Bush Jr. and Cheney must promise to yield up the reins of power when the time comes.

Nancy Pelosi blurts out, in public, "Impeachment is off the table." (What table, Nancy?) Rumsfeld resigns. Pelosi goes to the Middle East to tell Israel and Syria that a US invasion of Iran is "off the table." And Iran smilingly gives the British sailors back. (Remember that?) Circa March 2007.

It's relationship to the Plame outings and Kelly's murder may be this: Say Plame-B/J were outed, and Kelly was murdered, over a Bushwhack (probably Rumsfeld) plan to plant WMDs in Iraq, that somehow tracked to Iran (or were being spirited away to Iran--so the story would have gone), in order to extend the war to Iran, then and there. Kelly had found out about it. He started the whistleblowing (late May 2003), planting doubts about Iraq WMDs, maybe trying to prevent the nuking/invasion of Iran on false WMD evidence. Wilson started whistleblowing about a month later (early July), while Kelly was being interrogated. Then, bang, Wilson's wife and her whole project are outed, and Kelly is murdered. A rumbling begins within our national political establishment (military, CIA, corpo et al) that nuking Iran would be "bad for business," bad for Israel and might kill the planet (i.e., Carl Sagan's warning.)

Fast-forward to 2004. Rove manages to 'Diebold' Bush-Cheney into 're-election.' And Rumsfeld tries again to get the military to nuke/invade Iran, to get the full benefit of both oil fields for his and Cheney's buds at Exxon Mobil, and as a major advancement of the "Project for a New American Century." Rumsfeld begins to set up "Gulf of Tonkin"-type incidents, like the British sailors "straying" into Iranian waters, to trigger the nuking/invasion. The propaganda mill goes into high gear. Everybody at DU--and a lot of others--get the jitters that a new front in the Mideast War is about to open. The military again balks at nuking/invading Iran--for reasons of sanity, and also, Iraq is falling apart, under Rumsfeld management. They are already into 'stop-loss.' They don't have the 'cannon fodder' for such a big undertaking (invading/occupying Iran). (Remember the talk during this period about a Draft?) They cannot invade/occupy Iran without nuking it. They don't want to nuke it. Cheney-Rumsfeld pooh-pooh China/Russia coming into it. But the military and/or Daddy Bush know otherwise. It's a real threat. And even limited nuke use may decimate the Middle East (if not the planet). Daddy Bush acts to save Junior from Rumsfeld's clutches. They force Rumsfeld to resign. Cheney is de-fanged, and is no longer in charge of US foreign policy from this point on. And they are all given immunity to seal the deal.

Another part of the nuke Iran plan may have been imposing a Draft here, and declaring martial law. These threats are also called off. Everything eases up (except within Iraq itself) and the Democrats (with lots of "Blue Dogs") are permitted to take over Congress, so long as they continue to fund the Iraq War and DON'T IMPEACH Bush and Cheney (and never hold them or Rumsfeld accountable for their heinous crime spree). Thus (by letting the Democrats take over) the overarching rulers of the US make it clear to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and their cabal that they had gone too far. Nothing has been lost by way of banksterism and war profiteering. And they furthermore decide on a completely harmless interim of "liberal" government to cleanse the public atmosphere of anger against the Bush Junta, and permit Obama to be elected, on the (har-har) anti-war hopes of the American people. (I think he really was elected--by a bigger margin than we know--but they could easily--EASILY--have stopped him with the "TRADE SECRET" voting machines that had been fast-tracked into place during the 2002 to 2004 period--and this may be part of the hold they seem to have on him).

[bongobobtherealone]

12. All I can say is.................

WOW!! I've thought along those same lines many times, but never with your depth. Great linear thinkinz! Seems it wasn't that long ago that I knew in my gut that we were going to attack Iran one way or the other.

I think you may have explained why nothing has happened to W and Dick head. As I recall, W bought 3,000 acres in Paraguay around that time frame in anticipation of his demise. I still hope justice will be done, but it's doubtful.

[Peace Patriot]

13. Welcome to DU, bongobobtherealone! I could never find verification for the Bush land purchase

in Paraguay, but Paraguay has since, a) elected a leftist government, and b) rescinded both its non-extradition law and its law giving immunity to the US military.

Paraguay is no longer a willing haven for war criminals.

[CJCRANE]

16. Great analysis. nt

[Goldstein1984]

17. I thought I was paying attention, but none of that ever

occurred to me. A very interesting scenario, or set of scenarios.

With your permission, this would be a fun thing to research and attempt to thoroughly document.

Now, maybe with the recently discovered 22 million Bush Error emails...

[Peace Patriot]

47. Feel free! I've been hoping someone with investigative capabilities would look into this.

I have no attachment to these theories, and no intention of publishing them anywhere but DU. I am not able to do all the research myself, to formalize the theories and publish them anywhere--other than what I've already done, which has not been systematic and I have not systematized the documentation nor saved all of it. If you come up with something--an article with footnotes, or some good "finds" in the emails, or whatever, and want to publish it, feel free to do so, and maybe give a nod to me and DU. I am grateful to DU for being an open forum, and a great forum for getting information as well as for analyzing/testing theories. It might be possible for me to collaborate on an article, if you want/need a collaborator, or advise/help edit. I will PM you with some particular time-frames and questions for the email search.

I was moved to look into this so deeply because David Kelly's death grabbed me, emotionally, and I don't really know why. There are plenty of stories of great courage in the face of the Bush Junta and its dreadful crimes and wars. Maybe he touched me because he was such a straight-arrow establishment type (not unlike myself), yet somehow remained open to a radical change of viewpoint, and apparently tried to do something very courageous (and unexpected) toward the end of his career, at the cost of his life. His story is fraught with confusion, back-pedaling, trying to get out of being a hero, struggles with fear, but also devotion to his profession (science) and his work (counter-proliferation) and his family, and his country. His effort to maintain integrity and honor in the face of the vast, blood-soaked corruption of the Bush/Blair regimes is tragic. He is not an easy hero. He is a Hamlet. He was crushed by these people, for trying to see his way toward what was right.

I would like to see him vindicated. I want to see justice done. I want his murderers exposed, if he was (very likely) murdered. And it's quite possible that he is one of the greatest heroes of our era. If that is true, I want that known.

But I am also open to being entirely, or partially, wrong. The more I looked into it, the more confirmation I found of these theories, but that's as far as I could go. They are not proven and maybe can't be proven (currently, anyway). Not enough evidence.

--------------------------------

Just want to apprize you of an alternative theory about Plame. Google "Cheney arms dealing" or "Cheney Pakistan Khan." There is quite a developed theory that the CIA counter-proliferation program stood in the way of worldwide illicit arms dealing that Cheney is involved in. In other words, the Plame/B-J outings were bigger than Iran, and maybe had nothing to do with nuking/invading Iran, but with this bigger arms scene. One big weight on the side of this theory is Cheney motivation. Is he first of all a thief and looter, driven by greed, and only secondarily a "world dominationist"? I tend to think this is true of him. Maybe he didn't want to nuke Iran but rather get CONTROL of, and PROFIT FROM, their weapons programs. Lots of US war profiteers involved in North Korea, for instance, and the same corps that sell nuke technology get big bucks for cleaning up nuke messes.

I remember thinking, when Halliburton first got huge "no bid" contracts with no requirement to produce anything: 'That's just stupid,' I thought, 'How can they expect to create the 'New American Empire' by massively looting the federal treasury, upfront?'

So maybe the "Project for a New American Century" is just window-dressing for a massive looting and plundering operation? It just uses things--like the US military--opportunistically, to gain control of very lucrative illicit markets (nuclear and conventional weapons, drugs, human traffic) as well as major resources like oil? (The Bushwhack/US "war on drugs" in Colombia sure looks like a drug lord protection racket.)

I think it's notable that the Bushwhacks are completely incompetent "nation builders," here and anywhere else, and showed NO interest in building up this country into a great war machine and manufacturing power. On the contrary, they devastated the country, the infrastructure, the manufacturing capability, the economy, the military. They are unlike Hitler in this respect. Motive is an important question. What IS their motivation, and how does it influence their crimes?

However, I think Rumsfeld (more of a "world dominationist" than a thief, as to motives and priorities) is the main perp on the Plame outings. He was on the operational end of it. Cheney was in charge of political damage control. And there are enough "signs and omens" of a clash between Rumsfeld and the military brass on nuking Iran to indicate that their "Plame problem" (and their Kelly problem?) had to do with Iran. Also, both theories could be true--the CIA was interfering with Cheney's worldwide illicit weapons dealings AND was interfering with a specific plan to use false nuke evidence as an excuse to extend the war to Iran.

On Cheney/damage control: This was a very clever tale, that the Plame outing was politically motivated--intended to punish Wilson for his dissent. And it sure looks like Cheney/Libby roped Karl Rove into it, intending for Rove to end up "holding the bag." This is the "White House war" that I've theorized was going on behind the scenes during Katrina (along with the first Daddy Bush intervention). Rove escaped Prosecutor Fitzgerald's net possibly because Rove really didn't do it. He was being used as part of Cheney's "damage control." A plausible tale, certainly--that Rove would take political revenge too far--easy to believe. A lot of people expected Rove to be indicted. But Fitzgerald instead indicted Libby, and pointed strongly to Cheney, in a press conference and documents. I recall he said something like "it's now a political problem"--i.e., impeachment of a VP is Congress' purview. Our 'Diebolded' Congresses, of course, are useless--so the problem bounced to Daddy Bush and his ISG and others (military brass, CIA, etc.), and THEY took care of the REAL problem: Rumsfeld! Fitzgerald never pointed to Rumsfeld, but that's who got ousted. It's true--if this theory is more or less correct--that Cheney got de-fanged at the same time, but Rumsfeld was the MAIN problem, precisely because of his war plan for Iran.

Weapons profiteering, vast corruption, looting the federal coffers, vast domestic spying, torture, "rendition," ripping up the Constitution and the rule of law, egregious election fraud, and slaughtering a hundred thousand innocent people with conventional forces, to steal their oil--all fine and good with our (real) national political establishment, but taking on well-defended Iran, by use of nukes, at the risk of other nuclear powers coming into it, was, quite simply, insane. It had to be stopped, and that meant that Rumsfeld had to be stopped (and Cheney--riding Rumsfeld's train to vast profits--curtailed).

One other caveat about my theories: I may be underestimating the Bushwhacks' fear of exposure of their lies about Iraq WMDs, and/or their fury at insider dissenters like Wilson and Kelly on this issue (Iraq WMDs). I felt at the time that everybody sort of knew that they were lying--even before Wilson's article. (Nearly 60% of the American people didn't trust Bush on this, and it was about 80% in England--circa Feb '03, before the invasion). The more outfront, obvious explanation of the Plame outings and Kelly's death needs to be considered--that it was intended to punish whistleblowers and stifle dissent, and was NOT part of a larger scheme to plant the weapons in Iraq and/or invade Iran.

However, if this is so, then WHY did they keep HYPING the weapons search in Iraq? That went on all summer, with constant news bits about this possible find and that possible find. If they had wanted people to forget that they'd lied, they would have downplayed the "hunt" for the weapons that they knew were not there. They did the opposite--they made it a big deal. So it almost has to be true that they were trying to plant the weapons. They had the PR all set up for the "big find."

This is one reason why I don't believe the "more outfront, obvious explanation"--that their main and only worry was being exposed as liars (and thus they punished Wilson's CIA wife and murdered Kelly). There are too many things pointing to more hidden and nefarious motives (including the extremity of their solutions--outing CIA agents, murdering an insider scientist). But we should nevertheless keep it in mind, because the motive of quashing dissent was certainly operative in the Bush regime (and Blair's regime). It may be the prime motive of SOME actors (or of the main actors at certain points), but it may also lead down side roads to nowhere. As with Rove, this motive (quashing dissent) is too easy to believe. Did Rumsfeld really care about some op-ed in the New York Times, or some anonymous rumblings in England on the BBC? Did Cheney? I don't think so. I think they were looking at a far worse problem, for them, than being caught lying.

[DutchLiberal]

22. Have you ever considered writing a book about all this?

Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. Are you a professional writer, for a newspaper or magazine maybe? I've read a lot of your posts on DU lately. They're always informative and well-written. I know these two posts are 'just theories', but it still makes for a good read, and I think the theories are very plausible.

[Peace Patriot]

48. See above. I'm going to let Goldstein1984 do it. nt

[janet118]

24. Was it in the fall of 2007 that planes with nuclear warheads . . .

were mistakenly flown out of Minot Airforce Base in N. Dakota to Louisiana? This would be after Rumsfeld left the arena.

From post by Larry Johnson on No Quarter

Staging Nukes for Iran?
Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That’s like getting excited if you see a postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.

So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.

Then he told me something I had not heard before.

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.

Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can’t think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don’t know, but it is a question worth asking.

[Peace Patriot]

49. The incident was on Aug. 29, 2007. Here is a GREAT article on it by Dave Lindorff

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11012007.html

After explaining all the details of the incident and how it could not have happened without authorization above the base commander, Lindorff raises the suggestion that Cheney authorized it, in a stealth effort to nuke Iran, or create a false-flag nuke incident to blame on Iran and justify attacking them.

He makes a very good case for it.

Lindorff also reminds me that Cheney was still on the attack Iran war game a year after Rumsfeld resigned. This dampens my theory that Cheney was just a thief riding Rumsfeld's war train. But the incident, and Lindorff's article (and his suggestion about Cheney), bolster my theory that there was a "Big Honcho" intervention to stop Rumsfeld from nuking Iran. If Cheney had to go a stealth route, to get Iran nuked, because Rumsfeld was no longer in charge, this indicates a major breach between Cheney/Rumsfeld and the military brass on this matter. The brass did not support nuking Iran. Lindorff says that Rumsfeld's replacement, Gates, was very upset about this nuclear incident, and a lot of heads rolled. If my theory is correct--that the Plame outings and Kelly's murder were about Iran, and using false WMD evidence to escalate to Iran, that Bush Sr intervened to oust Rumsfled, and devised an immunity deal for all three (in exchange for no nuking of Iran), then Cheney was in violation of "the Deal," if he in fact authorized this stealth movement of nukes to be used to attack Iran, a year later. If "the Deal" happened, perhaps Cheney was stealthy enough not to get nailed for it.

[janet118]

55. thanx n/t

[sabrina 1]

26. Very interesting theories, and definitely plausible considering

the time frame especially. Iran was definitely 'on the table'. Sy Hersch was certain it was going to happen from his sources in the Pentagon. It was certainly on the PNAC check list as part of 'restructuring the ME' and all the players, Ledeen, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al were working hard to discredit Iran's claims they did not have Nukes. Then there was Cheney's 'shadow government' out of which came most of the fake information that led us into war. And in 2004, news of 'found' documents that 'proved' Iran had been working on Nukes.

I think your theory is very believable, I remember when these documents were 'found' and the warnings of war with Iran coming from so many credible sources. And then there was the hyped up anti-Iran rhetoric on Fox every day.

http://dontbombiran.info/?p=437

The documents in question were acquired by U.S. intelligence in 2004 from a still unknown source — most of them in the form of electronic files allegedly stolen from a laptop computer belonging to an Iranian researcher. The US has based much of its push for sanctions against Iran on these documents.

..........

The laptop documents include what the IAEA has described in a published report as technical drawings of efforts to redesign the nosecone of the Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile “to accommodate a nuclear warhead.” The documents are also said to include studies on the use of a high explosive detonation system, drawings of a shaft apparently to be used for nuclear tests, and studies on a bench-scale uranium conversion facility.

These technical papers, along with some correspondence related to the alleged secret Iranian program — referred to by the IAEA as “alleged studies” — have been the primary basis during 2008 for the insistence by the US-led international coalition pushing for sanctions against Iran that the Iranian case must be kept going in the United Nations Security Council.

This article is from last Fall, when apparently War with Iran was 'still on the table'. But it looks like the IAEA now believes they are fakes. The US push for war with Iran has been mostly based on these documents.

Is it possible that Dr. Kelly knew these documents were fake?

I never believed he committed suicide. Nor did most people. I remember the front page of one of Britain's newspapers when the commission's findings came out. It was blank except for one word 'WHITEWASH'.

As for Judith Miller, she is back! She is on Fox hardly recognizable as I remember her. But I suppose they think people will forget her role in the phony 'intelligence that led to war.

[bertman]

31. That's a very interesting and plausible explanation, Peace Patriot. The comments about

the normal rules of an inquest not being followed in Dr. Kelly's death are highly reminiscent of another high-profile autopsy that would have likely implicated a different cause of death from the one that the Powers That Be wanted known.

If you know what I mean.

I don't know why I am always amazed that the governments of supposedly "free" nations act so heavy-handedly and blatantly and rarely, if ever, seem to get punished for it. My years of being conditioned to believe in the goodness and purity of my government were apparently more effective than I realized.

The reality is that those who control our government will use ANY MEANS AVAILABLE to achieve their goals and there's nothing that we can do about it. Very scary thought, but I guess that's how the world has worked since aristocracies were born.

[diane in sf]

38. I remember reading about truckloads of weapons coming into Iraq from Turkey

being stopped during the early part of the run up/war on Iraq. My theory is that they were bushco plants that were intercepted and stopped before they could be presented as "weapons of mass destruction." The convoy could have been stopped by the better elements in the CIA. Apologies--I haven't been able to find that article since.

[Peace Patriot]

53. Yes, I remember thinking that Turkey could be one route into Iraq for US-run illicit WMDs.

I don't think I saw the article about truckloads of US weapons going that route, but I do remember that Turkey went neutral and wouldn't let US troops traverse its territory and maybe denied airspace as well.

There were several reports that sort of disappeared from the news, one of illicit U.S. weapons in the Basra port (reported by an Iraqi Congress member), and another report of a US Defense Department debriefer stating that she had debrief soldiers who had witnessed some sort of "friendly fire" debacle with nukes. There was also the Congressman's book which reported on the Ghorbanifar incident (him trying to get the CIA to believe that Iraq had sent its nukes to Iran, and the team doing it suffered radiation poisoning. The CIA didn't believe this notorious, red-flagged liar. He had approached them in disguise; they figured out who he was; he didn't produce any evidence and vanished.)

I also think of the state of utter chaos that Rumsfeld created with the bombing of Baghdad, the massive looting, the US black ops pitting tribe against tribe, the massive imprisonment and torture, the disappearance of billions of dollars, the disappearance of weapons caches, the collapse of infrastructure, and on and on. Freedom = the freedom to loot. Chaos = opportunity. ANYTHING could have been done in those circumstances. The interesting thing is that, if they were trying to plant WMDs in Iraq--which I'm pretty sure they were--they failed. Upshot: The CIA was pretty damn good at the job of counterproliferation. Too bad we lost all of that capability, eh? The whole network outed. Some of them probably killed. Damned Bushwhack traitors!

There really are only two possibilities for why the leaders of the US government would out their entire counter-proliferation network: That they were moving illicit WMDs into Iraq to cover their lies or expand the war to Iran, or that they were PROFITING from worldwide illicit WMD traffic. Or both. And these are hanging offenses in time of war--and serious crimes during peace.

When you think about this way, the cover story--that it was Rovian political revenge against Wilson--is ridiculous.

[Hekate]

40. KnRnBk. My goodness, PP, you *have* been paying attention. Thank you for this...

>shudder<

I always seem to forget just how truly bad it is, in between times. Denial is a coping mechanism, for sure.

Hekate

[malaise]

42. Great post

You never know with these criminals

[chimpymustgo]

45. Peace Patriot, you have made some GREAT posts on DU, but this could be the BEST ever.

It ties everything together. The phony wars, the murders, the voting machines, impeachment off the table, Obama's big FOLD. PLEASE write this as a diary/OP. This should be pinned to the home page of DU.

Thank you for your great research and analysis. Bookmarking this.

[KoKo]

37. And, "Peace Patriot" wasn't Kelly's daughter getting read to be married and he was

looking forward to the wedding just a week or two after this death? I seem to remember that as being one of the reasons that suicide seemed so unlikely along with the other reasons your excellent post speak about.

[Peace Patriot]

52. Yes, it's in his emails that he was looking forward to his daughter's wedding in the fall,

also looking forward to returning to Iraq as a weapons inspector, and thought the controversy around himself would blow over. There are NO indications in the emails he sent on the day of his death that he was contemplating suicide--just the opposite . The only "dark" one was the one to Judith Miller. It was very short and rather cold, considering her cheery fluff about his "fan club". He replies that he'll know more by the end of the week and says "There are many dark actors playing games." This has an ominous tone, in view of the fact that he would be dead within a day, but doesn't seem fearful, just puzzled (and maybe ironical).

Judith Miller then wrote Kelly's obituary news article for the New York Times (7/24/03) but failed to mention the "dark actors" email, or her close connection to Kelly. (She had used him as a major quoted source in her book, "Germs.") I recall reading somewhere that she didn't tell her editors either. This email was later released by his family, not Miller. Her failure to disclose her connection to him, and the "dark actors" email, suggest that she may have had something to hide. I don't like her obit writing, either--it has a suspicious seguing between Kelly quotes and mere summaries of what he said, a technique that can be used to interpolate the reporter's views into the mouth of the subject, by miss-stating what the subject said or skewing it in some way.

She was very guilty of helping the Bushwhacks cook up evidence of WMDs in Iraq, and the NYT was very guilty of publishing this tripe, week after week, in the leadup to the war. When she went to Iraq and accompanied the US troops who were "hunting" for the WMDs, she claimed to have a special authorization to do so, signed by Donald Rumsfeld, and apparently used her connections to the Pentagon to throw her weight around among the search teams. The commanders of the search teams were very annoyed with her, and said so publicly. She even tried to order the troops around and lead them here and there.

Despite their former association, by the time of the 7/17/03 email exchange (with Kelly's death to closely follow), Miller and Kelly would likely have been at odds with regard to WMDs in Iraq. He had told the BBC that the "Dodgy Dossier" had exaggerated the evidence and that some scientists had objected. And she was still hoping to get that "big scoop." The "hunt" for WMDs was still being hyped at that point. This may have been the reason for the curtness of his reply (rather than any suspicion he may have had that she was one of the "dark actors playing games"). They were simply not in agreement any more; he was whistleblowing and was in big trouble for it. He had consulted his conscience about the false premises of the war, and taken action on it; she was still in the war game. He had not performed well before the Parliamentary committee--he was in obvious distress--and here she comes with cheery talk about his "fan club" in England. Who was she talking about? I have no idea. But his answer ("There are many dark actors playing games") is way out of sync with her tone. (And who was he talking about? Not a clue.) Did she mean "fan club" ironically? Hard to say. If so, his reply may be more appropriate (--as if he were saying, 'Fan club? You mean the dark actors who just had me put through the wringer?') And maybe he just suspected her of "fishing," and didn't like being used.

Another background item to their email exchange; Valerie Plame had been outed only three days before this email exchange and Kelly's death, and it is highly probable that Plame and Wilson had been the subject of conversations in clandestine meetings between Judith Miller and Scooter Libby in the spring. In other words, Miller may have been involved in helping the Bushwhacks do "damage control" with regard to Wilson. (Wilson didn't publish his NYT op-ed until 7/6/03, a week before his wife was outed, and two weeks before Kelly died, but they knew Wilson's views; he had told an aide to Condi Rice (back in February) and had stated them publicly.) When Miller emails Kelly, on 7/17/03, she has already long been deeply involved in promulgating false and misleading information about the WMDs to the public, and deeply involved with Libby, with Rumsfeld, with Chalabi and other purveyors of these lies, and had been herself "leading" the "hunt" for the WMDs that they all knew weren't there.

If Kelly had had a premonition of danger, I doubt he would have gone out for his usual walk, alone, in the countryside. I don't think he was aware of the danger he was in. And there is simply NO suggestion of suicide in what he wrote, or in any reports of his last days and hours that I've read.

He did have one incredible premonition, but it was pre-war. As a UN weapons inspector, he had told the Iraq weapons scientists that if they were honest with him, there would be no invasion. He was talking to a friend about this and commented, jokingly, that if there was, in fact, an invasion, "I may be found dead in the woods." If his friend's story is true, it is an outside possibility that this comment points to suicide. Psychologically, this comment could mean that he thought maybe he would deserve to be killed, if there was a war. His placing his death "in the woods"--i.e., his favorite place and pasttime (walking in the woods near his home)--may just refer to feelings of loneliness and vulnerability in the woods, or may mean something darker, that he doesn't deserve that lovely respite in nature. But this is a very big stretch in time and mood, from the actual circumstances of his death. And so many of the circumstances point away from suicide (almost all the evidence, really), that it is likely just one of those coincidences that mean nothing, or, who knows?, maybe it was a genuine psychic phenomenon (pre-visioning both the manner of his death, murder, and the place, in the woods--and also the cause, the war).

[Echo In Light]

9. Thanks for posting

[flyarm]

10. K&r and bookmarked to read later..thanks!! eom

[valerief]

14. Whenever something suspicious occurs, ask yourself: what would the Mafia do?

Then you'll get your answer.

[Enthusiast]

15. Imagine that. nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. The security services would never have done it in such an amateurish

way, if they had not wanted people to believe he had been murdered by them. In other words, I believe it was an act of terrorism, 'pour decourager les autres', so to speak.

"We have ways.... We can be nice and...." So shut your mouth, if you've got hard evidence to baulk our designs on Iraq.

But don't expect the enquiry to lead anywhere substantive in terms of sanctions against them. If they countenanced accountability on the part of the clandestine services, i.e. it's operatives and agents could be judged on the basis of their actions like private soldiers on peace-keeping duties, they couldn't function, because it's by definition a murky world. And on all known form, national leaders don't like seeing their own kind brought to book. To the shock of our Western leaders, Ceaucescu and his wife were executed before the West's protective solicitude and compassion could be brought into play.

[seeinfweggos]

19. blackwater

[secondwind]

20. I found his "suicide" story to be suspicious from the beginning. May he rest in peace.

[Gabi Hayes]

21. sounds like the british inquestors took a page from the JFK autopsy.

how'd that bullet go in down there and come out above his tie?

btw, the shirt wasn't bunched up above his collar, the way the WC apologists 'explain' it

sorry...can't help it

[jobycom]

44. Was too.

[Gabi Hayes]

56. how can there be only one hole, then?

where's the bunching in the first picture?

how do you know the shirt is bunched in the second picture?

[Gabi Hayes]

57. whose dogma is to be believed?

where was the BW pic taken? Main or Elm, for starters....

http://www.ctka.net/marler.html

[Uncle Joe]

23. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Are_grits_groceries.

[winyanstaz]

25. The bodies are scattered everywhere........

We need people to find some courage and to step forward and tell us where they are buried and who did what.
In fact..we need to post a big fat reward to the ones that can uncover the mysterious deaths all around the planet like the over a hundred dead microbiologists

[justabob]

39. indeed

The mysterious case of the dead scientists is another one that has bothered me for years.

What a fascinating thread this is....

[G_j]

27. oh yes, I remember this story

most intelligent folks at DU never believed that story.

[KoKo]

36. Exactly...and one by one all we were skeptical of proves to have

been founded in some truth.

[Gman2]

28. If Bushies killed the guy calling them out, that means prison for the boys.

[peace frog]

46. Such justice would be sweet

but it ain't gonna happen, Cap'n.

[Soylent Brice]

29. K&R and bookmarked.

[MissDeeds]

30. Of course he was murdered

It's amazing this wasn't a forgone conclusion. Do they really think we're that stoopid? Oh. Stoopid question.

K&R

[bertman]

32. Rec for an excellent post, Are_grits_groceries.

[Holy Moly]

33. a simple truth

I think either the butler or the God dood it.
For thou shalt not oppose no war with God on its side.
Excretions 3:16

[Mari333]

34. knr

vague hope for justice somewhere.

[anachro1]

35. When he failed

to find their imaginary WMD, they had to kill him. They wanted this war that badly.

Pure Republican bloodlust.

[malaise]

41. Note Blair's comments in his latest inteview

They had every intention of invading and occupying Iraq so anyone in their way was going to pay.
Will we ever see a war crimes trial for these bastards.

[peace frog]

43. WOW

Saving for later - wow again.

[chimpymustgo]

50. Oh read this thread - especially Peace Patriot's comments. They will explain many mysteries of the

past 8 years.

[peace frog]

51. Dots connected

speculative dots, but plausible nontheless. Thanks, Peace Patriot!

[KoKo]

54. There's so much more there..it's good to revisit.