|
Carolab, this is one of the things that has nagged at me: "what he found, or rather did not find..." Why did they okay the Niger trip KNOWING THAT NOTHING WOULD BE FOUND because they were making the whole thing up, and may ever have forged those phony Niger docs?
Another hole in their story: Why would Wilson being married to a CIA WMD expert in any way taint or discredit him? On the contrary, it would seem to ENHANCE his ability to carry out the Niger mission.
Then I ran across this, in an interview of Wilson (I think it was Raw Story): Prior to publishing his whistleblowing op-ed in the NYT, Wilson called Condi Rice to urge the regime to disavow the Niger/Iraq nuke allegation. She (through intermediaries) told him that she was not interested in his information, but, if he was so concerned about, why didn't he publish it?
Sounds like she was BAITING--like they had the whole thing set up--maybe way back before Wilson's trip--to bait him or someone at the CIA to oppose them and/or to cry foul. That would explain why Rice or Cheney okayed a Wilson trip to Niger knowing that the Niger story was false. (Surely such a well-known diplomat going on such a sensitive mission would have to be okayed by them). And if they were baiting him, then their real target was Plame, that is, the CIA capability for monitoring WMDs around the world, and this tale of nasty Rovian political revenge that many people assume is true (because it's so believable) is a cover story.
These early puzzles led me to some other investigations--including the suspicious death of the Brits chief WMD expert, David Kelly, during the Plame outing--and to a theory that it was not Wilson's article, published on July 6, 2003, that prompted the Plame outing in such a precipitous and treason-risky manner (I mean, they called at least SIX reporters to get this done--it sounds like it was urgent, almost panicky), but rather it was something else that happened a day later, on July 7, 2003, and that is the Brit intel interrogation of David Kelly, who had been whistleblowing anonymously to the BBC about the Brits' "sexed up" WMD intel, starting in late May 2003.
After Kelly was identified and interrogated, Tony Blair was told, on July 7, that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things"--"COULD say," not HAD said. (It's in the Hutton report.) I think this was the trigger for the Plame outing, which otherwise would have unfolded in a more surreptitious and subtle manner (so as not to involve dozens of people in potential treason charges, not to mention at least six reporter witnesses). It's been documented that Bush and Blair were in frequent communication. I think Blair called Bush and told him that they had "a problem."
What could that problem have been? What were the "uncomfortable things" that David Kelly "could say"?
Here's the time-line:
April-May 2003: Judith Miller running all over Iraq with US troops "hunting" for WMDs, after the invasion.
May 22, 2003: Kelly starts whistleblowing to the BBC about the exaggerated intel.
June 30, 2003: They find out who is whistleblowing--their chief WMD expert.
July 6, 2003: Wilson publishes his article.
July 7, 2003: Blair informed of "uncomfortable things" Kelly COULD say.
July 14, 2003: Plame outed and disabled as a WMD covert agent (by Novak).
July 17, 2003: Kelly sends an email to Judith Miller in which he is concerned about the "many dark actors playing games" (but is otherwise upbeat).
July 18, 2003: Kelly found dead, under extremely suspicious circumstances; his office and computers searched.
July 21, 2003: Miller writes a news article on Kelly's death for NYT, but fails to mention his "dark actors" email (and other close ties to Kelly).
July 22, 2003: The bigger Plame outing, of the whole CIA company (Brewster Jennings), disabling all WMD monitoring projects worldwide and putting all agents at great risk (outing by Novak).
Here's my guess at the key to all of the above: David Kelly had stumbled upon, or even foiled, a plot to PLANT nukes or other WMDs in Iraq--which would have been of enormous political benefit to Bush and Blair in summer '03 (and even now). This is what Brit intel found out in the Kelly interrogation and warned Blair about. The Bushites were concerned that Plame would find out, or suspected her of helping foil their nefarious scheme, and outed her immediately (a long planned assault on the CIA, with the Wilson article used opportunistically to do the deed, and to create the cover story of Rovian revenge).
After Kelly was found dead (very likely assassinated)(--by the Blairites? the Bushites? who knows?), they discovered something in his office that connected the foiling of their scheme to Brewster Jennings, and that's why they outed the whole company, greatly increasing their risk of treason charges. This SECOND outing, on July 22, was not needed to "punish" Wilson. It seems gratuitous and unnecessarily risky--unless there was an urgent hidden reason for it. And fear of discovery of their plot, or revenge against the foilers of their plot, is a heftier motive (plus, the benefit of moving WMDs more freely around the world, for profit--and for use in indicting Syria, or Iran?)
This scenario fits David Kelly's character very well. Tough guy; brilliant scientist; supported the war, wanted Saddam toppled; tried to get the Brit intel docs to be more accurate, but didn't whistleblow then; something turned him around about the war, and especially about the false intel, AFTER the invasion. The scenario works whether Kelly committed suicide or not--although I'm 99% sure that he did not.
There is literally not a detail in the accounts of his death that does not raise suspicion, and, cumulatively, the details just about scream at you: assassination! --and official coverup. Brilliant scientist--looking forward to his daughter's wedding and returning to Iraq (so he said in his emails)--walks out into the countryside near his home, slits one wrist and bleeds to death all night in the cold and the rain; not enough blood at the scene, body moved, according to the paramedics (ignored by the official report); lots of expert dissent (ignored by the official report); no surveillance or protection for Kelly (although they'd outed his name to the press); no note, and on and on.
One other thing he said in his last emails: He thought the whole controversy surrounding him (big in England) would blow over in a week. (Had he told his bosses that he wouldn't disclose their worst secret, and thought that was an end of it?) I suppose they could have threatened him or his family, but there is absolutely no sign of depression, or even pessimism, in his last emails. He sounds like a survivor; he sounds philosophical; he is forward-looking.
Miller was possibly in on the plot to move WMDs into Iraq for a false "find." She was most certainly avid to get that "scoop" (she had a special "embed" contract signed by Donald Rumsfeld). Kelly and Miller were well acquainted--they'd written a book together ("Germs"). Kelly was not likely aware that, even while he was writing to her about the "many dark actors playing games," Miller was busy helping to out Valerie Plame and to destroy the CIA's WMD monitoring project.
Take your pick of the "dark actors" in this tragedy. Over 100,000 Iraqis slaughtered; 2,000 US soldiers dead; both Iraq and the U.S. looted by master thieves; and the U.S., once a beacon of freedom, now regarded around the world as an international criminal.
If my guesses and surmises turn out to be true, we may have David Kelly to thank for not having had to listen to Bush and Blair's triumphal speeches on how all that carnage was justified by the WMDs they had "found" in Iraq.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
