David Kelly’s Murder 265


The Iraq Inquiry has taken us back again to that period where the government had engaged in a massive military build up ready to invade Iraq, and was desperately looking for evidence on WMD to trigger the invasion – an invasion on which the Washington neo-cons had pinned their entire hopes for the future of the Bush presidency.

Just at that crucial time, one of the UK’s foremost experts on Iraqi WMD had let slip to the BBC that the government’s claims did not stand up. As a result, he was found dead in a wood, while the BBC journalist, Andrew Gilligan, who correctly reported that there were no WMD, was fired for telling the truth.

The punishment of the BBC for failing to unquestioningly echo Blair lies went much further. The Chairman and Director General were forced out. All because the BBC said there may have been no WMD, when there were not.

It is almost incredible even now to state what New Labour have done. God know what future historians will make of it.

The BBC was traumatised, and went through an acceleration of cultural change that prized “managers” over journalists, and stopped criticising government. A foundation stone of democracy had been blasted away by Tony Blair.

Kelly’s death was extremely convenient for Blair, Cheney and a myriad of other ultra ruthless people. It paved the way for war. We should not forget how very crucial the WMD issue was in convincing enough reluctant New Labour MPs to go along. Without the UK there would have been no coalition – most of the other Europeans would have quickly dropped out too. It is by no means clear that, despite Cheney’s bluster, the Americans would have invaded Iraq alone.

So Kelly was the first man killed in the Iraq war. Hundreds of thousands of people died in Iraq after Kelly. Arms manufacturers, mercenary companies and the security industry made tens of billions in profit. That’s a powerful motive to remove an obstacle. The Western oil companies are getting back into Iraq.

We will never know if Kelly would have gone on to repeat his – perfectly correct – doubts about Iraqi WMD, or if he would have shut up, as ordered by Tony Blair through the MOD. I do know, as many doctors have attested, it is extremely unlikely to bleed to death by cutting a wrist. I do know that the paramedics who attended said there was very little blood at the scene. I do know that the painkillers he took were a tiny proportion of a fatal dose and were not an anticoagulant. I do know that a chemical weapons expert like Dr Kelly would know better ways to kill himself.

And I do know that the government is keeping the evidence hidden for seventy years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245599/David-Kelly-post-mortem-kept-secret-70-years-doctors-accuse-Lord-Hutton-concealing-vital-information.html


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

265 thoughts on “David Kelly’s Murder

1 2 3 4 5 9
  • angrysoba

    “Kelly’s death was extremely convenient for Blair, Cheney and a myriad of other ultra ruthless people. It paved the way for war. We should not forget how very crucial the WMD issue was in convincing enough reluctant New Labour MPs to go along. Without the UK there would have been no coalition – most of the other Europeans would have quickly dropped out too. It is by no means clear that, despite Cheney’s bluster, the Americans would have invaded Iraq alone.

    So Kelly was the first man killed in the Iraq war.”

    What is this nonsense?

    Can’t you get your timeline right?

    David Kelly committed suicide in July 2003. If I remember correctly the invasion of Iraq occurred in March 2003. How on Earth do you work out from that that David Kelly’s death paved the way for war? Are you saying that no one died in that war from March 2003 until David Kelly’s suicide in July 2003?

  • mary

    A reminder that there has never been an inquest. That due process of OUR law is what the group of doctors are requesting of the Attorney General.

  • angrysoba

    “Kelly’s death was extremely convenient for Blair, Cheney and a myriad of other ultra ruthless people. It paved the way for war. We should not forget how very crucial the WMD issue was in convincing enough reluctant New Labour MPs to go along. Without the UK there would have been no coalition – most of the other Europeans would have quickly dropped out too. It is by no means clear that, despite Cheney’s bluster, the Americans would have invaded Iraq alone.

    So Kelly was the first man killed in the Iraq war.”

    What is this nonsense?

    Can’t you get your timeline right?

    David Kelly committed suicide in July 2003. If I remember correctly the invasion of Iraq occurred in March 2003. How on Earth do you work out from that that David Kelly’s death paved the way for war? Are you saying that no one died in that war from March 2003 until David Kelly’s suicide in July 2003?

  • Owen Lee Hugh-Mann

    “That would be the post mortem report.” Precisely. As New Labour decided to change the law to turn what used to be the right to remain silent into something akin to self-incrimination, I feel equally justified in finding their silence in this matter tantamount to an admission of guilt. I’ve read that one of the tenets of the Baha faith is abstention from alcohol, which makes it further unlikely, though not impossible. Also, interactions between dextropropxyphene and other CNS depressants, (anti-depressants for example), might have the same toxic effect. So you’d think that if there were nothing to hide, the government would be falling over itself to release the full details in a proper inquest to make all the “conspiraloons” look ridiculous. “See, you were wrong about Kelly, so you must be wrong about all the other stuff we did too!”

  • peacewisher

    I agree with Steelback. In all sincerity, Craig, I suggest that you correct the account you have given above.

    I believed every word of “Murder in Samarkind”, but if you can’t get details such as the timing of Kelly’s murder remotely correct, then you reduce your own credibility. Maybe you were involved in matters of diplomacy in Uzbekistan when Kelly was found “dead in the woods”, but I doubt if many Brits who lived through it all here – arguably as big a story as the death of Diana – would have made that mistake.

    Maybe you should read Norman Baker’s book. Kelly was talking to Gilligan and the lady from horizon well after the invasion had occurred.

    However, I agree that the timing is of secondary consequence to the event. Blair may have done much to support “regime change”, but from his gaunt face in Japan it was clear that he didn’t expect to hear that Kelly would be found “dead in the woods”.

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    I want to clear up this pushed stigma of conspiracy theorists or conspiracy loons that is promulgated by weak minded barr stewards trying to undermine comments here and elsewhere to the point where even our host gets attacked.

    The word ‘conspiracy’ holds up on its own as ‘acting together as if by sinister design i.e. The Iraq war conspiracy in which our Prime-minister and others conspired to lied to Parliament. – sinister!

    A conspiracy theory means exactly that, a theory yet to be proven from the evidence.

    So conspiracy theorists are usually (but not always) bold, brave, enlightening, visionary, inquiring, objective, rarely subjective, honest in what they believe and sensitive. All great human qualities; but the bottom line is without these people we would still be living as serfs or slaves to the powerful who think by waving a magic wand they can dictate the course of history.

    So really you baabaa stewards I am quite proud to be a ‘loony conspirator.

  • angrysoba

    “The sad thing is that we are heading as a country to an abyss.”

    That’s more true than you know if the crowd of foaming swivel-eyed conspiraloons is in any way representative of Britain these days.

    Instead of Dr Kelly’s death being “convenient” it was almost certainly inconvenient and for this story to break now, a few days before Tony Blair takes the stand at the Chilcott inquiry it would surely be more likely to increase the level of scrutiny on Blair would it not?

    It is interesting to see that those who usually consider the mainstream media to be slaves of a warmongering cabal are now saying that the only chinks in the armour of the impenetrable “propaganda matrix” are in fact…er…the BBC (i.e the state broadcaster) and the Daily Wail…er…Mail (the paper with one of the highest circulations in Britain and, coincidentally or not, the paper which serialized Norman Baker’s detective novel).

  • ediot

    Legal staff ruled Blair’s war illegal

    Two former Whitehall lawyers to tell Chilcot of reservations on invasion

    By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent

    Tony Blair is to be presented with claims that his decision to topple Saddam Hussein by force was illegal before his appearance at the Iraq inquiry this week. Two senior Whitehall lawyers are expected to claim that the former prime minister’s decision to send British troops to aid the US-led invasion was illegal as it did not have the clear backing of the United Nations.

    Sir Michael Wood, the most senior lawyer at the Foreign Office before the war, will give evidence to the inquiry tomorrow. His deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned in 2003 in protest over military action, will also appear. It is thought they will suggest they believed military force was illegal without an explicit UN resolution giving approval for the invasion.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/legal-staff-ruled-blairs-war-illegal-1877854.html

  • glow-in-the-dark

    Edo (et al) – the “need” for the invasion of Iraq has been attributed to Saddam’s conversion to Euro for both reserve currency and energy sales. As a result of trading in Euro, Saddam was making a tidy profit on top of not contributing to the unlimited loan facility the US had gotten so used to. He had to be stopped and made an example of before the rest of the Gulf States decided they wanted a piece of that action too – hence the war. The rest (WMD et al) was decoration and camouflage – if the US (and UK) were really so worried about removing dictators they have been skipping a few countries over the years..

    Incidentally, it didn’t work. The Gulf states have now met in secret about using a new trading currency, and post crisis, China has asked the world bank for a new currency for reserves.

  • dreoilin

    “March 2003 until David Kelly’s *suicide* in July 2003?”

    says Angrysoba.

    Because he was THERE. And he SAW Kelly taking 29.27 tablets and cutting his wrist – slightly. And then wiping the knife clean of fingerprints. It was Angry who called 999 and asked them to ‘send more paramedics!’

  • Larry from St. Louis

    Angrysoba – fucking hilarious on the timeline. You really gotta check these people on the mere facts, don’t you?

    And dreoilin’s response above this one is fairly classic – at least classic for this blog. It’s funny to watch them squirm when you have them on the ropes with facts and logic.

  • glenn

    Thank God for people like Angry/Larry, who are kind enough to give their time to settle us back down, and assure as that the government told us the Absolute Truth. Just trust the government, have another drink, and watch some “reality-TV”.

    You want proof that the government always tells us the truth? Sigh… ok. People such as Angrysoba/Larry etc. calls anyone who doesn’t believe the government a “loon”. Now how much more convincing do you people need than that?

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “I do know that a chemical weapons expert like Dr Kelly would know better ways to kill himself.”

    Well, except that this way did actually work, didn’t it? (Yes, I know you believe the Secret Agent Men did it, but that’s still a silly argument).

  • MJ

    Speaking of logic, I have still to see you Larry, eddie or angrysoba come up with a good reason for the evidence being kept under wraps for seventy years. Too busy name-calling, nitpicking and general dissembling as usual but please, concentrate now; why the hiding of the evidence?

  • Larry from St. Louis

    And, if that argument is to be considered, the following should be considered: wouldn’t the Secret Agent Men know better ways to stage a suicide?

  • Stewart Cowan

    Observer,

    Tom Harris is pretending that comments are being screening and blocked by security forces. It’s his idea of a joke. Presumably, it helps him live with the crimes of his Party.

    I didn’t bother commenting on his post as I would just be adding to his warped sense of pleasure.

    Actually, Tom Harris ought to be afraid, because when the crimes of his leaders are finally dealt with, he could find himself in big trouble for going along with it.

  • dreoilin

    “The Gulf states have now met in secret about using a new trading currency, and post crisis, China has asked the world bank for a new currency for reserves.”

    And a major reason why the USA is putting the boot in on Iran. Iran has already announced that it’s moving away from trading in dollars. The US economy is in the shits, and if the dollar loses its reserve currency status, it’ll be ten times worse.

    ————————–

    Angry and Larry,

    If you can’t see the difference between when Kelly died (which is one matter) and HOW he died, which is entirely another, I can’t help you. You didn’t get my drift at all, Larry. You have no “facts and logic” to indicate that Kelly committed suicide. None. Zip. Zero.

    “wouldn’t the Secret Agent Men know better ways to stage a suicide?”

    So you agree it was a pretty crap-looking “suicide”?

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    glow- in-the-dark,

    True – the hegemony of the dollar and it’s demise together with, the IMF and the World Bank – you hit it right on the nail. Euros for foreign currency reserves – and that my friends is the impetus, the insidious inextricable push to throttle Iran and suffocate Pakistan, while building massive bases in Iraq and Afghanistan – that’s my take, that’s what I believe – failure not an option – else we muscle in big time.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “So you agree it was a pretty crap-looking “suicide”?”

    Good try. I was accepting a premise and arguing against the conclusion. You’d pick up on that if you could read better.

  • Stewart Cowan

    Observer,

    Tom Harris is pretending that comments are being screening and blocked by security forces. It’s his idea of a joke. Presumably, it helps him live with the crimes of his Party.

    I didn’t bother commenting on his post as I would just be adding to his warped sense of pleasure.

    Actually, Tom Harris ought to be afraid, because when the crimes of his leaders are finally dealt with, he could find himself in big trouble for going along with it.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “Still waiting Larry. Why 70 years of secrecy?”

    Honestly, I’ll have to look and ponder.

    One thought that comes to mind is that there are very few people who would ever change their mind on such a subject. The various Diana investigations didn’t really alter the public opinion polls. My own experience with the 911 conspiracy theory is that NIST finally issued its final report on the complicated issue of the collapse of Building 7, and apparently there was not ONE truther who wanted to listen. In other words, releasing all of that information would convince no one of a suicide, but only provide more red meat out of which the crazies could find even more anomalies.

  • MJ

    “releasing all of that information would convince no one of a suicide”

    If it really was suicide then releasing all the evidence would only strengthen the proof, surely? It would put an end to all the speculation. 70 years of secrecy is only going to heighten people’s mistrust of the official line.

  • glenn

    Larry – why are you so obsessed with 9/11 and publishing about that “debate” here all the time?

  • MJ

    That’s what I was thinking glenn. A simple question about Kelly brought a response about WTC7!

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “It would put an end to all the speculation.”

    I’m not saying that this is the reason for the sequestration, but it’s clear that the release of the information will NOT put an end to the speculation.

    For instance, all of the information released on 911 has not led anyone to accept the evidence.

    All JFK disclosures and Princess Diana inquiries have had the same effect.

    I’ve only known one 911 truther to realize that he was wrong. Just one.

1 2 3 4 5 9

Comments are closed.