The Mystery Deepens. David Kelly Was Writing an Explosive Book at the Time of His 'Suicide'
You know, I've often wondered if Tony Blair became a Catholic so he could go to confession. There's a lot more to David Kelly's story than we're ever going to find out. But officially, he's a suicide and no one's talking.
Let's review: The day after he died, a reporter asked Tony Blair, ”Have you got blood on your hands, prime minister?” Whether it was David Kelly's or all those killed in the Iraqi war, the answer seems to be yes, no matter how many judges rule otherwise.
Ah yes, Lord Hutton! One MP questioned the findings:
The MP reveals that the Oxfordshire coroner held an 'unusual' meeting with Home Office officials before he determined the cause of Dr Kelly's death.
And he claims that a 'cosy cabal' of Mr Blair's friends, including Peter Mandelson and Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, hand-picked Lord Hutton, a retired Law Lord from Northern Ireland, to lead the official investigation in 2003.
And then there's his relationship with Judith Miller. Remember?
There's so much more than we'll ever know - unless someone gets religion and decides to unburden their soul.
Weapons inspector David Kelly was writing a book exposing highly damaging government secrets before his mysterious death.
He was intending to reveal that he warned Prime Minister Tony Blair there were no weapons of mass destruction anywhere in Iraq weeks before the British and American invasion.
He had several discussions with a publisher in Oxford and was seeking advice on how far he could go without breaking the law on secrets.
Following his death, his computers were seized and it is still not known if any rough draft was discovered by investigators and, if so, what happened to the material.
Dr Kelly was also intending to lift the lid on a potentially bigger scandal, his own secret dealings in germ warfare with the apartheid regime in South Africa.
US television investigators have spent four years preparing a 90-minute documentary, Anthrax War, suggesting there is a global black market in anthrax and exposing the mystery "suicides" of five government germ warfare scientists from around the world.
Director Bob Coen said: "The deeper you look into the murky world of governments and germ warfare, the more worrying it becomes.
"We have proved there is a black market in anthrax. David Kelly was of particular interest to us because he was a world expert on anthrax and he was involved in some degree with assisting the secret germ warfare programme in apartheid South Africa."
Dr Kelly was found dead in woods near his Oxfordshire home on July 17 2003. His apparent suicide came two days after he was interrogated in the Commons over his behind-the-scenes role in exposing the flaws in the “sexed-up” Number 10 dossier which justified Britain going to war with Iraq.
[...] British author Gordon Thomas said last night:"I knew David Kelly very well and he called me because he was working on a book.
"He told me he had warned Tony Blair there were no weapons of mass destruction. I advised him that as he had signed the Official Secrets Act life could get difficult for him.
"I gained the impression that he was prepared to take the flak as he wanted his story to come out."
This story has been such a mystery from the very beginning. There doesn't seem to be any reason for him to kill himself and plenty of reasons others might want to silence him. Bottom line, it sounds like he was about to blow the cover off of the deadly lie bush and blair were using and they couldn't allow that to happen. If only he had placed a copy of his book in a safe place before his death. What a story it might have told us.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
It was done by the CBC (Canadian TV) .
Anthrax War part 1-7
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQw1XMEL6To
As someone said about Anthrax "it was de second PUNCH to scare the American Public".
Senator P. LEAHY "I don't buy it was a lone Gun-man"
He and T.Dashl got the Deadliest Anthrax of All!
Even with the fact that Saddam did not have WMDs, isn't this a little too 'conspiracy theory' to fly?
(Sorry, I hear a lot of 'secret government death squads' and scientists hiding because they know 'the truth' from friends who believe in UFO's.)
I put absolutely nothing past bush, cheney, etal to cover their crimes. Look what bush did here in the U.S. I have to assume that blair is no better.
I would not put it past them to kill "for the cause" whatever that is. There have been several mysterious deaths surrounding the start up of the Iraq war.
Just saying.
... Bush and Cheney had that much influence in Britain?
Really?
You're Prime Minister. You enjoy popular support. And you'd be willing to order the death of a scientist plus the attendant cover-up on the say-so of GEORGE W. BUSH?
Blair went into war on bush's desire, even perhaps knowing before the invasion there were no wmd. Lots of people were and are still being killed in that war. I wouldn't put anything past either of these two men.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
In detention camps somewhere?
it is easier to silence the small potatoes by way of marginalization, than it is to put everyone in detention camps.
Remember, as bloggers and blog freqenters, we are just losers that live in our mom's basement, eat Cheetos, and make up stuff about the government so we feel important. Ask O'Reilly, Hannity, Colter....anyone who works for the right wing, including David Gregory.
POP asserted that we couldn't put ANYTHING past these two men.
So, they have no moral constraints, but then have moral constraints?
How much do you sweat the small stuff?
In theory, we, the small stuff, can be more easily controlled through propaganda, and marginalization.
How many huge state secrets do you have access to that you are willing to speak openly in public about?
It's not about moral restraint, it's about what's really important and advances your goal.
While your concerns and questions to us are valid, they are not the only questions. When you take the lawyers arguement you know from the outset that there is what can be proven by evidence, and what probably really happened. These two things don't always mesh.
... that you spout '... the small stuff can be more easily controlled through propaganda and marginalization.'
... then promptly go on to attempt to marginalize my arguments.
We're conducting an investigation into a man's death. It begins with forensic evidence to support the ready conclusion of suicide. Once suicide has been ruled out, then we proceed to examine other causes. This is not a 'lawyers' argument' - it is basic police procedure.
You cannot do this in an objective fashion if you are predisposed to believe in secret government death squads and corrupt politicians willing to do anything.
Suicide would probably never be "ruled out" (basically saying such was impossible) if a man were "suicided" by professionals. And yet, he may have been killed just so.
Likewise, we cannot "rule out" government assassins, secretive plots to ensure continued power (or to topple other powers or threats), since we know they have been utilized in other circumstances. So let's just be reasonable and consider homicide from the beginning of this important case, rather than trying to prove suicide alone.
Fine. Then we have to allow for the possibility that 9/11 was caused by invading space aliens who, for reasons due to relativity, arrived in 2001 rather than 2012.
You are arguing secret, ultra-capable assassins who leave no forensic evidence behind.
If they forced Kelly to ingest the drugs and cut his wrist, then the wounds are, in fact, sufficient to cause death - countering the doctors who wrote (link somewhere below) objecting to the official findings.
If Kelly did not ingest sufficient drugs or make a telling wound, then some other means of assuring his death was used, but went unnoticed/unreported in the official inquiry. Why?
So I guess you don't believe there were any extraordinary "renditions" either? Have you read about how they were accomplished- public kidnapping, drugging, flying the person out of a major airport with the Country's leaders knowledge, to secret prisons where they were tortured to death?
Drugging one person and shooting him, making it look like an -unlikely put possible- suicide would be easy. Just another day for those folks.
By the way: No one on this thread has mentioned UFOs but you.
Some facts for shadowgm:
"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
rowenathursby@onetel.net.uk"
that would be fine.
However, people make mistakes, and sometimes things are overlooked even in important cases.
I have not marginalized your argument. It is as valid as mine. You however, have attempted to marginalize anything other than the idea that this is an open and shut case.
I think that if you live in this world, and have seen some of the crap that has been done in the name of power and holding on to it, then you have to believe that anything is possible.
Also, basic police procedure is not always followed, even in big cases. You don't have to believe in government death squads and corrupt politicians to believe that this case has some questions that are still not answered.
It doesn't have to mean that you believe in a conspiracy. It just means that you still have questions.
I am not saying this is an open and shut case.
I am saying the findings do not indicate an alternative cause for Kelley's death, and THEREFORE, talk of secret government death squads and complicit politicians is pure nonsense.
Then, in addition to secret government death squads who leave no evidence and corrupt politicians who will do anything to further their goals, you've now added incompetent police who always botch the most important cases, and again insist that I am ignoring obvious facts.
I don't think I ever said one thing about secret government death squads.
As for corrupt politicians...well...of course they simply don't exist, do they?
Neither do incompetent police, I suppose.
I didn't say that this was what WAS the case, I said that anything is possible, and I'm not willing to go out on a limb and commit, since I don't really know...personally.
I suspect you don't either. So why are you so committed to being right on this?
There is not right or wrong in this, there is only opinion, and conjecture.
This man apparently committed suicide. It was something that was suspicious enough to invite a public inquiry. The official results were that he committed. Fine.
None of this happened in a bubble. This is a cause and effect world. Just because Tony and Cheri Blair didn't take him out in the woods, and pump him full of pills, and make him slit his own wrists, doesn't mean that they are not culpable in his death, or responsible for the environment where he would do such a thing.
I never said you were ignoring anything. I will say this. I think you are ignoring that others might disagree with you for legitimate reasons, that have little to nothing to do with wearing a tin foil hat.
That corrupt politicians exist? This is news?
That Blair lied? This is news?
How does that lead to Blair's involvement in Kelley's death?
IT DOESN'T.
And I'm not ignoring anything. I'm simply saying that in order for me to consider Kelley's death as anything other than a suicide (up to an including a conspiracy involving Blair), one has to disprove the findings of the official inquiry.
A tool in advancing rational discussion is:
What evidence would cause you to change your mind?
I've already said I would entertain the possibility of murder (conspiracy or not) if suicide is disproven and supported by forensic evidence.
How about you? No more talk of inept police or Bush-Blair-Cheney-corruption run amok. What evidence would convince you that Kelley's death is exactly what it is seems: a suicide?
I never said I didn't believe it wasn't a suicide.
I said that there are many possibilities in what caused it, or whether or not others are culpable.
Just because something is possible does not mean it happened, but it also doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I believe that there are things in this case that are unknowable, and that you also don't know. Why are you so invested in this being a clear cut suicide with no involvement from the Blair government? What would happen in your world if it WAS a conspiracy?
What makes it so important that you need to curse at people and belittle them to make a point? Or to think you are right?
I'm just trying to figure out how you got to a point where everyone is with you or against you. I'm not either with our against you...but I won't be bullied verbally by someone who has no skills other than calling names and making wild accusations.
Kind of like you are accusing those that don't agree with you of doing.
What evidence would suffice to make you believe it was exactly as documented: a suicide without any strange conspiracies or government complicity?
I've stated my view: present forensic evidence obtained through police procedure that shows Kelley's death is other than a suicide.
You can't. You keep spouting magic rainbow nonsense about believing in different possibilities and "Just because something is possible does not mean it happened, but it also doesn't mean it didn't happen."
Are you REALLY going to stand by that as the argument for a conspiracy, government or otherwise?
What's next? A testimony about psychic surgery? Spoon-bending powers?
Perhaps there was none for naming it a "Suicide" Like no fingerprint on the "Knife".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2007...
Like it is the third o fourth "suicide" related to anthrax after 9-11 according to this documental : Anthrax War linked above!
were done honestly? Why does he assume they were reported honestly, especially as the coroner had a very odd meeting with British Home Office officials?
The killers left evidence--there were no fingerprints on the knife Kelley used to slice his wrists. Kelley slit his wrists horizontally, an odd choice for someone who had so much medical knowledge. The body was apparently moved between the time of its discovery and the investigation. Kelley "poisoned" himself with aspirin--presumably to increase the bleeding from his (small, awkward) wounds; why would one of the world's leading experts on biochemical killing resort to such an ineffective method of chemically assisted suicide, especially when he presumably had access to some of the most effective poisons in the world? Why would Kelley kill himself where he could be accidentally found, which, if he failed to die, would lead him open to accusations of mental instability and undermine the claims he so wanted to make in his book? See, there is lots and lots of evidence of murder.
"We're conducting an investigation into a man's death. It begins with forensic evidence to support the ready conclusion of suicide. Once suicide has been ruled out, then we proceed to examine other causes."
I hear what you're saying shadowgm, and like you, I'm normally very skeptical of conspiracy theories. But in response to what you posted, I'd just like to mention the strange case of investigative reporter Gary Webb, the author of "Dark Alliance" -a book which detailed the role of the CIA in drug smuggling operations. After he published his book, Webb could no longer find work with any newspaper, and was found dead a short time later. His death was ruled a "suicide" even though forensic evidence showed he had been shot in the head TWICE. Go figure, huh?
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
The CIA did it?
Or that the CIA killed Webb, therefore a British agency must have killed Kelley?
Not buying it for a second.
Uh no, that's not what I was saying. The point I was trying to make was, don't always put so much stock in forensic evidence. Medical Examiner's offices are public departments subject to subtle and not so subtle political pressures just like any other. Just because an finding of suicide is ruled doesn't necessarily mean an investigation should stop (in some cases). That was my point. Nowhere did I even imply that Kelley's death and Webb's are related; that's something that would have been obvious if you would just stop being an asshole and read what people write. Sorry to be so rude, but enough is enough.
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
investigating, through CIA informers, a huge criminal organization he called "The Octopus." Casolaro also allegedly slit his wrists, although there is buckets of evidence that he too was murdered.
Because we're nobodies.
They'll say, "Oh, they're just a bunch of conpsiracy theory bloggers. To think, just imagine, they question the "honourable" governements of the USA and Britain. For shame."
Hordes of sheep will see the wisdom in this.
far left loon >.<
That there were no elements inside of the UK that thought toppling Saddam had merit? Because I think Blair couldn't wait for someone to ask him to join in on the adventure.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
It's Blair. No, wait, Blair needed Bush/Cheney. No, wait ...
What's next? Space aliens?
It's about security of the State. Securing oil fields, perhaps? Rarely does this involve space aliens, though YOU might think so.
Thanks....I was starting to wonder if I wasn't being clear, or was reading something else into this than was there.
They'll do anything! They've got death squads! They have vast influence and global reach!
Every time I reiterate a need for simple, basic facts obtained through police procedure and forensic investigation, the pile gets higher:
It's Blair.
It's Bush/Blair.
It's Dick Cheney's Secret Death Squads.
It's Israel.
It's AIPAC.
I'm PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!!!!
See, shadowgm, it's that attitude that's starting to piss people off on this board. It's not your opinions so much as your condescending, dismissive tone. I get it, you don't buy into conspiracy theories. Just say that ok, without mocking other people. OK, lecture over!
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
...wanting to invade Iraq. I think his motives were much more in tune with those of Hitchens, who supported deposing Hussein on moral grounds. That they would support Bushco's need for an excuse such as ginned-up evidence of WMDs is easily understandable: If the US didn't have an excuse to invade, no one was going in.
As for Kelly's death, I'm with you: It was probably suicide.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Blair was willing to give up his popular support to support Bush and Co. He supported them even though there was much protest in the house of Commons, Lords, and on the streets.
Blair supported Bush so much that his nickname in England became "Poodle".(lapdog).
Also, who do you think has more pull with the Saudi Royal Family, Bush or Blair? British Petrol has some important business that has to be conducted with the House of Saud, and there have been major investigations involving Prince Bandar, banking and finance, both in this country and England that have been swept under the rug.
... if you have a photo of Blair sucking off Bush.
Prove Kelley's death wasn't a suicide. It's that simple.
That he was preparing a book that would have 'blown the lid off' secrets and expose THE LIE behind the Iraq War doesn't work.
Can't you see how silly this sounds? It's Blair. Then it's Bush/Cheney/Blair. Then it's the Saudis/Bush/Cheney/Blair. That the only possible way to silence Kelley was to fake his suicide and steal his manuscript/computers.
I'll admit the possibility of suicide when you rule it out through proper investigation. Otherwise, this does nothing to promote progressive thought and is the equivalent of believing that Obama is a secret Muslim socialist.
However, unless you are an eye witness there are things that can not be proven. Even IF you are an eyewitness there are things that you can not prove, like motive.
Legal theory is not a precise as a lot of people believe, and this is born out by the number of murder trials that have kinks in them.(innocents being put on death row, guilting going free because of bad evidence.)
It is not possible to prove what is really going on in a person's head, other than by evidenciary proof. Even then, it takes the suspect's confession to know what the real motivation for a crime was. Or a suicide.
Suicides are convenient because the motivation is taken with the victim. This happens whether it is a "real" suicide, or in the case that it is a murder/coverup.
Speculation is just a way of looking at other facts involved and providing another alternative to the official story. I personally believe that there are many possibilities as to why this man died, and suicide is one.
I'm pretty sure that there would not have been an investigation into this death at any level is there were not some suspicious unknowns associated with his demise.
I'm not saying that it wasn't a suicide. He was under a lot of pressure, and you never know what a person will do if his family or reputation is threatened.
I'm just saying that there was a reason for Blair to have him offed, as well, and Blair didn't seem too concerned with his popularity at the time of this man's demise. He seemed more content to be Bush's lapdog, and had good reason to put himself in that position.
A suicide victim's motive can be reconstructed through interviews with family/friends, and hopefully through a suicide note.
You state:
- "I personally believe there are many possibilities as to why this man died, and suicide is one."
- "I'm not saying it wasn't a suicide."
- "I'm just saying there's a reason for Blair to have him offed."
Contradictory statements abound. It's a suicide until there is conclusive proof to indicate otherwise. Secret government death squads are in the same box as brain-eating Antarean death spiders, because there's a hidden colony in South Wales.
Blair has a reason to cheat at cards, too. Doesn't mean he does.
It appears that this man committed suicide. The legal arguments and proceedings have come down on the side of him committing suicide. Unless you and I were there, we have to assume that he committed suicide based on what the facts of the case disclose.
However, it is also true that his suicide was extremely convenient for a lot of people who were in an awkward position. This could be a complete coincidence. On the other hand, it could be another possibility for his death.
Human beings are capable of a lot of bad and seriously stupid behavior. I never underestimate anyone for any reason.
It is possible to see multiple sides of an issue, and give them all equal thought, but not equal validity. Is it possible that this man's death was a suicide? Yes, it is also probable based on evidence that has been disclosed.
Is it possible that Tony Blair had something to do with it? Yes, but the evidence that he was directly involved is not there.
It is also a possibility that this was a suicide that was coerced. A person can be given a choice, with suicide being the more attractive offer. That doesn't let the coercer off as innocent. They still were involved in the death, but the final decision was that of the person who died.
Also, Blair may have a reason to cheat at cards. It doesn't mean that he does..but it also doesn't mean that he doesn't. It just means that both are possibilities. Whether he does or not will only be evidenced when he is caught, if he is caught.
You dispute my 'Blair may have reason to cheat at cards; doesn't mean he does,' by countering that he might, we just need EVIDENCE.
Which is what I've been asking for, repeatedly.
Instead, I'm getting a lot of hogwash about how people may do x because of greed or other motives, how Kelley's suicide could have been coerced, etc.
"Here, Doc. Eat these pills, or I'll kill you."
Um ... "OKAY! *nom nom nom*"
"Here, Doc. Slit your wrist, or I'll kill you."
Um ... "OKAY! *cut cut cut*"
Besides, how DO you convince someone to effectively cut their own wrist so they will bleed out?
Check down thread for another poster who linked to a letter from some British physicians who disputed the finding. Kelley couldn't have cut deep enough, the wound would have closed, etc. - and that's if it were nothing more than suicide.
So if that's the case, what did he really die from? Either the mysterious 'coercer' waited, saw that Kelley wasn't dead, and helped him along ... or he'd left, in which case, why is Kelley dead, unless the wound was, in fact, sufficient?
Prove it wasn't suicide, and we can consider alternatives. As Sherlock Holmes used to say, once you have discounted all possible explanations, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the answer.
I'm not saying that this article is right either.
I've looked at the evidence as disclosed in the press. It probably was suicide, which I have said before. But, I realize that the press doesn't always give the full picture, on either side of an issue.
You are leaping to assumptions about what I believe and don't believe, just because I think that there is a possibility that this death is not all it appears.
You don't have to stand over a man or woman to coerce them to commit suicide. Your scenerio is absurd in the extreme, I believe, in an attempt to marginalize my ideas. Why? I've not mentioned once that I support what was written here. I've only disagreed with YOU.
I've also read this thread and you are mixing up things that different people have said, as if we all think alike, and have the same ideas of what this conspiracy is in some kind of pre-written form. This is not the case.
Saying that something is possible and thinking about possibilities is not the same as saying that it is what you believe.
What I believe about this case is that it is fishy. There is a lot of involvement by the British Government that is a little unusual, that is why there was an inquiry. The official verdict is still disputed by some people and believed by other.
I have no horse in this race other than arguing with you about whether or not you can hold two conflicting ideas in you head or not. You seem to want to lump anyone who thinks this is a little suspicious together with the tin foil hat crowd.
Maybe Blair is completely innocent in this man's death. Maybe he is involved in some way that has not been evidenced so far.
As I have said before, if you can convince someone that they should commit suicide, then you are still complicit. There is no way that we will ever know that, but it does not mean that it is not a possibility.
It is also a possibility that the stress of this man's position got to him, and he committed suicide. What responsibility does Blair have for that?
I think human being are capable of a great deal of evil, and stupidity. Nothing surprises me, This makes me a cynic and a skeptic. Given the nature of humans, this is not an unreasonable trait.
... in what can be proven. If you cannot prove Kelley's death was other than it seems, then there is no valid reason to entertain the idea of Blair and a government conspiracy.
But at every turn, this is what you do. You continue to carve exceptions to support your fairy tale of said conspiracy.
It's like fucking epicycles - when the predominant view was a geocentric model of the solar system, the retrograde motion of the planets was explained by adding epicycles to their orbits. And then more epicycles. And more.
You're not getting CLOSER to the truth, you're getting FURTHER from it.
Proving Kelley's death as something other than suicide is essential to investigating any other cause. That's the way the LAW works, not on the basis of some wishful thinking and opining on Blair's character.
Really, there is no VALID reason to consider that a man who was speaking out against his government might be driven to suicide, when he seemed so much to want to expose something.
I'm sure his family and friends would not agree...particularly since they asked questions that started an inquiry.
There are always reasons that people do things. If it is what is in the person's mind when they commit the crime/suicide, then they are valid reasons.
Blair's character was destroyed by Blair. If he has something to do with this, it is strictly incidental. This is not the worst thing he could have, or did do in his time in office.
In real life, just because someone doesn't sit down and say.."I want this man dead or I am going to kill him myself...." doesn't mean he doesn't make it happen.
You keep arguing for procedure and the law. You seem to like control and order. That's fine. That doesn't mean those that disagree with you have less valid points or questions.
Present facts, or shut the fuck up. Your point isn't anything remotely resembling valid without being able to disprove the finding of suicide.
the finding of suicide because I don't believe there is anything that can or should be disproved.
All I've said to you in this whole thread, is that it is not something that exists in a bubble. There are other circumstances involved that could make this more complicated than..."this guy wanted to kill himself because he just wanted to."
If you do, in fact work in new editing, which is also something I can't prove or disprove, then what is your motivation for spending time on this this morning.
Mine is that you are a bully, and are looking for a fight. The fact that you have reduced yourself to calling names and marginalization, pretty much tell me that you have no real argument. You only want someone to say you are right, and you won.
You also make a lot of assumptions based on what other people say, instead of reading what one person actually wrote.
You are not interested in discussion..only bullying...so that makes you what?
A troll that works for the new media....as an editor...I'd think you have things to do today, what with all the news happening at the moment.
Me? what am I? I am normal working woman who has things to do other than this...and am about to go do them.
Have fun...and don't think you won, you small insignificant man.
At least I'm in touch with my small insignificance and have no illusions about how important my ideas are.
And yes, I am resorting to calling you names, because you richly deserve it. Your mother shouldn't have let you believe that you were smarter or more intelligent than everyone else, because she didn't do you any favors.
Have a nice, dyspeptic life.
government plot has gone awry. How's the weather in Langley today, gm? Do you not get a year-end bonus if you don't convince people that nothing's a conspiracy and everything happened just the way the government tells us it did?
Why are you so sure it was suicide? Do you have evidence? Can YOU prove it?
Why are you so eager to believe a government that has demonstrated over and over again that they are totally corrupt, completely criminal?
I think you're a troll.
Speaking of brains, does anyone know where JFK's went?
n/t
if Blair DID NOT co-operate with the conventional mindset? what would of been his price to pay?
Britain of course could have had its own motives
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/0...
Don't you think Cheney and Blair conspired to start a war and tried to cover it up? I do.
We know they kidnapped, tortured and brutally murdered terror suspects in black locations.
Snuffing this guy is a drop in the bucket.
... is that the people who were so inept at torturing people that we've uncovered photographs, admitted that they waterboarded one guy 183 times, had that same guy admit he was feeding them bullshit ...
... can off one lone scientist with nary a hint of impropriety?
Not buying it. Prove to me it wasn't a suicide, with forensic evidence to substantiate your findings.
I didn't prove anything. My thesis is that given the actions of Cheney and Blair I would not be surprised if they had a hand in his death.
Simmer down turbo!
... is horseshit.
Prove Kelley did not commit suicide.
Enough of this 'It was Blair. It was Cheney. It was Cheney and Blair' parade.
We All Know it was the brain-eating Antarean spiders hiding in South Wales. Blair and Cheney have known about the real threat for decades, the MSM is covering it up. The Twin Towers were destroyed because there was a nest hidden inside them. Saddam had a secret clutch of spider eggs ...
boring. Go away troll.
Because you believe/disblieve something, anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is crazy??
That's a little self-important wouldn't you say?
far left loon >.<
the Repug/corporate facade. Maybe troll needs to believe the government because his whole world will collapse if he finds out Bushco lies.
The people who would have pulled off this assassination would not have been the same as the inept torturers. They would have been undercover British agents, who are considerably more adept. However, the investigation itself is what's troubling: it seems rather strange that the coroner consulted the Home Office before making his decision and that a Blair cabal-appointed Law Lord led the investigation. Blair's influence on this investigation is evident; an independent investigation of the evidence is what's needed here. And that wasn't done. Anthrax suspect Bruce Ivins also committed suicide. Both of these suicides are oh so convenient.
... you're aruging that 'more experienced' secret government killers took care of Kelley, while 'inept' secret American agents took care of Bruce Ivins.
So why are BOTH suicides questionable?
You are arguing the same line as Bush used for al-Qaeda. They're everywhere. They have far-reaching influence. They're poised to strike any time, any place.
Fucking load of nonsense.
How would any of us be able to provide to you forensic evidence from this case? That's about like asking us to prove to you that moon rocks came from the moon. How the hell would we go about doing it when we don't even have any of the rocks.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
When the drumbeats of war boomed loud, and Valerie Plame was outted, for that is when the death occured.
Back then, the USA was liberating Iraq and ridding thw eorld of WMD. Torture had not surfaced yet. When it did begin to surafce, how many times did Bush say, "We do not torture?"
(And maybe you believed him???)
If you turn on the goggle, it seems there are many medical experts that question the details of a suicide. He didn't lose that much blood. The artery cut is not one that would allow someone to bleed to death. There was not enough blood at the scene to assume that as cause of death. There were NO FINGERPRINTS on the knife. He cleaned the knife and then wore gloves to kill himself??
far left loon >.<
this ridiculous comment .. "isn't this a little too conspiracy theory" .. had me ready to launch into the longest tirade. but thats improper netiquette.
so I'll just let Mr. Coppola field this one.
http://www.moviesounds.com/godfathr/naive.wav
***
Michael: My father's no different than any other powerful man. Any man who's responsible for other people, like a Senator, or a President.
Kay: Do you know how naive you sound?
Michael: Why?
Kay: Senators and Presidents don't have men killed.
Michael: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?
I have not expressed a blind faith in politicians, American or British, nor their sterling moral characteristics.
In order to prove a conspiracy, you must first prove that Kelley's suicide ... wasn't a suicide.
I don't like you.
That does not make him wrong. To be honest, he's one of the few people making posts on the board not being strangled by their own paranoia.
Edit: added word "posts". Need caffeine badly
isn't a very scientific approach to criticizing it. The essence of science is to deal with facts and reason as objectively as possible. To just dismiss an idea or theory because its a "conspiracy theory" is the opposite of a scientific approach As Noam Chomsky once said "conspiracies happen all the time that's why there are laws that make it possible to convict people for them".
As for some specific examples, I don't personally believe in most 9/11 conspiracy theories because the evidence isn't that compelling. On the other hand I think the evidence is overwhelming in many assassinations (e.g. JFK and MLK) that they were not the work of a lone gun man. My point is you need to think and consider each case based on facts rather than just blithely dismiss it based on some label.
"...I hear a lot of 'secret government death squads' and scientists hiding because they know 'the truth..."
I wonder if our clever (huh) governments are behind, or at least encouraging the crazy-ass wild conspiracy stories, just so people will scoff when they hear about a real conspiracy?
If it is true that Blair & our Admin knew perfectly well (and they did) that Hussien & Iraq were no threat, had nothing to do with 9/11, and they knew a reputable person was going to expose them- well, what would any very powerful group do? I'd get rid of him for sure, though I think I'd do a better job. The real hubris of our "leaders" shines thru: that such a clumsy crime was done and they got away with it.
How could the suspects in a crime be in charge of solving it? If that isn't conspiracy, then what is?
biowarfare expert decides to write a tell-all about illegal trafficking in anthrax and how the British prime minister knew the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were lies because he, the expert, told the PM. Someone(s) powerful decides that telling those stories is not good for them, and the expert is silenced. Seems pretty straightforward to me. And we know Dick Cheney was running a US military death squad out of his office--who better to kill Kelly?
..taken out of context, yeah, one might say that "..its a conspiracy theory and that's all." But coupling this with some of the other facts surrounding W's illegal invasion of Iraq, I might start believing in the conspiracy.
Security officer in Saddam's Iraq paid to lie
Anthrax attacks in the US and no one convicted but Iraq blamed
Torture designed to tie Iraq and al-Qaeda
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
... leads to an investigation into the victim's life and immediate circumstances. You'd have to suborn a coroner/medical examiner, plus any crime-scene technicians, assorted police, and the victim's relatives.
If it were me, I'd make sure it was something that didn't provoke questions - an auto accident, for example. A gas leak.
Bribery and lying about 'facts' are garden-variety corruption.
This death has always been fishy. UK is trying to clear up the Blair end of the LIE to invade Iraq and steal the oil. I smell Cheneys, little, hit squad and who was personally in charge of the media PR when the LIE was being pushed and sold.
"Fishy," because we so often do not see the warning signs. We rationalize things to preserve a positive memory of the victim.
So the first step to proving Kelley's death was anything but, completely rule out suicide. This is absolutely necessary in order to proceed to 'other causes' - whether it was secret SAS assassins, Blair in a bad mood, or the far-reaching global Cheney zombie army.
Means, motive, opportunity. Basic criminal investigation, please.
You mean, accidents like that of Michael Connell (Rove/Bush IT guru, set to testify about housing the "missing" Bush-appointees emails and the contentious 2004 vote in Ohio that he "helped" with) who was killed in a mysterious plane accident days before testifying?
Or accidents like that of Senator Paul Wellstone (who was THE arch-nemesis and outspoken critic of the Bush administration war-mongering) who was killed in a mysterious plane accident short weeks before a sure re-election?
Or accidents like that of Gov. Mel Carnahan, (who was set to take John Ashcroft's Senate seat, upsetting the balance of the Senate toward Democrats) who was killed in a mysterious plane accident just weeks before what looked to be a sure win? (Lo and behold, even dead, he DID win over Ashcroft.)
Maybe David Kelley just didn't fly enough. Or the Brits have their own specialties.
[Double entry, sorry.]
didn't scientist Bruce Ivins 'commit suicide' just before he was supposed to testify about the US anthrax attacks??
And, didn't that guy (I think his name was McConnell or Connel?) in charge of the Republican IT group in Ohio who was about to testify that he helped rig the election results 'die in the crash of his small plane' just a week or so before??
All coincidences, I guess.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
..there's too much out there happening and its starting to look somehow interconnected. Shadowgm is right; you need a thorough investigation and what we are REACTING TO are the convenient suicides and the coincidences that are piling up faster than that tire pile in the Simpson's.
Not to mention, W's legacy must be something other than he tortured people and violated our Constitutional rights and violated international law and American Law and lacked a morality that would have precluded all of his transgressions that made rich people wealthier instead of going after the terrorist elements that attacked this country.
And speaking of W, isn't it time he be tried for War Crimes?
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
I am sad to see C&L jump ona conspiracy theory bandwagon. No matter what level of contempt you have for Tony Blair, to accuse him of murdering a journalist to suppress that he was warned of there being no WMD's in Iraq is beyond ridiculous. In fact, its embarassing.
I always thought C&L was intended to publish intelligent left wing commentary, not push some kind of vile conspiracy propaganda.
"Why wouldn't rich and powerful people conspire to acquire more wealth and power?" Why wouldn't they get rid of people who threatened their money and power?
We've see people like Cheney, Yoo, Addington not only walking free, but free from ever being officially accused of any wrongdoing.
These same people have made "conspiracy theory" a ridiculous phrase, something seen as a Nat'l Enquirer headline; and anyone who suggests conspiracy is immediately grouped with the UFO and Bigfoot believers.
C&L who are upset about "conspiracy theories." Susie didn't accuse Blair, though she said it's certainly possible Blair ordered Kelley's death. It's certainly possible that other people ordered Kelley's death. If Kelley's accusations were made publicly, Blair would be open to charges of lying Great Britain into war at a time when that accusation, from a government expert, would be very inconvenient. Seems like a pretty good motive to me. By the way, C&L's David Neiwart accused people who don't believe the official story about 9/11--which includes about 40% of New Yorkers--of being nuts:
"Now, it should be noted first that there are certain zones of extremist wingnuttery that attract True Believers from both the Left and the Right. All of them are fundamentally conspiracist in their worldview. So you'll find anti-Semitic crap floating around hippie barter fairs of a nature similar to what you might find at a militia gun show. Conspiracy theorists like the Troofers attract people from both the Left and the Right."
So don't accuse C&L of being conspiracy theory central, dude.
By July of 2003 speculation that there were no WMD's was already rampant. I'm sure many current readers of C&L were among the earliest doubters (I was) but by the summer of 2003 it would have been clear to those at the top that the widespread speculation about the lack of WMD's wasn't going away. Killing Kelley to shut him up would not have saved Blair's and Bush's reputations. Even they could have seen that.
But let's not also discount the stress he was under. He had been 'beaten up' by British MPs, and then he went off to write his story and reflect. That can be a painful process. If you've been involved in some shady business over the years, who knows what mental state you could be thrown into by the act of putting it down on paper.
That said, it's a murky story. I don't reject the murder theories, but if it is a government hit it would be deeper than WMD's.
Wasn't it July of '03 when Joseph Wilson wrote his now-famous op-ed saying he found no WMDs in Niger and then Cheney and his gang outed his wife as CIA?
So, even at this late of date, the knives were still out for anyone that contradicted the official WMD story. Hell, even years later people were still convinced Saddam was involved in 9/11.
The people who are always bashing conspiracy touters should ask if plotting to paint UN planes in US colours so that they may be shot down over Iraq sparking an invasion is considered a "conspiracy".
ever hearing of this guy or his alleged suicide...
Definitely a fucked up story.
Whenever somebody tries to brush aside legitimate worrying questions as "conspiracy theory" I always ask:
Do you believe the official story of the post-9/11 anthrax attacks? (i.e. that Bruce Ivins was "the real killer")
(1) if yes, then by definition you believe a conspiracy theory because elements inside the US military attacked Americans and tried to frame radical islamic elements for the attacks.
(2) if no, then by definition you believe in a massive government coverup to protect the real element(s) behind the attacks, ergo you also believe in "conspiracy theory."
QED
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/washington/...
I wish Orangutan was still here. He was always keeping the Anthrax attacks in the minds of posters here. But I guess it was all done by a guy that went on to commit suicide. Case closed. /snark.
... are proven facts and careful investigation, conducted under tried-and-true procedures.
The hallmarks of the conspiracy theory are the vast, faceless enemy with extensive influence and ability to arrange the most incredible of circumstances ... and that's what this is. Tony Blair, several MP's, etc. conspired to stage a scientist's suicide, control the investigation, and hide THE TRUTH that the scientist was about to publish in his book.
I was a believer in conspiracy theories in the 70s, and I sort of "grew out of it", but now I believe almost all of them. These are strange times. Call me a freak if you must (cuz I don't care). There is so much that is secret, and so much that is wrong, or things wouldn't be as they are now.
It would be nice to go to sleep at night thinking these men that rule are lives are honourable, but little indicates that to me. It's a high stakes poker game and they'll do anything to prevail.
far left loon >.<
"These are strange times."
"There is so much that is secret, and so much that is wrong, or things wouldn't be as they are now."
"It's a high-stakes poker game and they'll do anything to prevail."
None of your statements mean SHIT. Strange times? How strange? Stranger than usual? How many years of experience do you include in this subjective evaluation? What's the benchmark for strange?
So much that is secret? Like what? Are these things that would not be secret in times past, or were once open and are now secret?
So much that is wrong? Why does this require a conspiracy? Were those involved in the conspiracy bad people before they became involved? After? What kept them from acting on their desires before they joined said conspiracy?
They'll do anything? But, not, apparently, put average citizens like you and I in detention camps, because we're 'small stuff' and beneath their notice, but they'll do anything to further their goals.
Really? Come on, people. For a site where posters routinely fall for the FOX News okie-doke and wail about the MSM, I'm beginning to suspect that the Teabag Fairy went and hit y'all in the head while you slept.
What are you talking about? Ick.
Nonsense, again.
I see you have availed yourself of the opportunity to give me the all-round-general batshit crazy crown. Thanks.
I'd better remember not to disagree with your opinions: you get emotional (and personal). I might even go as far as to say vindictive, but shan't.
far left loon >.<
n/t
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Whatever, that's what I'm saying.
far left loon >.<
That was a reply to Central Scrutinizer.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
It's the next day. It was very late last night.
Yes these are strange times. You can't see that? 10 years ago I wouldn't have dreamed, nor believed, if anyone had told me, the things that have happened in the last 9 years. I would have said they were batshit crazy, but, guess what...
Unusually strange. When the "good guys" are the ones to be feared, and cannot be trusted, what is one to think? When the "good guys" invade countries under false pretexts. When the "good guys" start an international string of black site torture camps, why wouldn't I suspect them at every turn.
They routinely bury the turth, lie to their citizens, and break the laws with impunity. They write their own laws. And you think I should buy whatever crap they want to serve up?
Sorry, but I don't. They have proven themselves to be unscrupulous. If you want to believe the "official line" go ahead. I would question everything that comes from them, and do.
I don't think it's far-fetched at all. I would say it warrants further investigation to draw any concrete conclusions, but I also doubt we'll get any, or that all the evidence will ever surface. Evidence disappears (or is locked up) all the time.
We're just a bunch of stooges to them; consumers, numbers, collateral damage.
far left loon >.<
When I don't the truth about something I say I don't know. What I don't do is construct some bizarre theory that involves nebulous forces of darkness. It's an old saw but nevertheless true: One should never attribute to malice what can fully be explained by stupidity. Now we have this insight: "Following his death, his computers were seized and it is still not known if any rough draft was discovered by investigators and, if so, what happened to the material." Great. Now we can speculate about what dark forces have suppressed something that may never have existed. Error 404.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Witches.
Now I suppose you are going to tell us that George Washington WASN'T a Witch who conspired with others to overthrow the government? I am so confused....
burned to make their deaths appear to be self immolation. They were working on an explosive tell all book about their potions, traces of which are still believed to be in Washington's wooden teeth.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Both Bush and Blair wanted to keep their little war going...good for business don't you know. Plus Bush was up for re-election in 2004 and this would have proved that he lied and probably hurt his chances for re-election. As for conspiracy, is it normal for the Home Office to meet with the coroner. Plus, if I remember correctly there were several doctors who questioned the coroner's results. There is more invovled with this case the the gov't wants to admit.
...his book published, so what? Do you think it would make any difference in proscecuting the lawless bastards who got us into Iraq?
Not likely, no one gives a fuck.
Not in America it wouldn't. It might be different in the U.K.
far left loon >.<
...that might be the case I suppose.
While we're digging up poop on this story, don't forget to keep your eyes peeled for DC Madam news. That was the fastest closed book ever: ne'er a peep from the MSM-- nothin'.
All over the news one day, never heard of the next.
far left loon >.<
Readers of yesterday's post about the Teabaggers lack of momentum (rightly) jumped all over them for going the Conspiracy Route (TM). As I was reading that, I reflected about the posting from a few days ago about Afghanistan, when all of C&L's truthers came out in full force. And then there's today's post.
The lack of irony that C&L commenters show can be really disheartening at times.
I'm greatly heartened that some commenters here are keeping their critical thinking wits about them. Still, the speed with which posters here will run to the conspiracy clubhouse is frustrating. If there was a conspiracy, fine. Prove it.
We ridicule the Becks and Bachmanns of the world for thinking like simpletons. It's not a right-wing phenomenon, however.
Couldn't agree more.
Conspiracy theories are for those that believe they have no control over their own lives, and must blame or accuse someone or something else for their actions or inactions.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
might call a buzz killer?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
You are eagerly lapping up the theme generated by our Corporate owned media that the word "conspiracy" automatically means "crazy and wrong". Have you ever looked up the meaning of conspiracy in a dictionary?
Your reasons for not believing the suicide story are as lame, if not more so, than the ones put forward by people who think something is very rotten at the Top.
Your challenges amount to jumping up-and-down shrieking and throwing (verbal-written) feces at anyone who dares say "something is terribly wrong". Yes, MORE wrong than before.
In 10 years or so most of the world may be controlled (if it isn't already) by interconnected corporations. Presidents & PMs and Premiers will be figureheads, about as powerful as the Queen of England. And the corporation's will have no interest in the general health & welfare of the people, or in the health of the planet. Eventually even the corporations will spin out of control, start even worse wars than Iraq & Afghanistan, and the world will crash, maybe back into pre-industrial times when plague and famine and war wer everyday facts of life for everyone.
Unless something is done ASAP. Stop squealing "Ewww! Conspiracy Theorists! UFO Watchers! Bigfoot hunters! HaHaHa!"
case based on the facts and prefer not to worry their lazy minds with possibilities.
True enough. A theory is just a theory if there is no proof. However, a crime scene committed in conspiracy is hardly like an accident scene, though in every case, there will be an effort to make it look like one. It seems to me one should consider all reasons for a crime/accident in proportion, and not simply trust that all parties are innocent, especially when benefit is high for someone. How many life insurers would be in business if they blithely accepted high-payout beneficiaries' statements, no questions asked?
"A crime scene committed in conspiracy is hardly like an accident scene, though in every case, there will be an effort to make it look like one."
A crime scene is a crime scene. You do not enter a crime scene with preconceptions as to what happened. Kelley's death would be investigated like any other death.
It's not like this is the first time someone has tried to make a murder look like a suicide.
Lately I've noticed that if a story has some kind of conspiracy theory or trumped-up nutty accusations in it, Susie Madrak's byline is attached. C&L can do better than this.
What is the new information that prompts this story? That David Kelly was writing, or thinking about writing, a book? Wow!
Lacking information is not the same thing as a mystery. A journalist telling us that "there is a lot more to David Kelly's story than we are ever going to find out" is no more than an admission of professional failure.
And what is newsworthy, or evidentiary, or informative, about an accusatory question a reporter asked Tony Blair in 2003? Or that Blair is Catholic?
No, I did not "remember" Kelley's relationship with Judith Miller. And having looked at the link that was supposed to help me remember, it remains as clear as mud. Does that "deepen" the mystery too?
One mystery the story fails to dispel is how the man spelled his name, as it is different in the headline and the text.
or maybe he wasn't prepared to take the flak.
personally i think tony blair is a waste of carbon, and his dickish smirk has 'smack the shit out of me' written all over it. he has blood on his hands for his involvement with bush, no doubt.
but, the official story of dr. kelley's death seems most likely.
some of these theories have a vince foster-feel
Wow! You saved me some typing. Your description of Blair is much better than what I was cooking up.
This part is Pulitzer: 'smack the shit out of me' written all over it.
far left loon >.<
Former foreign minister and MP who spoke so eloquently against the Iraq invasion. He died rather suspiciously - heart attack and fall in the highlands. All sounds very 007-ish to me!
Isn't he still suspiciously alive?
escape skills. My antennae received that message somewhere once.
It may have been a dark and cloudyt night.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
DC Madam: "If I am found dead it will not be a suicide."
She saw it coming. Nothing ever heard about that case, was there???
(Tthis was for Shadowgm -up above, but it ended up way down here.)
far left loon >.<
'"Dr David Kelly told a UK diplomat he would probably be "found dead in the woods" if the UK invaded Iraq, the Hutton inquiry has heard.'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/7/750758...
about suicide or death, and excessive guilt.
... he said or did something to try and stop it, so the government, having won out, is going to risk it all and kill him?
... he didn't say a thing and is now feeling guilty for not having spoken out more loudly or forcefully?
Still comes down to: PROVE HIS DEATH OCCURRED BY MEANS OTHER THAN SUICIDE.
didn't lay out her case in writing or on tape before it happened?
Why not?
There are lots of repositories for valuable information where it would have been safe from "interested parties".
If I had some explosive stories that could get me killed for knowing about, I'd make damn sure that this site, Talking Points Memo, Digby and Americablog would know about it - or be given source material about it - before I died.
This is the part about conspiracy stuff that always galls me and leaves me skeptical and suspicious about the claim; Kelly was an insider who knew who the players were and how the game was played.
And he didn't leave back-ups of his work in "safe" places with "safe" people who'd continue after he died?
Not believable.
...the DC Madam. She said that the San Diego PD and/or county sherriff's office was gunning for her after she got busted there.
So pick your conspiracy theory on that one, I guess.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
..remember that there were objections to the results of his autopsy that threw doubt on the suicide verdict.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2004/jan/27/guardianletters4
I'm not saying 'case closed.'
I'm saying in order to substantiate a 'cover-up killing' of Kelley by government personnel (it's not like Bliar* slit Kelley's wrist while Cherie force-fed him pills), there must be conclusive findings that show the cause of death is other than stated.
Of the letter writers, the only one with pertinent knowledge would be the trauma surgeon, who could fairly speak to the behavior of a wound and the effect of drugs in that regard. I would also like to know if they had access to the full report, or are basing their opinions on news accounts.
*No, that wasn't a typo. I have some British friends who use that all the time.
is a secret UK agent sent here to monitor C&L. How's that for a conspiracy theory?
also thus makes me more suspect than snark.
However, it could be that Shadow is the only one who is actually safe from attack because he has fallen for the Blair line. The real culprit could be the site monitor.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I'm busy shilling for the MSM.
must be carefully examined. There are people ready to pence on any double entendre.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Should I quid while I'm ahead?
Nobody has said his wounds could only have been inflicted by
Occam's razor.
You'll have to pound more sand.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
... was the Sword of Damocles, then?
Alexander the Great cut the Gordian-Not-A-Suicide and set in motion events that would change the world?
but who took that horse's shoe nail?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
shadowgm,
what is your agenda here?
what are the rtried and true facts of kelleys death?
do you have them at your disposal? if so then show us.
here are some facts.
Darth cheney employed a secret group of killers who he would dispatch to get rid of his percieved enemies.
the us and britain went to war when there were no wmd.
just because you believe what you read in the papers does not make it so.
in fact your kind of a lightwieght
i mean the us government says that israel never intentionally shot up and tried to sink a us ship so you would believe them over the eyewitness accounts of those that were there?
go back to aipac and tell them i said they need to get better trolls.
Last-ditch attempt by a conspiracy theorist to win: accuse the doubter of being part of the conspiracy.
What are the facts of Kelley's death? They're on record. He ingested drugs and cut his wrist.
Cheney employed a secret group of killers. Okay, so we know about these guys, but can't link them to Kelley?
The U.S. and Britain went to war when there were no WMD. Well, SHIT, Einstein, why is this a conspiracy? I was saying there was no cause to go to war back in 2003? Why are you late to the party?
I'm a lightweight? Sorry, pal, you're the lightweight. It was Blair. No, it was Bush. No, it was Cheney's secret death squads. No, it was both governments. And don't forget ISRAEL! And AIPAC!
keyboard after he logged in his user name.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
All these "suicides" and "untimely deaths" lead back to 9-11 and the "terrorist threat".
It's time for a fresh look. Don't be afraid of the truth.
Or was killed to stop him from revealing who was?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
He had important information to reveal but suddenly killed himself.
Dr. Bruce Ivins committed suicide 8 days before he was accused of being the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks in the U.S.
David Graham, DDS, claimed he met three of the Sept. 11
hijackers in Shreveport, LA a year before the attacks. In 2004, he was poisoned and killed. The case remains unsolved.
Just a few examples. The list goes on.
and Kennedy has a secretary named Lincoln. Neither had their records examined by a DDS.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
... Kelley had information that would have shown the UK/US went to war on false pretenses? Up until that point, NO ONE had any doubts? NO ONE was protesting against the war?
... Bruce Ivins killed himself because he was guilty? Or not guilty? He was killed so he couldn't protest he wasn't guilty?
... Dr. Graham claims to have met three of the 9/11 hijackers a year before the attacks? And this is damaging how? Because we didn't know? Because they weren't the real hijackers?
This is still arguing secret forces with vast-reaching powers who are so good at what they do, they murder people in a manner which immediately raises questions as to the circumstances of their deaths.
or, maybe just argumentative. Assassination has been a tool of politicians and other assorted folks with huge appetites for power; the history of the world is replete with such instances. Quite a few of them have occurred here in the good old US of A. Our government did a fine job of 'hiding' the facts of JFK's murder and of the murders on 9/11.
As it is now becoming crystal clear to everyone that most of what the 'Cheney gang' has done over the last number of decades has been based upon lies and deceit, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Dr. Kelly was killed before he exposed what he knew.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
Approaching the subject from a rational and objective standpoint.
Instead, I keep getting emotional/subjective testimony as to the desperate measures men like Dick Cheney, George Bush, Tony Blair, the Saudis, Israel will undertake to advance their goals.
Does Kelley's suicide being nothing more than it seems change any of the FACTS: that Cheney is a lying scum-sucking pig, that we went to war in Iraq on false pretenses, that we've conducted torture and extreme rendition, illegal wiretaps? Nope. Because all of these came to light, whether through the work of journalists or intrepid bloggers and activists.
If I want unthinking conspiracy nutjobbery, I'll go to a tea party. Or invite Glenn Beck to dinner.
to prove that you said that you would invite Glenn Beck to dinner.
breathing?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
"Give me fifteen lines written by the purest of men, and in them, I shall find something with which to hang him."
Oh, by the way ... I work in television news as an editor. You don't want to know what *I* can do with you and Glenn Beck.
You really are shilling for the MSM and your motives are not sterling.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
n/t
Comments are closed on this entry