Reply #48: I think Brown's suggestion that anti-Saddam liars and criminals (like Chalabi) may have [View All]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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