Reply #12: personally [View All]

with nothing but the news reports to base it on, I think it was a "hit."
Not an accident. Not a comrade "losing it" and deciding spur-of-the-moment to off him because of his attitude, or a grudge, or something. Cold, calculated murder for hire.

• He had been bandied about as a big poster boy for the war when he joined.
  
• He was being very outspoken about opposing the Iraq debacle, keeping a journal many knew about, and had made arrangements to meet with an antiwar activist author.
  
• His "coming out" against the war was going to be really, really bad pr for the cabal.
  
• He was sent from Iraq to Afghanistan on some sort of temporary redeployment.
  
• The unit headed out on a mission, a Humvee broke down, and despite the platoon commander's objections as unsafe, the platoon was split up with one group going ahead, the other dealing with the disabled Humvee.
  
• When the two groups encountered each other later, there was this skirmish due to "mistaken identity" and he took three rounds from an M16 in the forehead from no more than ten yards away.
  
• There was no enemy contact, no enemy fire, no damage to any equipment or personnel from enemy fire.
  
• His journal vanished; his uniform was burned.
  
• The Dr. that did the initial exam recommended an inquiry, but it was not done.
  
• The official story that came out was a complete fabrication, encountering enemy forces, his being heroic, getting the silver star posthumously for valor, blah blah blah.
  
• later it was amended to acknowledge "friendly fire" but still the details were off. The distance was not acknowledged; enemy involvement was still alluded to - blamed on the "fog of war"
  

You do the math.

The most telling evidence, in my opinion, is, as with the Sherlock Holmes 'dog that did not bark', the lack of any alarm bells going off anywhere when it first occurred. Captains and majors and colonels don't instigate coverups like this on their own, with such a high-profile soldier. The communications necessary to pull it off - getting the fabricated story straight, running it up the chain of command, getting all the witnesses on board - just DOES NOT HAPPEN that fast. As Wes Clark said (either on MSNBC or Charlie Rose - I forget) decisions like this don't even happen at the 2 or 3-star level.

So if it was unintentional, somebody had to get all the way to the top to start the wheels turning on the coverup, and then it had to be implemented before anyone said anything else. It just doesn't happen that way.


As much as I think the 9/11 conspiracy theories suffer from the simple fact that you can't keep something like that quiet with the number of people who would be involved, now that we KNOW this was a coverup conspiracy, i don't believe it could have been pulled off without advance planning.

Our dear leader (b or c; take your pick; but I vote c) put out a hit on him. I firmly believe that, and will until it is proven otherwise.

And that explains all the obfuscation that we see. Not just this incident; if there is this then there are no doubt more. They know that if even some of the truth comes out as to what they have been up to, they are going to prison for a long, long time.