Sunday, January 24, 2010

How Conveeeeeeeeenient!

Craig Murray has a post which responds to the news that Lord Hutton is sealing some of the evidence surrounding the death, by suicide, of David Kelly including the post-mortem.

In his blogpost titled, "David Kelly's Murder", Mr Murray makes this startling revelation:

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.

To which I replied:

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?

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 BBC (i.e the state broadcaster) and the Daily (the paper with one of the highest circulations in Britain and, coincidentally or not, the paper which serialized Norman Baker's detective novel).

Update: The Guardian posthumously published an article that had been written by David Kelly in which his thoughts on Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction are spelled out. It doesn't lend any credence to Craig Murray's "cui bono" claim.


John said...

The issues at stake here have not got much to do with the death of Kelly per se. The key points about the Kelly fiasco are that the government adjourned a coroner's court unconstitutionally and that they used the Hutton Inquiry as an excuse to witch hunt the anti-war media (See Chilcot, Hutton and the death of Dr David Kelly). This witch hunt was also outside the bounds of the amendment to the coroner's act under which the Hutton Inquiry was instituted. As a replacement for a coroner's court, the Hutton Inquiry had no legal authority to lock up the details of the investigation for 70 years.

What do we do when the government deliberately abandons the rule of law?
Parliament is the guardian of the British constitution but the MPs seem to be corrupt. They allowed the executive and judicial arms of government to become fatally linked. They permitted "Lord" Falconer to become a political head of the justice system and just lay supine when the government co-opted a law about train crash inquiries to be used to whitewash the Kelly affair.

The free British press is also supposed to guard our democratic liberties but they are mute. Why?

angrysoba said...

The point about this post is to highlight the desperate lengths that the "I Want To Believe" conspiracy theorists will go to. Even concocting a narrative that is demonstrably false (July comes after March, for Heaven's sake!) and a "cui bono" argument that is nonsensical(how was David Kelly's death "convenient" for Tony Blair?)

But let's not beat about the bush Do you think Daivd Kelly was murdered?