Lord Hutton Applies Another Coat of Whitewash
Two years after the whitewash known as the Hutton Inquiry, which was set up to investigate the circumstances into the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly after the invasion of Iraq, Lord Hutton is defending his ruling. The report released in January 2004 cleared the Government of providing false information about Iraq's WMD and also cleared it of dishonourable conduct towards Dr Kelly. Despite the clean bill of health the Law Lord gave the Government, the inquiry has been regarded by the public and much of the media as a whitewash. His defence of his report seems to be as dodgy as the report itself as he blames the media for misinterpreting the scope of the investigation and concentrating only on the controversial aspects of the case which could harm the Government.
"However, in reality, if I had written such a report I would have been failing in one of the cardinal duties of a judge conducting an inquiry into a highly controversial matter.
"That duty is to decide fairly the relevant issues arising under the terms of reference, having regard to all the evidence, and not to be swayed by pressure from newspapers and commentators or from any other quarter."
This is all well and good except that on the instructions of the Government, the investigation had such a narrow remit that it could not fully explore all the issues surrounding the case, something Hutton himself hints at albeit obliquely.
There were many questions which the inquiry failed to address, so many in fact that I hardly know where to start. For example, the mere possibility that Dr Kelly might have been murdered didn't even come up in the inquiry despite evidence to suggest that this could have been the case. Let's start with something that was mentioned at the Hutton Inquiry, the fact that Dr Kelly predicted his death five months before he died.
On July 18 the scientist's body was discovered next to woodland near his home in south Oxfordshire. He had bled to death after apparently slitting his left wrist.
Then there are the ‘dark actors playing dark games’ that he mentions in an e-mail to a journalist hours before his death. Also suspicious was the refusal for the inquest into Kelly's death to be re-opened despite:
- Dr Kelly’s body appeared to have been moved - twice
- the knife, bottle of water, glasses, and cap reported beside the body by later witnesses, were not seen by the two volunteer searchers who first discovered it
- DC Coe was with the body at the time its position changed from sitting to lying
- DC Coe claimed he was with one other officer yet five witnesses said he was with two
- the primary cause of death was given as haemorrhage from an incised wound to his left wrist, yet the amount of blood at the scene was, according to the paramedics, extremely sparse
- vomit stains from the corners of his mouth to his ears suggested Dr Kelly had died on his back, yet his position when found was slumped against a tree
- the puzzling nature of the wound: the severing of a single artery deeply embedded in the left wrist and total avoidance of the more superficial radial artery
There is also the discrepancy in the toxicology report:
And there is this interesting detail from Lib Dem MP Norman Baker's interview with The Mail on Sunday in July this year:
Norman Baker was so disturbed by the Hutton whitewash that he resigned his front-bench seat in order to conduct his own investigation into the affair. He must have been getting somewhere because shortly thereafter his hard drive was mysteriously wiped.
This all sounds like a giant conspiracy theory, and maybe that's all it is. But it does show how insufficient the Hutton inquiry was. A proper investigation should have answered these questions and others. Hutton coming out now to try and defend his whitewash is only going to re-open this can of worms. I wonder if he realised that.
This all sounds like a giant
This all sounds like a giant conspiracy theory
No, it sounds like a giant government cover-up.
Anyone with half a brain knows that Hutton was a government stooge, and everything in his report has since been PROVED to be a crock of shit.
Norman Baker MP has been investigating this for some time, using his MP priviliages to get access to documents and records, he is totally convinced Kelly was murdered.
Only one man could have ordered such an operation (Blair), and only one man could have managed it (Campbell). I remember well seing Blair step off the plane from where he 'heard' that Kelly was dead. Even at the time I though he was over acting - you'd think one of his kids had committed suicide from the look on his face.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=397256&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source
When I said that it all
When I said that it all sounds like a giant conspiracy theory, I meant that's how it looked as I was typing it. I usually have little patience with the conspiraloons who bang on about the various 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracy theories, even though occasionally there is some merit to aspects of what they are saying. As I was writing this post and collecting the sources, I was struck by how similar this all sounded, which is why I was trying to be careful with my language and not make unsubstantiated assertions.
For what it's worth, I think this is the genuine article as far as conspiracies go. I remember seeing Blair's face as he got off the plane and he was definately very spooked. What a contrast to how he looked earlier when he was positively beaming after getting his ego massage in America.
you'd think one of his kids
you'd think one of his kids had committed suicide from the look on his face
Yeah, whatever happend to that story about Kathryn Blair? Obviously we don't have a right to know that either.
http://www.public-interest.co.uk/aseye/index.htm#Tony
Wiv regard to Campbell/Kelly, it was Campbell that started the media spinning the suicide angle, even before any statements by the Police every single media outlet, without fail, insinuated suicide from day one, without a single shred of evidence. Not just the media, but MPs also.
This was all the work of Campbell.
Davide Simonetti
Davide Simonetti
There's something rather
There's something rather fishy about his prediction according to this article.
I did this animation pretty
I did this animation pretty soon after The Hutton Report and thought it worth another airing.
I hope you don't mind me posting it here.
Hutton Blair Animation - Flash File with sound
i dont believe that blair
i dont believe that blair had him killed, that look of shock on his face says it all. i think that blair realised then just how far wrong things had gone. he'd sold his soul to those dark forces, they acted without his knowlege to protect their lies and when they did he was horrified but realised he had no way out but to continue to lie and lie which is what he's still doing today.
(closed the i tag) Mr
(closed the i tag)
Mr Campbell told Lord Hutton that he had given advice on presentational points only during the dossier's drafting, on behalf of the prime minister and at the request of Mr Scarlett. His role was "coordination" of departments involved in the dossier.
Mr Campbell described Mr Scarlett as a "mate". In his report Lord Hutton suggested that Mr Blair's desire to make the dossier as strong as possible may have "subconsciously influenced" Mr Scarlett when he came to write it.
I doubt an over promoted, mentally unstable, power worshipping pr man like campbell ran anything but he could well have been the gofer between his 'mates'.
It pisses me off the way
It pisses me off the way that no one can agree with what the inquiry was about. Hutton thought it was just about the death of David Kelly, but Blair interpreted as clearing him of acting in bad faith, and insisted it meant that when he set up the Butler Review which was forbidden from examining the political decision making process.
Here, if you want a conspiracy, why is the page for the "Listen Again" on the Today Program for 14 October 2006, still broken? Could it be that Ken Livingstone said something in an interview that we were not supposed to hear?
Another puzzle to add to
Another puzzle to add to your bullet points above:
Four electrocardiogram pads, used to monitor the heart, were found on his chest when his body was discovered in woodland a few miles from his home in Oxfordshire on July 18
Why would he wander about with these on?
That'll be your d-notices
That'll be your d-notices then
Referring to goatchurch's
Referring to goatchurch's post
Then why can't they link it
Then why can't they link it to a page which says: "Unfortunately we cannot let you see this journalistic reporting there is a D-notice on this page and the government doesn't want you to see it; please come back when this matter has been cleared up" rather than a 404, cannot find.
Do they think we're stupid? Who's got a spider which we could send all through the BBC site to keep track of other suspicious broken links?
For all the latest research
For all the latest research into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly, see the excellent blog:
blog here
I´m glad you removed the
I´m glad you removed the phrase 911 conspiracy loons.If you said that to this guy you might find yourself on the sharp end of a boot.
Lord Hutton said: "If I had
Lord Hutton said: "If I had delivered a report highly critical of the Government in terms which conformed to the hopes of some commentators, I have no doubt that it would have received much praise.
Of course! What an ejit!!! The people were hoping the enquiry would make 'official', what had become obvious to the public (or at least those not too distracted by Eastenders etc to care). The reason why people had this hope is because the government was guilty as sin!!! Even next doors cat could smell the stench of Blairs lies.
The ISG concluded BEFORE and after the occupation of iraq, that there were no WMD, govt leaks, and plagerised spun theories by students as well as sheer lies by scum like Chalabi and Colin Powell holding up small vials of sugar, fearing the world into thinking Saddam has anthrax etc etc etc.
Almost every aspect of government lies has become visible to the public. We know Blairs fellow crooks and crims deliberately leaked Kelly's name, and I for one have every reason to think that these lackeys actually had him killed.
But the Hutton """""enquiry""""" just proves, yet again, that the suposed rule of law is a myth, just like the democracy myth, like the Blair is a Christian myth, yet people continue to have faith in this sack of s...spuds, of an administration.
And it's just tragic that many others belive the Conservatives or LibDems offer a significant difference.
I guess its easier for people to make their own smoke and mirrors to complement the ones that Blair manages to get away with. Denial of the hard truth is must more pallateable.
conspiraloons ? Davide.
conspiraloons ?
Davide. There is more conspircay fact in 9-11 than there is in the murder of Kelly that you beautifully list earlier.
You call them conspiraloons, yet you say there is some merit in their claims. Then they are not loons - kapiche?
I'd be interested in a a quick post from you listing what aspects of 9-11 are lunacy, and you reasons that see you confortably dismiss those claims.
Don't you think, that if they kill their own like Dr Kelly or sacrifice their soldiers in Iraq on a pack of lies, then the depth of their evil was also active in relation to 9-11?
Davide. I hope your conspiraloons' comment would, upon reflection, be withdrawn.
Craig Murray makes the same mistake (see later)
Craig Murray: Murder
Craig Murray: Murder attempt!
This is a post I made a couple of days ago.
~=~=~=~=~=
Open letter to Craig Murray.
Craig. I am currently listening to a an audio excerpt featuting you dated 13-09-06 Liverpool, from Blairwatch.
In it, you distance yourself from a 9-11 conspiracy becasue as you say, you dont believe the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.
But, one conspiracy you do believe in and state in the audio is the conspiracy to kill you.
Please answer me this: If you believe that someone tried to kill you, then which is more likely? That an individual or lone ranger 'would be assassin' took it soley upon himslef to stop you from exposing the Governments crimes? Or that the would be assassin would be operating on orders? What do you think Craig?
Secondly, if some shadow thinks nothing about killing "one of his own", i.e. you Craig, then why do you think others would care about killing 3000+ New York residents on a Tuesday morning one fine day in late 2001.
Next, consider the structure of the security services. Don't you think is possible, in fact almost certain that there will be 'sepcial elements' within the service that will, from time to time, be called upon by their handler to put "special-ops" into motion?
The idea you painted yourself in regards to dismissing a 9-11 conspiracy which you mentioned on the audio clip, as though some politician announces in the lobby of MI5/6 that he wants some operation done (like a 9-11 on canary wharf), and that the vallient membes would laugh and be horrified at such a request. Such an exposed request is of course, daft. But I put it to you Craig that any operation like this will be done is small and special teams hidden away and secret from the knowledge of others intelligence officers. You may find it valuable to enquire within your contacts for special teams.
Such teams will operate under the philosophy of the ends justify the means. If 50+ people die in the streets of London so that, as their handlers will tell them, 50,000 Brits are saved as well as "the British way of life". What do you think believers in such a philosohy would do.
In an operation such as the first WTC bombings or 7-7, only a very select few will know there was real explosives being used, any others are there to help the operation, and if the patsies believe they are part of an intelligence operation then so much the better. I believe that if you look into the first WTC NY bombing in NY, you will eventually come across the FBI actually issuing isntructions to xyz on where to place an ACTUAL bomb. The FBI bombed their own and blames what are today called 'Islamists'.
To see corruption within the mightly noble services, please research the CIA/FBI 9-11 pre-warnings and why they failed to reach a large audience within the agency and prevent what we know as 9-11
You indicated that you didn't accept the 9-11 conspircy mainly becase you dont see how practically it could be done without too many people knowing about it. I have touched on the number of people needed to conduct black ops already, but practically speaking, I wondered if you were aware of the powerdowns and stories of Jeb Bushs's companied undertaking unusual 'maintenance' in the building before 9-11. Please check out...
You said you believe the Government want to justify more and more authoritarian leglislation. I would like to know what you think will be done once that leglisation is achieved?
ISG clarification. The Iraq
ISG clarification.
The Iraq survey group (ISG) reported (30th september 2004) no WMD's AFTER the occupation of Iraq had been established. When I said they reported before the occuaption I meant to say weapons inspectors who were part of UNSCOM, namely and principly Scott Ritter, were reporting Iraq had no WMD. Apologies for the laxness.
just to add.... Sorry for
just to add....
Sorry for the atrocious spelling in the 'letter to Craig'. It was about 4:50am when I wrote it and I was desparately tired. The meaning should be clear.
It was stratesec that was in
It was stratesec that was in charge of WTC security and
Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of future President George W. Bush, is a director at Stratesec from 1993 to June 2000, when most of their work on these big projects is done. Wirt D. Walker III, a distant relative of George W. Bush, is chairman of the board at Stratesec from 1992, and its CEO from 1999 until January 2002.
Conspiracy loons, if that's what you call sceptics, have to be very careful with the facts. There's enough muddying of the waters surrounding the operation to overcome already
There's a nice article here on the subject here: The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11. Worth a read
Tonys Akiller your points
Tonys Akiller
your points are good ones.Kelly, 911, 7/7.There is a thread of consistency that runs through all these cases.It´s called lies./Hoax.Inside job.
Hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans do not beleive the 911 ripping yarn.Only a fool or someone on the inside(intelligence) would label 911 conspiracy folks loons.sad reflection and an insight into your character buddy.
It rather sounds like a 'who
It rather sounds like a 'who will rid me of this troublesome priest' scenario, except like Blair probably didn't expect Campbell to lift a scene from the Bard.
It isn't a conspiracy theory really is it? I think most people actually think Dr Kelly was eliminated. No matter what the truth actually is, the lousy Hutton inquiry and now the dodgy defence will ensure that the affair is never properly resolved.
Then again, you get what you vote for.
Hutton did such a crap job
Hutton did such a crap job that no one believes him. That's why he is still trying to convince people.
Blair was cacking himself when he heard of Kelly's death. Either he was involved with killing him, or more likely helped cover up who did to save his own political career - the one thing that he cares about above all else.
Marvin P. Bush instead of
Marvin P. Bush instead of Jeb Bush.
Yes, that may well be the case. I didn't have any reference materials to hand when I wrote that letter.
Once again I apologise for an error. My mistakes are innocent.
Thank you for your truthful correction.
www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html
www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
Dianne Abbott is claiming on
Dianne Abbott is claiming on This Week the Labour rebels didn't think all the Tories would vote for an inquiry tabled by Nationalists, that not one Tory would vote for the govenment, and that the problem on the Left was there were no head counts, we did not bother to organise.
So when presented with an exceptionally rare chance to show the force of their ire over Iraq, to show backbone and principle, the courage of their soundbites, and signatures on previous EDMs, rebel MPs simply couldn't be arsed.
Even if it had no chance of successully getting an inquiry, is it not of paramount importance to vote, show the extent of continuing dissent with government's foreign policy in Iraq?
Next time a vocal anti-war MP, who did not "bother" to vote for an inquiry, turns up at an anti-war demo, talk etc, they deserve booing. It is not just Blair and the cabinet, ALL MPs need to know they will be held to account for their actions and inactions. Talk is cheap, it is for their actions in parliament we pay them. Being a media whore - of whatever colour or wing - is not democracy.
WE, the great unwashed, whom MPs nominally represent, didn't get a chance to vote in parliament, we have no real voice, power or chance to push for accountability. Especially not in FPTP "democracy".
To not be arsed about using the power and mandate you have to represent the deeply held views of the majority of your electorate, is negligent, hypocritical and contemptuous.
One Kelly death
One Kelly death possibility
is that the CIA or some other American agency killed him (without asking our government's permission)
In this scenario the British govt panic at the news he was missing would be real. The British secret service would have had to go through the process of finding out what had happened (that someone had killed him, not them), suspect/discover it was the CIA, and only then hurriedly put into place arrangements for a cover up. This might explain some of the messiness of the interference with the crime scene (secret service agents still being around when ordinary coppers are on the scene, for example) and the general implausibility of the medical cover up.
Aaaah. Dianne Abott. Dear
Aaaah. Dianne Abott. Dear darling Diane. Mrs Sweet and Sour. She is rather susceptable to ostentatiousness and losing herself inside the verbolatry of Parliament and political punditry.
Wonder if she has another child, would she follow up the Jonathan Aitken Godfather event by asking, say Bush or Blair to to the honours?
When they get away with it
When they get away with it once, they tend to do it again. Even when not so much is at stake.
I usually have little
I usually have little patience with the conspiraloons who bang on about the various 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracy theories
oh really asshole.you obvously are in the know eh?
Sceptics vs Conspiraloons. A
Sceptics vs Conspiraloons.
A sceptic asks questions based on the absence of information - eg because 7/7 narrative doesn't hang together, then we need an independent enquiry to find out what did happen.
A conspiraloon draws conclusions from that absence of information - eg because 7/7 narrative doesn't hang together then the CIA, MI6, Mossad etc did it.
Not an absolute definition by any means, and maybe Davide wouldn't agree with this simplistic analysis, but for me there is a line between scepticism and conspialoonery.... Not accepting what we are told is not the same as claiming to know what happened, be it 911, 7/7 or the alleged suicide of Dr David Kelly.
There is more than enough
There is more than enough circumstantial evidence that prove without a shadow of a doubt that 911 was an inside job.The contolled collapse of wtc 7 for example.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7961056561589268281&q=911+eyewitness&hl=en
Analysis of the twin towers collapsing indicate controlled demolition. Video of the collapses clearly shows explosions far below the ... all » collapsing buildings. These explosions progress down the side of the buildings at freefall speed, once again proving the fraud of the official 911 Commission cover-up
There is more than enough
There is more than enough circumstantial evidence that prove without a shadow of a doubt that 911 was an inside job.The contolled collapse of wtc 7 for example.
Firstly, there is no circumstantial evidence as such: properly, you are inferring that the building collapsed by means of a controlled demolition rather than structural failure. WTC 7 was an unusual building - although it appeared to be a normal structure, it was in fact built over a large electricity substation and had very wide spans for its girders internally. It seems perfectly reasonable that a fire could cause its collapse.
Remember also that these buildings that collapsed were in the US where building standards are much lower than Europe or Japan. A European building simply would not have collapsed (due to the higher levels of fire protection and redundancy in the structure).
***********
Dick Cheney
Oh please Dick Cheney, I
Oh please Dick Cheney, I cannot believe that post. Please (and I mean it please) go to
http://www.question911.com/index.html
Download the multi part videos
911 mysteries
painful deceptions
BYU professor Steven Jones
Watch them...
I have visited countless
I have visited countless sites promoting the fantasy about controlled demolition; I have watched the Alex Jones videos and several others. It is no coincidence that many of these conspiracy conjecturists are born-again Christian wacks too. There is no reasoning with these people.
***********
Dick Cheney
you are the whack
you are the whack DICKhead.
911 was an inside job.Absolute 100% certainty,not even a tiny bit of doubt.By the way Dick who pays you?
911 was an inside job.Absolute 100% certainty,not even a tiny bit of doubt
Many people may consider my
Many people may consider my views to be a little wacky - after all, critical thinking is considered to be a little 'out there' these days.
I am not certain that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by a bunch of religious nuts. I am not certain of anything. Instead, I take a considered position based on available evidence. It may be that my position changes as new evidence comes to light, but at the moment, the conspiracy theories are implausible.
As to my income, like most people, I earn it by a lot of hard graft.
***********
Dick Cheney
Dickcheney, I have followed
Dickcheney,
I have followed this 911 thing for about 4 years now.I have studied both sides of the argument looked at all the sites.I have no particular axe to grind in any particular political direction,infact I cannot stand politics or politicians.
All the evidence points to 911 being an inside job.Why the fuck anone would believe ANYTHING this Bush admin (or Blairs) would say about anything is beyond me.The US is governed by homicidal maniacs and pathological liars.
If you watch the 911 eyewitness documentary you can hear explosions from across the bay going off BEFORE the collapse of the towers.If you watch the way wtc7 collapsed you can come to no other conclusion than inside job.
interview with Ex-CIA
interview with Ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern. He talks about running into ex-Secretary of the Department of Transportation Norman Mineta and confronting him regarding his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mineta testified that Cheney was well aware of the location and destination of Flight 77 (or whatever it was) and forced NORAD to stand-down and allowed it to hit the Pentagon.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15505.htm
interview with Ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern. He talks about running into ex-Secretary of the Department of Transportation Norman Mineta and confronting him regarding his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mineta testified that Cheney was well aware of the location and destination of Flight 77 (or whatever it was) and forced NORAD to stand-down and allowed it to hit the Pentagon.
interview with Ex-CIA
interview with Ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern. He talks about running into ex-Secretary of the Department of Transportation Norman Mineta and confronting him regarding his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mineta testified that Cheney was well aware of the location and destination of Flight 77 (or whatever it was) and forced NORAD to stand-down and allowed it to hit the Pentagon.
Back to Iraq: CNN is
Back to Iraq:
CNN is reporting War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems.
"A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.
And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.
In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.
The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.
"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground.""
I have visited countless
I have visited countless sites promoting the fantasy about controlled demolition; I have watched the Alex Jones videos and several others. It is no coincidence that many of these conspiracy conjecturists are born-again Christian wacks too. There is no reasoning with these people.
***********
That does not answer anything. Please watch the videos and tell everyone how localised oxygen starved black smoke fires could weaken steel enough to collapse 110 storey steel framed buildings, and at near free fall speed. What about the pulverised concrete? What about the fact that the evidence of a crime scene was hurridly moved away? What about the fact that NORAD did not organise interceptions of the planes?
How come molten metal was found for days or weeks on site?
What about:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Italian-911-Conference-17Sep2006.html
You will just embarrass yourself if you refuse to look at the evidence. I admit nothing is proved 100% but what is beyond question, if the evidence is examined critically is that the official version is untrue.
Returning to the subject, I
Returning to the subject, I ran into a letter to the editor by a one Lord Hutton and was forced to writetothem.com using the fax machine in the House of Lords
----------
Dear Lord Hutton,
As a member of the general public to whom your recent letters to the Times are intended to persuade, I feel it is necessary to put down clearly why your report into the death of Dr Kelly is reasonably perceived as a whitewash.
The overwhelming critique or your report is its utter silence with regard to the underlying observations that the 45 minute figure, the uranium from Niger claim, and every single other allegation made by the Government about Iraq’s WMD which sought to explain the necessity of a full military invasion of that country was false.
This is the suspicious dead body, separate from that of the unfortunate David Kelly, which has never been accounted for.
Andrew Gilligan reported through the BBC that the falsification of the intelligence  which must have occurred somewhere between the facts on the ground and what was printed by the Government  occurred at the level of the Prime Minister’s office.
In your report you concluded that this was not so. Therefore, by implication, the falsification must have occurred at a lower level. However, we have seen no sign of a genuine investigation, process of accountability, or official apology to the UK or the Iraqi people who have died in vast numbers for this “intelligence failureâ€Â.
This leads people to the reasonable conclusion that either the Government does not care when it is mislead by its servants in the intelligence community, or they authored the fallacies, have no interest in exposing them, and you sat there and whitewashed it.
Yours,
Julian Todd.
Sceptics / Conspiraloons /
Sceptics / Conspiraloons / Denialists.
"The narrative doesn't hang together". I want to examine this label.
To me, this kind of terminology is an attempt by what used to be called "conspiracy theorists", to try and gain more acceptability, to attempt a distancing by themselves from the imagery of ridicule which the establishment - those who the conspiracy theorists point towards! - has successfully managed to construct in order for the conspiracy to fall in line with the ridicule. After all, what image do you think would most would visualise when they hear the words "conspiracy theorist"? Is it likely that a jerk or UFO 'nut' would be the perception?
One can to a degree, understand why 'new age' conspiracy theorists may try this new packaging in an attempt to reach a greater audience and make ears more receptive but, it is also a tactic that would also be used by those charged with preventing the truth from emerging, to defend the establishment. Infiltrate the movement and bring it down or at least divert it.
For these genuine advocates of the new packaging, they have (perhaps inadvertently) fallen foul of two undesirable things of this new branding, which plays into the hands of those defending the liars and killers just mentioned.
First off, and it is hugely evident in the 9-11 truth movement, is that it's only skin deep. evidence of government involvement, only goes to far as to expose that fact. Thereafter, the truth movement becomes dumbstruck as to the consequences of that. i.e. litigation against those responsible and mass public demonstrations should the crooks and crims not be brought to justice.
Secondly is the internal attacks on those brave souls who do actually take the second step and directly name those responsible. Those that have actually drawn a conclusion and want to make the truth lead onto justice. Let's not have our fear of the establishment (and of ourselves) to have a truthful narrative but no consequence. Such half-heartedness is a deep disrespect against the victims of these conspiracies, and betrayal of the truth.
Again there is volumes of EVIDENCE that shows the US government at best allowed 9-11 to happen, at worst actually too part in its occurring, and are covering this up. By definition that IS a conspiracy. Its the same thing for 7-7. But then we get the wishy-washy non-commitment brigade that will never take the next step.
Its not as if, for example, the British government just happened to accidentally/innocently made some trivial or simple errors about the circumstances of 7-7, or 9-11, but just have been a bit lazy or sloppy to give a comprehensive account, in other words, the underlying official explanation is correct but hasn't managed to give the sufficient account. Absolutely not. The omissions, distortions, outright lies and obstructions are living evidence to a conspiracy, action as I said, are the definition of a conspiracy.
When the "truth movement" play this corrupt game, it becomes part of the problem. Shame on those who attack others who point the finger and demand action. Its not like Mossad/CIA/FBI are accused with no evidence. There is evidence. Living is a world of denial in relation t conspiracy consequence is morally and intellectually bankrupt and indicative of employing the methodology of those defenders of death and oppression.
ringverse's definitions
ringverse's definitions implies that to make conclusions from questions, which any intelligent person should, contains an element of lunacy. So ringverse after you have asked your sceptical questions what then? Where is your counter argument against conclusions that point to Mossad/CIA etc?
You don’t dismiss evidence or suggestions that point to CIA/MI6/Mossad, whatever, just BECAUSE that is the direction the evidence points towards!; Which is what many ‘truth only, no consequence’ supporters do.
I’d like to hear what explanations you accept which take you away from the secret service agencies being involved. Can I have such an explanation?
Julian. Nice letter. Here's
Julian. Nice letter.
Here's an extract from
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Press/040129.htm
Start"
The scope of the Hutton enquiry was to "urgently conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly". Lord Hutton decided that the question of whether the intelligence in relation to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) "was of sufficient strength and reliability to justify the Government in deciding that Iraq under Saddam Hussein posed such a threat to the safety and interests of the United Kingdom that military action should be taken against that country" was not one that fell within his terms of reference. (para. 9)
" End.
Here evidence of Hutton imposing restrictions upon himself which of course would mean that the stated purpose of the investigation, "to urgently conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly" would never see the light of day. Dr Kelly's death would not in fact be investigated.
If we credit Hutton with an ounce of intelligence (dangerous, I know) then there can be only one reason why he destroyed the very purpose of the enquiry and that is to avoid the truth and consequences of what had happened.
Weren't the public in a state of shock and disbelief when the report came out? It had gone off on a critique of the BBC setting out a path of tears for any other journalist who, AS PROVED, exposed the fact the government lied. The Leaked memo's also prove the government lied. Gilligan is a HERO.
Hutton and his fellow crooks and crims know all this, and they continually get away with it.
Another good
Another good extract:
http://www.orangeminds.com/1moreface/archives/000038.html
Start "
How can the government not have been found to have interfered with the intelligence community. The politicians ask for evidence to support a war, the JIC provide something which is then edited further by the government, and then used as evidence for the need for war. Indeed one of the "edits" concerns a point made in the original dossier that Saddam was unlikely to use WMD's unless attacked, that was of course removed. Doesn't this sound improper to anyone? Shouldn't we require better evidence than this when we attack a country without them attacking us first?
And here's another interesting thing. Tony Blair says that he has nothing to do with the naming strategy for David Kelly on a plane. He never repeats that claim, and is directly contradicted in evidence given by a senior civil servant. Hutton exonerates him of any wrongdoing (?). Nick Gilligan pushes his claims too far in a single interview at 6:07AM, which he never repeats again, but he is described as an unreliable witness. The conclusions and summaries just don't scan. It seems like Tony Blair is given wide allowances for improper conduct, but the BBC is not allowed to make any mistakes whatsoever.
" End
I would like to remind fellow chroniclers' of the role played by the disgusting Alastair Campbell. An unelected usurper of British democracy (what scraps remain of it) who should be prosecuted for his role in the Iraq war.
Also, please read this article (for those who haven’t yet come across it)
TITLE: Why I believe David Kelly's death may have been murder, by MP
INTRO: David Kelly did not commit suicide and may have been the victim of a murder and subsequent cover-up, according to a campaigning MP.
Norman Baker has spent six months investigating the death of the Government weapons expert, found dead in an Oxfordshire wood three years ago.
URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=397256&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source
Who is this Nick
Who is this Nick Gilligan?
Never heard of him.
What baring does he have on the Hutton report?
Tonys Akiller, some of the valid points you have made on Blairwatch in this comment stream (and in the past, if memory serves me right) have been totally undermined by your sloppy mistakes: the hero of whom you speak (and I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment) is ANDREW Gilligan, not Nick.
Mistakes always undermine arguements, however well intentioned they are.
Imagine Gilligan had not only just got up, had re-read his notes before opening his mouth and was prepared for the 6.07am Today report, as he was for later ones.
The essence of his report was truthful and devestating for government. Had he not fucked up the 6.07 presentation so badly, the evil scrote Campbell would not have been able to manipulate the situation into being all about GIlligan's mistake, but about Blair and Campbell's lies(and JIC's and the list goes on ad-bloody-nauseum) to get us to war.
And that could have brought government down.
So, ANDREW Gilligan, through his own sloppiness can be cast as both the hero - for bringing forth the truth to the masses; and the villan - for fucking it up doing it so badly that he, rather than his expose of government corruption, became the story, allowing those who must be brought to justice for their lies to play smoke and mirrors with several Lords. A twatish mistake with real consequences for UK and Iraq.
You are obviously widely read and knowledgable on the topics of which you write, why screw up your arguements with simple mistakes such as getting Gilligan's name wrong? Think and check before you write, and the "totality" of your arguements will not be so easy to dismiss.
sue denim I apologise for
sue denim
I apologise for the mistake of QUOTING THE WORK OF SOMEONE ELSE. Work what contained an incorrect name, work which played 'the Hutton game' - criticising Gilligan - to highlight the double standards applied to him and not our Tony.
Fastidiousness only undermines my points if one is searching for an excuse to try and collapse what I say, so that it doesn't need to answered. To err is human, which is what I am. What are you then? Are you human? I mean your criticism of me obviously reveals a personal history whereby, whenever you quote SOMEONE ELSES WORK, that source is always utterly flawless.
But I accept the criticism. Yes, I should have checked it or made clear the error in a commentators note, but I feel you are sending me for a 10 year prison sentence for lobbing out a cheezy wotsit out of the car window. Out of curiosity, does everyone else consider it such a terrible crime?
How exactly does that error undermine the fact that many of the general 9-11 type truth movement are scared to name names and follow up their findings? How does it undermine are facts which explicitly show the US administration deliberately allowed 9-11 to happen. That photos of 7-7 bombers were doctored, that they were said to have caught cancelled trains? The Netanyahu warnings? The TATP rubbish. The non-working cameras? The parking stickers, Visor consultants, not to mention the DeMenezes assassination, the fake bombings of 21-7, The Canary Wharf attack? all the other utter nonsense etc. etc. etc.
I don’t think it does. Does it?
If you read my comment, rather than jumping the gun to point out an incorrect name, you will notice it is me that says Gilligan is a HERO. What he found out is the truth. There isn't any question about that. He could perhaps have been more effective with it. Perhaps a vision of being a British Seymour Hersh got the better of him, causing him to rush it in some way. But even this is a side issue. The fundamental case was correct. The government DID lie and spin it. Nous convenons, oui?
Well we could spend much
Well we could spend much time debating each other's accuracies (or otherwise), but for what purpose? For example, whilst Tonys AKiller might get Gilligan's forename wrong, sue denim might care to run a spell-check on his/her work.
Is this forum about an exchange of views or just a general bearpit for slagging other contributors off? I can't see the difference that a simple error makes. Let's just get on with the debate, eh?