|Dark actors dark forces? William Bowles (28/07/03)|
So Dr David Kellys media contact on the New York Times was, according to the Independent on Sunday (27/07/03), Judith Miller (more on Ms Miller below). The same piece also alluded to the fact that Kelly had had a longstanding relationship with journalists. The more we know about Kelly, the less we know. What is absolutely clear, is that he played a key role in the creation of the September 2002 document. There are many unanswered questions about Kellys role in the run-up to and the invasion, such as:
Given his central role in the September document, he surely must have known well before its release in September 2002, that it contained false information to boost the case for war. So why wait until May of this year before voicing his concerns?
Surely, if this is so, it makes more sense for him come clean and expose the governments role rather than kill himself? Is it credible to believe that his allegiance to the government was so strong, that he would rather kill himself than betray it? And if so, why did he leak such potentially damaging information to journalists in the first place? And was he really forced by the MoD to make false statements to the Commons Select Committee about being Gilligan's source, which led him to kill himself, as his fellow weapons expert Alistair Hay asserts? And is this a credible assertion?
Surely, he would have wanted the world to know? And given all the leaks put out by Kelly to any number of journalists, it seems invconceivable that he didnt commit his thoughts to paper.
If, as Kelly claimed, he was being hounded by the press, and, as it has been claimed (although the government denies this, in which case, where did the story emanate from?), he had been moved to a safe house to avoid media attention, what was he doing walking unattended (and unobserved) on the day that he allegedly committed suicide?
This question has never been satisfactorily answered and indeed, points to a hidden agenda of some kind. Leaks never occur unless either, it benefits the leakee or whoever is the recipient of the leak.
The Independent made much of this quote but what does it actually mean? Without knowing the nature of Kellys complaints about the MoD, it tells us nothing of relevance to the issue at hand. For all we know, he may have just thought the people he dealt with in the MoD were a bunch of bozos.
It has been revealed ""that he [Kelly] had been appointed a "special deputy chief scientific officer", a rarely used civil service grade that allowed him to move in senior circles without having administrative responsibilities."" I find it inconceivable that a person with such a high security rating and a track record with the government going back two decades, would say anything to anyone about his work, not even when he took his tea break (apparently this too, breaches the Official Secrets Act that Kelly would have had to sign).
Judith Miller, in the book she co-wrote, Germ, praises Kelly as part of the "Gang of Four", senior inspectors, who, according to Miller, got the Iraqis to reveal the extent of their bio-weapons programme. Yet surely, Kelly would have known that throughout the 1980s, it had been US, UK, Argentinian and German companies with USUK government complicity, that had supplied Iraq with the means to create their chemical and biological weapons in the first place? After all, its no secret, as I have pointed out in earlier essays on this subject. Even Jack Straw has admitted to this (although he blamed the then Tory government for it).
From hawk to dove?
"It is beginning to look as if the Governments committed a monumental blunder."
These are not the words of someone who realises hes been duped, but that the government has screwed up. More likely is the fact that Kellys advice to the government about how to handle the propaganda war had been ignored, not because it consisted of lies but because the lies werent convincing enough. In other words, he didnt have a change of heart but that as the Independent says, "many people were expressing unease about questions of accuracy and emphasis," not the overall objective.
As youll see below, whatever Miller chose to release, she had an ulterior motive. By itself, the phrase is meaningless; it could refer to almost anything including Saddam Hussein and his entourage. What it does do, is add yet more confusion. We dont even know if its an accurate attribution and given Millers record, theres no reason to believe that the quote is in fact Kellys.
Who is Judith Miller?
An article on Slate.com by By Jack Shafer (29/05/03) entitled,
It contains the following by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz of,
"[A]n internal Times e-mail in which Miller described Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial Iraq leader, former exile, and Bush administration fave, as one of her main sources on WMD."
The email says,
""[Chalabi] has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper," Miller e-mailed Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns. Miller added that the MET Alphaa military outfit searching for WMD after the invasion"is using Chalabi's intell and document network for its own WMD work.""
(What was Dr Kellys relationship with MET Alpha? He was after all, overall head of the British component of the Iraq Survey Group.)
Shafer goes on to say,
"The failure of "Chalabi's intell" to uncover any WMD has embarrassed both the United States and Miller. As noted previously in this column, she oversold the successes of the post-invasion WMD search. On April 21, she reported in the Times that an Iraqi scientist had led MET Alpha to a site where Iraqis had buried chemical precursors for chemical and biological weapons. "Officials" told Miller this was "the most important discovery to date in the hunt for illegal weapons."
On April 22, Miller told The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer the military regarded the scientist as much more than "a smoking gun" in the WMD investigationhe was "a silver bullet." For all of Miller's fist-pumping on behalf of MET Alpha, none of her spectacular findings have been confirmed by other newspapers. (The Washington Post's Barton Gellman did an especially good job of poking holes in Miller's scoop.) The Times has never returned to the MET Alpha "burial grounds" to defend her heavily hyped "silver bullet" account."
And in a report by Paul Sperry, Washington bureau chief for WorldNetDaily.com, we read,
"In 1990, Mylroie co-authored with Judith Miller another Iraq book called "Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf." Miller is the New York Times reporter who broke, with another reporter, the blockbuster story last September that Hussein was trying to import aluminum tubing to restart a nuclear weapons program.
"The claim, which she attributed to unnamed Bush administration "hard-liners" and Iraqi defectors, was touted by Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice the day it appeared. But it`s now under serious dispute. Miller, who is close to Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith, another noted neocon, also broke the now widely discredited story that two trailers found in Iraq were disguised mobile bioweapons labs.
"It was recently revealed that the source of several of Miller`s Iraq stories was Ahmed Chalabi an Iraqi defector favored by the administration to replace Hussein, and one with whom Miller has had a 10-year relationship. U.S. intelligence officials tell WorldNetDaily the vast majority of the information Chalabi has provided on Hussein`s regime has proved to be unreliable or false. The CIA and FBI no longer rely on him as a source, they say.
"However, officials say he remained a key source of intelligence for a temporary shop Feith and others set up at the Pentagon before the war called the Office of Special Plans. They say Chalabi`s information made it to the White House through that special office. At the time Mylroie teamed up with Miller on her first book, she was a fellow at the Bradley Foundation, which is tied to AEI and Bill Kristol`s Project for a New American Century, which led the Iraq war charge."
Theres more on the role that Judith Miller played as a conduit for the warmongers and as a mouthpiece for the neo-con disinformation campaign, but it hardly seems necessary. If youve a mind to, just go to Google and enter "Judith Miller" + CIA and several thousand pages will pop up on Millers connections both to the CIA, the INC and the hard-liners in the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the PNAC and elsewhere on the Beltway and the Office of Special Plans. The critical question is what was Dr Kellys relationship to Miller?
The media buffs amongst you will also surely want to know why the New York Times employed Judith Miller to write for them, knowing her connection to the government, the neo-cons and the INC?
Exaggeration or just downright lies?
Either way, Blair was in a bind, as he had never used the internal record of the Baath regime as the reason for the invasion and neither did it figure in UN Resolution 1441. As its clear that both Bush/Blair knew that Iraq was not a military threat (after all, why use phony reasons and forged documents to back up its claim if it had real evidence?), it follows logically, that the reason for the invasion was not the one given by Blair (or Bush).
Take for example, Clare Shorts latest statement. On the one hand, she says in todays Independent (28/07/03) that Blair did not start out,
"[T]o tell a heap of lies he thought he was doing the right thing . I think he deceived himself and he deceived us."
Yet earlier on in the front page article, she describes Blair as an,
"[E]mperor and a neo-conservative . He is a complete convert to the neo-conservative view of the world."
Im not sure how these two interpretations of Blairs actions can be squared with each other unless he started out as a neo-con. Either, he is a neo-con totally wedded to the ideology of the New American Century or he is misguided but essentially well meaning. Whats it to be Ms Short?
She also puts great store on Blairs reliance on spin as if spin is the objective rather than a means to an objective. Is Short so naïve that she cant see through the spin to the real reasons that underpin the neo-con agenda that she claims Blair is now wedded to? Its as if, along with the rest of the so-called critics of the invasion that she just cant bring herself to say, "Li lia liar-liar! Pants on fire!" To do so, would of course, undermine the entire credibility not only of the government but also the medias complicity in one, giant spin of a story.
All content on this site is copyright © 1987-2003 William Bowles unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved. You have the right to reproduce content if it is not-for-profit, non-commercial or fair use. For commercial reproduction, please contact the copyright owner.