|
Edited on Tue Feb-19-08 03:56 PM by Peace Patriot
"...according to the Edmonds story, Brewster-Jennings was investigating illegal nuke sales (involving Turkey). Cheney and gang don't like being investigated." --RuleofNah
Cheney & cabal had a lot of reasons to hate Brewster-Jennings and all those in the CIA who considered it their job to prevent wars, not to manufacture them. And this Bushite cabal is very, very, VERY dirty on weapons proliferation, illicit weapons and drug trafficking, and mind-boggling thievery. And there is evidence that they were gunning for Brewster-Jennings long before the events of July 2003--including this recent Edmonds revelation that Grossman (State Dept.) leaked B/J's CIA connection to facilitate the Turkey nukes deal.
But I think the dates of the Plame-B/J outings and Kelly's whistleblowing and murder point to a specific motivation that summer, during that period in July. Some people red-flag the date 7/6/03--Wilson's publication in the NYT of his op-ed debunking the Niger/Iraq nuke connection. I'm not so sure. I think what happened the next day--7/7/03--when Tony Blair was information (as the result of the interrogation of David Kelly) that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things" may be more important in understanding the whole event. Kelly was dead within 10 days of that report to Blair (after they tried to force him to recant before the parliamentary committee). His death occurred four days after Plame was outed (7/14/03). They tossed his office. Then they ADDITIONALLY outed Brewster-Jennings, so that, if any bad guys in foreign governments, or illicit weapons networks, hadn't been able to identify counter-proliferation agents/contacts by association with her name, they might find them--and kill them--through signs of their contact with the company, Brewster-Jennings (letters, emails, meeting logs).
It appears to me that--whatever long range plans Cheney, Rumsfeld & co. had to destroy the CIA--they acted very precipitously, and in a panic--during the weeks of July 7-22. IF they were merely reacting to Wilson's op-ed, their reaction was excessively risky, and ill thought out. They had almost complete control of the media at that point. One op-ed by an ex-diplomat could have easily just slid into the corporate media river of forgetfulness, without any action by them at all. They put their top team on it, immediately--and put many top Bushites at risk of treason charges. Why their terror at this one op-ed? It doesn't make much sense--until you put it in the context of what was happening in England--a very similar event, but with more media attention, and even more panic. And all this was because of exaggerated pre-war intel? I just don't believe it. I don't think they were worried about that particular accusation. They had the media COVERED--it was relentless, 24/7, warmongering propaganda, at that point. And they were furthermore putting a system of electronic voting machines in place, run on 'trade secret,' proprietary software, owned and controlled by three corporations with very close ties to the Bush regime--as their "ace in the hole" for guaranteeing a voter endorsement of the war in the 2004 election. They had all the bases covered. Why did they go after Plame and Brewster-Jennings THAT week?
IF they were planning a triumphant announcement of the "find" of their planted WMDs in Iraq, then the kind of anger that could fuel these highly risky outings (and Kelly's murder) begins to make sense. And IF they were, in addition, panicked about disclosure of their plan to plant the weapons (a far worse accusation than that they had merely exaggerated things before the war, and one that would be difficult to manipulate, even with very friendly media), then this hasty and concurrent series of events--interrogating Kelly, outing Plame, murdering Kelly and outing all of B/J--also begins to make sense. It was not some sort of vague grudge (however deep, and however criminal). The outings and the murder had a specific trigger. It was not well-designed. If it had been, we never would have heard about it. And because it was hasty, panicky and ill thought out, we DID hear about it. Plame was outed in a NEWSPAPER. Kelly was silenced with spectacular lack of forethought--days after the government outed his name to the press, and sent him home without protection, and apparently without surveillance (not credible). Where was his surveillance as he bled to death all night under a tree near his home, from a minor wrist cut? The holes in the official story of his death are miles wide. His murder was hasty, panicky and ill thought out. And I think it had nothing to do with what he actually said to the BBC--the "sexed up" pre-war intel--except that he was now a known whistleblower, unhappy with the government, and a danger to them if he knew something ELSE--something worse.
If their worry was only what he had said to the BBC to that point, they could have quietly retired him, perhaps with a few threats against his family. Kelly was not a crusader. He knew about the exaggerated intel before the war. His comments were post-war, and could not significantly affect events from that point on. No reason at all to kill him--and in such blatant fashion--unless he knew something far more dangerous. (Similarly, if their worry about Joe Wilson was merely his crying foul on the Niger/Iraq nuke connection--after the war!--there were plenty of ways to punish and silence him, short of bringing the entire CIA into action in defense of its own, by outing agents and networks).
And, further, consider this: THEY thought that the disclosure of this worse thing was imminent. Look at it from THEIR point of view (devious, dirty, murderous Bushites): You have this clandestine plan in motion (to get the weapons into Iraq). Or, you've already tried it, you got foiled by someone and had given it up (and were already inventing phrases like "WMD program-related activities). In any case, you were guilty of far more than lying. You were guilty of trying to plant the evidence--a hanging offense. Then this thing blows up in England--an insider saying you'd exaggerated the threat. By sometime in June, you know who the whistleblower is. You know he is well-connected, including having friends in the Iraqi science community and their weapons industry--he was a UN weapons inspector.* Then, on this side of the pond, Wilson publishes his op-ed, saying essentially the same thing--you'd lied about the weapons. IF you have this deep dark secret--that you had tried, or were still trying, to plant the weapons--would these two events not fill you with fear? Why were they whistleblowing? What did they know? Did they know that the lying was only part 1, and that the "discovery" of the phony, planted weapons was part 2? And if they knew, and if they felt confident enough to start whistleblowing, how many others knew? How far had it gotten?
Solution: Out Plame, who was in a good position to know what they were really up to (and, of course, was connected to Wilson). Murder Kelly, who very clearly knew something, was not pledged to a lifetime of silence (like CIA agents are), and was already "off the reservation" (a whistleblower). And then--after searching his office and computers--out everybody--all those who might know (the B/J counter-proliferation network) and those, also, who might have foiled the scheme (neutralize them, silence them, get them killed).
These actions speak of fear and haste--all concentrated in a two-week period, at the time that it was becoming apparent that no WMDs would be found in Iraq. The Bush Junta had spoken of it DEFINITIVELY, without any doubts, without any careful hedgings. They had wildly and recklessly PREDICTED that WMDs would be found, when they knew that it was not only an exaggeration--it was more than likely patently false. Indeed, they went out of their way to plant the Niger/Iraq nuke allegation in Bush's State of the Union speech, after the CIA and others had debunked the Niger forgeries--something Bush was forced to apologize for, later. There are so many ways this could have been handled to prevent the embarrassment of no weapons being found. They played it like they were absolutely sure they would be. Why? Because (according to this theory) they had a plan to plant the weapons. (Rumsfeld's deliberately created chaos in the first months of the invasion/occupation may have been part of the plan. He also apparently signed a special "embed" contract for Judith Miller to accompany the U.S. troops who were "hunting" for the weapons in Iraq, to give his mole at the NYT the "big scoop.")
Anyway, that's the theory, and how it answers some of the questions regarding what might be a typical timeline of initiation/execution of crippling a CIA operation and murdering an insider white guy who was a threat. These were panicky acts, in response to a specific threat, that arose in that time-frame (May-July 2003), culminating in the hasty, ill thought out actions of July 14-22.
There is another part to this theory that posits a long term Rumsfeld plan, going way back at least to the Rome meeting in 2001, where it is believed that the Niger forgeries were first cooked up. The gist of the plan was to "get" the CIA, by, a) providing them with obvious Niger forgeries (often described as "crude" forgeries--easily detectable), to get the CIA to debunk the allegation that Saddam had nukes, early and publicly (as with an op-ed in the NYT!), and b) then discredit them when the planted nukes were "found" and justify purging them. This plan went awry when someone foiled part 2 (the planting of the weapons). Now they had a P.R. disaster on their hands--not only no WMDs in Iraq, but, whoever foiled it KNEW what they had tried to do. An item in favor of this theory is that there is evidence that the Bushites (Rice in particular) were baiting Wilson to publish his article, throughout the spring '03 period. That is, they WANTED someone whom they could connect with the CIA to publicly debunk the nuke allegation--as prep for the triumphant announcement that the nukes had been "found." And if this is more or less what happened, they must have been furious when their nefarious scheme started to go bad on them, with (at least in their minds) threat of exposure of the whole thing.
Whatever the truth is about WMDs, I think it's more than likely true that Rumsfeld & co. were engaged in long term plotting against anyone in the CIA, or anywhere in the government, who were trying to do their jobs as patriotic Americans and honest professionals--and especially anyone who could investigate illicit weapons traffic and illicit money. Rumsfeld created his own intelligence/black-ops shop, the Office of Special Plans, at the Pentagon, to get AROUND the CIA and other honest professionals, with regard to "cherry-picking" and "cooking" intelligence--and no one overseeing it (certainly not Bush or Cheney, or the wimps in Congress). God knows what Rumsfeld got up to. (Torture for fun and profit? Torture to eliminate witnesses to 9/11 money transactions? Planting child porn in the computers of any military officers who balked at nuking Iran?) They're so evil that it's sometimes hard to focus down on a case like this--Plame, Kelly--and figure out what their motives and goals may have been AT THAT TIME--before they solidified their power with the stolen election of 2004. What this theory posits is a foiled plan (probably one of many), and damage control on THIS plan--the planted weapons scheme went awry; no weapons were found; insiders onto it--in THIS time-frame. It likely has spidery fingers to other rotten schemes--like the Turkey/Pakistan nuke deals. If there is one thing we know about this gang, it's that they never want to see a nuclear weapons ban on earth. They are into proliferation of every kind of weapon--the more horrific (and expensive) the better. Peace on earth ain't in it.
------------------------------
*(I think David Kelly's identity may have been the dark part of Judith Miller's conversations with Scooter Libby during this period--the part she bargained with Patrick Fitzgerald NOT to disclose in her Libby testimony. Miller was close friends with David Kelly. He wrote his last email to her, on 7/17/03--the one about the "many dark actors playing games." Did she rat on David Kelly to Libby, and then the Bushites told the Blairites who the whistleblower was? The time-line fits. There were several clandestine Libby-Miller meetings in May-June 03. The Blairites discovered who the whistleblower was in late June. Further, Kelly himself was mystified as to how that happened.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
