Revealed: How Dr David Kelly set out case for war

Here is the front page story from today's UK Observer. I will post the David Kelly article too, but I will also ask a question.

If David Kelly belived all this stuff, then why did he tell be the BBC that the dossier was sexed up?

Make of all this what you will.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032698,00.html

A remarkable article by Dr David Kelly, published for the first time today, reveals the government scientist's true views ahead of the war on Iraq and his expert assessment of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

In a development which could have a major influence on the Hutton inquiry, Kelly said that, although the threat was 'modest', he believed military action was the only way to 'conclusively disarm' the country.

He also argued that there was evidence Saddam still had chemical and biological weapons and regime change, the policy of the United States, was the only way to stop the Iraqi dictator.

The article was written for a major report on Iraq being compiled a few weeks before the war. Kelly had agreed to write it anonymously, but the piece was never published.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032773,00.html

an article written by him, found after his death which clears Blair et al of wrongdoing.

What a happy coincidence.

And they lived happily ever after.


Cher

Such as...

Why have none of these weapons been found since we invaded?

And why if Kelly belived all this stuff did he speak to the BBC about how the dossier was sexed up?

Kelly speaks of how "War may now be inevitable" but how did he really feel about this? I will draw your attention to the following titbit from the Hutton enquiry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3171477.stm

Mr Broucher said Dr Kelly had "tried to reassure them that if they cooperate with the weapons inspectors, they had nothing to fear".

The diplomat's impression was that Dr Kelly had felt "some personal difficulty or embarrassment over this because he believed the invasion might go ahead anyway and that some how it was putting him in a morally ambiguous position".

And then it happened. The bombshell. Mr Broucher's own weapon of mass destruction.

As Dr Kelly was leaving their rendez-vous, he asked him what would happen if Iraq is invaded. "He said: 'I will probably be found dead in the woods'," recalled Mr Broucher.

And lastly, I will draw your attention to the following bit towards the end of Kelly's article.

The threat from Iraq's chemical and biological weapons is, however, unlikely to substantially affect the operational capabilities of US and British troops. Nor is it likely to create massive casualties in adjacent countries.

Ever get the feeling that Iraq was not a threat?

Kelly was saying that Saddam wasn't an immediate threat but that he might be one in the future. I think the whole "sexing up" issue is that the war was sold as being to stop an immediate threat.

bullshit.

<http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1032860,00.html>
What Kelly really thought about the war in Iraq

People are getting irritated with this propaganda spewing from
phoney sources!!!

... and they don't author posthumous articles exonerating their masters, either.

Sick.

This just floors me - the Guardian is posting this without any question of whether it's real. HELLO GUARDIAN! Do you not remember the mysterious documents that purported to show anti-war MP George Galloway on the take with Saddam Hussein? You know, the ones that were found to be forgeries? Or how about that Nigerian yellow cake, huh?

One thing this "paper" does do is reinforce my belief that the Bush / Blair cabal is producing forgeries itself, and not just throwing out stuff that comes in over the transom.

Even those of us who opposed the invasion allowed that there might be some rudimentary programs. The argument that a continuous inspections regime would have prevented further significant development is still supportable, Dr. Kelly's opinion notwitstanding.

It is interesting to note the divergence of opinion between Dr. Kelly and Scott Ritter. Looking at largely the same data, they drew opposite conclusions. Aside from legality, this kind of ambiguity may be the most siginificant indictment of the pre-emption policy.

Why as a matter of fact, I found a crumpled up piece of paper in my sock drawer the other day. On it was chicken scratch that could only be from the King...you know...ELVIS!

Dear Rex

I luv me some tater tots.

Signed,
Anonymous

I mean, WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED! :silly: