Captain Courageous Witnessed: Dr. Kelly Assassinated!
So you’ll never tell anyone else that your government sexed up the evidence on weapons of mass destruction, will you? Well, at least I’ve told what I know about the Bush Team’s cover-up of military casualties, whatever he does to me. You became frightened and tried to recant, while I’ve been flying at them stirring up as much fuss as possible. I hope my plan works better than yours.
December 10, 2009
Dr. David Kelly, the UK scientist and war critic with connections to the BBC and the New York Times, predicted that he would be assassinated for daring to be right about the lack of Iraq WMD evidence while UK leaders chose to be wrong. His corpse, found on July 17, 2003 under mysterious circumstances, proved his prescience. At the time Tony Blair and George W. Bush were meeting in Washington to discuss their wobbly war, and to menace their critics. Coming when it did, Kelly’s murder was something right out of Macbeth or Machiavelli.
Captain Eric H. May, the U.S. journalist and war critic with connections to NBC and the New York Times, likewise predicted that he would be assassinated for speaking truth to power about the Iraq war. Ironically, May, a lifelong Texan, had contacts, even friendships, with Bush administration insiders. In 1995 The Wall Street Journal asked him to write an essay on the art of executive speech writing. A year later he was interviewing with Team Bush about becoming the then-governor’s speechwriter for the upcoming 2000 presidential campaign.
After the outbreak of the Iraq war, though, the former Army intelligence officer became an enemy of what he contemptuously called the “Bush League” when it collaborated with the mainstream media to cover up the April 5-9 Battle of Baghdad. Heavy Army and Marine losses were hidden under embellished stories about Pvt. Jessica Lynch. During this heinous act of stolen valor, the Bush administration kept a lid on things back in the U.S. by threatening and medicating the bereaved families of the fallen.
Exposing the Battle of Baghdad Cover-Up (BOBCUP) became Captain May’s crusade. He confirmed it through political, media, and military contacts. Going to Ft. Stewart, Ga., he received details of the battle, and a chilling death threat from a Special Forces officer. Col. Neil Dennington’s insinuation that dissent would be met with “special forces detachment” was an early hint of the Bush/Cheney “executive assassination” Special Forces detachments reported by New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh last year.
After the 2003 July 4th weekend, three months after BOBCUP, May sensed an anti-Bush movement in the country, especially within the armed forces, and resolved to tell the truth to the American people, damn the consequences. He knew that it would be a perilous mission. An astute political observer, he anticipated and annotated the US/UK assassinations of July 17-22, 2003. During this “July Jumble,” as it came to be called, a wide array of VIP figures would be murdered, including the UK’s David Kelly, New York City Councilman James Davis and Saddam Hussein’s sons, Uday and Qusay. George W. Bush may have been on the hit list himself, as suggested by the notorious “Shooting Bush” political cartoon published by the LA Times on July 20 — in the middle of the July Jumble: http://www.why-war.com/files/politicsshootingbush.jpg.
Surprised to find himself still alive at the end of it all, May published a report that has already become an underground classic of military intelligence and principled action. The Lone Star Iconoclast is proud to vouch for the valor of its intelligence editor, Captain Eric H. May, and the validity of his historic opus, Ghost Troop Introduction, http://tinyurl.com/6e76bq. In it investigators and readers will find e-mails exposing the motives behind war and politics — as well as cover-up and assassination. They will find the best military analyses in America, both published and unpublishable. Finally, they will find appended information proving that, if dedicated to his cause, a courageous captain may win a battle, influence a war, and even change the course of history.
* * * * * * * * *
Founded in 2000 to cover Crawford, Texas — home of Bush’s “Western White House” — The Lone Star Iconoclast received international acclaim as much-needed Texas truth in the post-9/11 neocon wilderness.
For further reference:
Dr Kelly WAS murdered and there has to be a new inquest, say six top doctors
Permission granted to republish this column.
Shock & Obama
Finally, President Barack Obama and Karl Rove agree on something: the escalation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan is a must. Obama declared last Tuesday night that he would increase U.S. troop levels to 30,000 at $30 billion over the next year; plus, he added some mystery into the equation with a vague timetable for withdrawal.
President Keeps Campaign Plank To Escalate Afghan War
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Finally, President Barack Obama and Karl Rove agree on something: the escalation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan is a must.
Obama declared last Tuesday night that he would increase U.S. troop levels to 30,000 at $30 billion over the next year; plus, he added some mystery into the equation with a vague timetable for withdrawal.
And he did so all in the name of “our vital national interest.”
For Rove, even the speculation of Obama’s escalation was almost too good to be true.
“And if the president does do that, I’ll be among the first to stand up and applaud,” said the former advisor to President George W. Bush on the Today Show last Tuesday morning.
Truly, it was like Obama was reading from his predecessor’s script completely blind to the reality of why and how the U.S. troops became mixed up there in the first place.
Or as Jim Hightower, one of Rove’s first political hits while an Republican operative in Texas, said last Wednesday in his syndicated column, “Mission Accomplished!”
Added “America’s #1 Populist,” “Obama has been taken over by the military industrial hawks and national security theorists who play war games with other people’s lives and money. I had hoped Obama might be a more forceful leader who would reject the same old interventionist mindset of those who profit from permanent war. But his newly announced Afghan policy shows he is not that leader.”
Cut & Paste
That said, to cut and paste the Bush administration’s “Mission Accomplished” banner behind Obama would be dishonest because Obama’s war strategy is slightly different from that of Bush.
In fact, if Hightower was a little more honest, he would have admitted that President Obama is being consistent to his own campaign promises.
Obama was never an “anti-war candidate,” as peace activists claim. Upon closer inspection, he never promised to curb the American institutions that nurture global war. Obama just promised to reshuffle the troops from one front to the other battlefield. That’s all.
During the run-up to the presidential election last summer, The Boston Globe, for example, noted the differences between the strategies of then Sen. Obama and his Republican opponent Sen. John McCain, who towed the Bush administration’s line.
Noted the Globe last July: “If elected, Obama says, he would immediately withdraw thousands of ground troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan to help undermanned U.S. forces defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”
“It’s time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan,” The Globe quoted Obama. “It is time to go after the Al Qaeda leadership where it actually exists.”
The Globe continued: “The Illinois senator, whose opposition to the Iraq war is a campaign centerpiece, has concluded that the U.S. presence there has fanned Islamic terrorism and diverted scarce military resources from taking on new terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda operatives trained for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”
Now compare this report with Obama’s recent stance at West Point:
“I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al-Qaida can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al-Qaida, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.”
McCain, to be clear about the contrasts at the time, said that the central front in the so-called “War on Terror” was Iraq, and that for Afghanistan to stabilize itself from violent, extremist influences, Pakistan and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), not the
United States, should bear the responsibility militarily.
Too Little, Too Escalate
But apparently, keeping your word is not good enough for the likes of filmmaker Michael Moore, The Socialist Worker’s editorial board, and all the grassroots anti-war activists who gathered from West Point to Fort Hood on the eve of Obama’s speech.
Plus, to say that this escalation in Afghanistan is now “Obama’s war” is practice in hoisting your own petard.
Even though 38 percent of Americans polled by CBS News supposedly side with Obama’s approach to the widely unpopular war, there hasn’t been much protest from anti-war circles during the months Obama’s national security team has reviewed Afghanistan strategy.
It must be hard to protest judging by the tears from Moore choked back on CNN’s Larry King Live after Obama’s rally at West Point.
“I hate to be even saying these things,” Moore said, “because I honestly think Barack Obama is a good and decent man. He has a good heart. I believe he’s a man of peace.”
He added. “I don’t think there’s any evil or dark place in his heart that’s where this is coming from. I just think that he’s listened to the generals. He’s taken bad advice.”
The Socialist Worker also theorized that pro-Obama progressives sat this anti-war protest out because they just couldn’t believe Obama would hold to his promises.
“Perhaps some Obama supporters thought that the Democratic candidate’s call to escalate troop strength in Afghanistan was simply rhetoric to shield him from criticism on the right. But Obama’s West Point speech makes it perfectly clear that he’s a willing and aggressive proponent of the pursuit of U.S. imperial aims,” the Worker’s editorial board noted.
The Worker like Hightower acknowledged the obvious: anti-war protests must come quickly.
“The antiwar movement needs to give those anxieties concrete expression by organizing a visible opposition,” the Worker noted.
Concluded Hightower: “This is no time to be deferential to executive authority. Stand up. Speak out. It’s our country, not theirs. We are America — ultimately, we have the power and the responsibility.”
Dec. 12 is the day scheduled for a mass “emergency” anti-war rally outside the White House.
Of the rally, organizer Laurie Dobson told Talking Points Memo, “It’s about Obama. And refusing to support his presidency any longer.”
