Tuesday, July 25, 2006


Further cementing the Daily Mail’s reputation as the house journal of the VRWC, the paper has a huge article today entitled ‘Why I believe David Kelly's death may have been murder, by MP’.

Quick quiz: can you guess which party the MP in question belongs to ? Yes, it’s Norman Baker from the Treason Party. Hey - if the case for Liberalism is so compelling, how come the Leftards keep needing to bolster it by inventing insane conspiracy theories ?

Actually, I sort of agree this time - maybe it is a huge conspiracy by the VRWC, albeit one aimed at making Liberals’ heads explode as they try to explain how the Mail is a fascist rag, but it’s also bravely defying the government to print the truth about the War on Terror. Just wait until they see who else is trying on tinfoil highlights.

You may be wondering what actual evidence Norman Baker has - which is to say you might be wondering if you’re new to the wacky world of Liberal conspiracy theories. Experienced observers of the tinfoil sombrero crowd will already have guessed that Half-Baker is just ‘raising questions’.

And would those questions be based on trivial inconsistencies in witness statements and pseudo-scientific blather ? Why, yes, they would. We’re told that Kelly couldn’t have thrown a seven because he appeared ‘happy’ the day before. Hey – that’s a red flag right there. When a guy under huge pressure suddenly starts smiling that can often mean he’s decided to ‘take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them’ – either that or he’s found someone else to blame.

Ditto, another killer – ahem! – fact is that the COD was a fairly unusual type of knife wound. Why would Dr Kelly use such a plain odd method to top himself ? Well, coming back at you, Libs. Why would the security services use this method as opposed to, say, heart attack, cerebral haemorrhage or exotic toxin ?

For that matter, what was the motive ? Aren’t you supposed to silence leakers before they leak ? More to the point, Dr Kelly’s actual statements were so anodyne that Gilligan had to Beeb them up. That was the central finding of the Hutton report. Ah yes – Hutton. The closest we've ever got to any of Baker's theories having to stand up in court, and the result was a wipeout, so naturally that proves Hutton was either a dupe or a co-conspirator.

Apparently, there is one judge that we’re allowed to criticise. Judges stamp their feet when we criticise them for letting dangerous predators back on the street, but all but labelling a judge a member of the VRWC is apparently OK. Not that we shouldn’t take the moral posturing of the judiciary seriously, or anything.

You know, there’s one thing that strikes me about this situation. On the one side of the war we have the security services and on the other Al-Quaida, Iran, Syria and the rest of the beauties. It says a lot that a Lib Dem MP’s first instincts on deciding that Kelly was murdered is to blame our side. Here it is: the Liberal worldview in sharp relief. September 11, July 7, Bali and much else, but Liberals still think the threat is from VRWC operatives in the security services.

Well, OK, fair’s fair. If Baker is allowed to slander the security services on no evidence whatsoever, I call payback. Here’s my theory. After Gilligan had falsely portrayed WMD expert Kelly as a moonbat, he was approached by a senior member of a notorious anti-British group of terrorist supporters anxious to recruit his expertise for their evil schemes. But Kelly was not only a scientist but also an experienced civil servant and he was able to see through their cover story and realise they were secretly planning to release a deadly virus in a British city. As a patriot, Kelly realised it was his duty to inform his contacts in the security services of his suspicions.

Kelly was on his way to a rendezvous to an old SIS contact when he was ambushed and killed by a member of the terrorist group. And who could approach an experienced and alert man and kill him so quickly ? Only someone he would instinctively trust, like a senior public servant, fellow scientist or…oh, maybe an MP ?

Of course, after the murder it would make sense for the assassin to insert himself in the investigation. If he was really smart he would act as a agent provocateur, deflecting suspicion or even trying to discredit the whole investigation by conjuring up insane theories.

Not that I’m naming names. I’m just throwing theories out there. Raising questions, if you like. Hey – don't be like that. My theory is every bit as credible and well-sourced as Bakers’.

No comments: