3 ms·
I'm not sure I see what the theory is here. I could understand an argument that Kelly was killed to send a message, but it's hard to see what damage it could ha
by SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
I'm not sure I see what the theory is here. I could understand an argument that Kelly was killed to send a message, but it's hard to see what damage it could have prevented. If anything, his death confirmed the web of lies; the whole thing wouldn't have been a big deal if it were just a question of minor messaging details as the government was claiming.
- GordonS 5y agoIt wasn't about sending message. The theory is that Kelly could have revealed he was told to fake evidence, and could have provided confirmation of who knew what, and importantly, when. It was about timing too - it was a critical point for Blair and Bush getting the war they so desired. Keeping in mind there was already huge opposition to the war, proper 1st hand evidence being revealed at that point could well have resulted in Blair having to stand down, and potentially even the British not joining the war. Which of course the US services would not have liked.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y agoThe timeline's definitely not right for that. The British had already joined the war; Kelly died 4 months after the invasion.
- GordonS 5y agoThen I must concede that I am mis-remembering the timeline.