Why I can't take Norman Baker seriously
James Forsyth 2:25pm
Folk on the previous thread seem to think that I should have dismissed Norman Baker’s belief that David Kelly might have been murdered so quickly. The problem is when you read through the serialisation of his book is it so littered with the most incredible conspiracy theories that he insists on treating with a seriousness that they don’t deserve, that it becomes hard to take Baker seriously any more. Take this section from the extract serialised under the headline, “Could America have been involved in the death of David Kelly?" “In fact, soon after 9/11, Bush overturned the 25-year ban on state assassinations and gave the CIA permission to eliminate individuals designated by the President. Might Dr Kelly have been just such an individual?
If so, I think it likely that America would have forewarned the British Prime Minister, though not necessarily sought his permission.
Of course, if Tony Blair had received such a call, knowing what we do of his subservient approach to Bush, one can well believe he might have said yes.” Now to be fair, Baker goes on to dismiss the possibility of American involvement. But can anyone really think that there is the remotest chance that the US President might phone up the British Prime Minister and say ‘hi there we’re planning on bumping off one of your government servants, just wanted to let you know’ and that the British PM would reply ‘OK then, thanks for the heads-up’?
The fact that Baker is prepared to imagine that Blair might have acquiesced to such a request, or that the request might have been made in the first place, forfeits his right to be taken seriously.
Previous
antifrank
October 23rd, 2007 2:41pm Report this commentFine, don't put much faith in Norman Baker. Have a word with your colleague Melanie Phillips instead: http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000292.html As I said on your previous post, I have an open mind. But there are unexplained aspects of this that need to be cleared up. Do you not find it just a little odd that there has been no inquest into Dr Kelly's death?
Mike
October 23rd, 2007 5:17pm Report this commentHang on James, you are committing the act of damaging one argument by associating it with another unrelated point to seek to undermine the credibility of the original argument. The argument that Dr. Kelly's death was odd is not undermined by association with some extreme statements that damage the credibility of Norman Baker. Lets be clear, Norman Baker can claim that the earth is flat and he is being politically advised by the fairies that live at the bottom of his garden in Lewes. This is no way alters the argument that the death of Dr. Kelly was in very unusual circumstances, was skimmed over my a woeful and whitewashing public inquiry and has not been properly examined.
Michael McGowan
October 23rd, 2007 5:48pm Report this commentPrecisely. Baker's detractors are predictably playing the ball not the man.
Lu Marr
October 25th, 2007 4:12pm Report this commentWhere does he get the idea that Bush reversed the law that prohibits the CIA to eliminate state leaders?
To my knowledge the ban is still in effect?
Proof please not speculation masking as proof!!
[ex pat living in USA]
Back to top