Friday, December 20, 2013

The DIA and the Joseph Wilson "workup"

Some of the fascinating details within the hidden history I tried to shine a light on in my last post on the JFK assasssination made me wonder what other sinister moments in history the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) used a guiding hand to influence.  One of the largest motivating factors that lead me to create this blog was the outing of Valerie Plame.  It shouldn't have surprised me, but digging into the brouhaha that preceded her blown cover - the infamous "16 words" in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address and Plame's husband Ambassador Joseph Wilson calling BS on Bush's Niger yellowcake claim - it looks like the DIA played a role behind the scenes in attacking the messenger.  I must credit eriposte at The Left Coaster for such a well-written and well-researched piece.  I hope it doesn't fall down the memory hole like so many great Wilson/Plame articles during that time, but in case it does, here it is:

Monday :: May 8, 2006

Uranium from Africa: The Wilson "workup" and the March 8, 2003 DIA memo


by eriposte One of the intriguing parts of the uranium from Africa/Wilson/Plame story that seems to have disappeared into the background is this:
[Russert Reading From Book]: After my appearance on CNN in early March 2003, when I first asserted that the U.S. government knew more about the Niger uranium matter than it was letting on, I am told by a source close to the House Judiciary Committee that the Office of the Vice President--either the vice president himself or, more likely, his chief of staff, Lewis ('Scooter') Libby, chaired a meeting at which a decision was made to a 'workup' on me. As I understand it, this meant they were going to take a closer look at who I was and what my agenda might be. The immediate effect of the workup, I am told by a member of the press, citing White House sources, was a long harangue against the two of us within the White House walls. Over a period of several months, Libby evidently seized opportunities to rail openly against me as an '[expletive] playboy' who went on a boondoggle 'arranged by his CIA wife'--and was a Democratic Gore supporter to boot."

RUSSERT: You're saying that in March the White House started talking about you and your "CIA wife"?

AMB. WILSON: That's my understanding from not just that one particular source but corroborated by other sources and offered actually by other sources from different walks of life, that after I appeared on CNN and said I thought the government knew more about this Niger business than was letting on, there was this meeting at which it was decided to run an intelligence collection operation against me, which led to the learning of my wife's identity and her employment.
In this post, I discuss a DIA report from March 2003 that may be pertinent to Wilson's observation. For clarity, I've separated this post into a few sections. (Note that all emphasis in quoted portions is mine.)
1. Additional background on Wilson's "workup" claim
2. The March 8, 2003 DIA memo
3. The significance of the March 8, 2003 DIA memo
4. Did the DIA get "corrected" by the IC?
5. Summary and Conclusions


1. Additional background on Wilson's "workup" claim As Emptywheel observed:
...[Wilson's] story comes not just from someone with ties to the House Judiciary Committee. In his book, Wilson describes a similar story coming from "a respected reporter close to the subsequent inquiry into the later disclosure of Valerie's status." (326)
So, Wilson has cited two or more sources backing up the claim that a "workup" on him was initiated soon after his early March 2003 CNN appearance. An article by Jason Leopold in Truthout claimed that some current and/or former Bush administration officials corroborated this, but a Vanity Fair article said the following regarding Wilson's claim: "An official in Cheney's office says, "That is false."" (I guess it all depends on the meaning of "That".)

As Jeralyn at Talk Left points out, the relevant date of Wilson's appearance appears to be March 8, 2003 (partial transcript) - and during that appearance he was quite critical of the U.S. Government's use of the forgeries and the absurd explanation given by a U.S. Government (USG) official to the Washington Post that "we fell for it". Wilson also said that "I think it's safe to say that the U.S. government should have or did know that this report was a fake before Dr. ElBaradei mentioned it". That was of course quite accurate since the USG knew a lot more about the bogus nature of the forgeries than they let on at that time - so it would be quite surprising if the Bush-Cheney administration didn't even bother to take a look at who Wilson was after his CNN interview.

What fascinates me about this story is the same thing that Emptywheel was after. For example, Condi Rice was on the record claiming she first heard of Wilson's trip only in June 2003 (which is doubly strange considering that the CIA did send their summary of Wilson's trip to the White House back in March 2002, although Wilson's name may not have been mentioned at that time). There's also Tricky Dick II's infamous statement from September 2003: "I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back...I have no idea who hired him". So, here's what I am curious about:
When exactly did senior administration officials in the Bush White House first learn about Wilson and his trip to Niger?
I've emphasized the "and" in my question deliberately because I want to know when they knew about Wilson and the fact that he made the trip to Niger in early 2002 (it is possible that in 2002 they knew that some unnamed individual went to Niger). Here's one possible approach to try and answer the question - find out more about the contents of the March 8, 2003 DIA memo, the events within the Bush administration that led to this memo being written and what happened after the memo's release.
Let me explain why I say that.


2. The March 8, 2003 DIA memo In the midst of the disinformation campaign launched by the Bush administration regarding Wilson's trip to Niger, one of the least discussed aspects of the uranium story has been the fact that prior to the Bush SOTU none of the US IC reports cited in the SSCI Report used the Wilson trip as "evidence" to support the uranium from Africa claim. The main reason for this is obvious from even a cursory reading of the SSCI Report which (superficially and misleadingly) discussed the CIA's intel report of March 8, 2002 that was based on Wilson's trip. Contrary to the usual right-wing talking points, Wilson's trip did not provide any credible support for the uranium allegation (in fact, if you read Wilson's reporting carefully, it made a pretty strong case that the allegation that Iraq had sought and/or bought uranium from Niger was bunk). As the SSCI Report noted (page 46):
(U) IC analysts had a fairly consistent response to the intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip in that no one believed it added a great deal of new information to the Iraq-Niger uranium story. An INR analyst said when he saw the report he believed that it corroborated the INR's position, but said that the "report could be read in different ways." He said the report was credible, but did not give it a lot of attention because he was busy with other things.
(U) DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.
(U) Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue.
[NOTE: Among other problems, the last sentence in the above passage in the SSCI Report is a bit misleading. After all, in page 43 of the SSCI report, it is mentioned that: "The report was widely distributed in routine channels" - and a Knight Ridder story by Jonathan Landay indicated that the CIA did send their summary of Wilson's trip to the White House on March 9, 2002 - even if they did not specifically brief it directly to the POTUS or VP.]
Let's also recall what George Tenet pointed out in his spin-statement released on 11 July 2003:
Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials.
The bottom line is that when the March 8, 2002 CIA report on Wilson's trip was issued it was not considered credible evidence for the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. Both CIA and DIA analysts directly confirmed this to the SSCI. It should therefore not be a surprise that Wilson's trip was not used in the NIE as being part of the basis for the uranium allegation. It was also not used in the British White paper (especially since the CIA evidently did not discuss Wilson's trip with the UK at that time). In other words, the Bush administration's (mis)use of the Wilson trip in summer 2003 was purely aimed at fabricating a fake, after-the-fact justification for the false uranium claim.
Which naturally brings us to the question of when senior administration officials in the Bush White House first learnt about Wilson and his trip to Niger.
Considering Wilson's March 8, 2003 CNN interview may have been a thorn in the eyes of the White House:
  • It is rather interesting that a March 8, 2003 DIA memo dug up the CIA report on Wilson's trip from a year earlier and dishonestly tried to peddle that as somehow supporting the uranium claim (after the Niger documents had been shown to be bogus).
  • It is even more interesting that this is the *only* known DIA report that portrayed Wilson's trip as somehow supporting the uranium allegation [All DIA reports discussed in the SSCI Report and dated prior to and subsequent to the March 8, 2003 DIA memo did not use Wilson's trip to support the uranium claim. See the SSCI Report - page 38 (Feb 12, 2002), page 48 (Sep 2002), page 64 (Jan 24, 2003) and page 71 (June 12, 2003)]
Let's look at this in some more detail.


3. The significance of the March 8, 2003 DIA memo The SSCI Report says (pages 69-70):
On March 8, 2003, the DIA provided an info memo (TS-99-177-03) to the Secretary of Defense in response to a March 8, 2003 Washington Post article, "Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake." The memo said, "we believe the IAEA is dismissing attempted Iraqi yellowcake purchases, largely based upon a single set of unverified documents concerning a contract between Niger and Iraq for the supply of 'pure uranium.' The [memo added that the] USG ha[d] not shared other [information] with the IAEA that suggested a Nigerien uranium deal with Iraq." The other intelligence referenced in the memo is the CIA intelligence report on the former ambassador's trip, which described the Nigerien Prime Minister's belief that an Iraqi delegation was interested in uranium, the Navy report from November 2002 which said uranium destined for Iraq was being stored in a warehouse in Cotonou, Benin, and a fax from late 2001 found in the possession of a Somali businessman which described arrangements for shipping unidentified commodities in an amount that appeared similar to the amount in the Iraq Niger yellowcake deal. The fax, however, did not mention uranium, Iraq, or Niger.
One thing that immediately becomes obvious about this DIA memo is its breathtaking dishonesty.
First, the memo refers to Wilson's trip as having provided supporting evidence for the uranium claim, which, as I have discussed in Section 2 was plainly false. Specifically, Wilson's trip was never previously considered by the DIA (or the rest of the IC) to constitute credible evidence for the uranium allegation. Additionally, the SSCI Report indicates that other DIA reports prior to this one (including the one from September 2002 that was used for the uranium allegations in the NIE) did not offer the Wilson trip as supporting evidence for the uranium claim - i.e., this was a post-facto, fake justification from the DIA after the so-called evidence for the uranium claim was shown to be bogus.
Second, the DIA memo claimed that the "USG ha[d] not shared other [information] with the IAEA that suggested a Nigerien uranium deal with Iraq", and Wilson's trip was claimed to be one such piece of information. This is categorically false and somewhat revealing. Here's why. The SSCI Report makes it clear (pages 67-68) that the USG did mention the CIA report on Wilson's trip when it sent the Niger forgeries to the IAEA:
On February 4, 2003, the U.S. Government passed electronic copies of the Iraq-Niger documents to [DELETED] the IAEA. Because the Director of the IAEA's INVO was in New York at the time, the U.S. Government also provided the documents to him in New York. Included with the documents were the U.S. Government talking points which stated, [DELETED] of reporting suggest Iraq has attempted to acquire uranium from Niger. We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims. Nonetheless, we are concerned that these reports may indicate Baghdad has attempted to secure an unreported source of uranium yellowcake for a nuclear weapons program." The [DELETED] of reporting mentioned refer to the original CIA intelligence reports from the foreign government service and the CIA intelligence report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger. [SENTENCE DELETED]. [SENTENCE DELETED].
So, either the DIA did not bother to check what the USG sent to the IAEA (which is quite possible) or they knew it and lied about it. If the DIA did not know about what the USG wrote to the IAEA, that would increase the possibility that the DIA dug up the report about Wilson's trip after Wilson's CNN interview which also mentioned the Washington Post article. Moreover, Wilson's trip report certainly provided no evidence for a "Nigerien uranium deal with Iraq" as the DIA memo claimed. This goes back to the "sought" v. "bought" word game hoax that I am discussing in an ongoing series. (There is the separate issue of the USG citing the CIA report on Wilson's trip in their memo to the IAEA, which is a travesty in itself considering that the CIA, the State Department and the DIA never considered Wilson's trip as providing credible evidence for the uranium allegation).
Third, the "Navy report from November 2002 which said uranium destined for Iraq was being stored in a warehouse in Cotonou, Benin" was, if anything, only evidence that Iraq had already bought uranium from Niger, not evidence that supported a claim that Iraq had only sought uranium from Niger. Not to mention, this so-called "evidence" was fake and as of January 27, 2003, the French had already confirmed to the CIA that the alleged uranium was destined for France and not Iraq.
Fourth, the "fax from late 2001" that was cited in the DIA memo did not mention uranium, Iraq or Niger! Only in the world of the Bush White House would some alleged document that did not mention Iraq, Niger or uranium, be considered "evidence" for a claim that Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa (Niger).
To summarize, this March 8, 2003 DIA memo was interesting because:
  • It showed how the DIA served as a useful stovepipe for Rumsfeld and the White House to propagate outright falsehoods and transparently bogus claims that the rest of the IC did not consider credible
  • It showed that the DIA, evidently for the first time, falsely cited Wilson's trip as supporting the uranium allegation, and this raised the possibility that this information was dug up after Wilson's CNN appearance
Even if this memo did not dig up Wilson's trip report after his appearance on CNN, the significance of the memo cannot be understated. After all, those who are following this scandal closely will recall that it was allegedly after reading the February 12, 2002 DIA report on Niger uranium that the Vice President "asked" for the CIA's analysis on the uranium allegation (p. 38, SSCI Report). So, it is a reasonable assumption that in the aftermath of the IAEA calling the US "evidence" on Niger fake, the Vice President (who later revealed his contempt for the IAEA's overall response) and/or his senior staff must have become aware of the contents of the first DIA report released on March 8, 2003 partly in response to the IAEA's declaration. Of course, this doesn't mean they read it on the same day. It is also possible they were briefed on its contents on or after March 8, 2003.
The point is this: is it merely a coincidence that on the very day Joseph Wilson gave an interview on CNN in which he criticized the Bush administration on the forged Niger evidence and suggested that they knew more than they were letting on, that the DIA would prepare a memo that included information about his 2002 Niger trip? Information that the DIA never used in any known earlier reporting of theirs to support the uranium claim? Is it unrealistic to think that the Office of the Vice President would have been briefed on, or otherwise made aware of, the contents of this memo - which could have led them to raise more questions on this additional "evidence" cited in the memo (which would have revealed more about Wilson and the origins of his trip)? I don't think so.
Now, I admit that I have no knowledge of whether this March 8, 2003 DIA memo specifically mentioned Wilson's name - but that is one of the reasons why it would be good to see this memo declassified to verify whether it did. If it did reveal his name, then a confirmation of the recipients of the memo (outside of the Secretary of Defense) and the people who were made aware of its contents would reveal whether this constituted independent evidence for the White House's early knowledge of Wilson and his trip. Even if Wilson's name was not revealed in this March 2003 DIA memo, the memo provided the White House with so-called 'other evidence' for the uranium claim outside of the Niger forgeries and they would surely have followed up on it to find out more. It is implausible to think that the White House (including Cheney), facing a PR nightmare, would not try to dredge up everything they could get their hands on in an attempt to fight back.


4. Did the DIA get "corrected" by the IC? There's an interesting footnote to the DIA's behavior based on the next memo from the DIA that the SSCI Report discusses.
The SSCI report notes that (page 71):
On June 12, 2003, the DIA sent an information memorandum to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in response to questions about Iraq's nuclear program. The memo said, "while the Intelligence Committee agrees that documents the IAEA reviewed were likely 'fake,' other unconfirmed reporting suggested that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium and yellowcake from African nations after 1998. " The other reporting mentioned was the Navy report from November 2002, which said uranium destined for Iraq was being stored in a warehouse in Cotonou, Benin.
Note that this DIA report had conspicuously dropped Wilson's trip from its supporting "evidence". [It nevertheless maintained the fake uranium allegation mentioned in the Navy report].
Why? Perhaps because of this (SSCI Report, page 71):
On April 5, 2003, the NIC issued a Sense of the Community Memorandum (SOCM), (Niger: No Recent Uranium Sales to Iraq, NIC SOCM 2001 12.) The SOCM said, "we judge it highly unlikely that Niamey has sold uranium yellowcake to Baghdad in recent years. The IC agrees with the IAEA assessment that key documents purported showing a recent Iraq-Niger sales accord are a fabrication. We judge that other reports from 2002 - one alleging warehousing of yellowcake for shipment to Iraq, a second alleging a 1999 visit by an Iraqi delegation to Niamey - do not constitute credible evidence of a recent or impending sale."
Of course that did not stop the Bush administration (including Scooter Libby and others) from dishonestly peddling Wilson's trip report in June 2003 and beyond, as somehow supporting the uranium allegation.


5. Summary and Conclusions Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson has stated on more than one occasion that shortly after an interview he gave to CNN in early March 2003, where he criticized the Bush administration's use of the forged Niger documents and questioned the veracity of their explanation, a "workup" on him was initiated within the administration - likely in the Office of the Vice President. Anonymous sources mentioned by Wilson (and in an article) appear to support this allegation - one which the Vice President's office has issued a vague denial on. In this post, I highlight the possibility that the circumstances surrounding the release of a DIA memo dated March 8, 2003 might shed significant light on Wilson's claim and potentially open up an additional avenue of investigation into when the Bush administration first became aware of Wilson and the origins of his trip to Niger.
To understand the significance of the March 8, 2003 DIA memo, we should keep in mind that when a CIA report was issued on Wilson's trip exactly one year prior to this DIA memo, the CIA report and Wilson's findings were not considered credible evidence for the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. Both CIA and DIA analysts directly confirmed this to the SSCI. It is therefore not a surprise that Wilson's trip was not used in the NIE as being part of the basis for the uranium allegation. It was also not used in the British White paper (especially since the CIA evidently did not discuss Wilson's trip with the UK at that time). In other words, the Bush administration's (mis)use of the Wilson trip in summer 2003 was purely aimed at fabricating a fake, after-the-fact justification for the false uranium claim.
On March 8, 2003, Joseph Wilson was interviewed on CNN and he was quite critical of the U.S. Government's use of the forgeries and the absurd explanation given by a U.S. Government official to the Washington Post that "we fell for it". Wilson also said that "I think it's safe to say that the U.S. government should have or did know that this report was a fake before Dr. ElBaradei mentioned it". That was of course quite accurate - the U.S. Government knew a lot more about the bogus nature of the forgeries than they let on at that time - so it would be quite surprising if the Bush-Cheney administration didn't even bother to take a look at who Wilson was.
Since Wilson's March 8, 2003 CNN interview may have been a thorn in the eyes of the White House:
  • It is rather interesting that a March 8, 2003 DIA memo dug up the report on Wilson's trip from a year earlier and dishonestly tried to peddle that as somehow supporting the uranium claim (after the Niger documents had been shown to be bogus).
  • It is even more interesting that this is the *only* known DIA report that portrayed Wilson's trip as somehow supporting the uranium allegation [All DIA reports discussed in the SSCI Report and dated prior to and subsequent to the March 8, 2003 DIA memo did not use Wilson's trip to support the uranium claim.]
The March 8, 2003 DIA memo was interesting in how it revealed the DIA to be a useful stovepipe for Rumsfeld and the White House to propagate outright falsehoods and transparently bogus claims that the rest of the IC did not consider credible. More importantly though, it showed that the DIA, evidently for the first time cited Wilson's trip as supporting the uranium allegation, thereby raising the possibility that this was dug up after Wilson's CNN appearance.
Even if this memo did not dig up Wilson's trip report after his appearance on CNN, the significance of the memo cannot be understated. After all, those who are following this scandal closely will recall that it was after reading the February 12, 2002 DIA report on Niger uranium that the Vice President "asked" for the CIA's analysis on the uranium allegation. So, it is a reasonable assumption that in the aftermath of the IAEA calling the US "evidence" on Niger fake, the Vice President (who later revealed his contempt for the IAEA's overall response) and/or his senior staff must have become aware of the contents of the first DIA report released on March 8, 2003 partly in response to the IAEA's declaration. (Of course, the memo may have been read, briefed and/or discussed on or after March 8, 2003.)
Is it merely a coincidence that on the very day Joseph Wilson gave an interview on CNN in which he criticized the Bush administration on the forged Niger evidence and suggested that they knew more than they were letting on, that the DIA would prepare a memo that included information about his 2002 Niger trip? Information that the DIA never used in any known earlier reporting of theirs to support the uranium claim? Is it unrealistic to think that the Office of the Vice President would have been briefed on, or otherwise made aware of, the contents of this memo - which could have led them to raise more questions on this additional "evidence" cited in the memo (which would have revealed more about Wilson and the origins of his trip)? I don't think so.
As of today, we do not know whether this March 8, 2003 DIA memo specifically mentioned Wilson's name - but that is one of the reasons why it would be good to see this memo declassified to verify whether it did. If it did reveal his name, then a confirmation of the recipients of the memo (outside of the Secretary of Defense) and the people who were made aware of its contents would reveal whether this constituted independent evidence for the White House's early knowledge of Wilson and his trip. Even if Wilson's name was not revealed in this March 2003 DIA memo, the memo provided the White House with so-called 'other evidence' for the uranium claim outside of the Niger forgeries and they would surely have followed up on it to find out more. It is implausible to think that the White House (including Cheney), facing a PR nightmare, would not try to dredge up everything they could get their hands on in an attempt to fight back. I therefore urge all reporters covering the Plame case find out more about the contents of the March 8, 2003 DIA memo, the events within the Bush administration that led to this memo being written and what happened after the memo's release.



I have to wonder if the DIA's motive could possibly have something to do with protecting Operation Gladio Plan B operatives?  Or is this all just further proof of Bush administration arm-twisting to get every government department on board with their justification for war by any means necessary?  History will be the ultimate judge.

Friday, December 6, 2013

Hollyweird Conspiracy Update: Brittany Murphy & Paul Walker

I find it fascinating that out of all my posts this year, the one that has received the most views by far, more than any other post in the 136 post history of this blog, is Hollyweird Conspiracy: Did Homeland Security Murder Brittany Murphy and Her Husband?  To date, it has received 5,000 views.  Why this post as opposed to any other on Deep Politics, the Carbon Crisis or the Radical Establishment Media?  I think it's because our society has always had a deep fascination with Hollywood.  It's one of the largest industries in civilization devoted to creating something completely fictional.  But it reaps tremendous profits because of the verisimilitude with which they craft their product, as well as because of the alluring elements with which it is packaged.  You've got exciting stories acted out by beautiful and compelling personalities executed with camera and computer technical expertise so seamless, it makes the unreal seem real.

But more to the point, it is probably my most popular post because a new wrinkle in the story has cropped up in the news again.  Brittany Murphy's biological father, Angelo Bartoletti, revealed on November 19, 2013, that a new toxicology report indicates she may have been poisoned.  After reportedly suing to obtain Murphy's hair samples, the test results from the Carlson Co. lab show the presence of high levels of 10 heavy metals in her hair, indicating the source could be "a third-party perpetrator with likely criminal intent."  Considering how strange it was that Murphy's husband, Simon Monjack, also died in the same fashion that she did 5 months later, the next logical step would be to test Monjack's hair to see if the same high levels of heavy metals also are present.  If so, reopening the investigation would be essential to discover the truth of what really happened.

http://www.thedailydigest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/7b28f_brittany_murphy_hairstyles_brittany-murphy-headband-hairstyle-705x1024.jpg

That sort of logical step isn't likely to take place.  The following week, Brittany's mother Sharon Murphy blasted Bartoletti, saying he "was never a real father to her in her lifetime," and that he and filmmaker Julia Davis, who made the documentary alleging Homeland Security may have played a role in Murphy and her husband's death that I wrote about previously, were doing this "to make them money and bring them the fame they desperately crave."  Yet Sharon Murphy herself disputes the official story, believing toxic mold responsible, as opposed to natural causes.  She even filed a lawsuit against the builders of the home, then later dropped the suit.  It would seem the responsible thing for the media to do is to find the middle ground in this dispute by demanding real answers as opposed just publicizing the personality clashes.

However, it seems the consensus on the subject is wrapping around dismissing the report and sweeping any outstanding questions under the rug.  It's certainly possible that the metals could have come from a benign product like hair dye or foods, as Slate reports.  But asking for a definitive answer to whether Monjack also had these metals present, combined with blood and tissue samples from both, seems to be one of those questions that shouldn't be asked because it will make you look bad, that to even consider the possibility the sort of thing to get smacked down the way Salon dismissed those questioning what happened to Michael Hastings with the headline/demand: Stop Speculating About Hastings' Death.  It is this type of atmosphere that I believe has lead to cranks coming out of the woodwork like this "friend" of Simon Monjack who remains conveniently anonymous, yet splashes the headlines of a rag controlled by Bilderberg big-wig Roger Altman to convey that Monjack was a "delusional" conspiracy theorist - as though that intimation alone is enough to dispel any thought he and his wife might possibly have been murdered.



http://images.thehollywoodgossip.com/iu/t_xlarge_l/v1371638403/michael-hastings-photo.jpg

Digressing slightly back to the subject of Michael Hastings, I have to ask: what's up with all the exploding cars this year?  When this tragedy occurred on June 18, 2013, the general reaction to the explosion of his car, often with no conspiratorial theorizing attached whatsoever, was how unusual the occurrence is.  On the site The Truth About Cars, Jack Baruth expressed it best:

"I’m here to state that I’ve seen dozens of cars hit walls and stuff at high speeds and the number of them that I have observed to eject their powertrains and immediately catch massive fire is, um, ah, zero. Modern cars are very good at not catching fire in accidents."

So in response to this as well as all the conspiracy hypothesizing that did occur, I kept my eyes and ears open to car accidents resulting in Hollywood-style booming explosions.  I found a number of horrific crashes around the globe that didn't result in fiery explosions.  Then last month, it happened again, coincidentally enough, in southern California:


2 Killed After Car Crashes Into Palm Tree in Riverside

Two people were killed Wednesday when a car burst into flames after hitting a tree in a Riverside neighborhood.

Image
Two people were killed when a car crashed into a palm tree in Riverside Wednesday. (Credit: KTLA)

The crash happened on Jackson Street near Sage Avenue at about 3 a.m. when the car slammed into a palm tree, according to authorities.

Aerial video from Sky5 showed the car had split into pieces and burned on a neighborhood sidewalk.

The car was traveling through the neighborhood at a high rate of speed, according to neighbors.

“I thought a bomb went off,” one person said about the noise he heard when the car struck the tree.

Both victims were inside inside the car when it crashed. Their identities were not immediately released.

The cause of the crash was under investigation. (emphasis added)



Then it happened a third time.  Again, it happened in southern California.  Again, the car exploded in flames like out of a big-budget Hollywood movie.  Tragically, two people were killed, including a famous Hollywood actor:



Officials: Paul Walker crash not part of street race
Dec. 3, 2013, 8:01 AM EST
By JUSTIN PRITCHARD , Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- While the neighborhood where "Fast & Furious" star Paul Walker died in a fiery crash is known to attract street racers, law enforcement officials do not believe the Porsche he and a friend were riding in had been racing another car.

Accident investigators "have received eyewitness statements that the car involved was traveling alone at a high rate of speed," the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said in a statement Monday. "No eyewitness has contacted the (department) to say there was a second vehicle."

Walker and his friend and fellow fast-car enthusiast Roger Rodas died Saturday when Rodas' 2005 Porsche Carrera GT smashed into a light pole and tree, then exploded in flames. The posted limit was 45 mph.

The two had taken what was expected to be a brief drive away from a charity fundraiser and toy drive at Rodas' custom car shop in Valencia, about 30 miles northwest of Los Angeles. Walker's publicist said the action star was the passenger.

The crash happened on a street that forms an approximately 1-mile loop amid industrial office parks. It is rimmed by hills and relatively isolated from traffic, especially on weekends when the businesses are closed.

"It's well-known out here that that's a hot spot for street racers," California Highway Patrol Sgt. Rick Miler said.

Skid marks are a testament to past antics on the loop. The sheriff's department, which polices the neighborhood, said Saturday's wreck was not the first speed-related crash there, but would not reveal specifics.

Meanwhile, investigators are consulting video from security cameras, talking to witnesses and analyzing physical evidence such as on-board computer data from the Porsche.

A steady stream of fans has flocked to the crash site to leave flowers, candles and memorabilia from the action films.

On Monday night, a private memorial for survivors and the cast and crew of the "Fast & Furious" movies was held inside a white tent erected around the crash site. When it was over, Walker's co-star Vin Diesel emerged to thank fans for paying their respect to the actor.

"Thank you for coming and showing that angel up in heaven how much you appreciated him," Diesel said to the crowd, using the bullhorn of a police cruiser.

Officials have not named either person found in the car. The bodies were so badly burned by the fire that engulfed the wreck that dental records will be needed to confirm their identities.

Walker and Rodas had bonded over their shared love of fast cars.

Rodas, 38, and Walker, 40, co-owned an auto racing team named after Rodas' shop, Always Evolving. Rodas was a financial adviser as well as a professional driver who competed in 10 Pirelli World Challenge GTS races in 2013. He finished second in rookie of the year standings, circuit spokesman Dave Drimmie said.

Walker starred in all but one of the six "Fast & Furious" blockbusters. He had been on break from shooting the latest installment; Universal Pictures has not said what it plans to do with "Fast & Furious 7," currently slated for a July release. (emphasis mine again)


Image

Image




So what's going on with the regularity of real-life exploding cars in southern California? Does it all have something to do with computers in cars? Is this some sinister NATO psy-op? (Thanks to elfismiles from Rigorous Intuition for that link.) Or just one of those strange coincidences that just happens, try not to read too much into it. I'm feeling troubled about this. Were cars exploding just as regularly in past years and I just wasn't paying attention?

Naturally, plenty of conspiracy hypotheses cropped up around the death of Paul Walker alleging some nefarious reason for murder, par for the course in the "conspiratainment" universe.  Just rumors, and nothing to warrant being considered an actual theory.  One of the rumors, that Walker was killed because he found out the charity he works on behalf of was supplying victims of Typhoon Haiyan with a prototype sterilization drug hidden in the medical supplies and food.  Certainly an intriguing premise, considering how I've documented in the past how charities have been used as fronts for intelligence operations.  But to date, it is a premise without evidence where the death of Paul Walker is concerned.

What I find even more intriguing regarding the death of Paul Walker is not the conspiracy rumors, but the coincidences.  Sometimes the sheer number of coincidences in a case can pile up so high, like the shared details of the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations, it makes you wonder whether the whole concept of coincidence is not in itself a cosmic conspiracy.  Consider these strange synchronicities, courtesy of divideandconquer at Rigorous Intuition:



  • "The Fast and the Furious" was an answer on Wheel of Fortune just two days after Paul Walker's death.
  • Paul Walkers death was reported dead, (a hoax) a day before he actually died.
  • Bravo pre-scheduled a Fast and Furious marathon which began airing the day of his death.
  • In a teaser scene, from Fast & Furious 7 but released as an extra on the DVD and Blu-ray versions of Fast & Furious 6, Walker’s character, Brian O’Conner, makes the remark to co-star Tyrese Gibson’s character, Roman Pierce, at the funeral of Han and Gisele. Standing in the graveyard, Gibson turns to Walker and says: 'Promise me Brian, no more funerals.' 'Just one more,' responds Walker, a reference to Jason Statham’s villainous character Ian Shaw.
  • "This was just a tragic accident that happened on a JOYRIDE,” said eyewitness Jim Torp of Santa Clarita. Paul Walker made a movie in 2001 called Joy Ride. 911 happened in 2001-Died in a Porsche 911.  Walker's character in the 2000 movie The Skulls is given a red Porsche after being initiated into the secret society Skull & Bones.
  • Recently Brian from Family Guy died run over by a car in an episode where they go back in time to remove guns given to the Indians - Brian is the name of Paul Walker's character in Fast & Furious - Fast & Furious was the name of the secret program used by Eric Holder to give guns to the Mexican/Indians drug cartels to "turn the tide" in their war.  The program grew in controversy with the killing of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.



As Peter Levenda wrote in Sinister Forces, "At this point, we can almost sympathize with Pontius Pilate, who asked, "What is truth?" - and the temptation to wash one's hands of the whole matter is almost too strong."  What the hell does all this mean?  I don't know if it means anything.  But I can't help being reminded of this scene in Repo Man where Tracey Walter's character Miller might have an explanation with his "lattice of coincidence" theory:



  • A lot of people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch of unconnected incidents and things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice of coincidence that lays on top of everything. Give you an example, show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, "plate," or "shrimp," or "plate of shrimp" out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconsciousness.
  • There ain't no difference between a flying saucer and a time machine. People get so hung up on specifics they miss out on seeing the whole thing. Take South America for example. [In] South America, thousands of people go missing every year. Nobody knows where they go, they just, like, disappear. But if you think about it for a minute, you realize something. There had to be a time when there was no people, right? Well where did all these people come from, huh? I'll tell you where. The future. And where did all these people disappear to? [Otto: The past?] That's right! And how did they get there? Flying saucers. Which are really..? Yeah, you got it, time machines. I think a lot about this kind of stuff.
  • The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.




One more thing.   It was pointed out to me by conniption at Rigorous Intuition that another car burst into flames this summer.  Again, it was in southern California.  Again, there is a Hollywood connection:


Dick Van Dyke Escapes As Car Bursts Into Flames
Tuesday 20 August 2013

Veteran actor Dick Van Dyke has escaped unscathed after his car burst into flames on a Los Angeles motorway.

Image
Dick Van Dyke car crash The burnt remains of Van Dyke's car (Pic: Arlene Van Dyke)



Again, I have no explanation for what it all means.  It's just frickin' weird!