The Guardian Protects Gould-Werritty 603


The planned scenario for a war with Iran is playing out before our eyes at frightening speed now. Unfortunately. as I have frequently said, Iran has a regime that is not only thuggish but controlled by theocratic nutters: the attack on the British Embassy played perfectly into the hands of the neo-cons. William Hague is smirking like the cat who got the cream.

The importance of the Fox-Gould-Werritty scandal is that it lifts the lid on the fact that the move to war with Iran is not a reaction to any street attack or any nuclear agency report. It is a long nurtured plan, designed to keep feeding the huge military industrial war machine that has become a huge part of the UK and US economies, and whose sucking up of trillions of dollars has contributed massively to the financial crisis, and which forms a keystone in the whole South Sea Bubble corporate finance system for servicing the ultra-rich. They need constant, regenerative war. They feed on the shattered bodies of small children.

Gould, Fox and Werritty were plotting with Israel to further war with Iran over years. The Werritty scandal was hushed up by Gus O’Donnell’s risibly meagre “investigation” – a blatant cover-up – and Fox resigned precisely to put a cap on any further digging into what they had been doing. I discovered – with a lot of determination and a modicum of effort – that Fox, Werritty and British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould had met many times, not the twice that Gus O’Donnell claimed, and had been in direct contact with Mossad over plans to attack Iran. Eventually the Independent published it, a fortnight after it went viral on the blogosphere.

The resignation of the Defence Secretary in a scandal is a huge political event. People still talk of the Profumo scandal 50 years later. But Fox’s resignation was forgotten by the media within a fortnight, even though it is now proven that the Gus O’Donell official investigation into the affair was a tissue of lies.

Take only these undisputed facts:

Fox Gould and Werritty met at least five times more than the twice the official investigation claims
The government refuses to say how often Gould and Werritty met without Fox
The government refuses to release the Gould-Werritty correspondence
The three met with Mossad

How can that not be a news story? I spent the most frustrating fortnight of my life trying to get a newspaper – any newspaper – to publish even these bare facts. I concentrated my efforts on the Guardian.

I sent all my research, and all the evidence for it, in numeorus emails to the Guardian, including to David Leigh, Richard Norton-Taylor, Rupert Neate and Seumas Milne. I spoke to the first three, several times. I found a complete resistance to publishing anything on all those hidden Fox/Werritty/Gould meetings, or what they tell us about neo-con links with Israel.

Why? Guardian Media Group has a relationship with an Israel investment company, Apax, but the Guardian strongly denies that this has any effect on them.

The Guardian to this day has not published the fact that there were more Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings than O’Donnell disclosed. Why?

I contacted the Guardian to tell them I intended to publish this article, and invited them to give a statement. Here it is, From David Leigh, Associate Editor:

I hope your blogpost will carry the following response in full.

1. I know nothing of any Israeli stake in the ownership of the Guardian. As it is owned by the Scott Trust, not any Israelis, your suggestion sems a bit mad.

2. The Guardian has not “refused” to publish any information supplied by you. On the contrary, I personally have been spending my time looking into it, as I told you previously. I have no idea what the attitude of others in “the Guardian” is. I form my own opinions about what is worth publishing, and don’t take dictation from others. That includes you.

3. I can’t imagine what you are hinting at in your reference to Assange. If you’ve got a conspiracy theory, why don’t you spit it out?

I can understand your frustration, Craig, when others don’t join up the dots in the same way as you. But please try not to be offensive, defamatory, or plain daft about it.

As I said, it would be honest of you to publish my response in full if you want to go ahead with these unwarranted attacks on the Guardian’s integrity.

Possible some Guardian readers will get drawn to this post: at least then they will find out that Werritty, Fox and Gould held many more meetings, hushed up by O’Donnell and hushed up by the Guardian.

It should not be forgotten that the Guardian never stopped supporting Blair and New Labour, even when he was presiding over illegal wars and the massive widening of the gap between rich and poor. My point about Assange is that he has done a great deal to undermine the neo-con war agenda – and the Guardian is subjecting him to a campaign of denigration. On the other hand Gould/Fox/Werritty were pushing a neo-con project for war – and the Guardian is actively complicit in the cover-up of their activities.

The Guardian. Whom does it serve?


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

603 thoughts on “The Guardian Protects Gould-Werritty

1 13 14 15 16 17 21
  • ingo

    And many of us, in all fairness, ken and Azra, did not take part in any of these exchanges above, but merely crossed your broad brush stroke, were called what? Chomsky criticises Israel on a regular basis, so does Leon Panetta, never would we put the two into the same camp though, they both do it for different reasons.
    I shall leave this exchange now and wish you all a great weekend.

  • Ken

    Ingo

    Oh I see you came back again. The first time you ignored the whole of my post and all the points made to run off to the bottom of it to complain that I called some posters on here sheep, that says all I need to know about you.Thanks.

  • Ken

    ingo (Chomsky criticises Israel on a regular basis, so does Leon Panetta, never would we put the two into the same camp though, they both do it for different reasons.)

    Never heard old Leon calling them Nazis like me though. Where you trying to make a point? Nice try at a put down, I get what your agenda is.

  • Fedup

    Hasbara is Hebrew for propaganda (there is a handbook about it to; how to defend Israel), and it is a whole industry, that has spawned many authors, such as David Aaronovitch, Martin Indyk, D. Miliband, etc. the list is VERY long. Included in the remit of Hasbara is the “wonderful” GIYUS (Give Israel Your United Support) equipped with Megaphone desktop tool ad nauseum, all designed to stop any debate about barbarism of the ziofuckwits, whilst promoting wars and racism against the perceived enemies of the shitty little strip of land, ie Muslims, Palestinians, Arabs, Persians, Iraq, Lebanon, and currently as per the subject of this posting against Iran.

  • Rob

    Azra :
    hasbara ‘explanation'(הסברה): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacy_%28Israel%29

    It’s basically public relations (propaganda) for foreigners, in which most governments engage, but the Israeli one has been particularly successful in the US.

    The basic idea is that any action or policy can be justified if the explanation or argument is good enough. There have been several openly stated, official policies of educating Iraelis on particular stances to take in public, on college campuses, etc., in order to make Israel appear in the best light possible, and to divert attention away from its policies in the occupied territories, as well as in Israel itself.
    (variations : “gaywashing”, “pinkwashing”, “whitewashing”, “The Only Democracy”, etc.)

  • Fedup

    MJ Maguire,
    Good observation, why would Leigh use such colloquialism? For some unknown reason I had assumed the familiarity of the correspondents would be the basis of such tone.

  • Jives

    @ Nuid

    You ask who decides who is a troll?

    Well..i’d suggest it’s an individual deduction however,i do consider the collective pulse of certain posters on this blog whose views,over years,i’ve come to respect.That doesn’t mean i always agree with them but,broadly,i’ve found them to be decent barometer of tone and reasonable contributors.
    ,
    From where i stand Ken started off reasonably enough on this post.However,when other views were suggested to him e.g.Assange POSSIBLY being a cut-out/Wikileaks POSSIBLY being a spook Cointel-Op he simply began to twist things with a mocking/patronising tone,to the effect that no other poster’s view could be right but his own.Tone is the keyword here.When rejecting-with an absolutist tone-other’s views he then proceeded to employ personal terms like “sunshine” “you are ZERO”,”you haven’t a clue” and “you’re done girl”.These might not be the greatest slights in the world,admittedly,but they do,nonetheless,impart a tone of supercillioiusness and arrogance-not too mention rude.Perhaps if Ken hadn’t been so patronising and absolutist of tone he would’ve fared better here.To call,with absolutist certainty,Mary a Holocaust Denier on the basiis of one link is,frankly,rude and an extremely serioius charge.Had he even considered Mary mightn’t have known the links provenance? To call,with absolute certainty,someone a Holocaust Denier on the basis of ONE third-party link is just obscene-nevermind the complete lack of empirical evidence.

    So id’ suggest it’s about tone Nuid,that’s my point,and a sneering,absolutist purview of one’s own opinion is dis-respectful to other posters here who have a right to their opinion,just as Ken does.
    ,
    Regards,
    Jives.

  • Ken

    Fedup (Hasbara is Hebrew for propaganda)

    No it is not. It means explanation/public diplomacy although lots of people who spread Israeli propaganda are called Hasbara.

  • Ken

    Jives..see you skipped everyones elses insults towards me,figures. I see your agenda one sided story.

  • Ken

    jives..(.To call,with absolutist certainty,Mary a Holocaust Denier on the basiis of one link is,frankly,rude and an extremely serioius charge.Had he even considered Mary mightn’t have known the links provenance?)

    Now you are just downright lying but that is all you have. I never called her a Holocaust denier, I said she linked to an article by a Holocaust denier. Why lie? Credibility ZERO

  • Jives

    @ Ken
    ,
    Ahhh…the old sins of omission argument i see.
    ,

    “You might criticise Iran although I have never seen that and I have yet to see anyone else on here from the left criticise them,they have done a very good job or not criticsing them.”
    ,

    Yet nother perfect example of your tortuous non-logic Ken.
    ,

    Analogy: Say,for example i am a Man Utd supporter criticizing Arsenal.That is my focus in the moment.So,does it then follow by not criticizing Liverpool during my Arsenal rant i am ,by some miraculous twist of logic,a Liverpool supporter?
    ,
    QED?
    ,
    I really think not Ken.

  • Ken

    Jives… You have just been caught out posting a blatant lie about me. You have no credibility left.

  • Jives

    @ Ken
    ,
    My post was addressed to Nuid,implicit in my post was an understanding/acknowledgement of her earlier points.
    ,
    When i have something to say to you i will address it @ Ken.

  • ingo

    Mods, somebody is masquerading as myself, the last post was done by an imposter.
    Since when has this become a playground for Schutzfinken?
    I shall not post again today, anything after this is not moire.

  • Ken

    @Jives(My post was addressed to Nuid,implicit in my post was an understanding/acknowledgement of her earlier points.)

    I do not care who your post was addressed to if in it you are going to lie about me then I am going to call you on it. It is now proven that you are a liar,you claimed that I called Mary a Holocaust denier and that is a lie, you cannot squirm your way out of that one. You should try reading what I posted instead of making up lies to further your agenda.

  • Ken

    Ingo (Mods, somebody is masquerading as myself, the last post was done by an imposter.)

    Oh please give it a rest with the fake outrage, its says directly under that post that I posted it and can the mods change it, I made a mistake posting, the post is even directed to you anyway. Geez..

  • Jives

    @ Ken
    ,

    Tones and allusions Ken,tones and allusions tell me about your nudges and winks.I find your insinuations and manner of addressing people here rude and brattish.If i find other posters here rude and brattish i’ll tell them too,but directly to them.That way i’m consistent in my approach.
    ,
    It’s not going very well for you here is it Ken? I repeat,when i have anything to say to you i will employ the @ Ken protocol.We may all bemoan the lack of PM facility on this blog but until that happens the “@” symbol serves a function.

  • Ken

    Jives(It’s not going very well for you here is it Ken?)



    I am doing fine thanks. See I am intelligent and do not need to lie to get my point across unlike you. Everyone can now see that you are a liar and that is a good thing. Cheers.

  • Komodo

    “Fedup (Hasbara is Hebrew for propaganda)

    No it is not. It means explanation/public diplomacy although lots of people who spread Israeli propaganda are called Hasbara.”
    .
    I don’t think anyone’s working by the dictionary definition, do you? In the context of this discussion, it means propaganda.
    .
    Palestine or Judaea and Samaria?
    Bt’Selem, or self-hating Jew?
    Look out Gaza, here we come, again; or Israel’s desire for peace?
    .
    Where are you, Ken?
    Critical, or antisemitic?

  • Pee

    Been away for 24 hours and you folks are still at it! This blog is losing itself with these rantings. Don’t think I’ll come back for a while.

  • nuid

    “Tone is the keyword here.When rejecting-with an absolutist tone-other’s views he then proceeded to employ personal terms like “sunshine” “you are ZERO”,”you haven’t a clue” and “you’re done girl”.” — Jives
    .
    I beg to disagree, Jives. All was fine until Ken used the word “dubious” in relation to “The Power of Nightmares” which Fedup had recommended.
    (He, Ken, backed up the word “dubious” by posting a link to a Medialens discussion of the film, together with discussion of Medialens email exchange with Adam Curtis). However the word “dubious” seemed to drive Fedup apeshit, whereupon he said:
    .
    “you are are a troll Ken, because you are covering up for the sick bastards whom stand guilty of crimes against humanity.
    Your kind are sick Ken, and I have no time for tossers.”

    .
    All of this happened before Iran was even mentioned by Ken, I believe. And it was entirely unnecessary. If that above had been said to me I would have been extremely annoyed.
    WTF is Fedup to label someone like that?

  • nuid

    BTW, Jives, my question about “who decides who is a troll?” was rhetorical.
    I had already made my position clear in an earlier comment.

  • Jives

    @ Ken
    ,

    “See I am intelligent and do not need to lie to get my point across unlike you. Everyone can now see that you are a liar and that is a good thing. Cheers.”
    ,
    Oh dear Ken.There you go again with your absolutist scattergun accusations and rudeness.I’ve been a contributor to this blog over many years and don’t feel i have to establish or explain my bona-fides or intelligence to you.Perhaps if you hadn’t swaggered into to this blog with six-guns blazing at posters who didnt quite share your absolutist and Manichean outlook you might’ve fared better?Employing the modish and arrogant addressing of other posters as “liars”,”ZERO credibility” “sunshine” “girl” wasn’t the best way of ensuring a welcome for yourself,perhaps?

  • Ken

    @Jives

    .

    I will brand you a liar because that is what you have been proven to be, you can come back again and again with rubbish posts but the fact is that you claimed that I called Mary a Holocaust denier which is a lie. Have fun.

  • nuid

    “To call,with absolutist certainty,Mary a Holocaust Denier on the basiis of one link is,frankly,rude and an extremely serioius charge.”
    .
    Jives, he didn’t. Period. Use whatever search facility you have in your browser to check this page. You are MISQUOTING. And doing yourself no favours in the process.

  • Ken

    @Jives. This is your claim.’


    [To call,with absolutist certainty,Mary a Holocaust Denier on the basiis of one link is,frankly,rude and an extremely serioius charge.Had he even considered Mary mightn’t have known the links provenance?]


    That is a lie and anybody going thru my posts on this thread can see that you are a liar. No getting around that fact however you may try.

  • nuid

    And Jives,
    kindly address my previous reply to you, which is partly “bolded” and which is approx seven comments further up now.

1 13 14 15 16 17 21

Comments are closed.