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?
Njegos,
In fairness, I don’t think too many newspapers would allow you to use their comments’ section to openly question their credibility.
Septimus –
Perhaps but it was David Leigh who requested that Craig print the full text of his letter on his blog which he has done. So what’s sauce for the goose…….?
Angry,
As I seem to be just about the only person on this blog to make a connection between the Trader Media deals and the involvement (allegedly) of Apax in the continuing viability of the GMG, I thought it as well to clarify my conclusions, for the record, What Craig said to Leigh, of course, I don’t know. It may have been based on my comments. Which were not about ownership, but (IMO) backdoor financing by Apax. As I hope I have now made clear.
.
“I don’t think too many newspapers would allow you to use their comments’ section to openly question their credibility.”
.
They do in the United States. Sorry I can’t quote specific examples, but I’ve seen hundreds of them online. Vicious attacks. In the USA free speech really does mean that. (Until they designate you a ‘terrorist’ of course, in which case you lose all rights under that marvellous US constitution.)
Re. the Iranian mob that recently attacked the British embassy. I think it is worthwhile to note that in the 1953 CIA/MI6 organized coup which overthrew the democratically elected Iranian PM Mohammed Musaddiq, rabble rousers and street mobs financed and organized by the coup plotters played a significant role.
Excerpt below from an article published in Lobster Magazine:
A “Great Venture”: Overthrowing the Government of Iran
by Mark Curtis
SNIP
According to then CIA officer Richard Cottam, ‘that mob that came into north Tehran and was decisive in the overthrow was a mercenary mob. It had no ideology. That mob was paid for by American dollars.’ (59) One key aspect of the plot was to portray the demonstrating mobs as supporters of the Communist Party – Tudeh – in order to provide a suitable pretext for the coup and the assumption of control by the Shah. Cottam observes that agents working on behalf of the British ‘saw the opportunity and sent the people we had under our control into the streets to act as if they were Tudeh. They were more than just provocateurs, they were shock troops, who acted as if they were Tudeh people throwing rocks at mosques and priests’. (60) ‘The purpose’, Brian Lapping explains, ‘was to frighten the majority of Iranians into believing that a victory for Mussadeq would be a victory for the Tudeh, the Soviet Union and irreligion’. (61)
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm
The thick plottens
German prosecutors have opened an inquiry into allegations of an Iranian plot to attack U.S. bases on German soil, prosecutor-general Harald Range confirmed in Karlsruhe on Thursday.
He was referring to a report in the mass-circulation newspaper Bild that a German businessman was suspected of espionage for the purpose of sabotage. He was alleged to have secretly met with Iranian diplomats posted to Berlin, the newspaper said.
Full story: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/germany-probing-alleged-iran-plot-to-attack-u-s-bases-on-its-soil-1.398987
nuid
‘They do in the United States. Sorry I can’t quote specific examples, but I’ve seen hundreds of them online. Vicious attacks. In the USA free speech really does mean that. (Until they designate you a ‘terrorist’ of course, in which case you lose all rights under that marvellous US constitution.)’
Or an ‘anti-Zionist’.
Seriously though, if you openly call into question a paper’s credibility, and criticise one of their journalists by name – on their own website – you can expect your comments to be deleted. As I’ve said above, I’m critical of the Graun in many ways, but I don’t think any newspaper would react differently in this case.
“If you’ve got a conspiracy theory, why don’t you spit it out?”
This is the modern Holocaust denial: meant as an absolute show stopper.
Don’t fall for it.
So the Guardian does not publish a story because it doesn’t like the person sourcing it? And it deletes links to that story? And all comments on that story?
If that is freedom of the press I am an iguana.
Septimus –
To me it’s obvious that the Guardian is hiding behind ‘attacks on its credibility’. The article above does not critise David Leigh. It simply asks for answers. If I say I wrote to such-and-such and got no reply, is that criticism or a statement of fact? The hyper-sensitivity of the Guardian on this issue is very suspicious especially after they spiked the Gould/Werrity/Fox article (remember it was taken down from their website). If this is David Leigh’s attitude to news, then he is no better than Alistair Campbell.
Would the Guardian have deleted my post if I had just posted the link to this article instead of putting up the full text? Would you have approved of that?
Oh, f*ck, moment:
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/59300/jewish-envoy-not-loyal-uk-says-labour-mp
.
Invites a contribution from the (20’s?) cartoonist HM Bateman: (scene of mass panic among parliamentarians and civil servants) “The Man Who Called A Zionist A Zionist”
Septimus –
My error. I meant to say:
It simply asks for answers. If I say I wrote to such-and-such and encountered resistance, is that criticism or a statement of fact?
I don’t think it changes the gist of my argument.
There are 100’s ? thousands of illuminated people that read this site. Each of them is capable of influencing 2-3 people, who – in turn – can influence many more. Can I suggest a Guardian boycott, both paper and on-line, until they come to their senses and return to their roots? This would be a true indication of blog power without much effort from anyone.
Testing
Sorry. The testing was because my last comment was rejected under my gmail.com address. It worked on the test so just paranoia on my part.
Edwin –
Where do I sign up?
Komodo –
It’s the death of common sense. Appointing a Zionist as ambassador to Israeli would have been considered lunacy a generation ago. But we have gone all trans-atlantic, haven’t we? Dennis Ross, a Jew, was the leading American ‘negotiator’ in the Middle East for many years. It’s not that a Jew can’t represent America or Britain but that we don’t even care whether we look biassed to the rest of the world. When America bangs it head, we scream OW!! That sums up our diplomacy in the ME.
njegos
‘Would the Guardian have deleted my post if I had just posted the link to this article instead of putting up the full text? Would you have approved of that?’
It’s not a question of approval or disapproval. It’s just that I don’t see the Gruan’s action in this particular instance as being unreasonable or unexpected. You were posting private emails from employees of the Guardian, wherein their editorial policies were discussed. Of course they are going to delete them – any newspaper would do the same.
I’m not saying this is a good thing, but I do think it’s a bit naive of you to think that your comments would be left in situ, by the Graun or any other newspaper.
Komodo, I posted that Jewish Chronicle thing on the previous thread (didn’t know this thread was here at the time) and this paragraph made me laugh out loud (literally):
.
“But the MP insisted that he was a friend of Israel and had visited the country four times, including once with his family on holiday. Asked if he understood that his remarks could be deemed antisemitic, Mr Flynn said: “I am not an antisemite.”
.
How is it antisemitic to suggest that an Ambassador may have dual loyalties, or worse, only one loyalty and it’s not to Britain? It’s got to the stage that when I see the accusation “antisemitic” I’m likely to laugh first and think about it later. “Antisemitic” is a worn out, debased, useless piece of blackmail, in my book.
I have already started a boycott of The Guardian, having noticed a rightward shift and an increasing amount of meaningless churnalism. On the subject of Iran, I’ve never been there but get the impression that compared to many other countries in that region it is a beacon of stability and moderation. In his book “The New Great Game” by Lutz Kleveman it is noted that during his travels around the oil producing countries around the Caspian Sea, Iran was the only country he was able to travel freely without being followed or harrassed. Since the Islamic revolution the lot of ordinary people has improved with a big increase in literacy and life expectancy. Iran is often called undemocratic, but no more so than the UK or USA. They can choose between two factions just like us. If Iran is not developing nuclear weapons they have been a bit remiss, after all when was the last time the USA attacked a nuclear power?
Particular thanks to Avenir for pointing out the Scott Trust’s reinvention as a limited company in 2008, and the appointment of Anthony Salz. Who previously spent 31 years in Freshfields, which afte 2000 became mega-lawyer Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. Which is currently GMG’s solicitor. What a coincidence.
.
Anyway, here’s the statement for 2011. Looks a bit iffy to me, despite the £50m investment/divestment entry.
.
http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ST_AR_1011.pdf
Couldn’t agree more Nuid. If they keep pushing being anti-apartheid Israel,and pro-Semitic Palestinian as being antisemitic, then it is time for some T-shirts: ‘Proud to be Anti-Semitic’.
‘How is it antisemitic to suggest that an Ambassador may have dual loyalties, or worse, only one loyalty and it’s not to Britain?’
If Britain were to appoint an ambassador to Tehran (assuming they had an ambassador there) who was a Shia Muslim and openly voiced his support for Clerical rule in Iran, would eyebrows be raised?
I think they would, and should be. Ditto it’s entirely reasonable to question the wisdom of sending a Jewish Zionist ambassador to Tel Aviv. Ambassadors are supposed to represent Britain’s interests, not those of the country they’re sent to.
Edwin, I did this morning, cancelled my newspaper, and for sure will not go near their site.. Sadly Guardian also has been bought.. and they will lose the buyers such as you and I . whether that will bring them to their senses, I very much doubt it, I believe they have no choice in the matter any longer.
I pointed this out on CMEC’s site, Septimius…A devout Shi’a with links to Hizb’ullah could have engaged with the Iranian government, spared us the nastiness at the Embassy and even now be promoting trade and research links (Iranians are cracking at research) full time, between mentoring vists by Conservative Friends of Iran.
Flying halal pigs! Duck!…
Septimus –
“You were posting private emails from employees of the Guardian, wherein their editorial policies were discussed. Of course they are going to delete them – any newspaper would do the same”
David Leigh says to Craig –
“I hope your blogpost will carry the following response in full….”
I don’t think privacy is the issue here, do you?
njegos
‘I don’t think privacy is the issue here, do you?’
It’s not the whole issue, but the fact is that you were sharing private correspondence from a Guardian employee on the Guardian’s own website, following an article which had very little to do with your comments.
I don’t think there’s much point continuing this discussion – I just don’t think it was unreasonable of the Graun to delete your comments, and any newspaper would have done the same.
I haven’t bought a paper newspaper for over a year, and I feel much better for it. It has saved me a good deal of money, and – more important – a lot of valuable time. For far more years than I should have, I went on reading The Times (through sheer inertia and because I thought it useful to hone my tolerance by reading the clueless views of David Aaronovitch and others).
Nowadays about the only time I ever read a paper is when I’m in Caffe Nero – which provides some free copies of the Times, Guardian, Daily Mail, etc. I grab The Times or The Guardian as I order my drink, and see if I can finish scanning it by the time I’m served. Usually I can, because there is literally not one single article worth reading. Occasionally, I continue for the time it takes to absorb a large skinny mocha or a hot chocolate – maybe there’s a piece by Matthew Parris or someone else who has respect for facts, logic, and the reader’s intelligence. But not very often.
‘‘I don’t think privacy is the issue here, do you?’
It’s not the whole issue, but the fact is that you were sharing private correspondence from a Guardian employee on the Guardian’s own website, following an article which had very little to do with your comments.’
“Private” correspondence? Meaning a letter in which the writer explicitly invited Craig to publish it on his blog??? Come on, let’s not be silly. Published is published – if Craig was allowed (indeed, urged) to publish it on his blog, then publishing it on The Grauniad’s Web site would make no difference.
‘I don’t think there’s much point continuing this discussion’
Damn straight. Your “argument” is utterly ludicrous.
@Tom Welsh.
Nice, accurate description, and very true. I entirely gave up reading newspapers about three years ago, and watching television (other than cricket) about 2 years ago. And now I feel much more informed. I still scan the headlines of the major dailies on-line to see the theme/lie de jour but otherwise I gain my unfiltered news from a range of online sources. It takes much more time but the comments in blogs such as this (and valuable links provided by Mary, Komodo and many others) make it easier and more enjoyable.
It is sad to see people like Monbiot and Milne turned into red coats. The Guardian is not only loosing thousands/day in revenues, it is also fritting up like a clogged drain, their bias automatically steering away from issues that matter in a wider context, narrowing their focus to a fine squint.
One day they will land in a big fat hole for not opening their eyes, many like myslef shall from now on campaing against their sad front, maybe one day a new Guardian will shine through the misery that is current dictating their output.