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?
EU adopts new sanctions against Iran and Syria
Sanctions against Syria, over its crackdown against protesters, set to be wide-ranging; actions against Iran could include controversial oil embargo; U.S. says would support sanctions on Iran central bank.
.
By DPA and Reuters
.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/eu-adopts-new-sanctions-against-iran-and-syria-1.399008
.
Brown’s appointee and stooge Baroness Ashton read out a statement expressing the EU’s outrage at the attack on the British embassy in Tehran, etc etc.
I really messed up on that quote from the Joint Committee on Privacy. The quote I put up was from Mr Justice Tugenhat. This is the one from Lord Neuberger.
.
Q533
Mr Bradshaw: What about the deterrent effect? We heard from bloggers that basically they do not care what the law says; they will just blog whatever they want. As far as I am aware, none of them has ever been served with a contempt of court.
.
Mr Justice Tugendhat: In my experience, claimants are not usually particularly troubled about restraining what is said in the blogosphere or in tweets. Obviously, they do not like it, but they are mainly concerned with stopping things getting into a source that carries weight.
.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury: I should like to make three points in response. First, to pick up Lord Janvrin’s point, we are in a state of flux and change in terms of communications, and where we are now may be very different from where we will be in 10 years. At the moment, the differences between the blogosphere, and newspapers and more established media are entirely as Mr Justice Tugendhat has described.
Second, many of the hosting companies and servers insist on people who have web pages or whatever agreeing in their terms that, if the host is required by a court order to reveal the identity or company who is putting up the web or blog, they will do so. My understanding is that, whenever they have been required to do so by an English court—it is not very frequent—they have done so. In that sense, they are chaseable to an extent. I am sure there will be some companies in countries where our writs do not run, so that may not be a complete answer.
The third point is to illustrate the relative unreliability at the moment of the blogosphere. On a couple of occasions when I have been involved in upholding injunctions in favour of erring individuals—footballers as it happens—I have gone on to the blog to see to what extent the information is out there. I think that on each occasion there were different blogs confidently identifying a total of 11 different footballers as the actual person concerned. Although they do not like us, I think that in many ways the newspapers to some extent have the legislators and judiciary to thank for their reputation for reliability. Much as they do not like it in individual cases, the law tends to keep them relatively accurate and, in so doing, we help to ensure that they maintain their reputation. The less policing there is, as we see on the blog, the less reliable the information and, consequently, the less influential the blogosphere is, but, as Lord Janvrin’s question shows, that may change over the next 10 or 20 years.
.
You can read on at page 29
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/ucJCPI211111ev6.pdf
“The Guardian. Whom does it serve?”
.
Im confused, everyone knows the bottom line for the Guardian is pro NeoCon .. it has always been so in recent years.
The corruption table of the world,apparently.
Who’s to say,of course,that the compilers didn’t take huge backhanders to fiddle the results though?
Uzbekistan in a relegation dogfight…
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/dec/01/corruption-index-2011-transparency-international
“Assange probably got turned years ago and is playing his role to perfection as a warning to any others who might be tempted to whistleblow.
.
What did he really reveal? Tittle tattle largely.Nothing of earth shattering proportions IMO.”
.
Yeah, I’ve wondered about this. It would make sense for our Masters to deflect the attention of the politically curious to a source purveying nothing but harmless gossip. You know… “Oh, if that’s the worst they’re up to then I can forget all this stuff and sleep at night.” If people think Assange has all the dirt, they’re not going to look any further.
.
I may be wrong, it’s just something that occurred to me.
.
(Incidentally, everybody talks about Wikileaks but does anyone actually read it?)
O T but
Anybody clock page 65 of tonights London Evening Standard with an incredibly pro Alistair Campbell missive from Journo JOHN LLOYD – ex counter culture TIME OUT’s “NIGEL FOUNTAIN” and now also a senior PROFESSOR OF JOURNALISM who also scribes for the FINANCIAL TIMES. Sickening plus. Some fountain eh? Keep well clear and bath well afterwards.
@ Franz
.
“(Incidentally, everybody talks about Wikileaks but does anyone actually read it?)”
.
Nope,not me.All the donkey work seems to be left to certain journalists which in itself is another filtering process.Who’s to say those journalists aren’t the steerers?
“The Guardian. Whom does it serve?”
The fact is that so much of the MSM has been penetrated by the intelligence agencies, or is just plain scared of them.
In British Journalism Review Vol. 11, No. 2, 2000, Mr. David Leigh himself wrote – “journalists are being manipulated by the secret intelligence agencies, and I think we ought to try and put a stop to it.”
If the Guardian had any integrity, the way to remove it is for the Zionists to buy a small share in it.
Simple.
And the guardian is a business, and businesses are in the business of making money.
When it comes to newspapers the way to make money is by getting stories.
The way to get stories is by having sources.
So they choose to keep the Zionists sweet, because they can get a lot more stories from them then they can get from you.
“I have already started a boycott of The Guardian, having noticed a rightward shift and an increasing amount of meaningless churnalism.”
.
interestingly the Pakistan government has blocked BBC/CNN and other anti Pakistan organisations from broadcasting via cable .. they have no recommended to replace with RTTV.
.
.
“Brown’s appointee and stooge Baroness Ashton read out a statement expressing the EU’s outrage at the attack on the British embassy in Tehran, etc etc.”
.
Cant stand the woman, Im wondering who the organ grinder is.
.
.
“Azra, that is not actually a Fisk article for Press TV (not even he would sink that low) but rather a regular propaganda piece by Press TV in which they have excerpted bits of his article from the Independent.”
.
Fisk has appeared on PressTV. Isnt all media Propaganda and agenda driven, why do you expect PressTV to be different?
.
The issue is about facts and reliability and at present it is more reliable and factual than the BBC,CNN,FOX,Sky etc
Yes they have sold out.
But that is what business is all about, selling stuff to the highest bidder.
Craig you have been out bid by the Neo-cons, get over it.
You can cry to the Guardian, about how you thought they were the nice guys when it comes to corporate media.
In the hope your tears will be worth more to them than the money and riches flung at them from the Zionists and their supporters.
Or we can make the mainstream media irrelevant.
Make our own internet media and take them on, head on.
We wont win from day one, but newspapers are dying.
🙂
We have people in every country. Why don’t we all just get together?
Instead of our individual blogs, get together and have one big truly independent one.
For this to work, craig you need to ask yourself.
Can you work together with people you have fundamental disagreements with?
Mad Mulla types like me for instance?
Israeli propaganda gets everywhere on the BBC website, even on to the Technology pages. Clever those Israeli high tech companies.
.
1 December 2011
.
Israeli start-up Takadu helps Londoners save water
By Katia Moskvitch Technology reporter, BBC News, Tel Aviv
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15890551
I am surprised Craig should be naive enough to waste any time at all on David Leigh, who is not only Jewish and a Zionist, but a well known supporter of the nastiest elements in the Israeli government (and, who knows, may well receive a handsome subsidy from his chums in Mossad. The Guardian has been as selective and economical with the truth as the BBC (and for that matter the rest of the MSM) in its Middle East reporting for quite a while now. It is really staggering how far we have come since The Times published the wretched Vanunu’s revelations about the Israeli nuclear arsenal. Your point about Profumo is a good one: Profumo was only sharing a prositute with a Soviet spy, Fox’s “best friend” seems not only to be a fully paid up Mossad operative, but his lies rather than being headlined, have actually been brushed under the carpet by the Cabinet Secretary, without a murmur from the MSM. Meanwhile, Gould has made no bones about where his true loyalties lie – and they are not to the country that pays his salary (at least his official one). Unfortunately, however much one might delude onself about the power of the Internet, what should be a huge scandal, simply does not exist in the corridors of power. Of course, one day the rot will bring the whole edifice down, and I would not care to speculate on what will happen to the traitors (for that is what they are) then, or even if those of us who oppose them will survive that long.
@jives….What did he really reveal? Tittle tattle largely.Nothing of earth shattering proportions IMO..
,
,
You must have been reading the Sun or some other bullshit rag if you think that all wikileaks revealed was tittle tattle.
I would think that a US military helicopter cockpit video of two journalists being killed and kids and unarmed civilians being shot or murdered is pretty much earth shattering, it has never been seen before and I doubt it will be seen again. The naming and documenting of American death squads in Afghanistan murdering civilians was not really tittle tattle either. Wikileaks and its sources have released more scoops than any newspaper in the history of journalism and you call it tiitle tattle and not earth shattering. I would say you clearly have not a clue to trot out a line like that.
What`s the betting that Fox will be back in a new Cameron coalition cabinet within the next 6/12 months.
It’s a welcome sign of a civilized relationship – even if strained – between the print media and the blogosphere that Craig gave the Guardian advance notice of what he intended to say about them; that David Leigh responded, asking for his comments to be carried in full; and that Craig did so.
.
That needs to be built on. I hope Craig will remind the Guardian that good journalism pays attention to precise wording. Craig spoke of “a relationship” between the Guardian and Apax. As a normal reader, I would assume this did NOT mean ownership: if that were the relationship, there would be no reason for Craig not to say so. Leigh’s reply on that point would make any Kremlinologist or deconstructor of replies to Parliamentary Questions immediately suspicious. Craig’s point was not about ownership but about the Guardian’s relationship with Apax, which Leigh’s reponse carefully sidestepped, throwing in as deflective and dismissive chaff that Craig’s point was “daft”.
.
Why not test who is being daft, inaccurate or evasive? I suggest that Craig should now explain what he understands to be the relationship between the Guardian and Apax – drawing on the excellent investigative work by Komodo – and again gives Leigh the opportunity to comment before opening a new blog on “The Guardian and Apax”. That topic might well be of interest to Private Eye’s “Street of Shame” – which was given an unexpected and deserved puff in Alastair Campbell’s written evidence to the Leveson Inquiry (see http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/?witness=alastair-campbell ).
.
Do any other participants in Craig’s website intend to submit written evidence to Leveson? I’m considering doing so, as a citizen concerned at the extent to which vested interests shape the values and policies of both the media and of governments (of every political hue). From my experience of submitting evidence to Commons Select Committees, this can be a useful way of getting alternative perspectives on the public record – and even of influencing the recommedndations.
A FT article by David Miliband! on the dangers of going to war with Iran.
.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1322767020.html
.
The risks of sleepwalking into a war with Iran
{http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52757f10-1b69-11e1-85f8-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1fJPFqFkj}
Cosy chats with each other but not about this.
.
https://twitter.com/#!/davidleigh3
Why did Carolyn McCall leave the top job at the Guardian, CEO Guardian Media Group to go to Easyjet?
.
http://www.apax.com/sectors/media/our-investments/trader-media-group.aspx
.
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_McCall}
Some background on her.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/7507752/easyJet-to-hand-Guardian-chief-Carolyn-McCall-the-controls.html
Junius,
I don’t think Dacid Leigh is a Zionist, particularly. Whether he is Jewish or not is irrelevant. He is an excellent journalist – his work on BAE was some of the best stuff done for many years in the British media.
I don’t think Leigh is Jewish. In fact, some Zionist elements are very unhappy indeed about him:
http://cifwatch.com/2011/09/04/guardians-david-leigh-disclosed-secret-wikileaks%E2%80%99-passwords-for-thousands-of-unredacted-diplomatic-cables/
.
If you look at the topics criticised by CiFwatch, it is pretty obviously a hasbara site. And it exists solely and specifically to put pressure on the Guardian to slant its coverage in a specific direction. Obviously, I can’t know how successful it or other zionist media pressure groups are. But they may need to be factored into the equation.
Wow. Synchronicity. 🙂
user @x7o on Twitter today :
” The idea that being a journalist is just a career decision, rather than a mission to emancipate us from lies, is why we have our ‘industry.’ ”
https://twitter.com/#!/x7o/status/142273052451934209
They are kicking sand in our faces now. Frum is on QT tonight.
.
David Dimbleby will be joined by the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and the shadow minister for small business and enterprise Chuka Umunna.
.
The panel will also include the businesswoman and Dragon’s Den investor Deborah Meaden and the American political commentator and former speech-writer for President George W Bush, David Frum.
.
Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, completes the panel line-up.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum
The Guardian has gone downhill quicker than any newspaper I’ve ever read – oh for the Manchester Guardian days. And ask for the so-called moderators!
The Grauniad, whom does it serve?
Alan Rusbridger’s extended family by all accounts 😛
Oh, and their various cottages in Chipping Norton (I kid you not!)
Oh well I guess that David Leigh is off Craig’s Christmas Card list and the Guardian is now to be cast into outer darkness.
To argue that the Guardian is protecting Werrity when it revealed the who affair and continues to push for further investigation of the whole matter just flies in the face of reality. What Craig should realise is that if an investigative journalist of David Leigh’s quality (which Craig does have the good grace to acknowledge) does not publish a story after looking into it it is probably because it doesn’t all stack together and he probably doesn’t believe that the inferences being drawn are not supporteed by the available evidence. Those who are on the receiving end of a David Leigh investigation usually know that the allegations are likely to be of some substance and need to be taken seriously.
I should also ask whether seeking to paint everything so black and white about the UK’s intentions to Iran (or vice versa for that matter) when the probable reality is that there are shades of grey and different attitudes all over the place, is actually likely to be conducive to solving the problem. I don’t think that we should sleepwalk into a war with Iran, but equally I don’t believe that sabre rattling offers much of a solution either.
Junius _ i think you will find that you are just aping Assange’s original allegation about Leigh/Rusbridger/Guardian, which you will also find that he has now dropped if you care to look.
Interestingly, as the daggers come out for Paul Flynn, there is an article in the Washington Post (see Mondoweiss http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/washington-post-says-questions-surfaced-about-amb-gary-lockes-possible-dual-loyalty-to-china.html) about the new American ambassador to China which casually states ‘questions have surfaced about whether the Chinese American’s background might lead to dual loyalties’.
Something tells me that David Frum, who already seems to have churned out an outraged screed about the behaviour of a foreign MP, will manage to overlook this slight impropriety on the part of his compatriots. Or some of his compatriots, as he is a dual citizen of Canada and the United States. Perhaps a citizen of other counties as well
None of this is surprising: the Manchester Guardian became the target of the Rhodes-Milner group (aka The Round Table) for its opposition to the attack on the Afrikaner republics, and its denunciation of Rhodes’ skulduggery. The Rhodes-Milner group subsequently came to dominate the MG in much the same way it manipulated the Liberal Party to its ends; and, through the Balfour Declaration, begat Israel as a strategic outpost of the British Empire. In short, the Guardian remains faithful to the Round Table vision of Israel’s role, albeit now in the service of the American empire.
The role of spooks at the Guardian shows a similar consistency: the paper’s correspondents in Russia at the time of the revolution constituted a who’s who of MI6 agents and assets. During the early Cold War, the paper was, for the most part, little more than an IRD front. With the arrival of the CIA, the paper was soon subsidized by the agency’s news agencies, most notably Forum World Features. It duly found the Warren Report compelling and the Zelikow whitewash of 9/11 entirely satisfactory.
In summary, then, the Guardian is, and has been for over a century, the Anglo-American establishment’s pipeline to the British Left. As such, it is the most cynical and dishonest paper of them all.