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 19 20 21
  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    Thanks for that link Azra to an article by Yvonne Ridley who I have a certain affection for.
    It is true the Iranian people love many things British including our football league, our trains, our theatres and film industry.
    The Iranian military training is based somewhat on our own and several high ranking Iranian retired naval officers at Bushehr trained with me at HMS Collingwood in the mid 70’s. I am fully aware the Iranian naval procurement would buy British frigates if diplomatic relations were different. In fact this rich country would buy into an abundance of British technology including our trains, CNC machines and tooling, thus helping revive our manufacturing base essential after the recent financial collapse.
    As most Iranians say, “why do British leaders have a blind obedience to Washington?”
    Iran is a passive country; it has human rights issues which are slowly being remedied, yet the majority of its people support the Islamic Republic which has been strengthened by recent events. The BBC Persian service has failed to divide the country.

  • Ken

    Azra. [this might be of specific interest to you. It is a very interesting article in foreign Policy Journal,

    A very pro Iranian piece there but only to be expected from a woman who works for Press TV, which basically means she works for the Iranian government as they fund it.I am thinking that you posted it up to try and prove your point about the Iranians being able to speak their mind and criticise their government. It still does not change the fact that many people are arrested and tortured by the Iranian government. It is not an unbiased report although it is interesting to see her view point. Thanks.

  • Some

    Might I suggest that an effective way of exposing the Guardian’s draconian and worrisome censorship would be to:

    1) Whenever you post a Comment to the Guardian, create a duplicate post on an alternate site. Quote the exact same text, and carry a link to the article and the time the post appeared.

    2) Track all such deletions

    3) Aggregate these deletions into a page of “deleted Comments”

    4) Periodically, publish the “week’s” or “month’s” comments as a blog post.

    For what it’s worth, I actually found this page through a comment on the Guardian, and was fascinated to learn that links to such blogs are being systemically censored. I’ve checked as well, and indeed can no longer find the comment w/ the link here on the article…

    It is wholly unreasonable and completely undermines the credibility of the Guardian. I think a systemic caching of such censorship is extremely important.

1 19 20 21

Comments are closed.