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 14 15 16 17 18 21
  • Jives

    @ Nuid.

    I had considered your question was rhetorical but decided to answer,in a spirit of clarification,on a subject that had been raised.I’m sure Fedup can answer for his/herself on the other points.I should also say that i do consider tone to be important,certainly when addressing others.”Sunshine” “girl” etc just seem…hmm..a bit off IMO,which is not to defend “wanker” “ziobot” which at no point did i employ.
    ,
    I do think this blog would benefit from PM’s and Time/Date stamping.It can’t be that difficult to arrange.

  • nuid

    “I should also say that i do consider tone to be important,certainly when addressing others.”Sunshine” “girl” etc just seem…hmm..a bit off IMO” — Jives
    .
    Maybe if it weren’t for the fact that Mary had just decided to post a one liner asking:
    .
    “Is Ken Stephen’s new name?”
    .
    Which, I have to say, sounds both all-knowing and a bit smug. If you’re talking about “tone”.
    .
    And yes, time-stamps would make things easier.

  • glenn

    The winner is now streaking ahead:
    .
    Apple 20:11:53 # ./auth-count html-doc-source.rtf |head -20
    Start count on html-doc-source.rtf
    .
    71 Ken
    37 Komodo
    33 Mary
    32 AngrySoba
    23 John Goss
    19 nuid
    19 Fedup
    16 Jives
    16 Azra
    12 passerby
    12 Njegos
    12 Jon
    10 Rob
    9 glenn
    8 Septimius Severus
    7 ingo
    6 Uzbek in the UK
    6 Herbie

  • Jives

    @ Ken

    I have replied to you numerous times on this subject now and made my position clear.Semantic wriggling does not make me a liar,no mattter how inclined you want that to be the case,I have mentioned my thoughts on insinuation by asscociation,inferences and implicit suggestion by innuendo.That is also nuance and methodology,and it’s an old game.If you’d read my point clearly you would’ve interpeted the semantic thrust implicit in the reference to your charge at Mary as a similiar.deliberate example of semantic leading.Maybe if you’d employed a question mark on your sentence Ken?”Seems” can be a word that covers many sins.Was the question mark a deliberate omission or an accidental abstraction?It’s rhetoric too,sure,but the implication stands and judging by tone,it adheres to the rules of prior insinuation.Transitive verbs abound.An old trick,sure,but just as understood.
    ,
    Henry 2nd anyone?

  • nuid

    If they’re numbers of comments, Glenn, there’s something wrong with it, I believe.
    Angry hasn’t made 32 comments on this thread. Are you sure your code is not also counting when a person’s name is used by others? Angry has made 12, as far as I can see.

  • Jives

    Glenn
    3rd December 2011
    The winner is now streaking ahead:
    .
    Apple 20:11:53 # ./auth-count html-doc-source.rtf |head -20
    Start count on html-doc-source.rtf
    .
    71 Ken
    37 Komodo
    33 Mary
    32 AngrySoba
    23 John Goss
    19 nuid
    19 Fedup
    16 Jives
    16 Azra
    12 passerby
    12 Njegos
    12 Jon
    10 Rob
    9 glenn
    8 Septimius Severus
    7 ingo
    6 Uzbek in the UK
    6 Herbie
    ,

    Oh dear…mid-table mediocrity for me? Damn,I shoulda played that pacy lad at centre-half …lol

  • Fedup

    Nuid
    What is this compunction with my posts getting treatment?
    Further, in your haste to ask; “who decides”? Evidently concurrently you set yourself up as the decider by taking away the only poxy excuse for freedom remaining, ie the “freedom of choice”.
    ,
    Finally, given that “Ken” has been peppering the place with oodles of cock-and-bull, somehow your extraneous efforts in defending him are puzzling, what gives?

  • anno

    The Guardian became irrelevant by deleting strong comments from its readers. If the offended deletee stops reading the paper, it creates a market, to use Craig’s word about torture, for another type of news. The Guardian is responsible for its own irrelevance, not the market, as someone suggested about 400 comments ago, because it stuck two fingers up to readers with certain types of views.

    Question. Which is more important, world or local news? Governments probably now spend more on local news, viz: snooping on their own citizens like me sitting at home and picking my nose.

  • Jives

    @ Anno

    “Question. Which is more important, world or local news?”
    ,
    Good question.I’ve been thinking about this alot.Need there be mutual exclusivity?I don’t know.Take both in the context as each of us requires in our own context is my approach fwiw.

  • Fedup

    Anno,
    “snooping on their own citizens like me sitting”
    ,
    You bet, “Human Train”, is the new battlefield, If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas principle holding, now the world become Palestine.
    ,
    Guardian, is a pile of steaming horse manure, why anyone would give it any kudos is beyond me? However, there is the principle of; different folks different foibles?

  • Ken

    Funny to see a few people that interested in how many posts I have and Jives to still be in denial over being proven a lair but hey thats the internet.

  • Ken

    Nuid seems to be one of the few people here who can think for her/him self and has gone thru this thread debunking untruths about me,well done and many thanks. Nice to see someone with some intelligence on here and who can think for themselves and are not lead by the crowd who are adding nothing to this thread but insults and lies against me.

  • glenn

    Nuid: No, there wasn’t a problem with the code, so much as a problem entirely with me. Count 32 showed up blank, I took a lazy look and thought that must be AS’s count, and inserted that by hand. Turns out the 32 represents the number of hyperlinks instead of just given names, because in the source it has class=’url’ instead of class=”author”.
    .
    Hey, it only was a quick & dirty job!

  • Ken

    Herbie.


    Cain has been going down hill very quickly for weeks now,guess he should have kept his dick in his trousers.

  • Rehmat

    Ken – Cain is no exception to the rule which governs American politics. The more a US politician believes that the world revolves around Israel, better he has the chance to receive Zionist Lobby’s money and support. With the exception of Ron Paul, all other presidential hopeful are morally corrupt.

    Take for example, Rep. Michele Bachmann told NBC News’ Jamie Novogrod the othe day that if she was US President, she would have closed US Embassy in Tehran. She was responding to the recent raiding of British embassy by Iranian protesters for London’s plan to attack Iran along with Israel.

    Naturally, the idiot did not know that US-Iran doesn’t have diplomatic relations since 1980.

    http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/bachmann-i-will-close-us-embassy-in-tehran/

  • glenn

    Apologies for the earlier, inaccurate information. Here it is, straight from the Official Output, without any tinkering on my part this time:
    —–
    Apple 21:40:13 # ./auth-count html-doc-source.rtf |head -20
    Start count on html-doc-source.rtf

    77 Ken
    37 Komodo
    33 Mary
    23 John Goss
    22 Fedup
    21 nuid
    20 Jives
    16 Azra
    12 passerby
    12 angrysoba
    12 Njegos
    12 Jon
    11 glenn
    10 Rob
    8 Septimius Severus
    7 ingo
    7 Herbie
    6 Uzbek in the UK
    ———
    Clearly, it’s hats off to Ken for putting twice as many posts as the second place poster (not warmed up enough, Komodo?), putting in an impressive 16.3% of the total in a high volume thread.

  • Ken

    Rehmat..

    Yeah I know American politicians are mostly slaves to the Israeli lobby. Just hearing some of them on the Republican debates makes me cringe. That Newt saying how he would do this and that to Iran on national TV,(everything illegal in international law)just makes me thinks my God what does the future hold but the fact is that if he came to power nothing would change as they have been doing the same stuff for years.Does not matter if they are Republican or Democrats either as they are all the same. That is a funny piece about Bachmann. Cheers.

  • Fedup

    Anno, Rehmat,


    Muslim Brotherhood claims Egypt elections

    ,
    …. first free vote in six decades ….. Muslim Brotherhood won 40% of the votes, the radical Salafi al-Nour party has won 20% of the votes, the liberal bloc has 15% of the votes, and the rest of the votes were split between the smaller Left-wing parties.
    ,
    Cairo’s ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces was reportedly “vexed and concerned” by the apparent Islamist victory

  • Ken

    Fedup..[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8932600/Israel-government-scores-own-goal-with-US-Jewish-organisations.html]



    Those ads have been pulled already by that dickhead Israeli PM.

  • glenn

    Ken: I think Gingrich didn’t expect to be a frontrunner at this stage, the whole business was to boost his speaking fees and promote his books (which he never misses an opportunity to plug). This whole thing has been highly lucrative for him so far, allowing some relief from his (third) wife’s Tiffany habit. Getting his exceedingly unattractive self nominated as the Repug candidate would bring his long career of self promotion to a rapid halt, once Obama wipes the floor with him.
    .
    Gingrich didn’t count on the clowns, nut-jobs and half-wits he’d be up against. Particularly that freak Rick “don’t google my name” Santorum. Paul Krugman summed it best, when describing Gingrich as ‘Stupid Man’s Idea of What a Smart Man Sounds Like’.

  • Ken

    Glenn [once Obama wipes the floor with him]


    I do not know a lot about American politicians really. They are much and much the same to me. I think the only one I have seen that seems to speak some sense is Ron Paul. I do not think Obama will win the next election if the economy of America does not pick up sharply in the next 11 months but I do not think it matters who wins as they will not change their foreign policy anyway.

1 14 15 16 17 18 21

Comments are closed.