Rusbridger’s Lies are Sacred and Neo-Con Comment is Free 100


Today’s Guardian editorial quotes directly from my speech at the Ecuadorean Embassy, in a sneering way:

their remarks concerned western Europe’s “neocon juntas”

The Guardian editorial makes the direct claim that I, and the other speakers, omitted all mention of the sexual allegations against Julian Assange in Sweden. That is a direct lie by the Guardian. In fact over half my speech – 23 sentences to be precise – were dedicated to the allegations against Assange and putting them in the context of the irrefutable evidence of the serial use of such allegations against various whistleblowers, including myself, in order to damage their reputation and brand them as criminals unconnected to whistleblowing.

Despite quoting my speech in its editorial, and mentioning it three times in its liveblog of the rally, the Guardian at no stage made any attempt to indicate the gist of what I actually said. Even the New York Times, without giving any of my explanation, at least got the point when it reported that:

a former British diplomat, Craig Murray, asserted that Mr. Assange had been “fitted up with criminal offenses” as a pretext

Of course the Guardian did not overlook what the NYT picked up. You could not overlook all 23 sentences of it. But simply the Guardian wished to run an editorial arguing that the Swedish allegations had been completely ignored. The facts did not suit Rusbridger’s comment. So Rusbridger’s comment remained free and lies were sacred.

The Guardian’s shrill and vitriolic campaign against Assange is extraordinary in its ferocity, persistence and pointless repetition.. The sad truth is that its origins lie in the frustration of the Guardian’s hopes to make a great deal of cash from involvement in Assange’s putative memoirs. That such a once great paper should fall sway to such a mean-minded little neo-con lickspittle as Rusbridger and his Blair supporting coterie is a great tragedy.

This is what, contrary to Rusbridger’s lies, I actually said:

Anybody with time and patience might like to keep posting links to it under the Guardian editorial once they open comments on it tomorrow morning.


100 thoughts on “Rusbridger’s Lies are Sacred and Neo-Con Comment is Free

1 2 3 4
  • Courtenay Barnett

    Full marks Craig Murray – well spoken.
    It appears surreal that the UK government would seriously contemplate invading the Ecuadorian Embassy. Hague and Cameron are sounding like tin pot dictators. Not surprisingly:-
    “We warn the government of the United Kingdom that it will face grave consequences around the world if it directly breaches the territorial integrity of the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London,” said a statement issued at the end of the ALBA meeting.”
    So, because UK supplicants are making stupid threats about violating another country’s sovereignty in service and subservience to the US – bone heads are going to kick off an international crisis.
    One small fact leads me to a conclusion of contrivance and collusion, when one weighs the allegations made by the two Swedish women against Assange versus the Swedish authorities response. Would it not be logical to accept Assange’s offer to the Swedish authorities to be interviewed at the Ecuadorian Embassy as a first rational step in a criminal prosecution?
    When one considers that it was from the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights 1688 that one sees a development of jurisprudence over centuries and precedents and practice in support of journalistic freedoms and the broad right to freedom of expression evolving – the events surrounding Assange signifies an attempt to turn the clock back on freedom of expression. The US relied on the UK 1688 Bill of Rights and its principles to frame within the US Constitution – the First Amendment. Now it wants to act contrary to all the First Amendment principles it had sensibly enshrined centuries ago.
    So, as I said, it appears surreal that a democratic government, at its highest level, would actually express and weigh its chances of violating a sovereign nation’s embassy. Dumbfounded that the US has been attacking freedom of speech ( “expression” in the broader context of its own First Amendment). I am absolutely dumbfounded and in a state of shock and disbelief.

  • Ex Pat

    UK GUARDIAN – NOW SHOOTING ITSELF IN BOTH FEET, DAILY !!!

    NO, REALLY!

    Craig, your speech was tremendous. Because of your conviction and your justified outrage. Your best yet, against some truly wonderful previous talks. Link below. (*1).

    > The Guardian’s shrill and vitriolic campaign against Assange is extraordinary in its ferocity, persistence and pointless repetition.. The sad truth is that its origins lie in the frustration of the Guardian’s hopes to make a great deal of cash from involvement in Assange’s putative memoirs.

    Jung tells us that there is no evil so great that good cannot come out of it. And no good so great that evil cannot come out of it. Gee – there’s a hard idea to grasp! ; )

    In that light, for benighted USans who might have been bamboozled by the Guardian’s liberal reputation, this Guardian lie is actually an excellent development.

    Previously, the Guardian shot themselves in the foot with views that utterly belie any liberal or progressive reputation that they ever had. – Their ridiculous and perfidious misrepresentation of their interview with Chomsky, for one.

    Now, they continue to shoot themselves in the foot every day with more lies – Rusbridger’s continuing lies on the Wikileaks story for a couple of hundred!

    Today they are using an RPG on both feet daily. – Hiring a Neo-Con Nazi columnist for only of many, many examples.

    This is a great development! Even for those who are largely misinformed, reality is much easier to grasp!

    No, really! ; )

    We really _do_ live in an Operation Mockingbird Mk XXII world. And the Guardian proves it each and every day. Thank you God! (*2)

    Thank you for previous and ongoing tremendous efforts.

    OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD Mk XXII

    The point about the original Operation Mockingbird was not that _hundreds_ of mainstream writers were recruited. They were.

    It was that ALL channels of communication were controlled.

    Think that ‘Biggus Dickus’ Richard Cheney is likely to have been _less_ diligent than the original in the 1950s / 60s?

    No chance!

    Asia Times – Bent

    Democracy Now – Bent

    “Thank you for ga____ing” – Amy Goodman and / or staff on DN.

    Counterpunch – Bent – ‘On the CIA dole’ – Jeffrey St. Clair. Personally, I’ll take him at his word. Particularly give ten years of milque-toast Cockburn posting, compared to his white-hot demolition jobs before that. Anything after 2001 was barely luke-warm.

    The Propaganda Department known as ‘Mike Whitney’ – nothing but Bent

    Christopher Hitchens – Very Bent indeed. – “I know why he writes what he writes.” – Gore Vidal. Who unfortunately did not deign to share that knowledge with us.

    Truthdig – Don’t make us laugh! Which makes one wonder about Ramparts in the 1960s. And all its alumni.

    And of course the Grauniad, Independent, Telegraph and all the others!

    OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD

    Operation Mockingbird – Spartacus Schoolnet –

    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

    Operation Mockingbird –

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

    (*1) Afghanistan in one sentence, from Craig Murray – UK ambassador to Uzbekistan – “There are so many lies about Afghanistan; it’s about money; it’s about oil; it’s about drugs; it’s about the abuse of human rights; it’s about degradation; it’s about all of us paying through our taxes for wars that benefit a tiny clique.” – Craig Murray – UK/USA made use of Uzbek torture Pt2 –

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MQoG5wfx5g#t=09m56s

    NUREMBERG MK II

    “The Neocons, ER, Heydrich, were careerists who instituted the industrial killing of millions in an effort to please Cheney (Hitler) and win promotion.” “You cannot just order the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. No normal person would do such a thing.” Paraphrased. The following is the neutered replacement version that completely alters the damning commentary of the first ‘Memory Holed’ version! –

    – Now gone entirely! –

    – US Bathwater / Neocon Nazis – just like this lovely fellow? – WW2 – Heydrich –

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF1NXE55LBE#t=01m20s

    Poor US Neo-Cons / Our Tony — Terrified of their date with destiny — A long drop on a short rope. – Nuremberg Mk II. –

    Mk I for comparison – Nuremberg Executions of N_zi Leaders for ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ and ‘Crimes Against the Laws of War.’ – Original –

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=95d_1206462963

    (*2) More “Thank you, God!” – Rhys Ifans’s prayers are answered! – Notting Hill –

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMB3mUytpM#t=00m50s

  • Courtenay Barnett

    The Western democracies are putting rights in reverse – and a full and forceful legal stand in the Assange affair, becomes important if the stealthy theft of rights is to change gear.
    It is unacceptable that this Guantanamo gulag arrangement continues. Habeas corpus and due process must extend to all accused persons. How can a country profess to uphold the protection of human rights and values in accordance with the principles of a democratic society while simultaneously permitting indefinite detention and torture.
    In the US there is the National Authorization Defense Act. President Obama signed it into law on the 13th December, 2011 and this piece of legislation goes a step further in compromising rights and bringing the US domestic legal situation into disrepute by denying US citizens rights in ways analogous to detainees in Guantanamo.
    Just use the word “terrorist” and rights can be ignored and persons can be placed indefinitely in military detention camps. Courts are being erased and Executive actions are to be substituted for the rule of law adjudicated before Judges in a public trial. In the Assange affair Cameron and Hague want to tear up the Vienna Convention. Sad and disturbing.

  • Bollinger Bob

    Its odd that the British Govt would go ballistic and paranoid to the point just to get Assange over for just questioning.

    Its also odd, that he’s been accused by not one woman from the same country as the other within a relatively short time frame….doesn’t add up as far as I’m concerned. The CH4 Documentary Dispatches from 1997 ‘Murder in St James’ summed it up for me, ie The death of PC Yvonne Fletcher has some of the hallmarks over the Ecuador Embassy, ie to frame Libya (The two part documentary interviewed 3 experts including one ballistics expert and one forensic scientist who claim the bullet trajectory came from a neighboring building which housed some murky organisation. Without wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, the parallel obfuscations are all too apparent.

    The confidence the govt had to execute a war in Libya over oil due to public amnesia and not being held to account by the lame media and clever spinning lies was present in the Guardian. I wander who pull their strings.

  • John-Albert Eadie (@bothandeach)

    It seems to me, in far-off British Columbia, that the UK politicos and perhaps other UK folks are following or are being influenced by the #USA .. too damn much. On the other hand, I suppose your petroleum & financial guys -who are close to the dark side- also have UK political heft. I think Assange isn’t the most personable guy around, yet I would give him a medal for Wikileaks. A hero, really.

  • DavidH

    I’m no fan of Assagne. Most of the diplomatic cables released on Wikileaks were not in any way incriminating. They were simply stolen data. It’s kind of a contradiction that he’s so vocal in attacking government intrusion and misuse of power when he himself intrudes into people’s private data and publishes it on the internet. What about all those private and confidential opinions in the cables? And not just the US diplomats, I’m thinking more of the people the diplomats were quoting and talking about. Probably more than a few people hurt there. Assagne talks about his freedom of expression but what about everybody else’s freedom to express themselves in private? He’s a one-man police state in his non-respect for freedom and privacy. And teaming up with the government of Ecuador in this crusade? Well they are a well-known defender of journalistic freedom, right?

    Assange should have published only the data that was incriminating – the Guantanamo Bay and air strikes stuff. Then he would have more of a claim to whistleblower status.

    That said, the UK response is completely ridiculous. Threatening to tear up the Vienna Convention? Being a party to these so obviously trumped-up sex charges? Absolute shame on them. If there’s no current law they can use against Assange for handling stolen data like he did then they should work on making that law. And to make that law they will probably need international cooperation. Which they are not likely to get when they go around threatening other countries’ embassies. In fact, forget international cooperation. Just get him with a drone attack. Where is the Ecuadorian embassy, anyway? Take out a couple of blocks of London. Anybody in close proximity to a target must be an enemy combatant, right? There you go…

  • Lindi

    Excellent speech at the embassy, Craig – fantastic timing that you were home in time. So important for you to weigh in on this. The two speeches (yours and Julian’s) taken together are really inspiring.

    The Guardian (though much improved in this respect recently with coverage of the court martial) was also appalling in its coverage of Bradley Manning, most notably in the production of a terrible video around April 2011 which it actually entitled ‘The MADNESS of Bradley Manning’ (my capitals).

    It attempted to slightly mitigate this AWFUL slur by adding a question mark (ie The Madness of Bradley Manning?) as if this made it acceptable. The same stuff then appeared in a double spread in the print edition (with an introductory paragraph on the front page) which was one of the shoddiest piece of shit I have ever read. Suffice it to say that it told us at least THREE times that he ‘wet himself’, and repeated the phrase ‘mess of a child’ (one ex soldier’s assessment) several times. It quoted from a neighbour who said (in support of the insinuation that Brad’s ma had issues with alcohol) that he never saw her drunk but the lights were sometimes on at two in the morning…

    And this pathetic, hideous article remains the most extensive coverage ever in our mainstream press to my knowledge. Which makes me weep to think of the lost opportunity and the ‘nail in the coffin’ it became on the real narrative, for it did untold damage, as has the Guardian’s petty and nasty attitude to Julian.

    Not to mention the New York Times – it was, I believe, Bill Keller who let us in on the fascinating item of news that Julian ‘didn’t change his socks often enough…’ – and the NYT who, on Thurs, in the middle of this whole enormous Ecuadorean news item, apprised us of the absolutely riveting information that Julian ‘once came to stay without being invited, abused the cat, and didn’t FLUSH THE TOILET’ OMG – now that really IS news. (By the following day these bits of the ‘story’ had been edited out….showing at least some sense of propriety, albeit belatedly; I suppose one must be thankful for that small sign of shame).

    What was it you said?

    “Only our disgustingly, complacent and spoon-fed mainstream media would accept such a narrative for one single moment. It is obviously nonsense to anybody with half a brain,” he added.”

    (quoted by Kevin Gosztola http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/08/19/former-british-ambassador-craig-murray-we-need-whistleblowers-now-more-than-ever/)

    Thank you again, Craig, for bearing witness.

  • Sam Cel Roman

    Although I’ve known about your actions w/r/t Uzbekistan for years and been reading this website for about 2 years, yesterday (via a live stream) was the first time I’ve seen you speak.

    Good job, sir, and I agreed with every word. Keep up the good work!

  • oddie

    15 Aug: Guardian: The Guardian adds Josh Trevino to growing US team
    “We are pleased to have Josh join the Guardian,” said Janine Gibson, editor-in-chief of the Guardian US. “He brings an important perspective our readers look for on issues concerning US politics,” added Gibson.
    Trevino’s background spans from speechwriting for the Bush administration to conceiving and co-founding RedState. Treviño is also a writer-at-large for the magazine Texas Monthly…
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/gnm-press-office/9

    Trevino Tweet June 2011:

    Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla — well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.
    http://twitter.com/jstrevino/status/84685322142760960

  • purple

    Let’s face it, the Anglo-Saxon world is stomping around because they can’t do Everything they like anymore. They don’t have all the money anymore.

  • DavidH

    People just seem to be thinking about Assange as a whistleblowing hero a la Watergate. And the UK actions are playing into that. But that’s simplistic and misses the more radical ideas on freedom that Assange seems to stand for. He thinks he can publish anything he likes on people without the responsibility to fact check or establish a public interest defense in the case of private or protected information. Why should he be less responsible for what he puts on his website than a newspaper would be for what goes on its pages? Would people who defend him mind at all if he published all their phone records / emails / bank statements / tax returns etc etc? He seems to be working on the principle that if people have nothing to hide then they shouldn’t mind being exposed but that’s exactly the same argument used by a police state and one I wouldn’t expect most of the writers on this forum to agree with. Maybe the best defense against a police state in the internet age is total transparency. So all data, private or government, is open to access by all. Is that what the internet age has brought us to? It’s a radical argument. Call me old fashioned, but no – I like to think that my business is my own and not to be be poked into by Assange or the state without a very good reason.

  • Sam L

    It may seem puerile to quote this, but I can’t help recalling a line from Game of Thrones. “When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.” It may not be actual kingdoms up for grabs, but there may as well be fields of lances and horsed men lining up to battle. And the prize, should the US be victor, is the ability to rule with continued impunity. And we, the masses have not progressed much further than the serfs in the field. We just think we have because we’re driving Honda’s and slaving away at computers instead of pulling carts and farming onions. Strength to you all and prayers that we can this time, find middle ground.

  • kingelix

    @DavidH
    .
    Thank you for your ‘contributions’.
    .
    “It’s kind of a contradiction that he’s so vocal in attacking government intrusion and misuse of power when he himself intrudes into people’s private data and publishes it on the internet.”
    .
    You are grasping for a contradiction that does not exist. The point is that publishing classified government data demonstrates the yawning gap between what Western governments proclaim themselves to be advancing: democracy, freedom, etc, and what they actually engage in: grubby realpolitik.
    .
    Secondly, the banal nature of much of the classified material, which you point to, actually bolsters the argument for releasing it, to show that governments are indulging in secrecy not for national security reasons, but simply as part of a burgeoning culture of secrecy and/or to avoid political embarrassment.
    .
    Your ‘argument’ regarding Assange’s intrusion into people’s privacy by dint of publishing the Wikileaks cables being at odds with his arguments against government intrusion. Well, that argument founders upon two things (at least). 1/ Julian Assange is not a government 2/ Julian Assange does not seek to create advantage by keeping information secret, and 3/ The original intrusion was undertaken by the US and its allies, shifting it into the public domain may constitute another form of intrusion, but it is motivated by idealistic aims. Besides, those included in the documents are/were given a full picture of what was being said about them and when, a useful Public service.
    .
    “He thinks he can publish anything he likes on people without the responsibility to fact check or establish a public interest defense in the case of private or protected information. Why should he be less responsible for what he puts on his website than a newspaper would be for what goes on its pages? Would people who defend him mind at all if he published all their phone records / emails / bank statements / tax returns etc etc? He seems to be working on the principle that if people have nothing to hide then they shouldn’t mind being exposed but that’s exactly the same argument used by a police state and one I wouldn’t expect most of the writers on this forum to agree with. Maybe the best defense against a police state in the internet age is total transparency. So all data, private or government, is open to access by all. Is that what the internet age has brought us to? It’s a radical argument. Call me old fashioned, but no – I like to think that my business is my own and not to be be poked into by Assange or the state without a very good reason.”
    .
    This poorly phrased paragraph basically seeks to characterize Assange as having some radical view on privacy, and firstly extends that to cover private actors such as businesses and individuals. These latter have only become ‘collateral damage’ for Wikileaks where they have intersected with Government. It is government that Assange would deny privacy, too, not completely, but that governments should err on the side of transparency, making them more accountable to their populations, i.e. more democratic. It is hardly a radical idea at all.
    .
    You then engage in a final personalization and turn an issue, that is, finally, about government secrecy and international law, into somehow being about you, DavidH. If your private business is anything like as chaotic and nonsensical as your public discourse, we’d all be better off if it remained hidden from the public gaze.

  • Simon

    The honest world population are supportive of you Craig. Inspiring speech at the embassy of Ecuador. The momentum is continuing, let the citizens of UK , USA, Australia and across the globe come forward and voice their belief in a true democracy, and not bow to the greedy knees of the corrupt and undignified.

  • Dondilly

    While the UK news channels carried Assange’s speech in full live. For subsequent repeatsand for news bulletins it had been editted into an out of context rant against the USA. Neither Craig’s nor any other speech in support of Assange that offered any real context of what was going on were aired. Pretty much all mainstream news media removed any references in Assange;s speech critical of the UK.

    On the subject of UK invasion of the Ecuadorian embassy. I believe without doubt that the authorities had every intention of sending in a snatch squad the night before the asylum announcement. Why else would they of had a police Custody wagon parked up in the side rd by the fire escape. If it were not for citizen Journalists and the subsequent call for assistance via twitter and the resultant livestreams put pay to their antics.

    Hague’s back peddling on the intention to get Assange out of the embassy by force if necessary is unbelievable considering the threatis there in black and white in the Letter to Ecuador but what seems to have been missed is their stated knowledge of Ecuador’s intention to grant asylum which in itself points to GCHQ intercepting diplomatic communications.

  • SoAmerican

    DavidH – welcome to the information age. Like it or not, there’s a lot more information recorded about everything anyone does than ever before. Surely you’ve heard of couples breaking up because one found some “private” information on a shared computer. At first it seems a bit alarming, but if you don’t lie or cheat, what’s really to hide?

  • Alastair

    What is most amazing is the unprofessionalness of it all. There is no evidence of the most basic fact-checking, for which the Guardian so prides itself, in contrast to journalistic amateurs like Wikileaks.

    Moreover, with a few commands in a word-processor this editorial could have been rewritten to take the line “Assange did not mention the rape allegations”, instead of “Assange and his supporters did not mention the rape allegations”. The editorial would then still be expressing more or less the same, obnoxious opinion, but it would, at least, have contained no obvious outright lies.

  • James Chater

    Craig, can you enlighten me on one thing? we are all agreed that UK is the US’s poodle ally, so why does not the US simply ask the UK to extradite Julian Assange directly? Why bring Sweden into it? Surely it was not necessary to trump up charges that Assange did something wrong in Sweden? Far simpler just to extradite him directly from the UK, surely?

  • CheebaCow

    The case in Sweden is an obvious fit up. Multiple people offered Assange alternative accomodation after he supposedly assaulted Ardin. In every instance Ardin herself refused the offers. Ardin also organised a party and tweeted about how cool Assange was. The two Swedish women went to the police only to ask if they could legally compel Assange to take an STD test, Wilen got upset and refused to cooperate when the police started talking about charging Assange with a crime.

    Assange was arrested in his absence, the police did not contact him. Before Assange was even notified, the story was leaked to the press. Within 24 hours a more senior prosecutor dismissed the rape allegations. Assange voluntarily went to the police and made a statement. The interview was leaked.

    On Sep 15th the charges were dropped and Assange was told he could leave Sweden. While in the UK Assange offered to return to Sweden in October, that wasn’t considered good enough and another arrest warrant was issued.

    All the info can be found here: abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm

  • CheebaCow

    People wonder why Assange is worried about being extradited from Sweden to the US? How about this:

    “In December 2001 Swedish police detained Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden. The police took them to Bromma airport in Stockholm, and then stood aside as masked alleged CIA operatives cut their clothes from their bodies, inserted drugged suppositories in their anuses, and dressed them in diapers and overalls, handcuffed and chained them and put them on an executive jet with American registration N379P. They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured”
    wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden

    With Sweden’s history and the US claiming the right to imprison anyone indefinitely or execute them without charges, I wonder if all the Assange naysayers would bet their own life on the integrity of Sweden and the US in this case?

  • Roderick Stirling

    @ James Chater

    Because he can simply be rendited from Sweden (who have happly complied with thier masters wishes in the past) , no need to worry about messy extradition proceedings in the UK (in a political case to boot).

    Britians hands will then appear to be clean, emphasis on appear- they are not for a million reasons.

    To turn question on it’s head, if this is simply about ‘questioning’ him over the allegations why will the Swedish government not give assusrances that he will not be ‘forwarded’ to the USA?

    In fact strictly speaking the issue here it to extradite him for questioning (how is it so many manage to ignore this fact), where he has repeatedly offered to answer questions on neutral ground, and infact already has in Sweden.

    The point is to get him to Sweden where due process is to law as twinkies are to nurtition, hence they will not meet with him to ask thier question- because there are no questions.

  • Jay

    To be fair as we are soon to be a denationalised entity.
    The one world government will be seen, the enemy will still be the whisper and the lie.
    Well spoken craig as ever.

  • Joginder Singh Foley

    Does anyone else besides me see the UK’s double standards in this appart from the UK’s efforts to prove itself the USA’s most loyal poodle in its eagerness to remove Assange from Ecuador’s embassy and its reluctance to hand pinochet over to Spain on crimes far more serious than Assange’s aledged sex offences

  • Clanger

    Just tried the Guerrdian and still no comments available. This is a deliberate attempt to stifle debate; no doubt the massed ranks of right wing trolls will be ready to fill the post up with neocon, Zionist bullshit and the moderators will be ready to obliterate anything that suggests the arrogant, rude Rusbridger is a liar.

  • Komodo

    Making due allowances for its editorial policy (holding your nose), the Telegraph is now a far better journal of record. The reasons for the Guardian’s steep decline in recent years have to do, I believe, with its own financial traincrash, and its need not to offend its part-owners, Apax.
    I am not sure what has happened to the BBC’s domestic service, whose coverage is oddly similar to the Guardian’s. R4’s coverage of Assange over the weekend was pure prolefeed; particularly prominent was the shill Aaronovitch – quoting at some length his own piece in the Times damning Assange. Aaronovitch has evidently studied at the knee of Lord Haw-Haw, the notorious WW2 German propaganda broadcaster, and I hope he meets a similar fate.
    The Any Questions panel contained no member prepared to support Assange’s stand, and the R4 News contained no acknowledgement of Assange’s position. There was no mention that I heard of Craig’s or Tariq Ali’s contributions, nor of the overwhelming police presence.
    .
    Still, there’s always the Internet. For now.

  • RCretan

    A corker of a speech! Eloquent and powerful. To hell with the Guardian, shameful once more on its bended knee.

  • Mary

    An excellent title Craig. The Guardian cannot sink any lower.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fredrik_Reinfeldt_2_2012.jpg
    The ‘moderate right’ Swedish Prime Minister.

    In the Sixties and Seventies, we all saw Sweden as a truly free and enlightened social democracy with high living standards. We admired their interior design, their lifestyle, their welfare state, their films (esp Bergman and Widerberg), their literature and so on. Oh and Abba!
    .
    What happened? This.

    ‘Since becoming leader in 2003 he has transformed the Moderates. Dubbed the “Swedish David Cameron”, he has taken the party from the right wing to a more popular centre-right position.

    And in an echo of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s New Labour, he has broadened its appeal and renamed the party New Moderates. He has also forged an alliance with the three other conservative parties in parliament.’

    This is an extract from a BBC report on the arrival on to the scene by Reinfeldt in 2006. They obviously welcomed him.

    Analysis: Sweden changes direction {http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5356402.stm}

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.