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
  • CheebaCow

    Komodo, I have been watching the BBC international coverage and it has been appalling. In a Dateline segment there were 2 journalists from papers that had published the WL files, and even they were falling over themselves to mock and belittle WL and Assange. The host and other to panel members were equally sneering towards Assange and WL.

    Directly after the Assange speech the various BBC presenters all did their best to belittle Assange and the Ecuadorians. Time and again they interviewed the same ‘former government lawyer’ who did his best to trash Assange and repeat the government line. Finally Geoffrey Robertson is on to give a ‘pro Assange’ perspective. After Robertson completely demolished the first question that was put to him and while he was in the process of demolishing the second question, the presenter cuts him off and says ‘we have to leave it there’. What do they cut to? A random weather report. After the weather, the same ‘former government lawyer’ is back spinning the same shit.

  • CheebaCow

    Oh dear.

    I mean: ‘The host and other two panel members were equally sneering towards Assange and WL.’

  • Mary

    CheebaCow I saw those items too. As I said before, the BBC reporter was well named. Andrew PLANT. He’s been moved up. Presumably does what is required.

    The female presenter who cut Geoffrey Robinson was a stand in for the usual parrots. They had her on all day. It must be like a torture sitting there reading out the crap and listening to a director’s orders in your ear. Ms Boaden has it all under control.

  • Erik Kooijmans

    Thanks for speaking out, Craig Murray. Also in italy and Holland it’s spoon-fed journalism all over, sadly.

  • Komodo

    Back to basics:
    There are four allegations: that on 14 August 2010 he committed “unlawful coercion” when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he “sexually molested” complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he “deliberately molested” complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body.
    Here’s what the complainants said: their allegations having immediately been leaked to the Swedish media –
    And here’s the timeline, supported by other web sources –
    Guardian journalists please copy. And tell us if any of this looks remotely as if it would stand up in a British court.

  • Jives

    No doubt the Grauniad will have lined up a veritable army of keyboard warriors,deleters and recommend-button-modifiers in time for the comments being opened…


    But i still intend to comment and link.

  • Jives

    You spoke extremely well yesterday Craig.

    I could sense the anger in you,particularly when you spoke about your horrific experiences at the hands of Straw/FCO after you blew the whistle.Even through the anger you remained composed and most articulate and i know that can’t have been easy at all for you.

    Well done and thank you.

  • Jon

    Also, if anyone wants the full text of Craig’s speech, it is available as a comment in the previous thread. Search for “Me In Us” at [19 Aug, 2012 – 11:07 pm].

  • Ex Pat


    FCO, press, other!


    Craig turn ears off.

    Having just listened to the radio play of Craig’s book Murder in Samarkand – starring David Tennant: always worth a listen – I have only now understood what he endured. The extraordinary duplicity, corruption and illegality by the UK Foreign Office. The quite incredible resilience he has shown. It’s actually stunning that anyone could survive it, and for every one who does there are probably hundreds that we never hear of, because they don’t. On listening to that play, there is not a scintilla of doubt that Craig Murray deserves every iota of the success that he now enjoys. He was up against pestilential scum. And they did not win. Which benefits all of us today a great deal, by his present efforts.

    Craig turn ears on again.

    Backup –

    The list of changes requested by the Foreign Office and denied – and documented – by Craig are _very_ informative. ; ) –

    See link to documents at ‘References’ – 1 –

  • Komodo

    As it happens, Sweden cannot extradite Assange to the US without the UK’s permission.
    The Principle of Speciality applies here, i.e. the person surrendered to Sweden may not be tried for any crimes other than those stated in the arrest warrant and may not be surrendered to another state, unless the original surrendering country grants its permission. In addition, the conditions imposed by the surrendering country also apply.
    So all Hague has to do is withhold permission for Sweden to let the US have Assange, and all is well. Assange has repeatedly claimed that he is prepared to go to Sweden to face questioning IF he is assured that he will not be rendered elsewhere.
    Question is, who would believe a word Hague said?
    And the question of why the enemies of Assange would want him in Sweden rather than the UK is admittedly a vexed one. I’d guess that as Assange is not a British national (and the Australians are extremely relaxed about his possible fate), and as he has committed no crime in this country, it is far more convenient for us to wash our hands of him, send him to a Category 1 country (pain-free, legally) where he HAS (allegedly) committed a crime, and let the septics sort it out with the Swedes.
    Or, contrary to the Stratfor emails, to insider reports of a sealed indictment having been compiled, and to the concentrated venom of the US pols from Sarah bloody Palin upwards, the US is uninterested in Assange, and I don’t believe that any more than I believe Hague. On any topic.

  • Lawrence AB

    Well said, Craig!
    I am one of many waiting for the comments section to open on the disgraceful Guardian editorial. In fact, before reading your piece, I had penned an opening remark: “Hey, Mr. Editor? Whatever happend to “facts are sacred?!”

    Particularly offensive, given the wide audience the Graun has, is the false allegation that Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorean >Embassy “to void questioning”, “to avoid allegations of rape”. A man who went of his own volition to see the police, spent five weeks in Sweden at the disposal of the police and prosecutors before being given the ok to leave, has repeatedly invited the Swedes to question him in London at the Swedish Embassy or by video link or by proxy through the UK police … as is quite normal in dozens of inter-country cases.

    Craig, these is more to Rusbridge’s rightward lurch than the desire to make money off an Assange biography. The Graun is losing money, despite its strong online brand. It has become a serious problem after an unwise divestment by the Guardian Trust and they have made a decision to expand into the US market. This carries its own considerable risks for the Guardian brand image. You cannot readily move the most benighted population of the industrial world, under daily barrage from a shameless corptocratic media destined to keep them in ignorance, to your point of view, so if you want advertising $$, you must move rightward to theirs.

    Note their recent recruitment of Josh Trevino, a deeply unpleasant neo-con and pro-Israeli racist, on record as issuing death threats to fellow American and other activists on the peace flotillas to Gaza. It is a sign of where the Guardian is headed in their search for US acceptance and although Rusbridge and team have come under withering criticism for this unfortunate appointment, they are not backing down. I fear loyal CIFers are in for a shock ovr the next year or so.

  • Pierres804

    Perhaps, it’s better to move on and not waste precious time and energy trying to change those that will never change. You can never change the dots on the leopard’s coat. Change comes about when a new generation with different values replaces the older stagnant one. New ideas, new independant media outlets, and education will do it in the long run, hopefully, but it’s not easy as
    those in power will defend their ways… no matter what. Foremost, change starts with oneself. Each one of us can then do something to bring about a meaningful change. Many lilupitian actions of this sort can neutralize harmful traditions like the ones defended by the Guardian.

  • Jollyon

    I do feel Rusbridger’s pain regarding those book royalties though, after all it must be hellish for him trying to live on only £40,000 a month.

  • N_

    Melanie Phillips – aaargh! Apparently Ecuador is “puffing out its braided and bemedalled chest and whipping up wider Latin American hysteria against both Britain and America (…) a tyrannical banana republic, whose sole previous claim to fame was the export of the Panama hat”

    Something annoying you, Melanie?

    And “All this merry mayhem is, of course, being orchestrated by Assange”.

    Yes, “of course” it is – Assange hands out orders to Chavez, Correa and Morales, who all jump to attention.

    She doesn’t half go for alliteration! Braided and bemedalled, prance and posture, a manipulative, melodramatic, malodorous circus. Her prose is written by a computer, and I claim my 5 pounds.

    To think there are some people who read the Daily Mail every day!

  • craig Post author

    Widespread deletion of comments below the Guardian editorial which point out its deficiencies. And they aren’t leaving the usual shell with the acknowledgement that the comment has been deleted by moderators – the comments are disappearing completely.

  • John Goss

    Nothing surprises me. My M.P. Steve McCabe has tweeted that he thinks Assange should be extradited. These people have no balls or conscience.

  • Jives

    Don’t worry Craig…The Guardian will disappear completely itself soon.

    Keep on keepin’ on…

  • Jonangus Mackay

    The Guardian’s ex-Berlin, ex-Moscow hack Luke Harding was accorded by the Russians the honour of expulsion, more often associated with suspected spookery. He then quickly made sure he was on hand to co-write the paper’s disenchanted volume seeking to discredit Assange. He co-wrote yesterday’s report on the embassy siege. Harding may also, I suggest, be the hidden hand behind the leader of which you so rightly complain.

  • Passerby

    £70 grand to you Guv

    Mary, I could not afford the fuel, insurance, and road taxes even if they gave it to me for free.

    However sure as hell it is good to be the king.

  • bert

    I wouldn’t say Harding was expelled; the Russian authorities just denied him re-entry when he flew back. Then they relented and allowed him in on short-term visa. He went back for a while, but after that, he didn’t reapply. I would only use the word “expelled” for something that can happen to people who have succesfully gone through immigration.

    He then put out a book in which he described himself as a “reporter” who was the “enemy” of “the new brutal Russia”, and sold the line that Putin, head of a “mafia state”, was responsible for the assassination of Litvinenko. One chap who wasn’t the focus of the book was billionaire Boris Berezovsky, who is wanted on criminal charges in Russia, but whom Britain gave political asylum (and possibly citizenship), and whom they refuse to extradite.

    I am happy to say that Luke Harding has not experienced the same fate as Paul Klebnikov, the Forbes Moscow correspondent, who was shot dead after writing a book on the same subject – mafia-run Russia – but in which he focused on different leading figures.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.