CIA's UK Defence Secretary Is In (Not Enough) Trouble

[AhabsOtherLeg]

I'm sorry for derailing this Kim Philby thread earlier with all that silly nonsense about Liam Fox.

[semper occultus]

......yes,yes all terribly interesting but can anyone explain what the hell was going on in Spooks this week......more loose ends than a boot-lace factory...

although atleast we do know we currently employ only those possessed of truly olympian physical & intellectual abilities &, more importantly, the most fantastic cheekbones...

[Stephen Morgan]

......yes,yes all terribly interesting but can anyone explain what the hell was going on in Spooks this week......more loose ends than a boot-lace factory...

although atleast we do know we currently employ only those possessed of truly olympian physical & intellectual abilities &, more importantly, the most fantastic cheekbones...

Ruth and Harry don't seem to have such fantastic cheekbones. The girl does, I forget her name. Maybe Dmitri. Died as it lived: massively implausible and killing off major characters every other week. Apparently one can drive a three inch long piece of broken glass far enough into a heavily clothed overweight woman's stomach to make her die, presumably of blood loss, in less than three minutes. Without cutting your own hand. And the main symptom, other than death, is having a cold face.

[semper occultus]

Ruth and Harry don't seem to have such fantastic cheekbones. The girl does, I forget her name. Maybe Dmitri.

harsh but true...I was referring to "the disposables"..which would have been a fitting alternative title for the show....

Died as it lived: massively implausible and killing off major characters every other week. Apparently one can drive a three inch long piece of broken glass far enough into a heavily clothed overweight woman's stomach to make her die, presumably of blood loss, in less than three minutes. Without cutting your own hand. And the main symptom, other than death, is having a cold face.

...oh it was a gold-mine of fascinating information alright....not much of it bearing any relation to reality...

[Stephen Morgan]

Ruth and Harry don't seem to have such fantastic cheekbones. The girl does, I forget her name. Maybe Dmitri.

harsh but true...I was referring to "the disposables"..which would have been a fitting alternative title for the show....

It has killed a uniquely large number of characters over the years. Everyone from the girl from Ashes to Ashes to Doctor Bashir from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. In fact, apart from Harry, one sacking and a retirement I can't really think of any survivors other than those three minor characters left at the end, I think called Callum, Dmitri and cheekbone-girl.


Cheekbone-girl.

Died as it lived: massively implausible and killing off major characters every other week. Apparently one can drive a three inch long piece of broken glass far enough into a heavily clothed overweight woman's stomach to make her die, presumably of blood loss, in less than three minutes. Without cutting your own hand. And the main symptom, other than death, is having a cold face.

...oh it was a gold-mine of fascinating information alright....not much of it bearing any relation to reality...

There's a youtube video somewhere with several clips from it which he claims predict 7/7.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

For the record, I have never watched a single episode of Spooks. The most recent televisual dramatic production I have watched on the visual phonograph was LOST, and I caught up with that two years late, and then gave up at the end of season two when it became very clear that the story was a load of old cock and the characters would never again act according to their established characteristics in season one.

I think Liam Fox, and Letwin also, are symptomatic of something. It's becoming obvious that the state can no longer allow a competent political leader to be at the head of any government department, as he or she would surely be duty bound to ask difficult questions about all the dodgy deals going through on the books, or might question the legality (nevermind the morality - I'm not an optimist) of many of Whitehall's current ongoing military and intelligence adventures. That could be very problematic for the system. So now, due to the nature of the system and it's long and bloody history, only the most incurious and self-interested fools can be appointed to treasury, defence, health, or culture posts. Otherwise they might fix something, and thereby find out what was wrong in the first place. Can't have that, can we?

There has always been a danger, and a visceral fear in Whitehall, that an intelligent person might take office and question the utility of Trident, for instance, or the benefits of having the whole country working in abject service to the dictats of the Square Mile, as it currently does. So now it's only idiots who are allowed into government, since they won;t change anything. And that can't be good.

There's a rumour going round that Fox chose to scrap our Nimrod spy-planes, at great and apparently pointless expense, in order to buy very similar American spy planes from a pal of his who happened to own the company that makes them. At even greater public expense, but with the new planes having slightly lower functionality than the perfectly adequate Nimrods. This would make him both a thief and a traitor. No surprises.

If it is still worth tearing Liam Fox apart on a personal level (and I reckon it is, given the number of deaths he has caused just through his useless boobery, and the number he intended to cause in future by enthusiastically backing any aggressive action possible against Syria and Iran) this blog here is worth a perusal, and is also a good laugh throughout:

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/liam-the-liar/

Famously – because it was peddled to many newspapers – Liam Fox was “once linked to the singer Natalie Imbruglia”, was “romantically linked to Natalie Imbruglia”, was “seen out with Natalie Imbruglia”, “lists among his friends Natalie Imbruglia” and on and on. How did this unlikely pairing of the former Neighbours rock chick and Liam come about?

Well, according to Liam, he was sent a pre-release copy of Natalie’s first album and sent back a few helpful thoughts on the tracks he’d heard – as you do! Natalie was so delighted to be given such unsolicited singing tuition from someone she’d never heard of that she immediately gave him credits on the album.

From these notes – carefully brought to press attention – Dr. Fox was able to construct his subsequent image as romantically linked to Imbruglia and “sexiest MP” and “ladies man”. The truth is that the whole story was contrived by a go-between with Imbruglia’s management and it’s doubtful if Dr. Fox met Imbruglia more than once. According to his latest spin “he still remains in touch with her” which must be very gratifying to her husband!

Natalie Imbruglia's first album, Left of The Middle ( - Liam liked it!), was released on the 8th of December 1997. If she did send a pre-release version to Liam Fox it would've been sent to him earlier that same year - but in God's name why?

In June of that year, of course, Liam Fox was appointed Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on Constitutional Affairs.

And isn't that just the kind of thing that would prompt an ex-pat Australian model and actress to send someone a pre-release copy of her album, out of the blue, on the off-chance of feedback, and then put his name into the liner notes because he replied?

No. I don't see it either.

[StarmanSkye]

^^^^
WoW! What an absolutely delicious, juicy bit of common-sense intrigue-insight there! Its well appreciated to help me develop a better sense of the hidden PR manipulations that go into the strange (to American sensibilities, which are jaded and shocked enough just from keeping-abreast of the US's own politically-fraudulent antics and deceitful idiocies) behaviors and plots of England's political-class poseurs.

Your WTF? questions about the absurd liklihood of Fox 'just happening' to be such a hep-cat rocker with charming sensibilities and popular-culture appeal are right-the-Hell oN! That speaks volumes about how insidiously contrived the ruling-class system there really is, designed to circumvent the slightest chance of anyone gaining power who would actually make the system accountable. That's a key bond that links the UK and US together.

Much appreciated!

[Stephen Morgan]

For the record, I have never watched a single episode of Spooks. The most recent televisual dramatic production I have watched on the visual phonograph was LOST, and I caught up with that two years late, and then gave up at the end of season two when it became very clear that the story was a load of old cock and the characters would never again act according to their established characteristics in season one.

There are plenty of things available for download should you wish it.

I think Liam Fox, and Letwin also, are symptomatic of something. It's becoming obvious that the state can no longer allow a competent political leader to be at the head of any government department, as he or she would surely be duty bound to ask difficult questions about all the dodgy deals going through on the books, or might question the legality (nevermind the morality - I'm not an optimist) of many of Whitehall's current ongoing military and intelligence adventures. That could be very problematic for the system. So now, due to the nature of the system and it's long and bloody history, only the most incurious and self-interested fools can be appointed to treasury, defence, health, or culture posts. Otherwise they might fix something, and thereby find out what was wrong in the first place. Can't have that, can we?

Implies that Cameron, or the Queen, or the Cabinet secretary or someone, is competent and making sure to appoint idiots.

There has always been a danger, and a visceral fear in Whitehall, that an intelligent person might take office and question the utility of Trident, for instance, or the benefits of having the whole country working in abject service to the dictats of the Square Mile, as it currently does. So now it's only idiots who are allowed into government, since they won;t change anything. And that can't be good.

The idiots change things all the time, just not for the better.

There's a rumour going round that Fox chose to scrap our Nimrod spy-planes, at great and apparently pointless expense, in order to buy very similar American spy planes from a pal of his who happened to own the company that makes them. At even greater public expense, but with the new planes having slightly lower functionality than the perfectly adequate Nimrods. This would make him both a thief and a traitor. No surprises.

The Nimrod is a death trap with no apparent use and a horrendous safety record. They're all meant to be being replaced anyway, with more Nimrods which are extremely expensive, small and ineffective, inefficient and unsafe.Anyone getting rid of them ought to be applauded, whether they replace them with AWACS or not.

If it is still worth tearing Liam Fox apart on a personal level (and I reckon it is, given the number of deaths he has caused just through his useless boobery, and the number he intended to cause in future by enthusiastically backing any aggressive action possible against Syria and Iran) this blog here is worth a perusal, and is also a good laugh throughout:

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/liam-the-liar/

Famously – because it was peddled to many newspapers – Liam Fox was “once linked to the singer Natalie Imbruglia”, was “romantically linked to Natalie Imbruglia”, was “seen out with Natalie Imbruglia”, “lists among his friends Natalie Imbruglia” and on and on. How did this unlikely pairing of the former Neighbours rock chick and Liam come about?

Well, according to Liam, he was sent a pre-release copy of Natalie’s first album and sent back a few helpful thoughts on the tracks he’d heard – as you do! Natalie was so delighted to be given such unsolicited singing tuition from someone she’d never heard of that she immediately gave him credits on the album.

From these notes – carefully brought to press attention – Dr. Fox was able to construct his subsequent image as romantically linked to Imbruglia and “sexiest MP” and “ladies man”. The truth is that the whole story was contrived by a go-between with Imbruglia’s management and it’s doubtful if Dr. Fox met Imbruglia more than once. According to his latest spin “he still remains in touch with her” which must be very gratifying to her husband!

Natalie Imbruglia's first album, Left of The Middle ( - Liam liked it!), was released on the 8th of December 1997. If she did send a pre-release version to Liam Fox it would've been sent to him earlier that same year - but in God's name why?

In June of that year, of course, Liam Fox was appointed Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on Constitutional Affairs.

And isn't that just the kind of thing that would prompt an ex-pat Australian model and actress to send someone a pre-release copy of her album, out of the blue, on the off-chance of feedback, and then put his name into the liner notes because he replied?

No. I don't see it either.

I don't see why not.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

For the record, I have never watched a single episode of Spooks. The most recent televisual dramatic production I have watched on the visual phonograph was LOST, and I caught up with that two years late, and then gave up at the end of season two when it became very clear that the story was a load of old cock and the characters would never again act according to their established characteristics in season one.

There are plenty of things available for download should you wish it.

I know, but I don't wish it. I only like dramas from at least ten years ago. Even the BBC version of State of Play is a pile of pish compared to, say, "Meat", starring Johnnie Lee Miller. Now that's worth downloading. I've never watched Spooks, but I'm under the impression (could be wrong) that it's entire run is only worth jettisoning into space before it does any more damage.

Implies that Cameron, or the Queen, or the Cabinet secretary or someone, is competent and making sure to appoint idiots.

There is a bit of that. Gordon Brown deliberately appointed incompetents as his lieutenants, so that he could run the whole show unopposed. He only chose Alastair Darling as Chancellor because he thought he could walk right across him on his way in and out of the treasury with whatever he wanted to grab or deposit there. And he was right. Darling's very brave and vocal now - shouting insults at the lumbering back of the bloodsoaked monster, as it shambles off back to Fife, where it can lounge on it's radioactive beach. Rough beast, it's hour come round at last.

But there are far smarter people than either of them two who are operating on a level far above and beyond their idiocy, surely, I hope.

At this point, conspiracy theories actually are taking on a reassuring aspect, like Aaronovitch says. 'Cos if these people (including Aaronovitch) are our best and brightest, we are doomed.

So now it's only idiots who are allowed into government, since they won;t change anything. And that can't be good.

The idiots change things all the time, just not for the better.

And all the changes for the worse are accidental. The decades-long litany of consistent moves toward making things worse and worse under different (supposedly opposed) Westminster governments is merely a sad tale of ineptitude and happenstance. I know that's not what you believe. It's not what I believe either.

The Nimrod is a death trap with no apparent use and a horrendous safety record.

It would be the first time the MOD had decommissioned an aircraft on such grounds. They're still using Chinooks.

Finally it emerged that another hedge fund manager, Michael Hintze, who gave Mr Werritty free desk space, had bought £21.5million of shares in L-3, a U.S. firm which builds the RivetJoint surveillance aircraft. Dr Fox gave the go-ahead for RivetJoint to replace the RAF Nimrod spy plane earlier this year.

Just coincidence - just like Werritty being in the same places as Fox.

The first aircraft is due to be delivered in 2014, which leaves a 2-3 year capability gap, the R1′s being withdrawn next year. To guard against skills fade the RAF crew will enter into a partnering agreement with the USAF. This also assumes that the delivery will be on time and that the aircraft and crews will actually achieve operational readiness in 2014. In all fairness it is not a bad deal, the alternative in these budget constrained times is nothing.

So, we are replacing a world leading capability with something that is slightly less capable by all accounts and in the gap will have to rely on the USAF for SIGINT i.e. no sovereign capability.

Now, I give little to no fucks about sovereign capability, or aerial strength- the less we have, the less likely we are to go on stupid foreign adventures against far weaker nations, which is good. But I'd expect a conservative war-hawk defence secretary to care about such things. And he doesn't either.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

.
For no real pressing reason, it is time we watched and listened to Natalie Imbruglia's "Torn", from her album Left of the Middle, which is endorsed by (and endorses) the former UK Secretary of Defence Dr. Liam Fox.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

^^^^
WoW! What an absolutely delicious, juicy bit of common-sense intrigue-insight there! Its well appreciated to help me develop a better sense of the hidden PR manipulations that go into the strange (to American sensibilities, which are jaded and shocked enough just from keeping-abreast of the US's own politically-fraudulent antics and deceitful idiocies) behaviors and plots of England's political-class poseurs.

Your WTF? questions about the absurd liklihood of Fox 'just happening' to be such a hep-cat rocker with charming sensibilities and popular-culture appeal are right-the-Hell oN! That speaks volumes about how insidiously contrived the ruling-class system there really is, designed to circumvent the slightest chance of anyone gaining power who would actually make the system accountable. That's a key bond that links the UK and US together.

Much appreciated!

Cheers Starman. And yep, the Atlantic Bridge, and the Special Relationship, is built on lies, consists wholly of lies, and whenever Atlanticism is invoked by either of our governments as a political archetype or a justification for a unified war effort on the part of our two nations, it is a lie.

The UK and the US have always had a healthy bond in terms of the relationships between their peoples, who are the same to all intents and purposes, like everybody else, but there has always been a parallell unhealthy relationship (ruinous to both countries, and both peoples) between our consistently godawful governments.

I've been known to mention Scottish Independence on here, now and again, from time to time. There is a good geopolitical argument in favour of it, on top of the merely local ones. Here 'tis:

Scotland's secession from the United Kingdom might well lead to the UK losing it's permanent seat on the UN Security Council. This would mean the US would no longer wield two votes in that chamber, as it currently does, since the UK always votes with the US at present, and never will do otherwise in future. Removing the UK from that chamber will have the pleasant side-effect of making the US's planned wars for the future wholly illegal, and acknowledged to be so under international law from the start. Which would be a nice change. Considering the current plans of the US government and military, a fundamental change is essential. Taking a dependable vote in favour of legalising their aggressions away from them would be a good start.

So... if thou be Scottish at this hour...



Aye, I know I am a massive tit. Still right though.

[Seamus OBlimey]

1 November 2011 Last updated at 14:31

Liam Fox report 'should have been confidential'
By Rebecca Keating
BBC News

Former cabinet secretary Lord Butler has told MPs that a report on Liam Fox "should have been confidential".

Current cabinet secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell conducted an inquiry into the dealings between the ex-defence secretary and his friend Adam Werritty.

The Public Administration Committee asked Lord Butler whether that inquiry had "strayed into the political arena".

He said "you could make an argument" that Sir Gus's advice to the prime minister should have been kept private.

Lord Butler also told the committee that the Civil Service Code required those working within the Ministry of Defence to have taken further action over Mr Fox's conduct.

But he criticised the "tendency for ministers to defend themselves by saying, 'This is OK because I cleared it with my permanent secretary'".

"I don't think politicians can or should defend themselves by hiding behind their civil servants," he said.

On the subject of Sir Gus's report on Mr Fox, Lord Butler said: "I think you could make an argument that his advice to the prime minister should have been confidential."
Reorganisation

Lord Butler also repeated his concerns about the government's decision to split the roles of the cabinet secretary and the head of the Civil Service.

Sir Gus currently holds both posts, but his successor as cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, will not become head of the Civil Service.

Lord Butler, who held the dual post from 1988 to 1998, told the committee he was "not persuaded" by the government's explanation that the workload from the two roles had grown so heavy that they needed to be separated.

"I do regret the splitting of the posts. Someone who is not the cabinet secretary will find it difficult to get access to the prime minister," he said.

"It is also not so good from the prime minister's point of view. I found that when there were things the prime minister wanted to have done, the leverage I felt I had as head of the Civil Service enabled me to get a great deal of cooperation from my colleagues on policy matters."

Another former cabinet secretary, Lord Armstrong, told the committee he was concerned by the prospect of a permanent secretary of a major government department also being the head of the Civil Service.

He said this would leave the permanent secretary without anyone to consult if faced with a difficult issue in their department, such as the allegations against Mr Fox.

Lord Butler agreed: "If it is the secretary of state of the person who's appointed the head of the Civil Service where the difficulty arises, then that person is going to be in a very great difficulty.

"You'll have loyalty to his or her own minister but also a duty to the prime minister. That's a nasty dilemma to be in."

Both men agreed that the cabinet secretary's access to the prime minister would make them more influential in the Civil Service than the new head.

"In this new arrangement, for a whole lot of practical reasons, it's going to be the cabinet secretary who is top dog," Lord Armstrong said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15541792

Eh?

[Stephen Morgan]

I've been known to mention Scottish Independence on here, now and again, from time to time. There is a good geopolitical argument in favour of it, on top of the merely local ones. Here 'tis:

Scotland's secession from the United Kingdom might well lead to the UK losing it's permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

I don't think it's even possible to be booted off the security council, and if it was it wouldn't be triggered by the loss of a little bit of barren tundra with a handful of people, such as North Britain.

This would mean the US would no longer wield two votes in that chamber, as it currently does, since the UK always votes with the US at present, and never will do otherwise in future. Removing the UK from that chamber will have the pleasant side-effect of making the US's planned wars for the future wholly illegal, and acknowledged to be so under international law from the start. Which would be a nice change. Considering the current plans of the US government and military, a fundamental change is essential. Taking a dependable vote in favour of legalising their aggressions away from them would be a good start.

America would still have its own veto vote, so no, it would still not be "illegal".

[Byrne]

From Craig Murray:

Werritty/Miliband: They Were All In It

by craig on January 5, 2012 10:42 am

David Miliband and William Hague are implicated in three entirely new Adam Werritty/Matthew Gould meetings admitted by the FCO in response to one of my FOI requests. Gould’s meetings with Werritty, in his capacity as Principal Private Secretary to first Miliband and then Hague, were entirely left out of Gus O’Donnell’s “investigation” into Werritty’s activities.

I have now received the following FCO response to my Freedom of Information request on Gould/Werritty:

Thank you for your email of 24 November 2011 asking for “all communications in either direction ever made between Matthew Gould and Adam Werritty, specifically including communications made outside government systems”. I am writing to confirm that we have now completed the search for the information which you requested.

I can confirm that the FCO does hold some information relevant to your request.

There are entries in diaries indicating that there were two meetings at which Mathew Gould and Mr Werritty were both present while he was serving as Principal Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary on 8 September 2009 and 16 June 2010.

Since Mr Gould was appointed as HM Ambassador to Israel on 11 September 2010 there were three further instances on 1 and 27 September 2010 in London and a dinner on 6 February 2011 in Tel Aviv. The meeting on 1 September and the dinner on 6 September are already matters of public record as they are included in the report by the Cabinet Secretary “Allegations against Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP” published on 18 October 2011. Mr Gould attended the Herzliya Conference in his official capacity. Mr Werritty was also a participant. This is already a matter of public record.

The FCO holds no information relating to written communication (either electronic or mail) between Matthew Gould and Adam Werritty at any point.

So Gould attended one meeting with Werritty as David Miliband’s Principal Private Secretary, and one as William Hague’s Principal Private Secretary. Private Secretaries in the civil service do not hold meetings on their own account. It would be very peculiar indeed for a Private Secretary to meet an outside lobbyist on his own, or to formally meet on business anyone outside the civil service without his minister’s permission. Even then, I cannot stress too much how rare this would be; the FCO has batteries of civil servants covering all subjects and geographical areas; private secretaries do not normally meet outsiders except when accompanying their minister.

What was Miliband’s business with Werritty? Does it relate to the later meeting between Werritty, Gould, Fox and Mossad at the Tel Aviv meeting? Does David Miliband’s involvement with Werritty explain the ludicrous charges of anti-semitism levelled at Paul Flynn from within his own party when he tried to dig deeper into what Gould and Werritty were up to?

Those who can count will realise that the FCO letter refers to two instances where Gould met Werritty before he became Ambassador to Israel, and three after being appointed Ambassador, but actually lists four not three – 1 and 27 September 2010 and 6 February 2011, plus the Herzilya Conference from 4-6 February 2011 (this is not the same event as the Tel Aviv dinner as it took place in a quite different town).

Either the meeting on 1 September or 27 September is a new admission. The O’Donnell report refers to only one September meeting, the infamous “briefing meeting” for Gould in the MOD between Gould, Fox and Werritty. Just before Christmas, Caroline Lucas obtained a parliamentary answer that stated there was no MOD official present at that meeting and no record was taken. The FCO letter above is the first admission of a second September meeting.

The FCO list omits the “social occasion” in summer 2010 to which Fox invited both Gould and Werritty, despite the fact that this had already been revealed in a parliamentary answer to Jeremy Corbyn. Presumably it is omitted from this Freedom of Information request because there is no written record of it within the Foreign Office. That might also explain the extraordinary omission of the “We Believe in Israel” conference in London which Fox, Gould and Werritty all attended shortly after the Herzilya Conference in Israel. In this context, am I the only one to find the formula: “The FCO holds no information relating to written communication (either electronic or mail) between Matthew Gould and Adam Werritty at any point” somewhat unconvincing. Have they even asked Gould about communications outside the FCO system?

We now have these Gould/Werritty meetings:

1) 8 September 2009 as Miliband’s Principal Private Secretary (omitted from O’Donnell report)
2) 16 June 2010 as Hague’s Principal Private Secretary (omitted from O’Donnell report)
3) A “social occasion” in summer 2010 with Gould, Fox and Werritty (omitted from above and omitted from O’Donnell report)
4) 1 September 2010 in London (only one September meeting in O’Donnell report)
5) 27 September 2010 in London (only one September meeting in O’Donnell report)
6) 4-6 February 2011 Herzilya Conference Israel (omitted from O’Donnell report)
7) 6 February 2011 Tel Aviv dinner with Mossad and Israeli military
8 15 May 2011 “We believe in Israel” conference London (omitted from above and omitted from O’Donnell report)

Only two of these eight were recorded by Gus O’Donnell in his pathetic “investigation” into the Fox Werritty affair.

It is simply impossible that Matthew Gould, a senior British diplomat, attended all of these meetings and events, yet no formal minute or note of any of them exists. Yet that is what the FCO appears to be claiming. In particular the meetings as Principal Private Secretary on 8 September 2009 and 16 June 2010 simply must have been minuted. The FCO admit they hold diary entries detailing participation, but so far have not responded to my request to release them.

I have no doubt that the near total blackout on serious media investigation into what Werritty was really up to, relates directly to the fact that he was meeting with Gould as Private Secretary to both Miliband and Hague, in this sense. There is a silent cross-party agreement among the political establishment to ally the UK strongly with the interests of Israel (and thus against the interests of the Palestinians). Werritty’s activities were therefore countenanced by both New Labour and Conservative leaderships, and the nebulous “Establishment”, including the mainstream media, have closed ranks around this.

My sources within the civil service remain adamant that the purpose of all this activity was diplomatic preparation for an attack on Iran. When those sources first contacted me, and told me to look at Gould Werritty, I genuinely had no idea that Gould and Werritty had any connection. Getting the information has been extremely difficult, but I have proven that the Gould/Werritty connection was indeed far more extensive than the Establishment were prepared to admit, and directly implicated Miliband and Hague with Werritty. It was deliberately underplayed by Gus O’Donnell’s report, in a blatant act of political lying by the then Cabinet Secretary.

I still do not have positive evidence that the purpose of this activity is an attack on Iran, but I trust my source and his or her tip-off that the place to dig was the Gould-Werritty relationship has proven to be entirely accurate. It ties in with information I have received from another source, this time a senior journalist whom again I trust, that Werritty met with Robert Gates on two occasions. I would be grateful if any of my US-based readers could try to track that down using FOI.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/ ... all-in-it/

[AhabsOtherLeg]

I don't think it's even possible to be booted off the security council, and if it was it wouldn't be triggered by the loss of a little bit of barren tundra with a handful of people, such as North Britain.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, ma....

North Britain

Call it a delayed reaction.

But, yeah, Craig Murray is the go-to guy on this stuff now, as Byrne posted. I know the Fox-Werrity-Gould connections are already being gone over, to an extent, in the Iran War thread, but Murray seems to be pursuing the issue in a good way on his blog, with multiple FOIA requests pending, and due personal safety tactics engaged. He knows better than most the ins and outs of mainstream politics, ministerial and parliamentary rules and so forth, which makes his commentary on this extra interesting to me.

But I'm just bumping me own thread, basically.

And Seamus, that is one of the lamest and least forthright news articles I have ever seen published anywhere, on any news site, regarding any subject, at any time. Even for the BBC, it is amazingly obfuscatory and weak. And shite. What the hell was really going on here, with these guys?