Guardian Watch, latest, media watch

Greenwald: Guardian engaged in ‘journalistic fraud’ in Assange interview rewrite


Photo Oli Scarff/Getty Images

RT reports:

Journalist Glenn Greenwald has accused his former employer, The Guardian, of falsifying the words of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a report about the interview he gave to La Repubblica.

Assange spoke to the Italian newspaper’s correspondent Stefania Maurizi last week when she visited him in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. The interview was in English and a transcript of it is available on La Repubblica’s website.

The Guardian’s report on the interview was published Saturday and contains two false statements about what Assange told the Italian newspaper, Greenwald says in a damning piece on The Intercept.

The headline said Assange “gives guarded praise” to Donald Trump, while inside the article itself The Guardian cited the WikiLeaks founder as claiming that “there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate.”

Neither statement accurately represented what Assange actually said in the interview, Greenwald says. His comment on Trump said that the US president-elect was no “DC insider” and was bringing in a “new patronage structure” that would weaken the one already in place in Washington.

The article also claimed that Assange “has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime.” The Guardian later edited the story to delete this sentence, as well as the claim about “no need” for WikiLeaks to operate in Russia.

In the original interview, Assange stated that, in Russia, WikiLeaks would have to compete with opposition blogs and media, which have the advantage of being published in the native Russian language, and would be viewed as foreign, it being a Western project. He added that WikiLeaks, despite its focus on the Western world, has nevertheless published 800,000 documents referencing Russia or President Vladimir Putin.

Meanwhile, the journalist who interviewed Assange for La Repubblica, Stefania Maurizi, has tweeted that she was “completely furious about how my interview with Julian #Assange has been distorted and [in]strumentalised.”


  1. Don’t like the Guardian? Don’t read it–problem solved! Oh–and btw I don’t buy the idea that the Guardian needs to be watched, monitored, etc. It’s nothing special, there are many similar news websites–Independent, NY Times, WaPo, Financial Times, Wall St Journal, LA Times, etc. I know this blog is primarily a place of disenfranchised Guardian readers who’ve been moderated, etc. Get over it! The love affair with your former fav news rag is OVER BABY !!! The sooner you face this bitter truth, the sooner you can move on with your life and other things 🙂

    • Alessandro says

      For some people fighting disinformation is worth sacrificing some time and energy, and I agree with them.

    • Ziga Zaga says

      That’s a dangerously naive and simplistic statement. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom and there is every reason to be gravely concerned about the corruption of the so-called “liberal” press.

      • pavlovscat7 says

        Zigga Zagga..the fourth estate is an urger…its a religion and a career choice. left/right, over under sideways down plead for polemic…all contingencies are catered for.
        be lucky… I was sacked from the Guardian and I’ll no doubt get the sack from here soon enough.

    • “Don’t like the Guardian? Don’t read it–problem solved!”

      Don’t like the OffGuardian? Don’t read it-problem solved… you fucking idiot.

    • Brad Benson says

      To say that the Guardian doesn’t need to be watched is ignorant–especially when one considers that you cite the NY Times, WAPO, Financial Times, etc. as viable examples of other newsworthy sites.

    • Human Rights exist to enable the public some solid news without interjection from propagandists or commercial interest. The whole issue is not a personal bitch about monitoring (in fact if people have been, its a feather in their cap). Its sadness & frustration at the increasing duplicity of The Guardian & worthlessness as an intelligent source of reliable information about the world events. Get over it !!!

  2. michaelk says

    These days I don’t have many illusions left. I don’t expect the Guardian to be a radical voice, or ‘leftwing’, or even liberal anymore. I don’t expect the Guardian to even reflect the opinions of their readers, who seem increasingly ‘restless’ as the Guardian lurches even further to the right politically. It’s the almost total lack of oppositional voices or dissent within the Guardian that annoys and disturbs me. The liberals and the mainstream left have become ‘totalitarian’ in the sense that they have a ‘total’ worldview that doesn’t allow for any real debate or oppostion, for example; in relation to the war in Syria, relations to Russia, the significance of Trump, the witch-hunt against Assange. I could go on, and on, and on, but the drift is undeniable. The lack of debate, the slide towards openly totalitarian views and attitudes, like a mere accusation is proof of guilt and the presumption of innocence no longer means very much, and execution with trial is okay, habeus corpus can be brushed aside…

    I find most of what’s in the Guardian extremely irritating and the writers delusional. I’m no fan of Qwen Jones and Luke Harding seems one step a away from a straight-jacket. I have this image of him writing from the confines of a padded cell foam dripping from his lips as he writes and writes in a frenzy whilst he spits at a Russian icon with the face of Vladimir Putin.

    The militarisation of liberals and huge swathes of the left is still rather puzzling. How could this happen after Iraq? But then along came Libya and Syria, in many ways even worse crimes, but because Obama was in charge there was no opposition and no debate, just the ‘totality’ of attitudes and dissent swept aside. Are the sounds of the drums so strong that we now automatically fall into line and start marching without any questions being being asked?

    • John says

      I think we all have to face the fact that the days when Washington Post reporters like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein could uncover something like the Watergate scandal are now long gone.
      True, there are still some whistle-blowers and journalists like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and others who have taken on the Establishment in recent years – but look what happened to them, as compared to what did not happen to Woodward and Bernstein.
      The present-day truth is that the majority of present-day journos – and this definitely includes those at The Guardian – no longer care about objective truth, but base their actions – instead – on what subjectively is in their own best interests.
      All of them – including people like Toynbee, Jones, Alibi-Brown and others – care more about feathering their own nests than they do about providing a true record of what people in positions of power have been up to.
      My understanding is that they all retain agents whose sole job is to promote their journo-actors, in order to maximise their earnings’ potential through lucrative appearance fees, book deals and other income streams.
      I was recently surprised to learn that the going fee – for example – for chairing the BBC’s “Have I Got New For You” is £15,000. £15,000 for an afternoon’s “work” strikes me as ludicrously ridiculous.
      Little wonder, then, that most of our present day mass media commentators are only too happy to get into bed with the prevailing neo-liberal sentiment. It pays so well for them personally that I suppose they would be fools to kick out against a system which rewards them so munificently.
      Dancing to the tune of zionist interests is also clearly lucrative; whereas acting in an opposite direction may well spell the end of their previously lucratively successful careers.
      I guess we all get what we – or, more correctly, the media barons – pay them for.
      The present-day occupants of Grub Street have all become mere “hacks for hire”, who will write whatever they are told to write. Forget the truth (Post-truthism rules, OK?); it is all so “yesterday” for them.
      We will have to rely instead upon niche outlets like this one if any of us are to get even close to the truth.

      • Mary says

        There’s much doubt now that even Watergate was what it was presented as being. Not so much a question of fearless journalists outing the Establishment as the Establishment setting up an expendable president as scapegoat.

        • Exactly! When a bit of damning Truth leaks out, from time to time, it’s usually about one power structure firing a salvo across the bow of a rival power structure. The myth of the “crusading journalist” talking truth to power and saving the day (to vindicate The System) stands in stark contrast to the bitter Reality of what happened to Gary Webb and Mark Lombardi and so forth.

          • Julian says

            Sorry to interrupt the flow… but this Assange fellah. Haven’t seen him around much, not since October. Sure a few rehashed vids and a couple of interviews by Mockingbird. But no Proof of Life. So, er, do you think he’ll ever come back from Smithfield?

            • Well, when you think too closely about it: what proof have we had of anything, life-based or not…? When you cut so deeply through the onion (not the comedy site but the existential test pattern) that you get to the other side, then what…?

      • JGarbo says

        Have you forgot that Woodward was/is a CIA asset planted in WaPo for the purpose of “uncovering” Watergate, itself a CIA op aimed at ousting Nixon? Woodward was never a journalist, could even type at first, and was simply a conduit for CIA misinformation. So the status quo has not changed.

    • Sav says

      You have to look at the kind of people who long to work in the mainstream media. And how easily their minds can be bought.

      When for the 101 millionth time a journalist writes a story on the ‘off the record’ statements of an anonymous government official and still believes it to be true, when this is such a hackneyed format of disseminating BS, you know you’re dealing with narcissistic muppets in a cult.

  3. legal eagle says

    The mainstream corporate media caught in recriminating fake news ? Again ? The MSM is dying a slow death, and they have no one but themselves to blame for it (no matter how hard they try to find a patsy). Their sense of entitlement has led them directly into the place they are now in, which is on the way out. No one appreciates a liar and manipulator. They are done, dead and finished.

    • michaelk says

      This is the one ray of hope. That the mainstream media is dying and nobody is listening anymore.

    • JGarbo says

      You underestimate the stupidity and laziness of the public. The MSM is thriving, gorging on advertising income derived from sales to the same stupid public.

    • John says

      It is not just The Guardian who have backed down to Israeli-zionist aggression.
      The BBC too has allowed the Tel Aviv regime to dictate who can – and cannot – be local reporters.
      The remedy is in the media’s hands: deny Netanyahu and his fellow thugs the oxygen of publicity.
      Just don’t report what the fascist-zionists are saying if it cannot be handled in an independent way.
      I know this is easier said than done, especially when commercial factors/interests are involved.
      Regrettably, these once-time media dance largely or solely to the almighty dollar, shekel and pound.
      Now, their principal role is no longer to communicate but to proselytise on behalf of vested interests.

    • Peter says

      Sorry, I got my previous post mixed up – thanks for the Jonathan Cook link are due to Francis. Still recommended reading, though.

  4. michaelk says

    If the Guardian had any journalistic integrity left, any standards or principles that meant anything real, they’ed publically retract Jacob’s god awful ariticle and give Assange an apology, not forgetting La Repubblica. Smearing Assange like this, is so low, so scandalous, so vile… it’s a new low for them. Here’s a guy under attack from all sides, hounded by a vicous regime in Washington, with colossal power and resources, a regime that straddles the world like a giant and routinely murders anyone who gets in their way or opposes them… and the Guardian sides with this monster and joins in the pack of dogs snapping and snarling at Assange. It’s shameful and disgusting. Have they no honour at all these people?

    And what of the other people working at the Guardian, people like Owen Jones and Monbiot, how can they remain silent when the Guardian once again attacks and smears Assange like this? Jones loves to wave his flag of principles for all the world to see, yet on an central issue like this, he remains meek, silent and adopts the posture of a cowering coward, when his own newspaper indulges in a barely concealed witchhunt.

    • John says

      You raise an interesting point: what are we all to make of those who still write for pay for The Guardian?
      There are still some luminaries there, like Polly Toynbee and others.
      Can they not see how far The Guardian has declined in terms of journalistic standards?
      Maybe someone should start a new organisation designed to boycott The Guardian and all its writers?
      The people of Liverpool have consistently opposed anyone there buying The Sun after Hillsborough.
      Is this incident now The Guardian’s “Hillsborough” moment?
      Is it time for everyone to say “Enough is enough” and publicly pledge never to buy The Guardian ever again?

      • michaelk says

        I don’t buy the Guardian anymore. I used to, years ago. I read it for a long time. I was a faithful reader and found it much better than the rest. But it’s really, really, gone down hill over the last few years. In a way it symbolises the decline and fall of liberal/left intellectuals, standards, principles and opion. Now I wonder if it was ever as good as I thought it was. Perhaps I was deluded? It all started, the decline, with the rise of Blair and New Labour. I couldn’t understand the fawning love expressed for the guy and New Labour. I thought Blair was a charlatan. I didn’t think he’d turn into a war criminal though. That was a surprise. That the Guardian stuck with Blair after the Iraq war, after such monumental crimes, attacks that over the years led to the deaths of between 2 and 3 million people and destroyed a modern and well-functioning state, with an advanced and free education system and health care comparable to anywhere; that was unforgivable.

        Then the Guardian did it all over again with Obama, who they seemed to ‘worship’ even more than Blair. It was almost Biblical. Bowing to a gilded golden idol they helped to create and refusing to acknowledge the reality of the mere mortal who was mediocre and had only one real talent, making pretty speeches.

        Then they whitewashed the ghastly attack on Libya, another criminal act based on absurd and ridiculous lies, manipulations, distortions, exaggerations, rumours, propaganda stunts, and simply making up stuff about what Gadaffi was supposed to have said about wiping out the rebels. It was just like the Jacobs article about Assange, just as fake and untruthful.

        Their coverage of the Assange affair was truly awful, a disgrace. Cowardly and biased. Turning on somebody who’d done so much to raise the Guardian’s profile and drag it into the digital age. They started a vile witch-hunt against Assange that’s never stopped and has only gotten worse and worse, more shameful and scandalous, which brings us full-circle back to Jacobs. What a fucker he is.

        Christ, I even forgot the way they’ve treated Corbyn, as if he was Trotsky himself at the head of a revolutionary horde, instead of a mild-mannered, middle-of-the- road social democrat.

        And they love little Bana from Aleppo, a seven year old, who tweets about ‘genocide’? How the fuck does a child know our understand the concept of genocide? And they swallow all the nonsense about the White Helmets in Aleppo, who don’t exist in Aleppo. Who were created by the UK security services and financed by them. Or the non-existant ‘moderate rebels’ in Syria.

        Fuck! Where does it end with the Guardian? How did they get from there to here? It’s like they’ve been castrated and taken over by the security services, which is why they keep interviewing them and given them a platform that enables them to talk to the liberal moderate left and bring them into the neo-conservative embrace, instead of challenging and grilling them.

        What a long strange trip it’s been.

        • John says

          I am old enough to recall reading the Guardian when it was still called the Manchester Guardian.
          Even back then, I never really understood why people thought it was a left-wing publication.
          Sure, it was seemingly liberal and largely supported the then Liberal Party.
          But were the Liberals truly left-wing?
          Look at how happy they were to get into bed with Cameron’s Tories in coalition government.
          You are right also to talk about the demise of left-wing intellectuals and left-wing thinking.
          This – I believe – all traces back to the mid-1970s and the rise of stagflation and the decline of Keynesianism.
          That opened the door for neo-liberalism to emerge from the shadows and become the dominant ideology.
          As a former Liberal newspaper, is it any wonder that the Guardian has backed the neo-liberal agenda to the hilt?
          Also, they are what they always were: solidly pro-zionist.
          It is that dimension which additionally explains much of their “thinking” and “writing” – poor as it is.
          The left – in Britain, at least – needs to develop alternative ways of thinking and policies.
          Instead – for example – of trying to adhere to failed Keynesian policies, why not examine window guidance?
          This explains the post-WW2 economic “miracle” in Japan and more recently in China.
          Why can’t the left learn from success and much less from failures – like the Guardian?

  5. pretzelattack says

    ha!, i linked to a couple of Greenwald articles on the hacking propaganda, now my comments are being premoderated. they could claim the links were off topic to the articles i commented on, but then they didn’t open comments on the articles about russian hacking.

    • putinbotmk2 says

      They’re pathetic. It truly breaks my heart to see what it’s turned into.

  6. putinbotmk2 says

    Sadly this appears to be the new normal for the Guardian. Their coverage of Syria was the breaking point for me.

    • pretzelattack says

      and don’t forget their fearless, independent journalism. for which they keep begging for money.

  7. Frank says

    From Sodium Haze

    The Guardian Media Group has become a liberal frosted version of The Daily Mail. You think not? Read on…
    Like the BBC – The Guardian is not independent, the old Scott Trust was wound up in 2008 and replaced by a limited company using the same moniker.

    The new Scott Trust Ltd appoints a board to run the show – the composition of which might startle those who still regard The Guardian as a left leaning newspaper.

    Neil Berkitt – a former banker (Lloyds, St George Bank) who then helped vulture capitalist Richard Branson with Virgin Media.
    David Pemsel – Former head of marketing at ITV.
    Nick Backhouse – On the board of the bank of Queensland, formerly with Barings Bank.
    Ronan Dunne – On the Telefónica Europe plc board, Chairman of Tesco Mobile. He has also worked at Banque Nationale de Paris plc.
    Judy Gibbons – Judy is currently a non-executive director of retail property kings Hammerson, previously with O2, Microsoft, Accel Partners (venture capital), Apple and Hewlett Packard.
    Jennifer Duvalier – Previously in management consultancy and banking.
    Brent Hoberman – Old Etonian with fingers in various venture capital pies including car rental firm EasyCar.
    Nigel Morris – chairman of network digital marketing giants Aegis Media.
    John Paton – CEO of Digital First Media – a very large media conglomerate which was sued successfully in the U.S. for rigging advertising rates.
    Katherine Viner – Startlingly not a banker, in marketing or venture capital. She is I gather (gulp) a journalist.
    Darren Singer – formerly with BSkyB, the BBC and Price Waterhouse Coopers.

    The only remaining guy is the secretary Philip Tranter – but don’t worry, he is a proper sort from some posh law firms in London.
    If any of the members of the Guardian Media Group get bored they can surely get a slot with the BBC Trust which is also stuffed full of bankers and establishment big wigs.

    I think the above tells you all you need to know about the politics of the Guran

    • michaelk says

      Where are the ‘ordinary people’ those with links to Trade Unions like teachers or doctors, many of whom read the thing? This board kinda reflects the social and economic structure of wider ‘liberal democracy’ the society we’re supposed to liev in, meaning it’s not particularly liberal and not very democratic. On the contrary. It’s deeply polarised, unequal and rigidly hierachical, really the opposite of everything the Guardian alleges it stands for.

  8. John says

    I think what is unfolding here is the permanent re-location of The Guardian from the UK to the US.
    America is where the money is – not Britain.
    The London metropolitan chatterati will have to find another tabloid label to wear.
    The Independent?
    No better; even worse, the on-line version with its huge amounts of adverts slowing everything down.
    We have to be really selective about the different sources of news, information and analysis we use.
    It is important we all do so: don’t forget the computing acronym – GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out.
    Keep all the garbage firmly OUTSIDE your mind!

    • michaelk says

      The Guardian’s venture into the North American market has been a financial disaster. They might want to wish, but they aren’t gonna get it. There’s no room for the Guardian in the USA.

      • Jen says

        The New York Times is fast going down the toilet for much the same reasons as The Guardian (losing readers, sacking valuable backroom staff, consigning its history and culture to the garbage bins, joining dubious “partnerships” with flaky “news agencies”) and I would say at some point in the future – it’s a matter of how soon it will happen – the two will merge.

  9. To further complicate things: I trust about 2% of what the Guardian claims (and that’s pretty much the book reviews), 55% of what (Chavez-smearing) Greenwald claims and perhaps 80-90% of what Assange, in general, claims. Even Assange has made head-scratchingly normative assertions in the past, although I fully accept the possibility that these strangely blatant stumbles were tactical moves with greater, long-range goals in mind. Anyone who trusts any source without reservations is begging to be duped.

  10. michaelk says

    I just don’t understand how the Guardian thinks that brazenly squandering it’s ‘social capital’ like this, by publishing truly dreadful articles like this one, makes commercial sense. They’re prostituting the Guardian’s reputation and trying the loyalty of their readers to an extraordinary degree and one wonders why? Is just journalistic incompetence or something worse?

    • Sav says

      You have to understand the mentality of their audience. These are die hard fans. They don’t really want to be informed, they want to say something about themselves. Being a Guardian reader is a badge for them. They even want to tell you on their Twitter bio that they are. They’ve probably got membership to Amnesty and various other plastic ‘look…I’m so caring and I’m so much better than you’ groups too. Is it any wonder the Guardian have tapped into this with Guardian membership.

      The very fact that a paper, any paper, should print a view is plain ridiculous. ‘The Guardian View’ is nothing more than telling droids what to repeat. They’re quite happy to do so. Because that makes them a ‘Guardian reader’.

      • michaelk says

        Yes. I think you’re correct. Only it really is a depressing conclusion to arrive at. I find myself equally revolted by the mainstream established liberal/left as I am by the mainstream established right. When the left and liberals began to support brazen imperialist wars and the destruction of entire countries, leading to millions of casualties, and all in the name of ‘freedom’, I resigned my membership. But, then, it was only ever casual.

      • Seamus Padraig says

        Yes, exactly. In the UK, being an in-your-face ‘guardianista’ is a kind of virtue-signalling.

  11. I have read the original (very good) interview with Julian by Stafani Maurizi, The Guardian’s disgraceful coverage of it and Glenn’s perfectly fine assessment of all of that. Wow! The ‘defenders’ of real news are at it again. Big time! Goebbels would be pleased.

    As I noted in my comment attached to Glenn’s article on The Intercept (which, to my knowledge, has ‘not’ disavowed Murtaza Hussain’s pro USAID, pro White Helmets nonsense), the need of this journo, Ben Jacobs, to serve the neocon/neolib corporatocracy by serving up Cold War nonsense precluded his acknowledging that Julian’s comment, “There are also newspapers like “Novaya Gazeta”, in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn’t a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow,” could be taken to imply that (in Julian’s view) Russian authorities seek, as do their Western counterparts, to do domestic population control via propaganda via media, either by disseminating fake news or by suppressing facts.

  12. Reblogged this on Worldtruth and commented:

    Most decent journalists have already left the Graund and when was the last time this rag was anything but fraudulent?

    • Nick says

      The Guardian used to be valuable; for example it played a big part in the publication of the Snowden revelations. I was so impressed that I paid for an online subscription, although I never actually used it (I found the freely-accessible website just as good as the slick paid version). It seems to me that it changed greatly for the worse when Rusbridger left, and now it isn’t worth reading.

    • Seraskier says

      [i]Most decent journalists have already left the Graund[/i]

      But there are plenty more lined up to replace them. One such has been Daniel Boffey. Daniel was formerly a hard-right gutter-press hack on the Mail On Sunday. He’s now turned up as “Policy” editor on the (non-existent) Observer title at the Graun. What a surprise, eh?

  13. John says

    The Guardian from its very inception in a Manchester suburb was – and still remains – a zionist propaganda sheet.
    Anyone or anything perceived as anti-zionist is immediately targeted by them for attacks, whether truthful or not.
    Assange suited their purposes initially but subsequent disclosures by him and Wikileaks did not suit their agenda.
    The new ownership and the senior staff at The Guardian make all this perfectly obvious for all who wish to see.

  14. michaelk says

    This… this… thing from the Guardian is down to their usual standards when covering almost anything related to Julian Assange. It’s truly shameful and a disgrace that stuff like this, so full of errors, manipulations and downright lies, could ever pass a half-way competent editor and get published. They swiftly go into damage limitation mode when the scale of their deceit is revealed, but by then the damage to Assange has been done. Which is the whole point of the exercise. If one was being incredibly charitable one could argue that the journalist involved was so pressed for time that he just skimmed the original article in La Republica, got the gist of it wrong, grotesquely re-edited Assange’s remarks to virtually reverse what he actually said and got it published whilst more competent editores were down the pub. It’s Christmas, after all!

    It does reveal though how the Guardian sees Assange. They see him a little more than a Russian agent, what some people would call a spy, because of his long and close links to the Kremlin and Putin. This is really how they perceive Assange. Once they seemed to see him as a hero, now he’s a traitor and his actions and those of Wikileaks are tantamount to treason. Assange, obviously, doesn’t love the west enough, or at all. His patriotism is in doubt. What side is he on? The fact that Assange doesn’t roundly condemn Trump as Satan incarnate is enough to show and prove he’s one of Satan’s minions. This kind of semi-religous thinking is as primitive as it is incredibly dangerous. But that’s the kind of world we live in today.

    I’ve personally lost all ‘faith’ in the Guardian and the liberal left in the west. I think the Guardian is a kind of coven for a coterie of inquisitors determined to root out and destroy heretics. Their worship of Obama and Blair and Hilary is extraordinary and revolting. Obama who is actually the exact opposite of his carefully prepared and managed public image. He’s so false and his real face is hidden away in a locked room in the attic.

    • Nick says

      Obama has his faults, but it’s very unfair to couple him with Blair and Hillary Clinton. He’s been vastly better than his immediate predecessor, and I’d wager most of my entire net worth that he’ll turn out to have been vastly better than his immediate successor.

      • Are you, perhaps, wearing a face mask which is hooked up to a canister of psychedelic gases, Nick? Or are you under the impression that BHO’s corporate c-k sucking and his illegally murderous drone program are perpetrated by an evil twin with a pencil-thin mustache? BHO was nothing more than Dubya with a brain, giving credence to that thing someone undoubtedly told Dubya, once, about how dangerous he’d be if he had one.

      • Jen says

        Yes O’Bomber was vastly better than Dubya at waging wars and killing people, and carrying out policies that promised gold on paper but ended up in ashes in reality.

        To take just one example, as a result of his and his subordinates’ actions, Ukraine is turning into a failed state with a police state apparatus operated by extremist Nazi-throwback groups (and possibly also providing a safe haven for jihadists on their way to Syria or Yemen). The one prize that Ukraine had to offer and which the Americans really coveted – why else would they have plotted to overthrow the Yanukovych government in 2014? – has gone back to Russia: that was the Sevastopol military base in Crimea, and the control of the Black Sea, its resources and all the energy pipelines going through it, that would have come with the base.

        US attempts to secure the Yuzovka oil and gas fields in the Donbass region in eastern Ukraine are also coming to nought, and the day when Ukraine ends up being partitioned among Poland, Hungary, Russia and various others (under UN mandates) is coming ever closer.

      • Butties says

        I am sorry, but I disagree, it is very fair to couple him with these two. Whether he has been better than his predecessor is also debatable. With regard to the future, if I could predict this then you would possibly have a bet!

    • “It does reveal though how the Guardian sees Assange. They see him a little more than a Russian agent…”

      I think you give them too much credit for being sincere. Ideological sincerity is an attribute of the psychopathically selfish Right; it’s the “Liberals” (aka guilt-ridden conservatives) who can be twisted into self-contradicting knots of hypocritical convenience to satisfy whatever Master of the Moment. When the Guardian hacks print lies, spin, deflection and bullshit they’re merely doing a job, however they may bother rationalizing it to themselves after the fact (if some of them still do); you can’t print a coherent distortion of an interview without knowing what the original said and knowing exactly how you needed to distort it, so it’s not as though the Guardian thought its version was truthful and that the matter is somehow open to honest interpretation. At some level, the whole thing’s a game to these people. The more they get paid for their cynical propaganda, the more they are likely to chuckle and wink about it all. Can they have anything but contempt for the credulous readers who make their jobs possible?

  15. But isn’t a lie true if told loud enough and often? 3 weeks until that Chicago con artist leaves the WH and goes on the speaking circuit where he’ll gather hundreds of millions in legal bribes from Wall Street and defense contractors. Maybe not so much from the Saban/Adelson crowd, but still enough to live life royally, which is the ultimate goal of most hucksters.

    Too bad the Guardian won’t retire, instead choosing to sound like the crazy guy holding the “End is Near” sign and harassing people walking by about his insane insights.

  16. pretzelattack says

    i was looking for an appropriate guardian article to comment and link to this, but couldn’t find one with comments open.

    • Jen says

      Don’t worry about that … Guardian moderators eliminate any comments that link to Off-Guardian.

    • wardropper says

      The latest Guardian trick is to remove my comments because they are “off-topic”.
      Their definition of “of topic” means “critical of the content, presentation and tone of the article”.
      As another comment here implies, the paper has become pretty much unreadable for anyone with an education.

  17. captain Swing says

    The Guardian, eh?

    Par for the course.

  18. rtj1211 says

    ‘if you can bear to hear the truth you have spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools’

    From If by Kipling……

    • Kaiama says

      expect less than nothing from… fixed it for you.

Comments are closed.