Finally, the jig is up.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
British former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and prominent Guardian journalist Luke Harding have offered convincing evidence that the UK's Litvinenko case is phony.
I don't think that they intended to do that. But nonetheless their recent written utterings have proved the point.
This first came to my attention while reading the Guardian article "Gordon Brown says Litvinenko murder 'ordered from the top.'" In it Harding quotes Brown: "We were clear that the assassination had been ordered from the top..."
Harding then says, "Brown writes that he agreed with a public inquiry held last year by Sir Robert Owen which concluded that Putin and his FSB spy chief had 'probably approved' Litvinenko's murder with polonium."
When I read that I thought Brown must be a real bozo. If as prime minister he believed the culpability in the case was "clear," how could he possibly concur with Owen's subsequent ruling that Putin had only "probably approved" a plan to murder Litvinenko?
Clear is clear. If there is a clear sky, there are no clouds in it. If a weather forecaster says tomorrow's sky probably will be clear, it means he has a belief that chances are there will be no clouds. But he doesn't rule out the possibility of clouds. And when a weather observer says that yesterday's sky was probably cloudy, it means he's no authority on whatever might have been the case. Indeed, he doesn't really know what happened.
That's an apt description of the Owen report that concluded the UK's multimillion dollar examination of the Litvinenko facts. He really didn't know what happened. His report and verdict have no real credibility.
So how could Brown come out and endorse that idiocy?
It turns out he didn't. Harding falsely embellished the story. Brown had said no such thing. A careful comparison of what Brown said and what Harding wrote shows Harding is a bozo here too.
Here's what Brown actually said:
"We were clear that the assassination had been ordered from the top -- as was concluded in January 2016 by a public enquiry led by Sir Robert Owen..."
Harding gratuitously added the mention of the "probably" qualification contained in Owen's conclusion. That's sloppy journalism. It makes you wonder what other inaccuracies he may have introduced throughout all his coverage of the whole Litvinenko saga.
This "probably" issue may seem like a subtle distinction I'm making. But Harding's loose-with-the-truth reporting makes it sound like Brown had endorsed Owen's deviously qualified conclusions. Or maybe he was just trying to sweep them under the rug. On the other hand Brown may be simply oblivious to the underside of the politically-motivated Litvinenko inquiry. Why did Harding try to distort the picture?
The British Litvinenko case, as my extensive research has shown, is built upon a long string of subtle misrepresentations and successful attempts to sweep facts under the rug. I elaborate on them in the two books I wrote on the case. The Phony Litvinenko Murder details how the mainstream story was a pure fabrication from the start, foisted upon an uncritical public. Litvinenko Murder Case Solved chronicles Britain's farcical inquiry into the circumstances of Litvinenko's death.
The quotes of Brown's that I cited above come from his recent book Britain: Leading Not Leaving. It's basically an advocacy piece put out on the eve of Britain's referendum on Thursday, June 23 to decide whether the country should leave or remain in the European Union.
How did Litvinenko get mixed into that discourse? I don't know what was in Brown's head. But perhaps he believes that fear-mongering over Russia will highlight a need for European unity against alleged Russian aggression.
Interestingly, Brown asserts that the Russian threat at the time of Litvinenko's death was potentially much more expansive than just one victim.
He writes "...what was also clear was that further assassinations on British soil were possible...." I agree with that. Since they had no factual understanding of what really happened, no one could absolutely rule out the possibility of a repeat.
Brown goes on, "we believed one new assassination was being planned." He offers no details to substantiate the basis for that belief. That's in character for the whole British Litvinenko case. No facts, just unsubstantiated allegations. Nevertheless, Brown concludes, "This led to the diplomatic stand off that has characterised our relations with Russia ever since."
That points to the main takeaway from the Brown/Harding affair. It exemplifies the DNA of the massive and fraudulent Litvinenko story. It shows the fundamental and distinctive characteristics and qualities of one of the biggest media and political con jobs of recent times. It confirms that the basis of the case is fraudulent.
Doesn't that mean for the past ten years Britain's foreign policy toward Russia has been based on fabrications, misunderstanding, and misinformation?
Isn't it high time to inject some sanity and reality into the equation?
Or is there a benefit for someone if Britain's and indeed the West's relations with Russia are allowed to perilously spiral out of control, putting the world at great risk?
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons