Q, your original post, containing quotes from Gottfredson, rely for their correct interpretation on knowing which bits are omitted and which are exact quotes and, without having read the article itself I can't address the details fully. [I used to take Scientific American and New Scientist to distribute articles for students when I was teaching but the students objected to the tone of Scientific American articles and preferred those of New Scientist; they characterised the former as "handing down the tablets; everything in this article is definitive" while the latter was characterised as "here are the arguments for and against the proposition"; they preferred the latter. I mention this to 'declare my bias', if you will, in the spirit of properly rational discussion.]

But taking the notions one by one as relevant to Watson't quoted comments, I offer the following.
"Despite some popular assertions, a single factor for intelligence, called g, can be measured with IQ tests and does predict success in life."
"Success in life" would appear to be a subjective notion rather difficult to treat with the same objectivity normally applied to investigations regarded as "rigorous".

"No matter their form or content, tests of mental skills invariably point to the existence of a global factor that permeates all aspects of cognition."
This may well be true and such a global factor may also actually exist; its manifestation may vary beyond the ability of investigators to fully characterise it though and that fingers a problematic difference between the evidence and Watson's comments.

"the vast majority of intelligence researchers take these findings for granted. Yet in the press and in public debate, the facts are typically dismissed, downplayed or ignored. This misrepresentation reflects a clash between a deeply felt ideal and a stubborn reality. The ideal, implicit in many popular critiques of intelligence research, is that all people are born equally able and that social inequality results only from the exercise of unjust privilege. ...People are in fact unequal in intellectual potential-- and they are born that way...."
It is in the detail of which findings are taken for granted and 'how' such researchers use them that keeps their research rigorous; I have no particular problem with the generality of the statement but am wary of possible motives behind how it is then used.

"Although subsequent experience shapes this potential, no amount of social engineering can make individuals with widely divergent aptitudes into intellectual equals." ..."differences in mental competence are likely to 'result in social inequality'" [' ' represents author's underscore].
I have no problem with the notion that the population contains great variablity and that some of it might also be inheritable; testing the relative contributions of genetics and nurture is always the problem and I doubt that twin studies have been sufficiently exhaustively applied to investigating them.

"She goes on- "Moreover, research on the physiology and genetics of g has uncovered 'biological correlates of this psychological phenomenon'." [' ' indicates author's underscore]. She correlates speed of nerve conduction, brain energy used in problem solving, speed and efficiency in neural processing, etc., etc."
Again, Gottfredson may well be correct in her understanding of the associations and her attributions of causality, but I don't think there has been sufficient evidence gathered to make blanket statement that cover whole populations. And that is the intent implicit in Watson's statements.

I agree with her (and, I gather your) opinion of the inability of most journalists to both understand and report on such matters but we are discussing Watson's comments. He is a senior scientist with long experience at trying to correctly convey complex information to journalists; it is reasonable to expect such a person to be acutely aware of how information is likely to be interpreted and to ensure he presented it in a way that allowed the reporters to get his desired message across.

In this I think he was either successful (in which case he really is a racist or, more likely, he was deliberately being provocative and "playing the racist card" (as it is regarded in Oz political manouvering) for "effect". If the latter is true, I'd have to agree with Robyn Williams' assessment of him and which I posted above. I expect better of such senior scientists.

Cheers, Rowan