Paul Rigby

The problem here, John, is that a consistent theme of neo-con polemics has been the CIA's pursuit of different policies and agendas. Bush is, when all is said and done, a transient politician, and thus of little consequence.

John, I've just finished your book: I enjoyed it, and found much that was new and intriguing. Of the several criticisms I would make, the first and most important lies in your attitude to the Z film. Like the early critics you write so lucidly about, you accept uncritically its veracity and fail to acknowledge, let alone discusss, any of the early descriptions of the film. Yet these descriptions are, in some instances, radically at odds with both the duration and content of the version we have today. Why did you ignore the welter of material challenging its authenticity? And why do you think all of the early critics you deal with omitted any reference to the early descriptions? Paul

Sounds like a very spooky outfit - any firm evidence on that score?

Agreed, and good to see such an apposite example instanced. I would also add the remarkable case of Fred Woodruff, the CIA station chief who was the victim of the Georgian "package." Enough of Len Colby... Again, agreed - the job, first and last, is to destroy the target, which is why I think a "gut" shot is overwhelmingly likely. The video footage of the youthful assassin in the shades is a) merely the inner layer of deception and powerful evidence of the uncertainty of this method. (Look how unstable the hand is...) To make sure, really sure, one needs to be both direct and positive ie up close and able to observe the results. Paul

Curiously, Len, it's got you working over-time!

There appears to be an endless supply, one supplemented daily. That was really the phrase employed? Goodness. How very Stalinist. Thanks to Walker Stone, he survived John McCone's demand for his dismissal, but his reports from Saigon terminated the foreign jaunts. Can't have reporters reporting anything significant, now, can we? Where would it all end? An informed citizenry? Have a happy and rewarding New Year, Paul

The true measure of US concern for Bhutto's continued survival: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../wbhutto230.xml And on the real link between the corpse OBL and the campaign against Bhutto: http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboa...;topic_id=80188

An omission now rectified: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../wbhutto130.xml The interviewee is "Dr. Safdar Abbassi, her chief political adviser, who was sitting behind her." Not a hint of shot from within Bhutto's vehicle, of course, but then not a mention of the fact that Bhutto had to be transferred to another car from the motorcade en route to hospital. For that minor detail, see Sherry Rehman's interview with CNN anchor Stephen Frazier at this link: Abassi was one of two major beneficiaries from, among other factors, the shake up in Bhutto's security following the Karachi attack on Bhutto in October: http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?194124 The piece in question is entitled: "Rehman Malik sidetracked by Naheed Khan and Safdar Abbasi," Friday, 9 November 2007 For the rejigging of Bhutto's security arrangements in October post-Karachi, follow this link: http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=10706 So, first Malik gets the job of ensuring Bhutto stays alive, then Naheed Khan and Safdar Abbasi sideline him. Khan and Abassi are reportedly in the SUV when Bhutto is shot. Abassi is seemingly unaware of any suspicious activity within Bhutto's vehicle at the time of her death. I would be very interested in hearing from any Pakistani readers with more direct knowledge of the background of both Khan and Abassi.

http://indiapost.com/article/india/1711/

From an Indian website boasting a number of impressively insightful posters: Did Bhutto's bullet proof vest extend to cover her entire abdomen, I wonder?

A brief tribute to the recently deceased Sylvan Fox is to be found here: Details of the single book on the case attributed to Fox can be found, among other places, here. Note the year of publication and the number of pages: Americana Resources, however, currently offers what appears to be a follow-up volume published a decade on. Confusingly, a click on the photographic image of the book’s cover discloses the original title, Unanswered Questions; while a look at the number of pages reveals a different number, 237, as opposed to the original’s 221. Am I right in thinking that the title offered below was essentially a reprint of the original, with a brief update in the light of info emerging during Watergate? Anyway, to the three obits I could find. By far the best is the last of the three. Predictably, perhaps, it came from a blogger: The NYT version is distinguished, as the Mary Ferrell website notes (see above), by a characteristic piece of censorship: The blogger responsible for the third and final obit, “balev,” includes a link back to a thread on this forum. Plainly we are dealing with a sage and discerning critic:

Clearer footage on this Indian website: http://broadband.indiatimes.com/videoshow/2660784.cms Two stills from video here: http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/2007/12/29/mo...fore-the-blast/ This intrigued me, as it seemed eerily reminiscent of something I remember reading on the Colosio assassination in Mexico: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

Clearer footage on this Indian website: http://broadband.indiatimes.com/videoshow/2660784.cms

Try here: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/...iew#cnnSTCVideo The video showing the handgun is entitled "Details on how Bhutto died," which is 3 mins 10 secs long.

Very obliging. I wonder if he was paid in dollars - or euros?

Love to know how a bullet hit her in the abdomen if the shooter was indeed firing from below - and Bhutto was protected from the chest down! Doubt it - see above! Does anyone have a reliable source for the inhabitants of Bhutto's vehicle at the time of the shooting?

Interim replacement: General Ashfaq Kiyani, loyal servant of the American totalitarian imperium http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2233092,00.html Sharif to follow, it would appear, but what then?

Three more: the US protection racket can rachet up a level to ensure the newly-menaced Gulf States continue to trade oil in dollars; and spend their vast reserves on yet more US weaponry they will likely never use and will never really control; the next US President will have her foreign policy options determined before she gets her feet under the White House desk; a narrative has now been established which permits the US to despose of Musharraf and blame it on either Al Qaeda or Bhutto's supporters. Favourite nonsense question of the moment comes from the Times online: Can Pakistan democracy survive? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...o&HBX_OU=50 Bronwen Maddox, take a bow.

Outstanding - the practical application of the key paradigm. From the POV of the beneficiaries of the war on abstract nouns, the assassination is such a timely boon: the nascent Caliphate gets nukes; US special forces get bases on the Iran border; India is compelled to move even further into the sea powers embrace; the MIC gets a huge shot in the arm. And that's only four. Yes, one sees at once why we can discount CIA involvement. Paul

A second Christmas cracker for you, Nat, and this one with a distinctly local relevance. It’s a Starnes column from the autumn of 1965 on a rarely described, yet utterly crucial development, of the period: The CIA campaign to remake the Republican Party by destroying its liberal Eastern Establishment wing. Starnes saw the actions of William F. Buckley, Jr. – by whom he was “man-marked” by the Agency in the pages of Scripps-Howard in 1964 – as an attack on something even deeper (highlighted):

The wish of New York's finest public educator must be gratified - in the battle for youthful hearts and minds, Nat, you're all we have! (Or so it sometimes seems...) Here's Dick Starnes with an early piece on the newly emergent CIA line of defence that was to carry through to the late 1980s. Note the debut of the Angletonian "Monster Plot" nonsense: Paul

This morning's press offered confirmation that Tisdall - and The Guardian - lied in its account of who was seeling to overthrow the current Georgian regime. Tisdall's column should properly be renamed "MI6/CIA Briefing." Who served up this proof? Why, that well known organ of Moscow disinformation, The Guardian. Note, incidentally, the continued role of the legal "beard" of the illegal assault - and mass murder of the inhabitants of - Iraq, Lord Goldsmith: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...2232001,00.html In answer to my initial challenge, the evidence is now in: Novosti told the truth, the Guardian lied.

Lee, Do you have a copy of the documentary "The Garrison Tapes"? If so, just over half an hour into it, you'll find a remarkably clear image of both the discharged shell and the man retrieving it. Paul

And what of Chaney's own words, as supported by Altgens #5, and other supporting testimony? Or is that all a bit too difficult to deal with in the absence of a more comprehensive briefing? What oft was thought, Peter, but ne'er so well expressed. Reminds me of the utility of a long-forgotten dig at Edmund Burke: Oft have I wondered that on Dallas ground No poison toad has e'er been found. Stands revealed the secret of that city's great lack She saved it all to create a Mack! With apologies to Burns.

David, Without labouring the point, that was Ramsay's position a few years back; and I'm no more impressed by the LBJ thesis, either. His early insistence on the Mob's centrality to events Elm induced in me a degree of suspicion I've never quite been able to shake off. That noted, it would be churlish not to acknowledge his great work on other subjects, and my own debt to him: I think the Round Table material, for example, consistently outstanding, and something that has changed my view of things considerably, even if the US end of it - from Mahan on - is notably absent. For that, and much else besides, I thank him. Have a good Christmas, Paul