Remember Gary Webb.

The following was written circa 2004 (author is former CIA).

On December 10, 2004 former investigative reporter for the San Jose Mercury News Gary Webb - who had been on the CIA's "black list" ever since he broke the story of the agency's VILE involvement in flooding the poor black neighborhoods of L.A. with cocaine in the early 1980s - was found dead in his Sacramento area home, an apparent suicide according to the coroner. There was a gunshot wound through his head. No! - make that TWO (possibly three) gunshot wounds, apparently from his father's old .38 caliber revolver.

AMAZING! Absolutely AMAZING - two (or three) gun shot wounds in Webb's head? A suicide? Wow! - what did Webb do? Put a second (and possibly a third) round through his head after he was dead from the first one, just to make sure that he was - in fact - dead? That's what the Sacramento County Coroner's Office and the Sacramento Bee Newspaper - in addition to Michael Ruppert - think. For example, Ruppert writes:

"Gary's suicide was accomplished with two gunshot wounds to the head. In death Gary proved to be as determined and single-minded as he had been in life … Here are the facts: Gary Webb fired two shots from a .38 caliber revolver into his own head. (A suicide) … open and shut."

Ruppert - after describing a .38 caliber revolver as a "relatively weak handgun" (which it is NOT, as anyone who has ever had any experience with one should know) - goes on to elaborate (really "pontificate") on the "ins and outs" of suicides, citing his experience as a former L.A. cop. His explanation is that the first shot (which entered Webb's head just behind and above his right ear) missed the brain, and blew out Webb's lower left jaw and the left side of his face. Ruppert then says that Webb still had the "presence of mind" - after half his face had been blown away - to shoot himself a second time through the brain, killing himself (Ruppert leaves unexplained how he might have gotten off the third round).

But come on now, Ruppert's tortured explanation as to what happened is - on the face of it - nonsensical. The angle is too extreme! Go ahead, try it yourself; get a ruler, measure out @ 12 inches (to allow for the length of the revolver, put the "gun" (so to speak) above and behind your right ear, and at an angle that would allow the shot to pass through your lower left jaw, and then ask yourself, is that really possible? Surely Webb, again, whom Ruppert describes as a "determined and single-minded person" bent on suicide, would have known that that difficult-to-achieve and extremely contorted shot would not kill him - although the shock of the round would most likely have rendered him senseless.

There are alternative explanations, of course. One of them is that the second (and possibly the third) round can be accounted for as a "reflexive response." But that explanation would make sense only to someone who has never fired a .38, as I did on many occasions when I was attached to the 515th Counter Intelligence Group out of San Francisco in the early 1970s. The fact is, the trigger on a .38 is NOT that easy to pull back on (especially a trigger on an older .38), and since each discharged round requires a separate and distinct pull on the trigger, one is left perplexed as to how Webb might have gotten off his second (and possibly his third) round as a "reflexive response." And more than that, the recoil from the first shot would have knocked the barrel of the gun up and away from Webb's head; there would have been no second (or third) head wound; a shot into the ceiling of the house - maybe; possibly another one into the wall, but nothing more.

The fact is, none of the explanations offered by the Sacramento County Coroner's Office, the Sacramento Bee, or Michael Ruppert makes any sense. The most reasonable explanation - though the one no one wants to admit it - is that Webb was assassinated by someone standing over and behind him.

>>1891154

But Ruppert (and the Bee as well as the coroner) will have none of that, and to bolster his rather farcical story, Ruppert attacks the reporting of Alex Jones and John Hankey, both of whom claim that Webb was "hit" by the CIA. Ruppert writes:

"Jones has a large syndicated … radio show for which he claims a listening audience of millions … Jones conducted separate radio interviews with a former 'business partner' of convicted drug dealer Ricky Ross and a second guest, retired DEA Agent, Celerino Castillo. Later Jones injected second-hand source comments from an alleged documentary film maker which were attributed to Ross. ROSS' LIFE AND HIS SELLING OF LITERALLY TONS OF COCAINE IN LOS ANGELES HAD BEEN WEBB'S ENTREE INTO THE DARK WORLD OF COVERT OPERATIONS. Castillo apparently had no idea his remarks were being aired in context with these statements … made by a drug dealer (i.e., Ricky Ross) … Since no other sources are named - no family, no colleagues, no one who had spoken to Webb personally - then Jones' 'credible' sources who are two of the largest drug dealers in West Coast history, one of whom (Ross) has spent almost two decades in prison … HEY ALEX, DRUG DEALERS LIE!"

Rupert continues, quoting Alex Jones:

"Credible sources who were close to Gary Webb have stated that he was receiving death threats, being regularly followed, and that he was concerned about strange individuals who were seen on multiple occasions breaking into and leaving his house before his suicide …

"Ricky Ross, one of Gary Webb's primary sources … had spoken to Gary in the days before his death. Gary told Ricky that he had seen men scaling down the pipes outside his home and that they were obviously not burglars, but 'government people'. Gary also told Ricky that he had been receiving death threats and was being regularly followed. It was also mentioned that Gary was working on a new story concerning the CIA and drug trafficking."

However, Ruppert discounts all this; he claims that nothing that Ricky Ross says can be relied upon. But that's strange - it was Ross who essentially gave Webb entree (as Ruppert puts it) into what was going on in Los Angeles regarding the CIA's involvement in the drug trade there, and it was precisely this story that Ruppert rode to fame - essentially piggy-backing off Webb to do so. How is it that Ross is credible insofar as what he had to say to Webb about the CIA's involvement with the drug trade in L.A. (which was later certified to be true by the CIA's own Inspector General), and not credible when he gives evidence as to what Webb had to say about a CIA "contract" that had been put out on him? Ruppert can't have it both ways.

Ruppert is nothing more than a silly ass who has been trying to parlay his experience as a DUMB L.A. cop into a writing career. He implies that he has experience in "covert intelligence operations" - but, in fact, he has none. He was just a DUMB cop. Nothing more! Moreover, Ruppert is a follower of George Soros, which should give anyone pause as to Ruppert's credibility.

Ruppert slavishly repeats Soros's ridiculous world-view everywhere he goes; indeed, it wouldn't be "too much" to describe Ruppert as a "MOUTHPIECE" for Soros. As for Soros, he is a man who plays both sides against the middle, a person who has over the years taken untold amounts of money from the CIA, and who pushes incessantly for the legalization of hard drugs all over the world. Anything that Soros says should be discounted as nothing more than CIA "disinformation."

Soros's operations - which include the Center of American Progress (a think tank for elite Democrats modeled on the Heritage Foundation); Americans Coming Together (a voter mobilization funding mechanism); and Moveon.com (an Internet gathering place for pseudo-radicals) - are, like the Democratic Leadership Council which spawned them, a clever means to "cut out" real radicals from the market place of ideas.

Soros has been using his ill-gotten billions to cast himself as the "savior of the Western World," claiming to be in a fight to stop the expansion the American New World Order System; but what he has really been doing is buying up the Democratic Party and turning it into a toothless tool of the "Billionaires Club" which postures as an "anti-Empire" party, but which in reality is nothing more than a mechanism designed to render impotent those radicals who truly oppose the Empire by denying them any institutional support for their activities. And it's not just that: The fact is, Soros shares an intimacy with many proponents of the American New World Order System which is simply inexplicable. For example, take Soros's close friendship with George Schultz, who - as the "godfather" of Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and the one who did so much to launch Bush's bid for the presidency in 1999 - should be at the very forefront of Soros's "enemies list." Very strange. Very strange, indeed.