Clark Supporters: Read This Now!

Here comes the next anti talking point from the frothers, right on time. They are the people of the lie, to be sure.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/525789.html

I am ashamed to admit it, but I really hate these kind of pricks. I really do.

Please Note: I have not yet chosen to support any candidate for the nomination of the Democratic Party. I have my own fish to fry until after November 4th, when I plan to pay much more attention.

Look at the caption underneath the photo and honestly ask yourself if that's true.

Then tell everyone how a general is supposed to override the authority of the Commander in Chief and the Attorney General of the United States.

I'll tell you why: Because you WILL see this stuff again. This is more Waco Conspiro-Whacko crap, spun to encompass Clark. The reddest of meat for the frothers, and believe me, a lot of them buy the lies.

THAT'S why you should pay attention.

Sticking one's head in the sand about it won't make it go away, or lessen the impact.

aren't voting dem anyway.

About Us
Updated March 5, 2003
Insight on the News is a national biweekly newsmagazine published in Washington by the Washington Times Corp. As Newsweek is the sister publication of the Washington Post, Insight is the sister publication of the Washington Times.

And who owns the Washington Times? Reverend Moon. While I support Dean, I think anyone should be cautious about using these sources. I really do.

I would not want them used against other candidates either.

at least newsweek and the washington post are fair

As Newsweek is the sister publication of the Washington Post, Insight is the sister publication of the Washington Times.

And who owns the Washington Times? Reverend Moon.

I am saving that one. I just can not consider Insight or the Times as good sources, knowing their background.

The Feds under Bush started the whole Waco thing.

They could have picked up Koresh in the street. He wasn't holed up in the compound.

Why did Bush Sr. order the Feds to get Koresh inthe compound where there were women and children?

Perhaps he did it to set Clinton up with a highly volatile situation....

The goals was very simple. Look into what new Fed laws were past recently, especially one that may need tested that might give them the right to take property during that time. It was a test, nothing mor or less, and picking him up on the street would have made the test impossible.

It is utterly unbelievable how willing the right wing is to keep bringing up Waco as the fault of virtually every Democrat who's ever existed.

In doing so, they are defending David Koresh. A CHILD MOLESTER, for crying out loud! A man who was violating FEDERAL LAW as well as raping CHILDREN. That's the man they defend to the end, whereas the president who had a consensual affair is the most evil man on the planet.

How they can hold those two thoughts in their head simlutaneously without exploding is the greatest mystery to me.

but still a chance to hone your argunment.

Every individual, in my opinion, is ultimately responsible for his or her decisions. While he who gives the order is solely responsible for giving it, he who obeys it is solely responsible for his own actions.

If they are religious, they are responsible to God, whether they are or not, they are responsible to their own conscience, their own values, their own moral standards.

Throughout history, people, including soldiers, have made individual choices to obey or disobey orders or instructions.

Just like the soldier with his order, no one can tell you what you should believe on this question. Nuremberg says one thing, but you are your own person.

The argument that military orders should always be obeyed is best made by those who include orders to harm their own family members.

You are the only one who can say if you are a good choice for making that argument.

"illegal order of a kind every West Point officer knows is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act".

B.S. Hardly illegal or a violation of the act, because Gov Ann Richards requested his assistance. Had he refused his a$$ would have been on the line. Who knows if he was reluctant or not.

I would tend to assume Richards was asking for some assistance with Guard units, who are tied to the base. Posse Comitatus has nothing to do with that.

interesting.

Ann Richards now works for PSI which represeents/advises Karl Rove and is where another texan, Begala, worked.

Public Strategies Inc. Rove, Begala, Richards, Mark McKinnon.

Hmmmm....

I did not KNOW that Richards requested Clark's help.

Thanks. Got links?

Typical attack using hindsight and disparagement based on what he "should" have done, if he had the advantage of knowing then what we know today. It's nothing but the standard Republican smear job that, unfortunately, has been effective. I have a feeling, though, that Clark won't put up with a whole lot of that crap.

Like T_S, I'm not backing any particular dog in the hunt just yet. It's ABB for now, and work like hell for the final candidate.

as long as he's running, hoping it will stick. Resounds better than Pristina with some people.

Even if you don't like Clark all that much, gotta work on neutralizing it before it becomes the next Willie Horton ad. Waco's still a really hot button for some people, and they'll use it any way they can to slam any of our candidates.

for any reason? for any of our candidates?

There's a few of civil libertarians I've run into who bought into the Waco wackiness.

to defend it and its architects is simply disgusting.

It FIGURES that Clark was involved given my belief that he is a BFEE candidate anyway. It fits.

They know Shrub has blown it so they fly in their mass killer to take the reins and keep the global war going.

I suppose I could be wrong.

But facts or allegations like these make my doubts and fears about Clark and his spin-agents here at DU and abroad more and more justified.

The BEST way to endear people to the left is to have the Moonies make spurious (or possibly true) allegations about him (like the Vince Foster methodology: Bush did not kill Wellstone or Jim Hatfield because Clinton did not kill Foster and anyone who says so is a right wingnut-like paranoid)

Masterfully spun web of deceit.

No Clark for me please.

are generally in Montana and the Dakotas and other like places, which are Repub to the core. The vast majority of people have a pretty firm image of what Waco was about, and besides, it's easy to point out that Clark would have had nothing to do with it beyond agreeing to the requests of the government. This is nuisance stuff, of less import than Vince Foster's suicide. If it costs us one single vote, I'd be surprised.

Here in the wild outback of central Joisey, I hear it brought up every so often.

It's been percolating, and is one of those things that a lot of people know just enough about to piss 'em off.

It could easily be made into an issue.

Clark was NOT at Waco because Clinton did not kill Vince Foster.

THAT works. Run with it.

Not

Funny -- I just posted (before I read this) that this is EXACTLY the spin that the Rovian supporters of Clark would put on this.

Damn. I nailed it.

I happen to believe (whether anybody agrees with me or not is their business) that Clark is the BFEE candidate brought in because the other BFEE alternatve to Shrub, i.e. Kerry., was tanking.

That so many dems here and everywhere have been sucked into a comfort zone with Clark who isn't even really a Democrat and who has LOTS of negatives if you look at his record really terrifies me.

The fact that the Vince Foster defense

The ONLY aspect of the entire affair (at least as concerns Clark) is that he did not wait for clearance from the chain of command. This <i>de rigeur</i> obeisance to rank was expected, and is one of the reasons some high-ranking officers developed a dislike for Clark. But the request came from the AG, who works directly for the CIC, who gives the orders to the top brass. The only charge against Clark is Improper Genuflection.

There are substantive questions about Clark which are yet to be answered, but this ain't one of them.

tell what a lying peice of garbage she is. Tell her that children that were killed in that building were shot, stabbed, and burned by the members of the Branch Dividians. The evidence shows that. It is not hard to check. Tell her that the ATF was the one that did it and that the personal and equipment that was ordered from Ft. Hood was NOT even used in the seige at Waco. For that matter, tell her the fact that it wasn't even in Waco but several miles away.

Email her 25 times a piece until she retracts her false information. FILL HER BOX UP so she cannot function anymore. Tell her we know she is a liar or the worst reporter in history.

Mike

And the e-mail address. Made it easier to drop a missive as needed!

:toast:

and my first reaction to this article is "hogwash". Let the right bring up Clark's military career, any part of it. Then we'll talk about Jr's. I mean comparison is only fair, right?

Julie

If you read the article you will see NOT 1 FACT.

It's all conjecture and will die a quick death.

Clark's refusal to deny he was there or involved is a telling admission (a nondenial dodge).

It woiuld be much more easy to paint this as right wing loonie CT if Clark would simply respond to those who are asking about it. Waco was horrific murder whether you are on the right or the left: children and whoile families were wiped out. I agree it was a Bush screwup handed to Clinton and that Reno was probably misled BY Clark (if there is any truth to the story) to justify the horrific assault (whch may actually have been a BFEE plan to smear Clinton/Reno). Reno was an idiot on this. But she was LED into it by SOMEONE who thought the assault would work. Was it Clark?

I don't know. But the fact is (and I have read of this from the left perspective too) Clark's Ft. Hood troops and equipment appear clearly have been at the forefront of the assault. Violations of the Posse Comitatus Act are serious breaches/

Don't dismiss this too easily.

These details from the article need to be clarified:


Excerpt:

"Those seeking an investigation of his part in the Waco outrage say that Clark not only played a hidden role in the military-style assault on the Branch Davidians, but easily could have refused to participate in what was a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act that bars use of the U.S. military for civilian law-enforcement activities.

"Although Clark never publicly has discussed his role in the attack on the Branch Davidians and did not respond to Insight's requests for an interview to discuss his role at Waco, there are indisputable facts that confirm he had knowledge of the grim plans to bring the standoff to an end. Between August 1992 and April 1994, Clark was commander of the 1st Cavalry Division of the Army's III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas. According to a report by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the list of military personnel and equipment used at Waco included: 15 active-duty military personnel, 13 Texas National Guard personnel, nine Bradley fighting vehicles, five combat-engineer vehicles, one tank-retrieval vehicle and two M1A1 Abrams tanks. Additionally, Fort Hood reportedly was used for much of the training for the bloody attack on the Davidians and their children.

"Based on the fact that military equipment from Fort Hood was used in the siege and that training was provided there, say critics, it is clear the commanding officer of the 1st Cavalry had direct knowledge of the attack and, more likely than not, was involved in the tactical planning.

"West Point graduate Joseph Mehrten Jr. tells Insight that, "Clark had to have knowledge about the plan because there is no way anyone could have gotten combat vehicles off that base without his okay. The M1A1 Abrams armor is classified 'Secret,' and maybe even 'Top Secret,' and if it was deployed as muscle for something like Waco there would have been National Firearms Act weapons issues. Each of these M1A1 Abrams vehicles is armed with a 125-millimeter cannon, a 50-caliber machine gun and two 30-caliber machine guns, which are all very heavily controlled items, requiring controls much like a chain of legal custody. It is of critical importance that such vehicles could not have been moved for use at Waco without Clark's knowledge."

....


I dfo NOT know whether ANY of this is true or not, in all honesty. It appears to be solid and the Fort Hood connection cannot be denied.

All's I'm sayin' is that Clark needs to address this or it is one more nail in his political coffin.

Machivallien machinations like this are not unheard of (Clark used by the BFEE to discredit Clinton and now the right uses his actions to discredit him -- then spins it to make him look like the left's golden boy because the rightists are attacking him via a moonie publication. Very sharp propaganda methods.)

No depths to which we won't sink, to smear this man. I've never used this emoticon before because its disgusting but there's a first time for everything: the hate behind this thread make me :puke:

of MO was appointed to completely investigate this entire incident and did - his conclusion was the government was not at fault in this. Don't know if I agree or disagree with that but Danforth is a die-hard right winger and was investigating Clinton & Reno's part and all the rest.

But Waco, Oklahoma City, the first WTC bombing, and everything else was all Clinton's fault.