I want to know if Wesley was in Waco

Clark Tanks Rolled Into Mount Carmel

Clark groupies, please see if your campaign will give you an answer. He isn't talking to anyone else. (so much for the transparancy he touts) .. whatever one's views are on "Waco", there's no reason for a cover-up, is there?

..snip..
For example, there is the 1993 siege of David Koresh's Mount Carmel commune in Waco, Texas, where four law-enforcement officers were killed and nearly 90 civilians - men, women and children - massacred by being shot and/or burned alive. 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.
.. contined
Clark Tanks Rolled Into Mount Carmel

First, I think the idea he was there has been debunked (though I don't have a direct citation). Second, let's say he had been there. He would have been following lawful orders given to him by the CIC (who was Clinton). So even if you are appalled at the outcome, and I blame Koresh more than anyone else, Clark isn't your problem Clinton and Reno are.

the problem would be with George H.W. Bush who ordered the seige on the compound at Waco. Clinton inherited it.

The only thing I fault law enforcement for here was the original serving of the warrents. They had much better ways to do that. But after that those people got way more patience than any group of non white molesting cultists would ever have gotten.

The Facts on Waco



Waco is Clinton's Bay of Pigs - an operation planned before he took office, and handed to his new AG. The tactical elements in charge had been selected before hand.



PBS compiled this timeline.



It takes the timelines from the two major reports - the 1993 report which had key omissions, and the later Danforth report. The FBI turned over to congress information relating to use of military shells, but did not highlight it, leading to charges of a cover up by Republican congressmen later. Waxman then documented that the material had been turned over to congress, but was buried among voluminous documentation.



This is the Department of Justice's first report on Waco and other materials.



It is important to remember that Clinton had been in office less than a month when the stand off started, and the action had been planned in advance. Reno was not even AG until March, and certainly had not had any time to even place her own people in charge. While the right wing likes to portray Waco as Clinton's fault - and Reno's - the truth is that the team doing the ground level work consisted of Reagan-Bush people, and at key points, it showed. Reno took full responsibility, which is what the person in charge should do - but let's not kid ourselves, ground level bungling made Waco what it was, and the people on the ground had not been put there by Clinton or Reno.



Both of these reports state that Acting AG Gerson ordered the military vehicles from Fort Hood, that they were driven by FBI tactical agents. That the only meetings with military commanders on strategy were not with Clark or other elements at Hood, but with US military Delta Force officers. Clark was ordered by McClarty on behalf of the Gerson to release vehicles to the operation, and, according to some reports train people to drive them. No members of the first cav were assigned, and Clark had neither operational nor advisory input on the matter. Both the Scruggs and Danforth reports concur on this point.



The military involvement at Waco has lead to wild speculation, and the conspiracy theorists urge to make everything one big glom - with their target du jour being the grand villain - has lead to Clark being thrown into the mix. However, Clark did not issue the tear gas, nor were any of his people present. The 40mm rounds were not issued by the First Cavalry. There were three Delta Force officers there as observers. Film included in the anti-Waco documentary shows that FBI agents were driving the tanks, and not military personnel.



The unforthcoming nature for years of the Clinton Administration did a great deal to damage the credibility of the initial report - and the concealment of evidence from Reno by the FBI lead to a reform at FBI by Freeh, who Clinton would later appoint as director.



The legal trail that Danforth pursued in his investigation is here.



Find law on the Waco stand off.



Bottom lines:



Clark was not present at Waco, nor did he plan, direct or authorize it. While observers from Delta Force were present, no elements of the First Cavalry were in operational control. The events of April 19th, 1993 were based on ineptitude of a number of FBI tactical agents, who repeatedly used ham-handed negotiating techniques, and possibly, a desire for glory hunting by those leading the siege. Many of the people involved in Waco were involved in previous questionable actions, including one sniper who was involved with Ruby Ridge in 1992, and who may have fired sniper rounds during the siege.

however that site assumes as fact that Dean asked Clark to be his VP running mate.
More likely is that he offered to 'work together' to get the main job done.

Most of the dem candidates have demonstrated some degree of teamwork on occassion.
From what I've seen, it's easier for the long term politicians (K,G,L) to hurl attacks, but the others
seem a little uncomfortable doing so. Experience shows...

I don't believe Dean was handing out VP invitations, in spite of the spin.
Otherwise, helpful site.

Aren't US Army armored vehicles owned by the US Army? Does Clark have his own, personal tanks to ride around in? That's so cool. Maybe he could use them for fundraising, let people ride around in a turret or something.

Sweet.

<>

When I first encountered this story, there was "indesputable proof" that Clark planned and conducted the assault on the Branch Davidians. The only question was whether he had operated one of the tanks himself. I see that has changed.

Sort of reminds me how we started out invading Iraq because of WMD's, but now it turns out what they meant were programs to develop WMD's.

So now the claim is that Clark had knowledge of "grim plans" to end the standoff at Waco. Sort of racheting down the scale, isn't that?

What's next? Amazing revelations that Clark was in Texas when the FBI mounted its assault? Or the American South West? Or West of the Mississippi?

on the Branch Davidians, driving the lead tank....(((sarcasm))). That was the impression I had from listening to a few posters on other threads. They range from the silly to the obscene. Perhaps next they'll suggest we investigate where Clark was when that tank rolled over Rachel Corrie. Maybe he was undercover with the Israelis....

Lets check over at Newsmax and Drudge to see what Wesley's been up to...

No, General Clark never went out there as far as I've ever been able to find out. Given that it was on television right in front of my constantly, the whole time, I'm guessing it would have been hard to miss him, and especially when he'd have had to be in two places at once. If he went it was well covered up to those of us on the base, lemme tell ya! He was on television quite a bit doing his duty on base throughout the Waco incident, not to mention I saw him personally a great many times while the standoff was ongoing, and in fact on the day of the final siege.

for your personal account.

I don't know why republicans think this lie will even hurt Clark. NOBODY who is still upset about Waco is going to vote in a Democratic primary, nor will they vote for ANY dem candidate. It's a small group of people on the far-right fringe who have managed to convince themselves that Clinton/Reno was even responsible for Ruby Ridge..... long before they took office.

*ROTFL* I never hear that one before!

I have no problem defending Wes Clark. I like him a lot, although I have to admit being a little disappointed in his preparation for this run. I've gotten all sorts of flak as a DK supporter because I keep telling people "Wes Clark is a LOT more liberal than most people would expect!". Most of them look at me as if I've grown another head. It seems to me he was opposed to "don't ask don't tell" when it was implemented, he's been pro-choice for as far back as I've known who he was (or at least spoke as if he was), and he's a genuinely good person who cares about others. I remember hearing about him demanding that his troops be properly supplied a few times while we were at Hood. The soldiers who worked under his command were impressed by that.

Yes, there are things that make me a little wary of him. Some of his past statements about Bush and Rove, in particular, and that closed door meeting in Washington on the final day of the fund-raising quarter, but they haven't made me opt not to support him if he's the nominee. I figure I'll work for Kucinich as hard as I can, because he really is the Gold Standard candidate for me, and I'll watch and see how Clark progresses. The plain truth is I LIKE the man!

I have found a few things about what Clark did in the military that would carry over to validate his general views. But I'd sure like to know if there's more. Did he implement any particular programs on the base that really reflect liberal views?

If I recall correctly, he helped organize an affordable daycare program for military families in Europe. Hiring professional daycare workers would have been too expensive for the low budget military families. So he helped organize a program where the spouses of military personnel were hired to provide daycare -- thus giving them more time with their children, providing a second source of income, and bringing the daycare rates down to affordable levels for cash-strapped military families.

He also helped save an endangered desert turtle species near a military base (I think in Texas).

And he was on record as asking congressional budgeters for more money for the education of military children and caring for the troops.

And he wrote an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in favor of affirmative action during the Michigan case.

I remember seeing links to all this stuff and more on a GD thread some weeks ago when a non-clark suppporter asked for evidence of past progressive actions, and not just talk.

The only reason I recall the Waco situation so well was that I was worried my husband might wind up being part of the mess.

The way I recall Clark then (and mind you he wasn't the Base Commander, he was a Division Commander)was that he was pretty good at getting what he wanted for the troops without a lot of fuss being made. He was pretty outspoken about DADT, and especially for a ranking Officer! You just didn't see that done very often, and I know he was intense about supporting the families in every possible way.

That was one of the reasons I came to respect him as much as I do. Too many Officers don't think about what the families left behind might suffer because their focus is on the mission. Clark wasn't like that. He wanted the spouses to be secure and cared for, the kids to have decent education opportunities....He may have had a hand in the Head Start being implemented where my daughter went to school...and I recall one guy saying General Clark had been royally ticked over one of his troops not getting paid during a lengthy Temporary Duty Assignment. His family, a wife and at least one very young child had been left with no money for groceries and had made use of some of the support programs. Clark was furious because that never should have happened.

a whole lot of wingnuts reflexively think Clinton was responsible for Ruby Ridge.

I'm glad you have an open mind about Clark. I really DO think he's one of the more liberal candidates in the race.

I can understand the concern about his "kind" comments about the current administration. They don't bother me, because I know he spent his career as a non-partisan, and he's had to work with these people in a variety of circumstances. But I definitely understand why some people might be concerned - I just ask that they look at the man and his positions and not use his associations as the sole criterion. Teddy Kennedy is close friends with Orrin Hatch. Bill Clinton is good friends with Bob Dole. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

As for the "closed door meetings on the last day of the fund-raising quarter"... well.. I think that's a load of bullcrap. Even the use of the term "closed door meeting" is meant to insinuate something nefarious. I guarantee that Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton and others close the door when they're having a private meeting. As for it being the last day of the fundraising quarter... well... I never understood that complaint. It's a meaningless date. One could just as easily complain that other democrats spent that day "sucking up to big interests and raising money" when they should've been gathering support. I can also guarantee that every other candidate is seeking the endorsements of certain congresscritters. I simply fail to see the flaw in Clark doing so.

when will start an immediate lockup of threads congaing universally know falsehoods demeaning Democrats? This Waco crap is old, stale, worn out, trite, hackneyed and has been debunked long ago. Why is it being used to cast a shadow on a strong Democratic candidate in DU?

Look back at this posters history and you will see what I am writing of.

that's one reason those statements haven't turned me off him. The meeting, I think just puzzles me. I heard about it and thought "Well now that's just wierd! Here he's just jumped in to try to get a lot of these people out of Washington and he's holding private meetings with them? Huh!" BUT, I also got to thinking about the fact that he was a General and we ARE in the middle of a messy war. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out there might be a perfectly good reason for him to have been in a meeting with people in Washington.

I've said before, too, that as much as I despise Bush & Co. hearing anyone speak well of any of them kind of makes me a little edgy. My problem, not Wesley Clark's.

Are you satisfied? This has been explained
a thousand times on DU. Don't believe right
wing rags.

so why won't he talk about it?

Sorry to disappoint the censors in this thread, but I don't plan to stop asking questions about wesley. If you think that means I am in league with the *fill-in-the-blank*, then you have a very limited understanding of reality.

The day DU prohibits open discussion of EVERY candidate is the day I will stop asking questions about this one.

Just a thought.;)

Insight Magazine is produced by the Washington Times. My Dad used to get it, it sometimes makes the daily Washington Times look moderate.

I'm not sure who this is supposed to be against. I mean on one hand they are saying Clark was behind Waco which would rile up all the child molesting anti-Christian Right Wingers on the other hand well, what do the progressives think about Waco?

This is such tinfoil hat stuff that I could bake all the potatoes in Idaho with it.

I am still not clear what happened there. There are so many varying stories. If he was there, he's lost Timothy McVeigh's vote.

New DU rule: Moonie controlled media outlets have no credability.

http://www.perkel.com/politics/moonies/

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.