Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clark Post During Waco Gets New Attention
Drudge Report | Nov 28, 2003 | PETE YOST

Posted on 11/28/2003 4:06:52 PM PST by drypowder

Clark Post During Waco Gets New Attention

Email this Story

Nov 28, 5:03 PM (ET)

By PETE YOST

(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark, then NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, is... Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - An Army division commanded by Wesley Clark supplied some of the military equipment for the government's 51-day standoff with a religious sect in Waco, Texas, and Clark's deputy, now the Army Chief of Staff, took part in a crucial Justice Department meeting five days before the siege ended in disaster, according to military records.

Clark's involvement in support of the Waco operation a decade ago was indirect and fleeting, according to his former commanding officer. But the assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies by military officers around Clark and soldiers under his command has prompted a flurry of questions to his presidential campaign.

Internet chat rooms and several news stories speculate that Clark played a role in the tactical planning for the operation that ended with the deaths of about 80 followers of the Branch Davidian religious sect and its leader, David Koresh.

Clark's campaign flatly denies any planning role by Clark in Waco. And an investigation by a Justice Department special counsel, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., bears out that assertion. Danforth found no improper actions by anyone in the U.S. military regarding Waco and concluded that the fiery end to the siege resulted from the Davidians setting fires inside the building compound where they were holed up.

Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.

Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.

"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us."

Regarding Taylor's comments, Clark campaign spokeswoman Mary Jacoby said "this is exactly what we've said all along; Gen. Clark had no involvement."

But critics such as documentary filmmaker Michael McNulty say there are many unanswered questions about the deaths at Waco, including the nature of the military equipment that came out of Clark's division and whether it was used.

Taylor said the FBI sent requests for assistance to the Department of Defense, which forwarded them to the Department of the Army and "ultimately some of these requests came down to me," said Taylor.

Much of the military equipment for Waco came from the Texas National Guard, including 10 Bradley fighting vehicles. It is unclear from the public record precisely what military gear Clark's 1st Cavalry Division supplied to civilian law enforcement agents at Waco. One government list of "reimbursable costs" for the 1st Cavalry Division specifies sand bags, fuel for generators and two M1A1 Abrams tanks.

However, the list specifies that the tanks were "not used" and stipulates that no reimbursement for them was to be sought from the FBI. The list also specifies reimbursable costs of nearly $3,500 for 250 rounds of high explosive grenade launcher ammunition. However, the list doesn't specify whether Clark's division or some other Army unit supplied the ammo.

Regardless of who supplied the military items, Danforth's investigation concluded that no one from the government fired a gunshot - despite being fired upon - at the Branch Davidian complex on the final day of the siege.

Clark's assistant division commander at the time, Peter J. Schoomaker, met with Attorney General Janet Reno and other officials from the Justice Department and FBI five days before the siege ended with the fatal fire.

Taylor says that "anything Schoomaker did, he wasn't doing for Clark." Internal Army documents support Taylor's position.

The Justice Department and the FBI requested Schoomaker and William Boykin "by name to meet with the attorney general," states one internal Army document created before the meeting. "These soldiers have extensive special operations experience and have worked with the FBI on previous occasions. Schoomaker "told my watch NCO ... that the FBI plans to pick him up at Fort Hood and fly him first to Waco to assess the situation, and then on to Washington D.C.," states the internal Army document. Schoomaker, currently the Army Chief of Staff, has a background in Army Special Forces. Boykin, who has similar experience, is the Army general whose controversial church speeches cast the war on terrorism in religious terms, prompting recent calls from some in Congress for him to step down.

At the meeting with Reno, Schoomaker and Boykin refused an invitation to assess the plan to inject tear gas into the buildings, a move designed to force the Davidians to flee the compound, an internal Army document states.

"We can't grade your paper," one of the two Special Forces officers was quoted as telling the Justice Department and the FBI. The comment referred to the legal restrictions prohibiting direct participation in civilian law enforcement operations.

McNulty, whose documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" won an Emmy in 1998, provided The AP with several internal Army documents referring to the meeting and obtained from the military under the Freedom of Information Act.


TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; conspiracy; turass; waco; wesleyclark
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last
Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations

Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to"

the tanks were "not used" and stipulates that no reimbursement for them was to be sought from the FBI

Tell a lie often and it will evetually become the truth. If I'm not mistaken, in the movie "Rules of Ingagement" I remember seeing ARMY TANKS RUNNING THROUGH THE WALLS OF THE WACO COMPOUND and at one point, one lost a track because it got tangled up with a dead body. Obviously John Danforth was complicit in the coverup. Will there ever be any justice in this tragedy?

1 posted on 11/28/2003 4:06:52 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: drypowder
no
2 posted on 11/28/2003 4:08:45 PM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
bttt
3 posted on 11/28/2003 4:09:23 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
Will there ever be any justice in this tragedy?

No. But the story is spreading again. Far from ending talk, this effort to exonerate Clark of blame will only implicate him further.

Like the other thread posted here earlier, this one has all sorts of weasel-worded equivocations. And now that Drudge has picked it up, a lot more people will hear about it.

It's especially embarrassing because Clark is running as a clinton stooge, and the clintons were into Waco up to their necks. This will not serve Hillary well when she goes to the Democrat convention in Boston expecting Clark to lead the movement to hand her the nomination.

4 posted on 11/28/2003 4:12:20 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
I saw it too, on a live feed from Waco. I saw the tank hit the building, but I never saw it again on any of the news videos. It was different later.
5 posted on 11/28/2003 4:13:33 PM PST by EggsAckley (..................."Dean's got Tom McClintock Eyes".........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
I remember seeing ARMY TANKS RUNNING THROUGH THE WALLS OF THE WACO COMPOUND

An outright fabrication in your mind - you may have seen CEV's punching holes via tear-gas insertion booms, but they did not run 'through the walls' ...

6 posted on 11/28/2003 4:15:33 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
No.
7 posted on 11/28/2003 4:24:21 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder

I didn't do it.

And I didn't steam over
my own tow line either.

8 posted on 11/28/2003 4:26:16 PM PST by Petronski (I'm *NOT* always *CRANKY.*™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
RE: "they did not run 'through the walls'"

I recall see the video of the following:

At 11:16:27 the tank or CEV (combat engineering vehicle) first appears.

At 11:18:40-Q1 the tank starts to demolish the rear wall of the gym. This continues on until 12:09:02-Q3 when the tank leaves the rear area of the gym. There were a total of 19 instances that the tank penetrated the gym.

At 11:23:02-Q3 & Q4 the tank has penetrated the gym for the 6th time.

At 11:23:23 the tank is completely inside the gym.

[end of excerpt]

From a newsmax.com article, http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/30/160306

9 posted on 11/28/2003 4:33:13 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
I just got angry all over again after reading this article.
10 posted on 11/28/2003 4:33:54 PM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
Thanks for posting this. Weslie Clark sounds like a Clintonite...

There will never be any justice in this tragedy.
11 posted on 11/28/2003 4:36:31 PM PST by TheSpottedOwl (I'd rather have dead rats in my walls, than Hillary for President.,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
Danforth found no improper actions by anyone in the U.S. military regarding Waco

Reason 13,486 why we need to quit electing RINO's

12 posted on 11/28/2003 4:41:53 PM PST by itsahoot (The lesser of two evils, is evil still...Alan Keyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
I note that the article you cite does not describe events as the other poster described when he wrote " I remember seeing ARMY TANKS RUNNING THROUGH THE WALLS OF THE WACO COMPOUND and at one point, one lost a track because it got tangled up with a dead body."

Thank you for providing support for my point.

13 posted on 11/28/2003 4:43:37 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: drypowder

There were more tanks at Waco than there were at Mogadishu.
14 posted on 11/28/2003 4:45:04 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
Good turkey and too much wine yesterday, hopefully I'll post my reply correctly this time.

No intential frabication here, if I miss spoke please forgive me. But please explain how the male body that caused the tank to lose its right track got tangled in the track when the body was INSIDE a corner room of the compound. Please clarify for this me.
15 posted on 11/28/2003 4:46:19 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I find it quite amusing that all the liberals belly ache about Ascroft, Bush, and the Patriot Act. Look at all the lives snuffed out by Reno and the Clintons.
16 posted on 11/28/2003 4:52:49 PM PST by dc27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
you may have seen CEV's punching holes via tear-gas insertion booms, but they did not run 'through the walls'

Right. Punching holes. Glad we got that straightened out.

17 posted on 11/28/2003 4:53:39 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
A 'male body' causes a tank tread to loose a track, sorry, but, that's really not within the believable realm of possibilities ... unless that body was Superman ...
18 posted on 11/28/2003 4:54:42 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: donh
The difference, though just slightly more than subtle, is important.
19 posted on 11/28/2003 4:55:40 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
This is not meant to question anyone's integridy but if that's an authentic photo of the seige at Waco someone should have shot the jackass that put that American flag up. Oh yea, I guess it's symbolic of Clinton's Amerika.
20 posted on 11/28/2003 4:58:01 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
You are welcome. But actually I was addressing your statement, "An outright fabrication in your mind - you may have seen CEV's punching holes via tear-gas insertion booms, but they did not run 'through the walls'"

At least one CEV did penetrate the rear of the building and enter the building to some degree. It did break through the outside wall though one could not say it "ran" through the wall. It slowly entered the buillding then backed out. I too heard the track story but don't recall seeing it on video.

21 posted on 11/28/2003 5:01:18 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
GO BACK and read what the original poster wrote - HIS WRITING gives one a different impression than what you're describing now.
22 posted on 11/28/2003 5:03:55 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
Just curious - where did you first learn about Waco?

Did you buy a copy of "Waco: Rules fo Engagement"?

23 posted on 11/28/2003 5:05:58 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
I appreciate your skepticism and I agree, it sounds impossible. It's been a couple of years since I've seen the movie "Rules of Engagement" but that scene of a tank going through a wall and then backing out with a body caught up in the track was particularly horrid. Have you seen the movie?
24 posted on 11/28/2003 5:11:16 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
If military equipment – tanks – etc. were “loaned”, who ran or used the weapons? I haven’t talked to one ranked military from 1950 till now who had/has much respect for the Little PPP General. Janet Reno and Hillary ran the Waco show – Bill was out of the country most of the time.
25 posted on 11/28/2003 5:14:56 PM PST by yoe (No to Mrs. Clinton ever entering the White House as president and NO to her sexual predator spouse –)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
I'm so f&^%$#@ tired of hearing the same giberish about the Davidians setting their own place on fire...

All anyone with a brain has to do is watch "Waco: Rules of Engagement"... ...and right before their very eyes they can see the concusion grenades going off at the time the fire started.

I have said from the very moment Clark opened his hole hanging around the campaign front... 'Ya, the guy who authorized military force domesticly is going to run for president...'

But you know what? This country is so messed up, maybe it would be a good thing to vote these slugs in anyway. That way, the revolution can start sooner rather than later.

26 posted on 11/28/2003 5:16:52 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
I happened to catch Mike McNulty on McQuistion (a TV talk program) a couple of years ago where they discussed this film. Same members of another group were there too, from the North Texas Skeptics Society I think it was. They discussed his film in depth and challenged some of the conclusions and a number of assertions he made in that film ...
27 posted on 11/28/2003 5:19:37 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
All anyone with a brain has to do is watch "Waco: Rules of Engagement"... .

And that's the problem. McNulty editted some material out-of-sequence as well as some other stuff that renders this 'piece' unreliable as far as facts go ...

28 posted on 11/28/2003 5:21:38 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
The difference, though just slightly more than subtle, is important.

Only to those who think endlessly splitting hairs over nearly irrelevant details will serve in place of a positive defense of what congress branded as the worst-planned, most costly and egregeous law enforcement action of the 20th century. They fired flash-bangs on a battleground with gas filled, children filled buildings, and connected subducting tunnels, and then lied to congress about it. That alone should have been sufficient to hang all involved by their nards for murdering those children.

Waco stands with Sand Creek as a permanent black mark on the USArmy flag, and all those involved, as well as Sanford, and the federal judge who thought letting the accused's attorneys submit their handpicked re-creation of the event as "evidence" are coverup artists who've gotten away with it. This was a shameful action followed by a shabby and transparent coverup of federal malfeasance from the getgo. Try submitting a murder re-creation by the accused murderer in court, and see what you get from the judge.

And I remain amazed at how stalwart, and instantaneously reactive a defender of this action you are. Try putting down the weasil script you operate off of, and give some straight answers for once, without the usual hand-waving attempts at diffusing the conversation with misleading irrelevancies--it might be refreshing.

By any reasonable lay understanding of what one can plainly see in the pictures, Were there or were there not tanks at waco? Do they strike you as maybe the Waco PD's natural allotment of tanks, for everyday prowling of the streets of Waco? Does the DEA have a battle squadron of tanks? For what purpose, do you speculate--burning up the children of obstinately armed US citizens?

29 posted on 11/28/2003 5:23:41 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: donh
Well, if you don't want to draw the distinction between a vehicle that's punching holes for the insertion of tear gas VERSUS one that is literally 'running through the building' and purportedly running over people -

- that's YOUR business and I think it puts you in the intellectual minority as well ...

30 posted on 11/28/2003 5:26:29 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
I don't know how to say it any other way. Again, I was addressing your statement telling the other poster that, they [the CEVs] did not run 'through the walls'"

In fact, at least one CEV did penetrate the rear of the building and enter the building. My only interest was pointing that out.

I merely commented that I too had heard the "body in the tracks" as a way of saying the other poster did not invent the story. I should have left the comment out I didn't realize this was a contest I thought it was a discussion.

31 posted on 11/28/2003 5:27:01 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
I'll admit, I'm a conservative talk show junky and used to listen to a host named Geoff Metcalf who, if I'm not mistaken because it's been 10+ years ago, would speak to the aspects of the Waco seige that the alphbet media didn't disclose. Geoff would often times interview people on the air who were directly or indirectly involved in the Waco incident. I bought the movie because of the info I was hearing on conservative radio. I've only watched it once, that was enough. Maybe it's time to refresh my memory of how brutel the Clinton's really are, I'll see if I still have the movie .
32 posted on 11/28/2003 5:28:59 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: donh
By the way, where did you receive your 'education' on Waco?

'Mark from Michigan' on shortwave?

Alex Jones and his Infowars and PrisonPlanet websites?

Which McNulty films?

All of them?

33 posted on 11/28/2003 5:29:09 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
I don't know how to say it any other way. Again, I was addressing your statement

IF you don't reference your comments BACK to what I was addressing initially - ALL this continued discussion is for naught ...

34 posted on 11/28/2003 5:31:25 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
For the record, Bush took Baghdad faster than clinton took Waco.
35 posted on 11/28/2003 5:31:43 PM PST by ChadGore (Kakkate Koi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
By the way, where did you receive your 'education' on Waco?

What evidence that I've commented on didn't come from CNN, or CSPAN? You think it's some kind of big conspiritorial secret that the government defended itself in court by re-creating the events at WACO using the services of a fat military contractor? I'll repeat myself, for the benefit of the intentionally hearing-impaired--what would a real judge in a real court do with such "evidence"?

36 posted on 11/28/2003 5:41:21 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: _Jim; harpseal; Squantos; wardaddy; BBPark; Always A Marine
Let me tell you something _Jim... Some folks are not stupid.

There is an old saying that states, "A picture tells a thousand words. And the "Out of sequence" pictures I saw in the movie, told me a few thousand words. A handful of words right off the top of my head are...'Posse Commitatus Act was written into law for a reason, stricly forbidding army action domesticly. And what happened in Waco, was a disregard for this law. You warp it anyway you want, but gunships and tanks is a disregard for what this country is supposed to be about.

IOW, just because the guy you mention forgets to dot a few I's and cross a few T's, does not mean army tanks and choppers did not kill American citizens on American soil.

37 posted on 11/28/2003 5:41:35 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
So the meaning of "tanks" and the "body in the tracks" are the issues? Fine. Regardless at least one CEV was used for more than "punching holes via tear-gas insertion booms."

That's always been a puzzle for me. Why did they break through the gym wall in the rear of the building? I believe that some say it was to provide an extra escape route. I don't know.

If this don't do it, then naught.

38 posted on 11/28/2003 5:47:08 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
Well, if you don't want to draw the distinction between a vehicle that's punching holes for the insertion of tear gas VERSUS one that is literally 'running through the building' and purportedly running over people -

Were there, or were there not, flammable gas, flashbangs, and what can, by any reasonable interpretation, be called "tanks" employed against buildings full of children at Waco? It is not necessary to review the McNulty films to answer this question, now is it?

39 posted on 11/28/2003 5:47:23 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: donh
So, you're just plain straight-away not going to answer my question ...
40 posted on 11/28/2003 5:47:57 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
They discussed his film in depth and challenged some of the conclusions and a number of assertions he made in that film ...

Assertions? What assertions? We are talking about facts caught on tape. Nobody even mentioned the comentaries and opinions. The liberals truly inhabit a separate universe. Just spew some vague statements and go on feeling goood about themselves.
41 posted on 11/28/2003 5:52:39 PM PST by singsong (Demoralization kils first the civilization and THEN the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
My research over the years say's the holes were strategicly placed for the "Ram Air Effect"...(Fire) They wanted to burn them out, and then IR showed five machine gun positions outside the only escape route near the kitchen. They gunned down all those people in cold blood as they tried to escape the inferno.

May all involved rot in hell.

42 posted on 11/28/2003 5:53:18 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
Well, you've been 'had' in that case by a 'piece' in which Mikle McNulty took many liberties with the 'facts' and interpretation of what the IR equipment saw that last day ....

43 posted on 11/28/2003 5:53:42 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
They wanted to burn them out,

That's sheer nonsense.

44 posted on 11/28/2003 5:54:25 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
I apologize for not knowing more in detail but I found it too ironic that the scientist who was the world's formost expert analyst in the type of photography that detects heat (FLIR) and was appointed by Danforth to study the FBI ariel survalance tapes of the last day of the Waco seige dies in his office of unknown causes a day or two before his report was to be completed. From what I have heard a colegue was kept aprised of his findings as they surfaced and that his analysis does implicate FBI agents in several areas around the compound as well as one riding on a tank and firing into the compound. I would like to see the interview that you mentioned, any access to it that you know of?
45 posted on 11/28/2003 5:55:56 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: _Jim

Yeah, looks like just another day at the office.

46 posted on 11/28/2003 5:57:13 PM PST by JennysCool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: singsong
We are talking about facts caught on tape.

No they weren't. They were conclusions based on incorrect interpretation of observations gleaned from the the IR video:

More recently writer Mike McNulty has produced a documentary Waco: The Rules of Engagement. While the story line of Rules of Engagement is decidedly anti-government, it goes beyond offering sympathy for the Davidians. A press release states it "is a shocking film which says that the FBI machine-gunned Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas and committed numerous other rights violations there." The press release was related to the announcement in 1998 that the film had been nominated for an Academy Award. Siskel and Ebert gave it "two thumbs up," and it "was named one of the year's best films in The Los Angeles Times, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, L.A. Weekly and the St. Paul Pioneer Press."

McNulty's conclusions regarding the machine-gunning of innocents seem to hang on his interpretation of FLIR (Forward-Looking Infra-Red) video captured by a reconnaissance aircraft flying overhead at the end of the siege. Flashes of light in the vicinity of the building are perceived as muzzle flashes from automatic and other small arms fire by government agents. In fact, a consultant shown analyzing the FLIR imagery is not circumspect in his statements. He uses phrases similar to "Here we see gunfire toward the kitchen area" and "This is a two-second burst from an automatic weapon."

McNulty is no Linda Thompson. When two NTS members participated in the taping of a McCuistion TV program about the siege recently he was there and repeated the shooting allegations in language less strong than he used in the video. He even had praise for the agents who took part in the initial raid, including Robert White, who was wounded that day and was on the McCuistion show with him.

...

In the Rules of Engagement video the tank treads show up brighter. The FLIR was sensitive enough to show the extra warmth. In the siege video no shooters show up. "Gunfire" erupts from a patch of ground, supposedly directed at the Davidian's building, and we don't see anybody doing the shooting. The FLIR that is sensitive enough to show warm tank treads does not show a warm (98F) person lying on the ground. More so, there is a two-second burst of automatic weapon fire, and we don't see a stream of hot bullets. A gun barrel that should be too hot to touch does not even register.


47 posted on 11/28/2003 5:58:28 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
Reading what you said to me, and reading what you have said to others, tells me you're shootin' blanks son...

Stop with the mcNulty jive, and give some facts. Otherwise, go away and let the men continue their conversation.

48 posted on 11/28/2003 5:59:13 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
So, you're just plain straight-away not going to answer my question ...

As opposed to the straight answers you've given me, eh?

I haven't seen the McNulty film(s?), except for excerpts on the newschannels, or the film from the woman in texas, or any of the survivor's lectures. I watched the congressional hearing on C-SPAN from beginning to end, and the so-called re-creation, on CNN, I think. I don't generally get my news in visual form. It comes from fairly under-critical sources, for the most part. What's your excuse for being under-critical? A federal paycheck?

49 posted on 11/28/2003 5:59:32 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
The intire Clinonista worldview is incompatible with Christianity. Liberals will fight their own culture tooth and nail. They need stupid, confused masses to rule over. Genuine Christianity provides the way to truth and self-reliance and thus is the largest threat to the liberal liers. They will kill more people here at home, will bomb more countries like Serbia, will "appease" (read "covertly support") more terrorists and we sure have not seen the end of it all. I hope the Waco story will be picked up again, closer to election time.
50 posted on 11/28/2003 6:02:34 PM PST by singsong (Demoralization kils first the civilization and THEN the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson