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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-175 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-175 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