Wesley Clark's tanks used in Waco siege

WorldNetDaily ^ | 10-16-03 | Kelly Patricia O Meara

[ambrose]

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35094

Thursday, October 16, 2003

---

---

ELECTION 2004
Clark tanks used in Waco siege
Democrat candidate's role in attack on Branch Davidians questioned

---

Posted: October 16, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily is pleased to have a content-sharing agreement with Insight magazine, the bold Washington publication not afraid to ruffle establishment feathers. Subscribe to Insight at WorldNetDaily's online store and save 71 percent off the cover price.

By Kelly Patricia O Meara

---

© 2003 News World Communications Inc.

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark wants to be president and, given that he is a man who has worn many hats during his controversial rise through the ranks, many believe this qualifies him for the top political job. But serious questions abound about his actions as commander of the 1st Cavalry Division of the Army's III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas, in 1993.

Clark has worn the hat of first-in-his-class graduate of West Point, Rhodes scholar, decorated Vietnam combat veteran, White House fellow, four-star general and even Supreme Commander of NATO ? a post from which he was relieved.

There is one hat, though, that despite lingering suspicions and accusations Clark neither has confirmed nor denied wearing ? a hat that many Americans might find very disturbing for a military man seeking the top civilian post in the U.S. government without first registering with either political party or being so much as elected dog catcher.

In his recently published book Winning Modern Wars, Clark proclaims that the "American way was not to rely on coercion and hard pressure but on persuasion and shared vision," which has been taken by Democratic Party doves to explain why the retired general has been an outspoken critic of President George W. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. But while Clark may prefer a "kinder, gentler" persuasion in dealing with U.S. enemies abroad, critics are saying his actions at home should be reviewed before deciding whether he is qualified to be trusted with America's civil liberties.

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.

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 OK. 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."

"This is something that the general staff would know in the daily situation report or manning reports. Clark would have known and, given his obsession for micromanagement, there is probably someone who can place him on the scene. He wouldn't have been able to resist going in. At the very least there is no way he didn't have knowledge," Mehrten continues.

So what if the general was aware that his military equipment was being used against American civilians, and so what if he even participated in the planning? Wasn't he just following orders from above?

"To follow that order," explains Mehrten, "is to follow a blatantly illegal order of a kind every West Point officer knows is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Clark's obligation was to say, 'No, I'm not going to do it.' Look, Clark went to the same institution I did and at West Point we had extensive instruction in military ethics and issues concerning how one avoids obeying an illegal military order. It is drilled into our heads from the earliest days as cadets that the 'I-was-just-following-orders' defense isn't necessarily a good one."

He had the juice to say no, concludes Mehrten, "and he could have and should have. But if he had done so he probably wouldn't have gotten his next star. There is a reason critics say this man was not recommended by the military for that fourth star but got it anyway because of political clout, just as there is a reason that Chief of Staff Hugh Shelton brought him home early from Europe because of 'character and integrity issues.' Sure the Bradley vehicle could have been operated by a civilian, but that's unlikely. This military equipment is very specialized and would be virtually useless in the hands of untrained operators. But just using military equipment against civilians is running way afoul of Posse Comitatus. Legally, if he were involved in it and there were active-duty units where these armored vehicles came from, then it is a clear violation of the act. Clark's command at the time, 1st Cavalry, is an active-duty federal division and it is my understanding that these vehicles used at Waco were from Fort Hood ? his command."

Tom Fitton, president of the Washington-based Judicial Watch, believes Clark has some questions to answer.

"The question for Clark," explains Finton, "is a fair one in terms of corruption. Many Americans still are troubled by what occurred at Waco, and we're very interested in his role. Many people are going to ask what are his views of the force [attorney general] Janet Reno used at Waco and they'll want to know if he, were he to become president of the United States, would authorize that kind of force again. Specifically, was Gen. Clark comfortable allowing forces and equipment under his command to participate in a police raid or, at best, a hostage situation? People are going to want to know these things."

Michael McNulty, an investigative journalist and Oscar nominee for his documentary, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, tells Insight that, "From the standpoint of what went on that operation had military fingerprints all over it. The chain of command being what it is, Clark had some responsibility, but to what degree we really don't know."

McNulty takes a deep breath and then says, "My military sources tell me that Clark and his second in command got the communication from then-governor of Texas Ann Richards, who wanted help with Waco. At that point Clark or [Gen. Peter J.] Schoomaker should have asked themselves, 'Religious community? Civilians, they want our tanks?' and hung up the phone. Clark had to be involved at the tactical level, he had to know what the tactical plan was and he'd have to approve it. No one has ever asked these questions of this man. Clark wasn't even asked to testify before the congressional committee investigating the circumstances of Waco. For me the real question is one of character and, because of the cover-up that's gone on with Waco, it could even be a question of criminality. From the get-go, when the assignment came down from III Corps, which is the primary Army unit at Fort Hood and his division, Wesley Clark had the opportunity to say 'Hey, wait a minute folks, we're not gonna give tanks and personnel to the FBI to use on civilians!'"

True, explains McNulty, "Clark didn't do this in a vacuum. Whatever he did he at least is guilty of being a good German ? following orders. He was in a position to put his foot down and say no. It was his men, his equipment and his command. Everything that happened at Waco, from the beginning, the U.S. military was involved ? including the strategic and tactical planning that went on from Feb. 29 to April 19. Why weren't the guys making the decisions debriefed and questioned by the committee? I would hope that Clark would answer these questions now, the sooner the better, because it appears that Waco is about to follow him into the political arena full force."

Subscribe to Insight

Related special offers:

'WACO: A New Revelation'

'F.L.I.R. Project': The video that started controversy

---

Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight.

---

[Carry_Okie]

Why don't they save this until after he gets the nomination? Getting rid of him now only clears the way for her heinous. OTOH, bringing it up then might help the Hildabeast's culpability become more widely understood.

[maestro]

Your#15,......correct!

Exactly,......Which 'NATO' state is Waco located in?

/sarcasm

[xzins]

When the president of the US tells a general to send a few tanks and engineer vehicles to X spot on the map, the general does so.

There are no objections allowed.

As stated, I'm no fan of Clark. A supporter isn't NECESSARILY brought in on the operational planning. Could've been, but maybe not.

And that's what makes it an unsupportable assumption when one says "odds are, Clark knew what was going on."

Let's go after Clark on something more substantial than this.

[Darksheare]

A new thread from today.

"Clark had to have knowledge about the plan because there is no way anyone could have gotten combat vehicles off that base without his OK. 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."

"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."
National guard troops belong to the parent unit.
Parent unit in this case was 1st cav.
Your insistence that Clark had nothing to do with Waco because there were Texas Guard troops there is a strawman.

For the nitpickers who want to point out that this hasn't been said on this thread go here to see what I am referring to:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1001501/posts?page=83#83
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1001501/posts?page=74#74

[Darksheare]

Remember Wesley Clark's near start of WWIII?
I found that I need any info you have on him.
Didn't think to ask you or anyone on the Clark ping list about it until just now.
Thread I needed it on is here if you want ot review it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1001501/posts

[robowombat]

Little as I like Weasel Clark there are some major misunderstandings in this article. It is my understanding that all heavy equipment was loaned to the FBI by the Texas national Guard. The 1CD may indeed have provided a training cadre along with the TX ARNG. There is nothing particularly sinister or illegal in the armed forces loaning equipment to federal law enforcement agencies. The FBI apparently searched about for a loan source and went to the Texas guard because law enforcement agencies will normally request support from the county or state before going to the armed forces.

If the Army had been more involved in the planning and direction of the operation (which would have been illegal) there would have been a lot fewer dead people at the end of the day. Army doctrine on dealing with actions with civil populations emphasizes porportionality and use of non lethal agents and (most important) trained forces able to actually conduct an infantry assualt while minimizing non-combatant casualties. The FBI operation was typical of the clumsy brutality that is the hall mark of para military police ops. The people involved are far more callous (amazingly) than soldiers towards the civilian population, minimally competent at best to conduct a coordinated operation, embued with a sort of brutish revenge mentality for any group which has injured or killed a LEO, and commanded by opportunistic amoral (and frequently none to bright) careerists. This mix is what led to the Waco massacre and what followed was a classic bureaucratic coverup. Reno was to stupid to figure out that the mass casualty event might happen, apparently did not demand a detailed briefing on the operation and neither she nor her staff could put 2 and 2 together to figure out with the information they had that a massacre would likely ensue.
Bill could care less. He was either fundraising or skirt chasing or both at the same time.

This whole sorry tale is a classic Slintoon operation. Sloppy planning, inattention, delegation to vicious subordinates, and a massive and determined damage control operation after the fact. However, as wretched a person as Clark might be he was not some grey eminence of the Waco massacre acting as the agent of the New World Order.

[Darksheare]

One does not loan out military equipment.
The FBI is neither trained on the use of, nor the operation of military equipment.
The Texas guard are subordinate to their parent unit, and would fall under Weasel Clark's command at that time.

[areafiftyone]

It's about time. I was waiting for this to finally come out. He thinks he can just get away without any scrutiney!

[MindBender26]

Sorry, but this is a factually wrong hit peice.... and the stupid writer should have known better.

"To follow that order," explains Mehrten, "is to follow a blatantly illegal order of a kind every West Point officer knows is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

The order was not illegal.... and the "expert" should know better if he stayed awake in his classes at West Point.

The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of FEDERAL military forces to aid STATE/LOCAL law enforcement efforts, officers, etc.

The controlling LEOs on the scene were FEDERAL, FBI, ATF, etc. There is nothing in the act to prohibit the use, or in fact, in any way control the use of FEDERAL military forces in such a FEDERAL incident.

Don't get me wrong. I actively dislike General Weasley Clunk. I hate what was done at Waco. But before a supposedly responsible news organ accuses a retired General Officer of a felony, they better have their facts straight.... and they did not.

Stupid mistakes like the above only make us Conservatives look as bad as stupid liberals.

[robowombat]

Actually there is a lot of military equipment loaned to other government agencies. A standard equipment loan agreement is executed in which the agency borrowing the equipment agrees to pay for any loss or damage and the items are delivered. I personally have been involved in providing a M-114 APC to the FBI to deal with a barricade gunman situation in Utah after the nut shot and killed the second ranking officer in the Utah (state) Bureau of Investigation. In that case the APC was used to transport an FBI sniper team over dead ground to get close enough to snipe the gun man. The sniper team used only one round and wounded the perpetrator. On a less dramatic level I have also been involved in providing the US Capitol Police with a military radio network to assist them in dealing with the last KKK demonstration in DC. While I haven't been directly involved I know that DEA has a large quatity of equipment from the armed forces on virtually permanent loan to it. So yes the military equipment loan program exists and is rather routine.

[Darksheare]

Doesn't happen without the commander's knowledge and okay.
My unit couldn't do things without our superiors knowledge like that.
If Clark honestly had 'no idea', then somebody needs to be cashiered and installed in a basement suite at Levinworth.
But he did have knowledge and did sign off on the use of military equipment and personnel for this.
It wasn't a loan of just equipment.
No equipment was per se loaned.
It was used and sent out with personnel.

That's where the problem is, who okayed it, and who is responsible.
And why is it insisted that the FBI borrowed just equipment?
That is not the case, soldiers were there with the equipment, manning it.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

So Clark broke the law to buy his 4th star. Explains why he's running as a Democrat.

[TADSLOS]

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 OK.

True statement.

"This is something that the general staff would know in the daily situation report or manning reports. Clark would have known and, given his obsession for micromanagement, there is probably someone who can place him on the scene. He wouldn't have been able to resist going in. At the very least there is no way he didn't have knowledge,"

Guaranteed that the his G-3 was keeping him updated daily. This was a real world operation on domestic soil. There was no way that Clark, as the CG, would not have known and actively supported the operation. He was probably tempted to be on the scene, but I suspect he was given directives not to be visible there. Considering his close, personal relationship with Clinton, it's highly likely that he was being directed from Clinton (and/or Hillary).

"To follow that order," explains Mehrten, "is to follow a blatantly illegal order of a kind every West Point officer knows is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Clark's obligation was to say, 'No, I'm not going to do it.' Look, Clark went to the same institution I did and at West Point we had extensive instruction in military ethics and issues concerning how one avoids obeying an illegal military order. It is drilled into our heads from the earliest days as cadets that the 'I-was-just-following-orders' defense isn't necessarily a good one."

This ethics training is not exclusive to the USMA. Every commissioning source (ROTC/OCS/USMA) teaches these things. There's not an officer out there that can say they don't know of or have at least a basic understanding of the Posse Comitadus Act.

Clark is an opportunistic liar who fell in line and actively supported the murder of innocent women and children at Waco. He waged the same kind of warfare on a grander scale in the Balkans. He's an inbred Clintonite and dangerous if ever elected or selected to a position of power.

[OldCorps]

I'm a retired army guy.

1. I onced worked as an asst. brigade operations officer at a stateside army post as a captain. No doubt many of you who served know how these things are done. Units are tasked through the chain of command to provide equipment. At III Corps and Ft. Hood, the tasking would have gone through the corps G-3 to 1Cav G-3 to Bde S-3 to the eventual squadrons assigned to provide the equipment. Since both tanks and bradleys were provided, at least two separate battalion/squadrons were tasked. There is no way that the division commander (Clark) would not know that his equipment was being tasked for a law enforcement mission with national visibility. Remember the cameras were rolling from day one! So there is no doubt that Clark was in on the decision. Also, given Clark's penchant for micromanagement which is well known throughout the army, does anyone think he would stay out of this chance to look good on a national stage? no way.

2. Since this tasking had to go through the pentagon, the following people were also involved. Sec def, JCS J3 (dir of ops and plans), Army C/s, vice army c/s, Army DCSOPS, and FORSCOM commander and G-3. That's a lot of people. There is no doubt a paper trail exists, all of which will be classified (only to prevent it from seeing the light of day).

3. Why tanks involved? Correct me if i'm wrong, but the largest caliber weapon Koresh had was a .50 cal? Sooooo, maybe use bradleys for protection (although a lowly M113 could do the job) but using tanks is absolute overkill! No doubt the Abrams tanks were put there to curry political favor by the chain of command.

5. Did military or law enforcement operate the army equipment? This is an important question, because it goes to the heart of the integrity of the army, an istitution that i love. I don't really know, but i can't see the army allowing law enforcement to use an Abrams tank. Tanks are very complicated vehicles and the crew must act in unison, so it would be difficult to see some gmen trained enough to operate them. Furthermore, the fire control and side skirt materials are classified, so again, the army would be reluctant to turn these over to the big G. And if those tanks were uploaded with 105 (assuming they were M1A1; not sure if the 1CAV had swithed to 125 mm main guns) service rounds what would be the point? My take is that they were put there for psycological impact on the Davidians. However, i also think this backfired and is now viewed as the federal government trying to squash a gnat with a jackhammer. Knowing the ins and out of the army as i do, my best guess is that the army provided the equipment and operators, but wanted the deniability in case the PR got bad, so everyone agreed to say that the operators were gmen. Everyone certainly had a lot of time to get their story straight, lol, even if it was all bs and smoke and mirrors.

4. I've worked in the development and production of army combat vehicles. I've used FLIR, i've seen it used, and furthermore, i supervised army contracts with the provider of this equipment (Texas Instruments in Plano TX). I've been to TI when they demonstrated FLIR capability. And I know that FLIR will pick up the heat signature of bullets being fired. Thus I know that the FBI and ATF after action reports and all the 'blue ribbon panels' were nothing but a bunch of lies.

5. Did the army violate posse comititus? Absolutely! But i'll bet somewhere there is some bs presidential finding or national security directive ordering them to waive posse comititus. Of course it is still illegal, but hey, the brass has their ass covered, and that is the name of the game in washington.

6. Was Clark involved? Again, Absolutely! However, so were a lot of his superiors.

Waco and Ruby Ridge made me lose any faith i had in federal law enforcement. I think the army is a great institution. It along with the USMC are probably one of the few remaining federal institutions that try to do the right thing. But with Waco, i think the army brass was corrupted by the clinton administration.

[lugsoul]

Once again, you link to people who say he "must have" been involved on the assumption - that's right, assumption - that his tanks were involved. It proves nothing, and you know it.

Some simple questions, since you know so much - Were all Abrams at Hood under Clark's command?

Of course not. Clark was not the commander of Hood, he was the commander of 1st Cav. You gonna tell me the 4th ID doesn't have tanks? I think that might be a surprise to some Iraqis.

Did you note the post on your own link that confirms that the armor was operated by FBI personnel? Or do you just ignore those things that don't fit your theory?

Do you have a shred of evidence that the armor at Waco came from Clark's command, except for your unsourced links that rely on things like it "probably" was or that it "must have" been?

Your charges of hurling insults are amusing, given your own posts.

[lugsoul]

Nice how you just ignore the first-hand info in # 30. I guess you just know more than those who have actually done it.

[SLB]

Great analysis!

And if those tanks were uploaded with 105 (assuming they were M1A1; not sure if the 1CAV had swithed to 125 mm main guns) service rounds what would be the point?
A correction/clarification here: The M1 used the 105mm, the M1A1 and M1A2 are both 120mm. At the time of Waco, the 1st Cav had M1A1 so the Abrams were armed with 120mm. I would imagine they carried only HEAT if any main gun rounds were present. Given the scenario they were operating in I would wager they had only 7.62 for the COAX and loaders M240 and maybe some .50 for the TC to use.

[TADSLOS]

Agreed on all points. Clark was up to his eyeballs in this, as were all the heavy hitters up the chain. Military equipment of this sort doesn't just fall off the truck with trained FBI/ATF agents operating them - not in the compressed timeframe of Waco.

[robowombat]

Somewhere at division staff or above someone in G3 is the equipment loan officer among all the other additional duties. Its an administrative task but requests would be run past the G3 before acting.

The heavy equipment came from the TX ARNG. Not in III Corps chain of command. Whether the Guard executed any formal loan and training agreement who knows. The Guard is a lot more relaxed about such things than the feds. Since the non federalized Guard is at the dispostion of the governor Guardsmen could have operated the vehicles for the FBI but I have never heard that alleged. In the case of providing the APC to the FBI in Utah there was no discussion of whether to do it or not just find one and provide it. As I recall the FBI people got some training on driving the vehicle at Dugway PG where it was and two soldiers accompanied the transport of the vehicle also to provide the FBI with direct support in using the vehicle. The TX guard might well have called Ft Hood through the personal contact network and asked if some experienced instructor NCOs could be TDYed to Waco to support the FBI. As long as all the regulars did was instruct the FBI in how to operate the equipment there is no legal problem. Operating it during the attack would be something else.

After the fact DA Staff did contact anyone who might have loaned equipment to determine what the regular army did provide in the way of heavy equipment.

[Darksheare]

Once again you fail to see what is in front of you.
Once again you blithely ignore the implications.