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 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-175 next last
To: _Jim
The voices on the tape were not identified. Why not? The Davidians were bugged long enough for the FBI to determine the voices of the main players. These voices are not the voices of Davidians, but of agents planted inside the building.
101 posted on 11/29/2003 7:08:31 AM PST by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

Comment #102 Removed by Moderator

I see you pulled my post to Jim. Couldn't he handle the truth?

If you had an issue with one profane term, which unfortunately is an accurate description of him, why not bleep it out?

If you leave _Jim free to post his bravo sierra, you're going to have to deal with some of us getting frustrated with his intentional misdirections and misrepresentations from time to time.
103 posted on 11/29/2003 9:35:47 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GatekeeperBookman; drypowder
Please help us all-is the photo original from your source & what's the source?

The photo is from one of the links I found searching google.com using these search terms "Waco tanks" in fact the first photo that is displayed using just a search for "Waco" the first image displayed shows the Branch Davidian compound burning. The photo I posted is identical to all the other ones returned by my search. You can verify this by following the link.

104 posted on 11/29/2003 10:42:36 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Checked out the guys profile page. Nothing is his own. Everything he has posted are more or less links to the self imposed upper level crowd.

I really wish some of the boiling water IQs he groupies for, would come in and tell us where we are possibly mistaken. On other threads, all the folks saying the government is on the up and up on this one, all more or less plagerize from the soft side of our media and have nothing to add them selves.

105 posted on 11/29/2003 12:48:35 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
It is amazing to watch him...but also gives one pause. What does he really know, and how was he privy to it?

I see two possiblities:
1- He is sent here to intentionally spin; or, 2- he utterly and hopelessly stupid.

My money is on the former.
106 posted on 11/29/2003 1:06:13 PM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: GatekeeperBookman
Can you or someone tell me why,besides the obvious government overreaction to the Dravidians,do conservatives take up for Koresh?
His "compound"was run on Marxist socialist principles-something out of a Sixties hippie commune while using Christianity to justify the socialist leanings of Koresh and his followers.
Also,does anyone have a problem with Koresh and his involvement with several underage girls?I certainly do.
I am NOT defending Clark,the Clintons or anyone else implicated in this American tragedy.I just want to know why it has become such a conservative cause celebre!
Thanks,Riverman
107 posted on 11/29/2003 2:33:04 PM PST by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: donh; drypowder; Paleo Conservative; _Jim
<< ..... I remain amazed at how stalwart, and instantaneously reactive a defender of this action you are. >>

That jumped out at me, too.

But then, so do every one of: << .... those who think endlessly splitting hairs over nearly irrelevant details will serve in place of a positive defense of .... the worst-planned, most costly and egregeous "'law enforcement' action" of the 20th century. >>

I watched as tanks or similar vehicles effectively knocked down the front, upwind, side of the Branch Davidians' house, church and school and gassed the buildings' occupants, before the military operators of those tracked, tank-like military vehicles set fire to the hose, church and school and finished off the slaughter of the innocents inside, that the ATF had begun almost two months previously.

But I also read and studied every word of evidence and every image generated and/or presented in every hearing and court procedure and trial subsequent to that day's mass murders and the images I saw from the downwind side of the house, church and school left me with not the slightest doubt that anyone who stated to the effect he remembered "seeing ARMY TANKS RUNNING THROUGH THE WALLS OF THE WACO COMPOUND" so stated in good conscience.

And occupies the high intellectual AND moral ground im any debate as to the veracity of his recollections of that day's shameful atrocities!

As the man said, "There were more tanks at Waco than there were at Mogadishu."

And PPP Clark and his "delta force" were there with them.
108 posted on 11/29/2003 5:08:48 PM PST by Brian Allen ( Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: drypowder; Cicero; sit-rep; WilliamofCarmichael; _Jim; donh; JennysCool
I see lots of confusion about Posse Comitatus, the difference between the active Army and the National Guard, and also about the role Clark.

Posse Comitatus restricts the use of active duty military personnel to enforce the law; normally interpreted to mean involvement in searches and seizures and arrests. It does not restrict the loan of equipment or providing logistic support or training. Further, Posse Comitatus does not apply to the National Guard--the state's militia.

Most of the equipment and armored vehicles came from the Texas National Guard. No federal military personnel operated any of the equipment and most was run by civil law enforcement agents who had been trained by the military.

The active Army equipment and training came primarily from Fort Hood. In accordance with normal procedures, the requirements went up from the civil agencies on the scene at Waco to Washington and then down through standard channels to the closest military base owning the equipment--Fort Hood, Texas. III Corps HQ, the headquarters responsible for Hood and all units on it, received the tasking. Based on equipment availability and training and deployment schedules and such mundane considerations as who had to support the last tasking, the III Corps staff would then designate one of its subordinate elements to meet the tasking. This procedure is followed every day for literally dozens of taskings. Clark commanded the 1st Cavalry Division--one of several subordinate commands to III Corps. If III Corps designated the 1st Cav to handle one or more parts of these taskings, Clark's staff, not him, would normally receive and take care of the action. And there is no reason to believe anything other than that took place.

Clark's Assistant Division Commander(ADC) was Brigadier General Pete Schoomaker (newly appointed Chief of Staff of the Army by Rumsfield). Schoomaker was special ops who was back out in the field army getting "re-blued" as we say. He had recently commanded Delta Force. Because of his experience, somebody in Washington asked for him by name to comment on the Waco plan. Again, this had nothing to do with Clark--he was not in command at Hood & did not have the kind of experience that would cause anyone to seek out his input. It is Schoomakeer who is said to have made the comment "We can't grade your paper" to Reno. BTW, with Schoomaker at the meeting was another recent newsmaker--then Colonel Boykin. Obviously, Schoomaker would have said something to his boss after he returned from his Reno briefing in D.C., but that is as close as Clark got to Waco.

The active duty military had very little involvement at Waco, did nothing unlawful, and Clark was not involved. Other than that, you guys are all over it.

109 posted on 11/29/2003 5:11:25 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

That's sheer nonsense. >>

Nonsense?

They bloody DID burn them out! On network TV!

And shot many of the rest to death.

AND subsequently destroyed almost every scrap of evidence of their every criminal action and activity -- and of their every murder.

Almost every scrap.

Except enough to conclusively prove their guilt to any honest and intellectually and morally sound observer.
110 posted on 11/29/2003 5:20:06 PM PST by Brian Allen ( Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
The active duty military had very little involvement at Waco, did nothing unlawful, and Clark was not involved. Other than that, you guys are all over it.

Most of these arguments would have applied at Sand Creek, 130 years ago. That doesn't make the babies killed there any less dead, or the armies complicity any more excusable.

111 posted on 11/29/2003 6:27:06 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: donh
ME: The active duty military had very little involvement at Waco, did nothing unlawful, and Clark was not involved.

YOU: Most of these arguments would have applied at Sand Creek, 130 years ago. That doesn't make the babies killed there any less dead, or the armies complicity any more excusable.

A typical display of conspiro-logic. You link two completely unrelated events and then based on that false relationship, establish a conclusion that would be unwarranted even if those two events were linked and then hide your lack of an argument behind emotionalism about dead babies.

112 posted on 11/29/2003 7:20:58 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
You are full of pseudo-logical self-righteous gerble food.

The army was, at least, engaged in supplying the operation, and providing advice, or oversight to the planners, a fact about which we have submitted-to-court requisition documents, and spent ammo casings on the ground to verify. Your long-winded argument is twaddle, as, for example, when you make such a grand point about the TANKS being guard tanks. When the army pays for, trains, and deploys ANY part of the guard, say, for years at a time overseas, the guard is the army. In the face of hard physical evidence, in the form of requisition forms and ammo picked up off the ground, the army has conspired in the death of those children. The 7th cav didn't do this one, but that doesn't leave the army off the hook by a very large measure. My contentions are not hysterical icon-rattling, they are very tangible and specific legal accusations. Those children didn't die symbolically, they were murdered by out of control federal employees who are not facing the music, and that most definitely includes the commander of the suppliers of the material used, if he thinks he can run for president without this coming up.

Blood calls for blood, not mealy-mouthed political wallpaper spread over all the participants, nor 5 minute presidential spots. Clark should be facing a grand jury inquiry for conspiracy to murder, not presidential reporters.

113 posted on 11/29/2003 8:11:35 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
Can you or someone tell me why,besides the obvious government overreaction to the Dravidians,do conservatives take up for Koresh?

I believe it's called the US Constitition, which, if memory serves me, is supposed, at least by conservatives, to apply to everyone. I'd like to suggest someone else to you that lived in a commune, of sorts, espoused the sharing of wealth with the poor, and fell into disrepute in his community for doing so--Jesus Christ.

114 posted on 11/29/2003 8:31:42 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: donh
When the army pays for, trains, and deploys ANY part of the guard, say, for years at a time overseas, the guard is the army.

Exactly. When federalized, such as the National Guard units in Iraq are now, the Guard is under the control of the Army. Otherwise, the National Guard in its Constitutional role as the militia is under the control of the states. The Guard units at Waco were not federalized.

The army was, at least, engaged in supplying the operation, ... a fact about which we have submitted-to-court requisition documents, and spent ammo casings on the ground to verify.,

So what? Law enforcement agencies requested military equipment and supplies in accordance with federal laws and the Army provided it as they were obligated to do. What's your point? Should we have called the Psychic network first to find out how it was all going to turn out?

The 7th cav didn't do this one, but that doesn't leave the army off the hook by a very large measure. My contentions are not hysterical icon-rattling, they are very tangible and specific legal accusations.

The 7th Cav didn't do Sand Creek either--looks like your reference to them in this case is a little more of your hysterical icon-rattling. You don't have facts so you throw out a reference to that nasty 7th Cav to substitute for your lack of an argument. So what exactly is the Army on "the hook" for at Waco? What are your "specific legal accusations" for the Army? What act was committed that violated what law? And what exactly did Wes Clark do?

You don't know the difference between the National Guard and regular Army. You don't understand Posse Comitatus. You have a space-time continuum problem as you mix Waco, Sand Creek, Wes Clark, and the 7th Cavalry all together. You equate the Army providing equipment and supplies in response to a request from law enforcement with "complicity" and "conspiracy to murder".

I'm sure any response will be just as factual and logical as your previous posts.

115 posted on 11/29/2003 9:02:31 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
.When the army pays for, trains, and deploys ANY part of the guard, say, for years at a time overseas, the guard is the army.

Exactly. When federalized,

To a lawyer, maybe. Not to a grieving mother. If my child is killed by a bullet the army, in any manner, bought, paid for housed, and shipped, and advised on the deployment of, I really don't give a tinker's poop whether it was "federalized" at the exact moment it was fired.

such as the National Guard units in Iraq are now, the Guard is under the control of the Army. Otherwise, the National Guard in its Constitutional role as the militia is under the control of the states. The Guard units at Waco were not federalized.

This is legalistic BS, put in place to avoid addressing the embarassing fact that a Guard that is substantially paid for with federal funds, & can be deployed at any time by "federalizing" it, isn't the state's militia the constitution allowed for at all. If the army pays for a substantial part of it, and can control it at will, it is the army. And a standing army on domestic soil is not provided for in the Constitution.

.The army was, at least, engaged in supplying the operation, ... a fact about which we have submitted-to-court requisition documents, and spent ammo casings on the ground to verify.,

So what? Law enforcement agencies requested military equipment and supplies in accordance with federal laws and the Army provided it as they were obligated to do.

Right. And the FBI only came in because the DEA requested help. So the FBI must be off the hook as well, right? In fact--isn't the DEA press secretary that scheduled the initial attack the only blameworthy party here?

What's your point? Should we have called the Psychic network first to find out how it was all going to turn out?

No. What they should do, especially if they are smart guys like Clark, is understand that this is a weasily way of skirting around the intent of Posse Cometatas and exercise adult levels of care about servicing such requests.

.The 7th cav didn't do this one, but that doesn't leave the army off the hook by a very large measure. My contentions are not hysterical icon-rattling, they are very tangible and specific legal accusations.

The 7th Cav didn't do Sand Creek either--looks like your reference to them in this case is a little more of your hysterical icon-rattling.

Oh, give it a rest. The 7th was little big horn, a direct result of the action at Sand Creek, and more than a little connected, historically, with the militia at Sand Creek. This is an argument, not a history test. You cannot make an argument for the defense by grouching about my rhetorical bombasts.

You don't have facts so you throw out a reference to that nasty 7th Cav to substitute for your lack of an argument.

You don't have an argument, so you substitute caviling at any rhetorical irrelevancies you can desperately grasp at.

So what exactly is the Army on "the hook" for at Waco? What are your "specific legal accusations" for the Army? What act was committed that violated what law? And what exactly did Wes Clark do?

Wes Clark, a very smart guy, was in command of the unit that supplied help to WACO--a many month's long siege of US citizens on domestic soil using tanks high caliber ammo, and flashbang grenades, broadcast over the airwaves on national television. Even a hedgehog could have figured this one out, and no amount of legalistic weaseling can change that.

You don't know the difference between the National Guard and regular Army. You don't understand Posse Comitatus. You have a space-time continuum problem as you mix Waco, Sand Creek, Wes Clark, and the 7th Cavalry all together. You equate the Army providing equipment and supplies in response to a request from law enforcement with "complicity" and "conspiracy to murder".

What a hot air merchant. For Wes Clark not to be aware of what was being done with his equipment with such a public display, day after day, going on over the public airwaves, is beyond credibility. It is, in fact, patent, apparent, absurd BS. Wes Clark was the commander, and the buck stops at Wes Clark's desk.

116 posted on 11/30/2003 12:51:15 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
Forgot to mention that those of us in the business at the local level to a person disagree with _jim's spin.

We believe that the Feds committed crimes at Waco; that they subsequently covered them up; and that you can clearly see evidence of these crimes from the FLIR.

But what do we know? We just enforce criminal laws for a living.

117 posted on 11/30/2003 3:07:13 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: donh
don, Clark was not the commander--I don't understand how you guys keep coming up with this. He commanded the 1st Cav Division at Fort Hood, one of several units subordinate to the III Corps HQ. Pursant to a lawful request by civil law enforcement agencies, the Army as represented by Forces Command (known as FOSCOM) in Atlanta, Georgia tasked III Corps to provide support in the form of equipment and training. III Corps, in turn, tasked units at Hood to provide support--one of which was the 1st Cav Div. Once the decision was made at higher levels to provide the support, it becomes an order and there was no option at III Corps or the 1st Cav or Wes Clark or any of the other units to turn it down. Nobody at Hood was out trolling for business--ask anybody with significant Army experience--these kind of taskings are both relatively routine and a pain in the butt.

As for the National Guard, you simply have that wrong. There is no command relationship between the regular Army and the National Guard until they are federalized--and that was not done at Waco. The chain of command for the guard goes from the individual soldier through his unit commander and the state Adjutant General to the governor. And it stops right there until and unless that soldier or his unit is ordered to federal active duty.

118 posted on 11/30/2003 5:51:58 AM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Abundy; sit-rep
"I see two possiblities: 1- He is sent here to intentionally spin; or, 2- he utterly and hopelessly stupid."

"My money is on the former."

Mine too.

119 posted on 11/30/2003 6:00:39 AM PST by Vigilantcitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
Yours is the most interesting-perhaps most intriguing, thoughtful, and useful observation on THIS thread. Our very culture is in question & the political authority along with it.

I do not agree that what happened was a tradgedy-it was a series of criminal actions on the part of various government authorities and police agencies.

I am a poor source for real answers-I have only thoughts & observations, colored by emotion, about an event I watched live on my television, less than 70 miles from my home. My thoughts are convoluted & entwined with my disgust of government power run wild-with no reduction in sight.

Our inherent & oft cited sense of 'fairness', Christian tolerance, our cultural propensity to shield the weak & defenseless, COMBINED to cause us to recoil from the government's heavy hand ( with virtually no provocation ) to allow or compel us to ignore Koresh. He is the smaller matter.

I think very few have ever taken up the cause of Koresh-quite the contrary-most ignore the matter of his crimes, peculiar circumstances, the manner of the living arrangements & rules of operation of this very strange & dubious commune. The maddness of the government became the larger matter.


The more practical answer ( or solution which might have been proper ) is that two Texas Rangers ( or even ONE, if the McClennan County Sheriff declined to act alone or desired the assistance & reassurance of outside oversight for some unknown reason ) could have most certainly 'handled' Mr. Koresh, once he was charged with a crime-and his apparent transgressions had nothing to do with the US Federal Government. Please recall that CRIME is a State matter. Further, it is a COUNTY officer who holds & delivers a criminal to the County or State court for trial-the Sheriff is the highest police authority in the County. The County has jurisdiction over criminal matters involving local crimes against persons, excluding some extenuating circumstances. I hold that the Governor should have ordered the State police to intervene, en mass, peacefully if at all possible-supporting the County Sheriff's authority over the matter. We have perhaps two-hundred Texas Rangers & God only knows how many hundreds of Texas Department of Public Safety 'State Trooper's-all very well armed. I contend that the fed's might have just gotten their Nazi tails back to the DEACTIVATED Air Force base & flown away. But that Governor was Ma Richards. Instead, armor from the stock of the Texas National Guard were placed on scene & I wonder if the Governor had to approve this obscene action. From the article at Drudge, by Pete Yost, "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. ( end quote )



None of the above is ever seriously discussed & the actions of the fed's are just accepted by the ignorant-sold like soap & automobiles on the idiot box. The entire affair is presented as a mere contest between bad crazies & good federal officers, who only wanted to protect us! Since the expansions of federal powers in the 1930's began, they have marched forward through WWII, Korea, the Cold War, holding forth the simpleton's formula-we are only doing this to protect the larger community, make you all safe & you may trust us!

"There were more tanks at Waco than there were at Mogadishu", #14, Paleo Conservative


The actual use of US military armor against civilians, the overwhelming oppression of the federal police power ( in full bloom at Waco ), our State & local authorities standing back watching & doing NOTHING to stop the madness-all guaranteed our most certain reaction. Another issue entirely, may be what the public has never learned-if there were other agencies involved, other prior actions by the residents at Mt. Carmel, or some ulterior motives from either side-odd constructions of pure invention abound & some may have some basis. We will never know with certainity.

Too bad the reaction was only protests after the fact. One more chapter in the needless degradation of our culture and the decay of civil government. More very bad things will surely result as consequence to these events.
120 posted on 11/30/2003 6:43:06 AM PST by GatekeeperBookman ("The War does indeed have many facets; http://aztlan.net/ Look at your enemy." Listen to Tancredo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 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