Yeah, looks like just another day at the office.
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.
May all involved rot in hell.
That's sheer nonsense.
Yeah, looks like just another day at the office.
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.
Stop with the mcNulty jive, and give some facts. Otherwise, go away and let the men continue their conversation.
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?
That's sheer nonsense.
Darn shame how those accidental fires can get out of hand.
Mrs. Lena Klasén
Mr. Sten Madsen
AND you've got nuthin, too, son ...
YOU WOULD THINK that if ALL THAT McNulty contends WERE TRUE the EVIDENCE would be TOO MUCH TO IGNORE, but, EXPERT witness after EXPERT WITNESS who actually reviews the MATERIAL EVIDENCE comes up with the 'blanks' you shoot with TIME AFTER TIME.
THERE is no 'there' there.
Here we go again, now, about those fires started by the Davidians ...
The following evidence demonstrates that the Davidians started the fire:Title III ["Wireless Bug"] Intercepts.
Davidian conversations intercepted through the use of concealed [wireless] listening devices inside the complex from April 17 to April 19 indicate that the Davidians started the fire.An April 17 intercept records Davidians discussing how they could prevent fire trucks from reaching the complex. An April 18 intercept records a conversation between Steven Schneider and other Davidians indicating a conspiracy to start a fire.
During that conversation, Schneider joked that another Davidian had always wanted to be a ?charcoal briquette.?
Another Davidian stated that, ?I know there?s nothing like a good fire . . .? On April 19, between the beginning of the gas insertion operation at approximately 6:00 a.m. and approximately 7:25 a.m., the Title III intercepts recorded the following statements:
?Need fuel;? ?Do you want it poured?;? ?Have you poured it yet?;? ?Did you pour it yet?;? ?David said pour it right?;? ?David said we have to get the fuel on;? ?We want the fuel;? ?They got some fuel around here;? ?Have you got the fuel . . . the fuel ready?;? ?I?ve already poured it;? ?It?s already poured;? ?Yeah . . . we?ve been pouring it;? ?Pouring it already;? ?Real quickly you can order the fire yes;? ?You got to put the fuel in there too;? ?We?ve got it poured already;? ?Is there a way to spread fuel in there?;? ?So we only light it first when they come in with the tank right . . . right as they?re coming in;? ?That?s secure . . . we should get more hay in here;? ?You have to spread it all so get started ok??These statements precede the sighting of fire by several hours, which is further proof that the Davidians intended to set fire to the complex well in advance of actually lighting the fires.
Much closer to the time of the fire, from approximately 11:17 a.m. to 12:04 p.m., Title III intercepts recorded the following statements from inside the complex:
?Do you think I could light this soon?;? ?I want a fire on the front . . . you two can go;? ?Keep that fire going . . . keep it.?The only plausible explanation for these comments is that some of the Davidians were executing their plan to start a fire.
Admissions of Branch Davidians.
Davidians who survived the fire have acknowledged that other Davidians started the fire.Graeme Craddock, a Davidian who survived the fire, told the Office of Special Counsel in 1999 that he observed other Davidians pouring fuel in the chapel area of the complex on April 19, 1993.
He further stated that he saw another Davidian, Mark Wendel, arrive from the second floor yelling: ?Light the fire.?
Davidian Clive Doyle told the Texas Rangers on April 20, 1993, that Davidians had spread Coleman fuel in designated locations throughout the complex, although he declined to state who specifically lit the fires.
You would be surprised how easily a track can be "thrown". I was almost killed by a CEV that crashed through a "sea of wire" ... anything that gets caught in the rear spocket can cause you to lose a track. I have not seen the film that they they are talking about but throwing a track is really easy .... superman needed no .... only a 2 x 4 or maybe a bone.
So, what you are now saying is the Government has never gotten away with something if it was caught on tape? Is this what you are telling me now?
Let me aks you a question... If Bush did this, do you think this footage you say is bogus, would see more or less air play on the left news networks?
The reason they got away with it, is the media was playing monica Jim... That is why Clinto is not in jail right now for all the other crimes he committed. ...ER...he did commit some crimes that deserved prison, didn't he Jim?? And if your answer to this is yes, why do you suppose he is not in Prison?
Take your time with this answer...you're going to need it...
Where did you get this info Jim??? Same place we got ours...LOL...
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.