Clark Post During Waco Gets New Attention

Drudge Report | Nov 28, 2003 | PETE YOST

[WilliamofCarmichael]

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.

[_Jim]

GO BACK and read what the original poster wrote - HIS WRITING gives one a different impression than what you're describing now.

[_Jim]

Just curious - where did you first learn about Waco?

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

[drypowder]

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?

[yoe]

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.

[sit-rep]

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.

[_Jim]

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 ...

[_Jim]

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 ...

[donh]

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?

[_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 -

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

[WilliamofCarmichael]

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.

[drypowder]

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 .

[_Jim]

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?

[_Jim]

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 ...

[ChadGore]

For the record, Bush took Baghdad faster than clinton took Waco.

[donh]

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"?

[sit-rep]

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.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

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.

[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 -

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?

[_Jim]

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