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.
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.