Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mark502inf
You may be correct, but as the 'commander' of the 1st Cav Division, Clark sent his ADC(M)or(S) to Waco, in addition to the equipment with Clark's full support and authority. If Schoomaker was ADC(S) [Support] then there should not be a problem. If Schoomaker was ADC(M)[Manuever], a serious question arises in my mind if several laws were broken. Clearly III Corps tasked 1st Cav to support the FBI. There seems to be a question if LTG Funk or Taylor was in charge .... there is the "chance" that the CG of Hood was gone and Clark "took charge"..... I'm just speculating.
17 posted on 11/29/2003 9:38:49 PM PST by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Yasotay; Fred Mertz
A facsimile of a critical document was posted on a thread here a couple of months ago. It was signed by an "acting CO" of III Corps and Ft. Hood. The acting CO's name was blacked out. I don't think either Funk or Taylor would have been called "acting CO". So I wondered at the time of the posting and still wonder now whether that acting CO was Clark. I wonder why that name would have been blacked out. I also wonder why this is the first time I have heard of this Gen. Taylor in connection with Waco.
19 posted on 11/30/2003 3:56:53 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Yasotay
Ysaotay, Schoomaker was asked for "by name" from Washington to brief Reno because of Schoomaker's past experience with Delta Force. Clark didn't "send" him.

And remember how these taskings work--it starts from the originating civil agency & works it's way up that side and back down the military side to the closest Army installation--in this case Fort Hood. III Corps received the tasking from its boss at FORSCOM, not from the FBI. And there was no option to just say no. This is much ado about nothing in terms of Clark and Army involvement--he wasn't the commander at Hood, but so what if he was? The Army lawfully provided support in the form of equipment and training to civil authorities as required and in accordance with standing procedures.

Your distinction between ADCM & ADCS is lost on me--while their duties differ, they are both equally bound by the same laws. And there is nothing to indicate the military broke any laws.

20 posted on 11/30/2003 5:28:26 AM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Yasotay
Since the media is giving Clark a pass on this one I think that's the biggest indicator that Dean won't make it...

...Dean is out
46 posted on 01/08/2004 11:40:47 AM PST by Republicus2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

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