OK folks. Now that the Oxford 4-star monkey has entered the race. It is time to expose him for the brown nosing, bumbling idiot that he truly is. I urge you to dig up all items that you have read, heard and cited in the past.
I have lefty friends that are hailing him as the savior to the party. It digusts me because of what I know of his campaign in Bosnia and his mishandling of the entire affair.
IMHO he rubs me as a 'Slick Willie II' and I want nothing of him.
The Clinton camp is running Clark to see who salutes. The more attention he attracts the more likely he ends up Hillary's running mate.
If he stinks up the place he doesn't get to run as her vp, but if the press can paint him as a credible, moderate Democrat with a national security background and his attacks damage Bush, then Hillary(the moderate Democrat - she'll talk the talk) will run with Clark as vp.
BTW: How do you know when Clark is lying? Hillary's or Bill's lips are moving.
This morning on NPR, the perfumed prince, Clark was referred to as "the general who conducted the successful war in Bosnia." This from Kookie Roberts, I think.
Lets post the whole story of Weasel Clark's three lies er versions of so called phone call on 9/11/01. Reminds me of Doug Thompson and his so called CIA source whenever Dougie wants to smear our President. Weasel Clark like all liars has an imaginary friend for the source of his lies.
Wesley Clark and Terry McAuliffe
From the August 25, 2003 issue: The Scrapbook on the general's imaginary friend and the DNC chairman's success.
08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47, Weekly Standard
Wesley Clark's Imaginary Friend
Does Wesley Clark have an imaginary friend? The retired NATO commander and possible Democratic presidential candidate has been muttering darkly for several months that opportunists in the White House seized September 11 as a pretext to take out Saddam Hussein. Clark maintains that he received a call at home the afternoon of September 11, 2001, urging him to say on CNN that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were connected to Iraq. But Clark has now provided three versions of this story, and they don't add up.
Version One: On "Meet the Press" on June 15 of this year, Clark asserted that intelligence about the Iraqi threat had been hyped. "Hyped by whom?" asked moderator Tim Russert.
CLARK: "I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You've got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had--Middle East think tanks and people like this, and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection."
That was an astonishing accusation of corruption in the White House, and unsurprisingly it caught the eye of several astute observers. Sean Hannity followed up two weeks later on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes": Referring to the Russert transcript above, Hannity said of the call, "I think you owe it to the American people to tell us who."
Version Two: Clark replied, "It came from many different sources, Sean."
HANNITY: "Who? Who?"
CLARK : "And I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information. He called me on 9/11."
HANNITY: "That's not the answer. Who in the White House?"
CLARK: "I'm not going to go into those sources."
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman also understood that Clark was playing with live political ammunition, and he wrote a July 15 column attacking the White House and headlined, "Pattern of Corruption."
"Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from 'people around the White House' urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussein," wrote Krugman.
Last week, rather belatedly, the New York Times published a July 18 letter from Clark purporting to "correct" the record.
Version Three: "I would like to correct any possible misunderstanding of my remarks on 'Meet the Press' quoted in Paul Krugman's July 15 column, about 'people around the White House' seeking to link Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein," Clark wrote to the Times.
"I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the country, asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11. Subsequently, I learned that there was much discussion inside the administration in the days immediately after Sept. 11 trying to use 9/11 to go after Saddam Hussein.
"In other words, there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11."
In other words, and let's have a show of hands here: How many of you believe Gen. Clark really got that call?
If you read version three carefully, you will see that Clark has now exonerated the White House of his most serious accusation. Much as he wants to put a sinister spin on the matter, all Clark is saying is that the White House was more sensitive to the Iraqi threat after 9/11.
That leaves the question of the call. It's true that journalists protect sources all the time. But there are also times when a source deserves to be burned, and this is one of them. We're not talking about a normal journalist-source relationship here. We're talking about someone who urged the former supreme allied commander of NATO to go on national TV on 9/11 and assert a provocative untruth.
What conceivable reason can Clark have for protecting this joker? This is not someone he called for information. This is someone who called him--who wanted to use Clark--to plant a phony story. And why is this grossly irresponsible "fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank" privy to "inside intelligence information"? You would think Clark has a positive duty to expose the man. But that assumes he exists.
This is a link to the despicable slaughter at Waco re Weasel Clark and what made him a four star general under the Clintoons and their wookie, Jake Reno.
Link to Wesley Clark and his role in Waco
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/clarkatwaco.html June 14, 1999
*** Special Brasscheck Report ***
- Did the tactics of NATO's commander Wesley Clark
in the war against Yugoslavia seem oddly familiar?
There's a good reason for that -
From Waco To Belgrade: Wesley K. Clark and America's
"Army of the Future"
By Ken McCarthy - Brasscheck
http://www.brasscheck.com/clarkatwaco.html Copyright: Ken McCarthy, 1999
"I knew we would win it. I knew you would win it,
Mr. President."
- Gen. Wesley Clark, NATO Supreme Commander to Bill Clinton,
fellow 50-something Rhodes Scholar and Arkansan, after
NATO agreed to stop bombing Yugoslavia
Source: "Clinton Claims Victory in Air War" - Terence Hunt,
AP White House Correspondent, June 10, 1999
General Wesley Clark was involved in the siege and
final assault near Waco, Texas that killed, by a combination
of toxic gas and fire, at least 82 people including
some three dozen women, children and infants.
As outlandish as this claim may seem, it's a reasonable
conclusion that can be drawn by any fair minded person
who takes the time to examine the evidence. Further,
there is substantial circumstantial evidence that, Clark,
in addition to acting as a tactical consultant, may, in
fact, have been the prime architect and commander of the
entire operation.
If this is true, why is it important?
First, it represents a clear violation of US law. The
military is banned from involvement in the enforcement
of US civil law except under certain carefully defined
circumstances. The incident at Waco did not come even
close to legally qualifying.
Second, it casts light on some of the more outrageous
tactics used in the war against Yugoslavia, in
particular the bombing attacks on Yugoslavian news
media, essential life support services, and on civilians,
the latter which were sometimes, but not always, described
as "accidents."
Third, President Clinton began the year with the
statement that he is considering a Pentagon
proposal to create a new US military command,
commander-in-chief for the defense of the
continental U.S., a first in peace time and
an alarming move for reasons described in
"Bombing 'suspended' - and now, the future"
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/directory/61099a.html One of the officers most likely to receive this
appointment would be, as the result of his
"success" in Yugoslavia, General Wesley K. Clark.
Fourth, US military leadership must be well aware of
Clark's role in Waco, yet they have rewarded him
with significant promotions ever since.
* The US military was at Waco
The initial reaction of virtually every
person who hears about Clark's involvement
in the attack on the Mt. Carmel Center of the
Branch Davidians outside of Waco, Texas is
surprise and/or disbelief: "I thought it
was an ATF/FBI operation that went wrong
and all the military did was lend a few
tanks."
Let's start by dispelling that myth. Here
is the list of US military personnel and
equipment that the US Justice Department
admits were used at Mt. Carmel:
"Military Personnel and Equipment
- Personnel
Active Duty Personnel - 15
Texas National Guard Personnel - 13
- Track vehicles
Bradley fighting vehicle (OMZ) - 9
Combat Engineer Vehicle (M728) - 5
Tank Retrieval vehicle (M88) - 1
Abrams Tanks (M1A1) - 2
Source: Department of the Treasury, Report of
the Department of the Treasury on the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Investigation of
Vernon Wayne Howell also known as David Koresh,
U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993
If you'd like to see a photocopy of the
original document, it's here at:
http://www.monumental.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/war/doc/w_doc04.gif The Justice Department list has some very
important deliberate omissions as will become
clear later in the section on the final assault.
* The real command structure at Waco
Since the recent bombing campaign against
Yugoslavia started, "NATO commanders" (i.e.
General Wesley Clark) have insisted that
that NATO, not the UN, would be the
commanding force in Kosovo and everyone
else, like the Russians, would have
to submit to NATO orders. Epic ineptitude
on Clark's part may has thwarted NATO's
designs, but the lesson is of critical
importance for understanding Waco.
It is this: No military commander "lends"
17 pieces of armor and 15 active service
personnel under his command to anybody,
let alone the FBI or any other law
enforcement agency, willingly. The principle is
very simple: my men, my arms, my show.
In a lawful operation, the command
structure would have been publicly
announced, but since the involvement
of the military in Waco was entirely
illegal and indefensible, it was necessary
to paint the situation as an FBI operation.
The obviously substantial presence of US
military equipment used in the operation
was dismissed as being equivalent to a
"rent a car" service.
The US news media which received all of its
information on Waco by dutifully attending
FBI press conference briefings and then
repeating them uncritically swallowed the
"FBI in charge" story hook, line and sinker.
Still not convinced Waco was a military
operation? There's more.
* The key role of the Fort Hood, Texas army base
The military equipment and personnel
used at Waco came from the US Army base
at Ft. Hood,Texas, headquarters of
III Corps.
Here's an succinct account of the initial
raid that caused the standoff submitted by
David T. Hardy, an attorney who battled to
force the government to release evidence
in the case. Take special note of the passages
I've marked with ***
"The incident originated in an attempt by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to serve search and arrest
warrants on a building, known to its residents as Mount
Carmel, located in a rural area a few miles outside of
Waco, Texas. The operation required mustering approximately
a hundred agents (flown in from sites around the country),
and who ***received military training*** at Ft. Hood. They
traveled in a convoy of sixty vehicles and were supported
by three National Guard helicopters and one fixed-wing
aircraft, ***with armored vehicles in reserve***."
http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/waco.html The personnel, described as ATF employees, received military
training at Ft. Hood in preparation for the raid. Why?
The reason is that the original charges against the
Branch Davidians included drug violations. On the
strength of these charges - which later were found to
be absolutely false - the ATF qualified to receive
military training and other assistance for the raid.
Given that the training was customized for this
particular raid, the assistance in all likelihood
included intelligence support. In other words, military
personnel looked the compound over, drew up attack plans,
created a training program for the ATF agents, and then,
one would assume, were there on the day of the raid -
along with the local news cameras which had been tipped
off in advance - to watch the thing go down. (The
Department of Justice reports that the code word used
to launch the raid was "Showtime.")
Note too that armored vehicles were held "in reserve"
on the day of the raid as well. There are at least two
published local press photographs that show armored
military vehicles at and on their way to the Mt. Carmel
center on the very day of the raid.You can see them here:
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/mil1.jpg http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/mil2.jpg There is another press photograph taken the day
after the raid which shows at least nine military
vehicles stationed at nearby Texas State Technical
College which very soon after the raid was
completely taken over as a command center.
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/mil3.jpg The presence of so much military owned equipment
on the scene, along with the documented fact that the
raid was prepared for at Ft. Hood by military
trainers seems to me to be all the evidence needed
to show heavy military involvement preceding the
initial raid.
Perhaps equally significant is the amount of dissembling
that surrounded the undeniable fact of pre-raid military
involvement. For example, the governor of Texas claimed
to the press that she requested National Guard presence
after the raid.
President Clinton was quoted as saying:
"The first thing I did after the ATF agents
were killed, once we knew that the FBI was going
to go in, was to ask that the military be consulted
because of the quasi-military nature of the conflict."
(Washington Times, April 24, 1993)
Attorney General Janet Reno attempted to explain away
the "FBI" use of US Army tanks as being equivalent to
an innocuous "rent a car" arrangement.
The statements of these three individuals obscure
the simple fact that the military vehicles, and personnel
who operated and maintained them, were part of the
initial raid - and therefore in clear violation of US law.
Also, government statements relayed to the public
by the US news media made much of the fact that one of
the tanks was operated by an FBI agent. It's interesting
to note that no reference was ever made to the operators
of the other 16 military vehicles used in the operation.
* Showtime
As I mentioned earlier, the code word that launched
the raid was "showtime." The name of the operation
itself, according to the aforementioned Department
of Justice report, was "Operation Trojan Horse."
Early in the siege, "Operation Trojan Horse"
became a popular destination for special forces officers
both from around the United States and from its closest ally,
the UK. They came to observe the effectiveness of various
high tech devices and tactics that were being tested against
the Branch Davidians.
Source: London Sunday Times, March 21, 1993: "FBI brings out
secret electronic weapons as Waco Siege drags on"
You can see a photocopy of the original article at:
http://www.monumental.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/war/fig/w_fig01.jpg The raid was on February 28. The London Times article ran on
March 21. It's noteworthy that Waco became a focus for
US and UK special forces officers so quickly. The 3/21
London Times report states that "observer teams from
the American Delta Force and British SAS have *already*
visited Waco." (Emphasis mine.)
Organizing groups of officers to make a field trip normally
takes far more lead time than a couple of weeks. This is the
military, not a group of freewheeling bohemians who can pile in
a van and travel across the country, or the globe, on a whim.
Yet, there they were, with plane and hotel reservations,
briefings, tours and the like, all arranged. Such organization
implies pre-planning or at least very strong pre-existing
relationships with Delta Force and SAS on the part of
the officer in charge. It would have taken an officer with
unusual connections and motivations to pull off this level of
"show and tell."
By the way, the notion that Delta Force and SAS officers
would make such a trip to observe the *FBI* using various
secret high tech warfare devices is laughable. Who in the FBI
would know how to operate them? In any event, the equipment
and tactics used came from the military, not any law
enforcement agency.
In reality, the FBI was not in charge of the Waco siege.
Its role instead was twofold: 1) to keep up fruitless
negotiations with the Branch Davidians and 2) to act as the
front for the real operation which was under military
command and therefore entirely illegal.
* Cold blooded murder
Based on the claim that Branch Davidian leader David
Koresh was abusing the children in the compound - a
lie according to survivors - and sympathy for
the "tired" FBI agents, Attorney General Janet
Reno signed off on the plan for the final assault
which resulted in the death by toxic gas and fire
of over 80 civilians. Who presented the plan to
her?
An article in CounterPunch relates the essential
facts:
"Two senior Army officers subsequently travelled to
a crucial April 14 meeting in Washington, D.C. with
Attorney General Janet Reno and Justice Department
and FBI officials in which the impending April 19
attack on the compound was reviewed. The 186-page
"Investigation into the Activities of Federal Law
Enforcement Agencies Towards the Branch Davidians",
prepared by the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight and lodged in 1996 (CR 104 749) does not
name these two officers..."
Source:
http://www.counterpunch.org/waco.html From the sound of this, it appears clear that
the final solution to the growing political
problem of Waco came directly from the US
military. How odd if, in fact, Waco was an
FBI operation.
* The final solution
The final assault on the Mt. Carmel complex
occurred in three stages:
1) armored military vehicles punched holes
in both ends of the main building of the
complex,
2) "crowd control" gas was sprayed in, and
3) a fire started which destroyed the complex
Witnesses expected that the gas would drive the
inhabitants out. Instead, no one came out and
the complex was engulfed in fire.
Why didn't the residents come out? The
cover story as related by the FBI and
the Department of Justice is that the
Branch Davidians killed their own children
and then themselves and simultaneneously
set the complex on fire rather than surrender.
There is no forensic evidence to support
this claim.
Here's what a Failure Analysis Associates' study
found about the nature of the "crowd control"
gas that was used:
"1. The first assault started at approximately 6:00 A.M. ....
CS concentrations in the rooms directly injected by the M5
delivery alone ranged from 2 to 90 times that required to
deter trained soldiers.
Methylene chloride concentrations in the rooms directly
injected by gas were as high as 1.8 times the IDLH
(Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health) concentration
and nearly to the concentration that would render a person
unconscious.
2. The second assault started at approximately 7:30 A.M.
CS concentrations in the rooms directly injected by gas
from M5 delivery alone ranged from 2 to 80 times that
required to deter trained soldiers.
Methylene chloride concentrations ... were as high as
1.6 times the IDLH...."
All in all, nearly 400 gas filled projectiles were fired
into the building, and CS was sprayed from four tank
rack dispensers on the armored vehicles. As Failure Analysis
Associates concluded in it report, this was the most intensive
use of crowd control chemicals in the history of the United
States.
Methylene chloride is even more dangerous than CS--and five
pounds of MeCl were injected for every ounce of CS. MeCl is
an industrial solvent, with powerful anesthetic properties.
It was once used as paint remover before being banned
for that purpose for being too dangerous to handle.
Both gases are flammable.
In other words, the gases used and the quantities they
were used in were sufficient to kill many of the inhabitants
on contact, especially the young children, and would have been
more or less capable of instantly incapacitating the rest.
Finally, there is the issue of the fire which
destroyed most of the evidence. Edward Allard, a leading
expert in FLIR (forward looking infrared recorder)
stated his conclusions in a court document after
reviewing the official FLIR footage of the final
assault:
"11. At 12:08:32, the FLIR depicts events at the rear
of the building, where the large "gymnasium" structure
has largely been demolished. Two very bright thermal
flashes are visible near to or in the window at the
center, in front of and to one side of the (armored
vehicle) which is stopped there. I see no natural
explanation for these flashes. They would not, for
instance, be reflections of sunlight off glass...
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is
true and correct."
Source:
http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/allard.html Less than one minute after this hot, bright
sustained flash occurred "in front of and to one
side of the (armored vehicle)", the Mt. Carmel
complex began the process of burning down
Fire department personnel on the scene were told
they could not move forward to put out the fire
until "the danger had passed." The FBI determined
the danger had passed well after the building had
burned to the ground.
* Who commanded "Operation Trojan Horse"?
Let's review the evidence that the US military
was involved in the raid, siege and final
assault on the Branch Davidian complex outside
of Waco, Texas:
1. The training, and probably the tactics, for the raid
were designed by the Army and provided at its base in Ft.
Hood, Texas.
2. At least some military vehicles were at or near
the scene of the initial raid the day it occurred and
nine or more were stationed nearby no later than the day
after.
3. Advanced "non-lethal" military tactics and technologies
were used to surveil and harass the Branch Davidians
in the complex and, as a result, the Mt. Carmel center
quickly became a study destination for special forces
officers from both the US and the UK.
4. The Justice Department admits at least 15 active
duty personnel and 16 armored vehicles (and one
tank retrieval vehicle) were involved in the
operation.
5. Lethal quantities of toxic gas were used in the
final assault and FLIR video documentation shows
that there was a bright flash in the front of one
of the tanks used for spraying the gas less than
one minute before the fire began.
6. Two unnamed high ranking Army officers
personally presented Attorney General Janet
Reno with the final assault tactics for her,
as chief law enforcement officer of the
US, to sign off on.
It sure sounds like a military operation to me.
If so, then who was the military commander behind
Waco?
You can learn a lot from reading a man's resume
which may explain why the US news media has gone
to such great pains to avoid even the suggestion
that General Wesley K. Clark, Supreme Commander
of NATO, had a life before his current exalted
position. But he did and here's his official bio
from the NATO web site:
http://www.shape.nato.int/Biographies/gen_CLARK/GEN_CLAR.htm Clark was the Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort
Hood, Texas from August 1992 to April 1994. The
Mt. Carmel raid was on February 29, 1993. The
arson-murders occurred April 19.
This means he would have been the officer who
authorized and commanded the armored vehicles
used in the raid, the siege, and the final
assault. This alone is sufficient to make Clark
a prime suspect, but there is much more.
Clark came to Fort Hood with an unusual background.
He had been Commander of the National Training Center
(October 1989-October 1991) and Deputy Chief of Staff
for Concepts, Doctrine and Developments, US Army Training
and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Fort Monroe, Virginia
(October 1991-August 1992) See:
http://www-tradoc.army.mil He was not your typical armor officer. If there were a
high profile, cutting edge training exercise to be conducted
at Ft. Hood, it probably would have been handled, if not
initiated, by him. Here's why:
TRADOC, where Clark was Deputy Chief right before becoming
an armor commander at Ft Hood, has as its primary mission to
"prepare soldiers for war and design the army of the future."
And what will that army look like?
Item number one from the TRADOC vision statement: "...enable
America's Army to operate with joint, multinational and
interagency partners across the full range of operations."
This would include working the ATF and FBI which would have
put Clark in touch with the high ranking officials in both
agencies long before Waco.
Further, Clark's resume explains the mystery of the
quick appearance of special forces study groups at
Waco. His background - was there another officer at
Ft. Hood with similar credentials? - gave him exactly
the kind of clout and professional relationships
needed to arrange for the hosting of special forces
officers from the US and UK at the Mt. Carmel siege
on such short notice.
* Clark's tactics re-emerge in Yugoslavia
There are many similarities between the
war in Yugoslavia and "Operation Trojan Horse"
at Waco, but most of them are part of the conduct
of any US war. Here's a quick short list of
seven:
1. Exert tight information control over a mostly
cooperative US news media
2. Attribute civilian casualty reports to
"propaganda"
3. Declare that the attacks are for humanitarian
purposes, to "stop the bad guy."
4. Break numerous agreements then call
the other side unreliable
5. Offer absurd terms in negotiation
sessions, hide these terms from the public,
then punish the other side for its
recalcitrance in failing to accept a
"reasonable" settlement.
6. Coordinate a propaganda effort against the
other side before the assault (The Waco Tribune-Herald
ran a two part smear piece against Koresh on
Feb 27, 1993, the day before the raid, and on the
morning of entitled, "The Sinful Messiah")
7. Accuse the other side of being responsible
for crimes they did not commit.
In addition to these commonly used tactics,
there are a few unique similarities in tactics
between Waco and Yugoslavia that show Clark's
unique stamp:
1. Symbolic destruction of property
dear to the "bad guy"
Yugoslavia: Milosevic's private home was bombed
repeatedly in spite of the fact that it was not a
military target and was located in a residential
neighborhood.
Waco: Tank operators repeatedly rolled over and
destroyed numerous vehicles belonging to the
church which Karesh, an avid car mechanic, had
personally worked on.
2. Obsession with silencing the victim's "propaganda"
Yugoslavia: Clark repeatedly bombed Yugoslavian
television and radio transmitters and stations,
even though NATO had promised in writing not to
attack stations. Several workers were killed
in these attacks. Clark declared them
"legitimate military targets" though their
only function was news reporting and entertainment.
Waco: One of the first acts of post-raid Waco was
cutting off the complex's phone system to anyone
but the FBI and disabling its short wave radio
system. As the siege wore on, the electricity was
also cut off, turned back on, then cut off again.
3. Mislabeling the nature of the attacking force
Yugoslavia: The war was painted as a NATO operation.
In reality, the vast majority of funding, manpower,
aircraft, targeting and munitions were provided by
the US and the operation was commanded by a US general.
The entire operation was in violation of the
NATO charter, US law, and the UN Charter.
Waco: The assault was painted as an ATF, then FBI
operation. In reality, the training, tactics,
equipment and essential manpower were provided by
the US military and the operation was commanded
by a US general. The entire operation was in violation
of US law.
4. Failure to plan for obvious contingencies
Yugoslavia: No meaningful preparations were
made for the likelihood of large numbers of
refugees, who, after all, the war was
supposedly being fought on behalf of.
However, immense military power was arranged
for.
Waco: No ambulance was on call during the
initial raid in spite of the fact that over
100 armed agents were involved and the complex
housed numerous women and children as well
as men who were thought to be armed. However,
a convoy of armored vehicles was provided
as a "backup."
5. Assuming the victims would "fold"
immediately to a massive show of force
Yugoslavia: It took over 70 days
of terror bombing and attacks on
basic life support services to win
a surrender. Clark initially predicted
settlement in a matter of days.
Waco: Mr. Carmel residents, who, in
keeping with rural Texas culture,
were well armed, (they were also
legally licensed gun dealers),
returned fire on the attacking ATF
agents killing four of them. They
then held out for another 50 days
until being gassed and burned alive.
(It's important to note that the ATF
agents continued firing until they
completely ran out of ammunition.
They then had to retreat one mile
across an open field. Not a single
shot was fired by the Branch Davidians
during their retreat.)
6. Non-combatants were killed in large numbers
"by accident" using the most vicious of weapons.
Video evidence of assaults was "lost" due to
unlikely technical problems
Yugoslavia: Clark's PR people claim the
flight camera malfunctioned in the US warplane
that killed 87 Albanian refugees in Korisa in
Kosovo. Clark's extensive use of cluster bombs and
his targeting of hospitals and other health care
facilities, including old age homes and maternity
wards, is well documented
Waco: Key video taken during the initial raid was
declared "not shot" because, say ATF officials,
the Branch Davidians "jammed" their video camera
operations with "radio signals." (Video people
know this is ridiculous.) The footage from other
videos and still pictures, official and unofficial,
taken during the raid also "disappeared."
The gas attack on the residents of Mt. Carmel
was sheer savagery.
7. And last but not least, tactical incompetence on
an epic scale driven by Clark's desire to have his
accomplishments recorded for posterity on
video.
Yugoslavia: Clark stopped the movement of British troops into
Kosovo to give unprepared US troops a chance to get in
place for a triumphant televised liberation scene. Meanwhile,
the Russian army, which Clark was trying to keep out of
the Kosovo "peacekeeping" mission, marched in and secured
the province's key strategic area, the airport at Pristina.
Waco: Local television news media were informed of
the Mt. Carmel raid the day before and by showing up
at the scene (one news van got lost and reportedly
asked neighbors where the raid was), removed the
surprise element and completely undermined the raid.
The bottom line on Clark's modus operandi:
Murder innocent civilians with cold blooded
viciousness for personal and political gain,
add heavy doses of military incompetence,
then sell it to the President, who is apparently
an eager buyer.
This is the man Bill Clinton, who like Clark
is 50-something, an Arkansas native, and a Rhodes
Scholar, would like to make commander-in-chief for
the defense of the continental U.S.
In the meantime, he intends to be supreme commander
of "peacekeeping" efforts in Kosovo.
One last thing about Clark. In between Waco and Yugoslavia:
"General Clark's last assignment was as Commander-in-Chief,
United States Southern Command, Panama, from June 1996 to
July 1997, where he commanded all U.S. forces and was responsible
for the direction of most U.S. military activities and interests
in Latin America and the Caribbean." - the part of the world where
the US has raised military, police, and paramilitary (death squad)
collaboration to a high art.
More on Wesley Clark's career:
http://www.counterpunch.org/clark.html More on Waco:
http://www.waco93.com Full text of this article appears at:
http://www.brasscheck.com/clarkatwaco.html Copyright: Ken McCarthy, 1999
http://www.brasscheck.com
Neither Hillary or Bill have any credibility or attachment with the military. Clark is their answer to this problem. Liberal Hillary being on a ticket with a 4 star General during a wartime election. Clark would have never made it to his rank if it hadn't been for his longtime friendship with Bill Clinton as well as the connections to Little Rock.
Neither Hillary or Bill have any credibility or attachment with the military. Clark is their answer to this problem. Liberal Hillary being on a ticket with a 4 star General during a wartime election. Clark would have never made it to his rank if it hadn't been for his longtime friendship with Bill Clinton as well as the connections to Little Rock.
Neither Hillary or Bill have any credibility or attachment with the military. Clark is their answer to this problem. Liberal Hillary being on a ticket with a 4 star General during a wartime election. Clark would have never made it to his rank if it hadn't been for his longtime friendship with Bill Clinton as well as the connections to Little Rock.
And by all means be objective. </sarcasm>
I knew Dwight Eisenhower.
Dwight Eisenhower was a friend of mine.
You, General, are no Dwight Eisenhower.
The last thing the Clintons want is someone other than Hillary to be President hailing from the Democrat party. He was put up to be a place holder for Hillary when she throws her hat in at the Democrat convention after the Dems can't decide who can beat Bush. Clark will sound more centrist that either Dean, Edwards, or Kerry in domestic policy and foreign policy as well. The idea is to keep the left wing voters off the stage because if the left has their way the Democrats will never win the WH and will lose more seats in congress. The Dems (Clintons) need a centrist voice that will garner support and be considered the front runner to prevent the leftists from controlling the vote even though Hillary is as left as one can get the Clintons will lie to right of the Democrat party. They have to prevent Dean from winning and keep Sharpton off the stage.
