Right-winger: Clark commanded at Waco. Is this true?

[JackRiddler]

Here is a story claiming the unit under Clark provided military units for Waco and may have run the operation:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=35998

Never mind the source of this story and no hysterics from either Clark supporters or detractors, please - just curious if anyone knows more about this. Is it true? Can we remain factual about it?

[Clark Can WIN]

1. Master Baiter?

Anyone? I say it's flame bait.

[Cush]

2. no hard evidence

just 'circumstantial evidence'

[gully]

3. Well, uhm I'd consider the source...

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi

[Cush]

6. I ran a quick search

There were Links to Counterpuch, still it's all 'circumstantial'. ANytime an article starts off with:

"Amid Nato military supremo Wesley Clark's onslaught on the civilians of Serbia the question arose: did Clark hone his civilian-killing skills at Waco, where the FBI oversaw the largest single spasm of slaughter of civilians by law enforcement in US history, when nearly a hundred Branch Davidians died amid an assault by tanks, flame-throwers and snipers."


I'll take it with a grain of salt. :eyes:

[radwriter0555]

16. Hey, if he oversaw the events in Waco, then I'd cheer him on even harder..

I don't have a problem with what went on there, except they were too nice and waited too long. The outcome was fine for me.

[el_gato]

29. so you like murder of u.s. citizens?

I don't know about the Clark smear here. It's probably bullshit.
But Waco was a big mistake. If they wanted the brach davidian leader
they could have arrested him when he went on his morning jogs.

[Pepperbelly]

30. very true BUT

all evidence points to the Davidians being the culprit behind the fire.

[diamondsoul]

35. I agree.

Also if I interpreted General Clark's demeanor right, he wasn't very happy with having any of his troops or equipment involved. The way he spoke of it at the time, I got the distinct impression he felt it was necessary for the safety of Waco residents to have a little extra strength on the perimeter.

Part of the reason I now remember it so well is because Waco happened just after I relocated to joinmy husband at Ft. Hood, and the entire base was pretty well on alert status to be called in depending on how it played out. I didn't remember this the Commander was THIS General Clark, but I do remember having a great deal of respect for the way he handled all of it.

[DoNotRefill]

43. Yessir....

"The way he spoke of it at the time, I got the distinct impression he felt it was necessary for the safety of Waco residents to have a little extra strength on the perimeter."

If they hadn't used the Army, them Branch Davidians would have assembled, got into their armored vehicles, and gone tear-assing through Waco, putting it to the torch. RIIIIIIGHT!!!!!!

I don't know if Clark was the bonehead who ordered the Army to do what they did. If he is, he just lost my fucking vote. Why bother replacing one fascist asshole with another? At least Bush is incompetent in the use of force. Clark, if he's the guy, may not be so incompetent.

Fascism sucks, regardless of the initials in the brackets behind the name.

[Pepperbelly]

54. in response to a slur such as that ...

I insist that you tell us exactly what the Army did at the Branch Davidian compound. Otherwise, it will be nothing more than hot air.

[DoNotRefill]

63. They suppplied armed helicopters for....

the initial assault, and then later provided vehicles (and drivers, I'd assume) for the vehicles used to "introduce tear gas" into the compound. The "introduction of tear gas" involved knocking big holes in the building, resulting in the deaths of many of the Davidians who ended up trapped on the second story when the vehicle in question destroyed the staircase.

[Pepperbelly]

68. the deaths resulted from ...

some of the religio-cryptocrazies in the compund set fire to the place. How exactly did Wesley Clark have any role in that at all?

I think, at this point, you should provide some proof of his involvement in the deaths of those people. Check out the Danforth Report and see if you can even conflate multiple facts into that conclusion and you'll find that you cannot. The reason for that is very simple.

It is because the charge is untrue.

[diamondsoul]

57. What the devil are you ranting about?!

"If they hadn't used the Army, them Branch Davidians would have assembled, got into their armored vehicles, and gone tear-assing through Waco, putting it to the torch. RIIIIIIGHT!!!!!!"

Um, in case you weren't aware of it, people DO carry on with their lives even when a crisis is unfolding in their community. David Koresh was a nutcase, and we have no diea what he might have ordered his followers to do, including sneaking a few of them out of the complex and creating a diversion in the main streets of Waco. As I recall that was a major concern when the situation first began to develop, and discussed a great deal among personnel at Ft. Hood. By the way, it only takes a couple of people tossing a few well-placed moltav cocktails to create a major incident.

"I don't know if Clark was the bonehead who ordered the Army to do what they did. If he is, he just lost my fucking vote. Why bother replacing one fascist asshole with another? At least Bush is incompetent in the use of force. Clark, if he's the guy, may not be so incompetent."

What?! "The Army" didn't do a damned thing except have one of their tanks used as a battering ram against a wall of the compound at one point. I couldn't tell you whether it was one of Clark's troops driving that tank or not, but you can bet he wasn't the one handing down orders at an ATF/FBI controlled hostage scene!

Keerist, get a grip and try talking like a normal person. Maybe then you'll make some sense. General Clark was AWESOME during the Waco crisis.

[DoNotRefill]

64. You can't have it both ways.

If the army only had 15 people on the ground, then their contribution was negligible, right? Then why gut Posse Comitatus to do it? It's not like those 15 people on the ground were able to totally surround the compound, is it? ATF went in with OVER 100 agents, trained by the military in the tradition of the very best right-wing death squads of Central America. What could 15 soldiers do that 100 ATF guys couldn't?

Their APC ("this is not an attack", yeah, FUCKING right) destroyed the staircase from the second story to the first story, DIRECTLY leading to the deaths of all those upstairs, who had their avenue of retreat cut off by the damage done by that vehicle. The military vehicle introduced tear gas into the environment. They KNEW that the adults had gas masks, but that the CHILDREN didn't. Remove the vehicle, and who knows how many of the children might have lived?

If his troops were used, HE and HE ALONE bears the ULTIMATE responsibility. It comes with Command. Hell, we EXECUTED Japanese and German officers after WWII for the actions of their troops despite that they didn't order it, because it's COMMAND'S responsibility to make sure that the people it sends out don't violate the law or rules of war.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

100. Part right...

"Approximately 15 troops would be plenty of manpower to operate the equipment such as tanks and APCs which I would tend to doubt ATF or FBI forces have ANY training in."

I'm sure that they used military pilots for the helicopter gunships, too. If this is the case, it's hardly like they had military troops manning the perimeter, as was suggested in another post, right?

Let's theorize that the ONLY military troops present were in the armor and gunships and their maintenance personnel, and that the rumors of Delta being there are totally unfounded. That STILL means that Clark's troops were instrumental in the deaths of MANY Davidians, including ALL of the kids in the second story who were unable to escape the nursery after the engineering vehicle smashed and destroyed the staircase leading to the ground level while pumping chemical agents inside. That lays a fair bit of responsibility squarely on his doorstep.

"I'm convinced you're a raving lunatic who has no idea how joint operations between Federal forces and military forces work at all."

Nice personal attack. BTW, I've been through FLETC in GA, have you?

[NickB79]

110. Do a search for info on the Waco FLIR tapes

Forward-Looking-Infra-Red. They pick up heat signatures. The Learning Channel had an excellent (though highly disturbing) look at the Waco disaster, and the FLIR tapes were one of the key points of evidence. I do not recall the name of the show off the top of my head, though. Basically, two different labs of independent researchers studied the FLIR tapes and found flash fires erupting at points where gas and pyrotechnic grenades were launched into. When the fire was in full force, it shows machinegun fire coming from OUTSIDE the compound, directed INTO the compound DURING the fire itself. The gunfire was directed at the only escape route for ~25 men, women and children, effectively pinning them down while the smoke and flames killed them. This despite FBI insistance that no gunshots were ever firing at the Davidians.

Like I said, very disturbing. I do not believe conspiracy theories, but this one has too much evidence to dispute as a bunch BS from some right-wing nutjobs.

[leftofthedial]

49. it wasn't murder

[Capn Sunshine]

76. Waco might have been a mistake

but to pretend that anyone but that wack job nutcase child molester David Koresh killed those people is to blame the victims.

[Bandit]

38. Burning babies is fine with you????

You are one sick individual.

[Pepperbelly]

56. The Davidians ...

burned their own babies, Bandit.

All of the evidence points to including the fact that there were multiple points of ignition.

[DoNotRefill]

66. I guess you missed some facts...

such as the nature of the tear gas devices introduced. Do you know how they work? They BURN, creating tear gas. They're not meant as a strictly pyrotechnic device, but they frequently have that effect.

I also supposed you missed the remains of USGI pyrotechnic devices that were recovered by the Texas Rangers, after the Fed denied that any such thing had been used, right?

I suppose you missed the refusal to allow the fire department to approach the building until AFTER everybody was dead, right?

I suppose you missed the fact that they chose to introduce pyrotechnic devices into the compound on one of the windiest days during the seige, after destroying the only way for the people upstairs to get out, right?

The Government has said over and over that "We didn't do that!" Yet when actual physical evidence was found by other government agencies, they said "Whoops, OK, maybe we did, but it didn't cause people to die, and we still deny X, Y, and Z."

Next, somebody's going to say that MOVE set the fire in Philly.... :eyes:

[Pepperbelly]

69. there were multiple ignition points clear from

both visble light film and infrared film. That fact destroys the gossamar foundations of the conspriacy theories involving the tragic group in Waco.

Unless you can account for the multiple sources of ignition in widely seperated parts of the compound, nothing else matters because even they they COULD have caused a problem (which I do not for a moment concede), they did not cause the problem.

[DoNotRefill]

74. Ah.

"Unless you can account for the multiple sources of ignition in widely seperated parts of the compound,"

So, when they started shooting tear gas grenades through the windows, they only had one launcher? Very doubtful.

[Pepperbelly]

79. now, now ...

bluffing or bluesky speculation is never a substitute for facts. Some ignitions occurred where no teargas was shot and for you to believe that the teargas canisters caused the fire, you would have to believe that something that RARELY causes fire caused about 10 of them in the space of a minute.

Nope.

[DoNotRefill]

80. Rarely?

Do you have something to back that up?

I've got 25 years experience in LE, and KNOW that they're thinly veiled incendiary devices. If you shoot one that lands on ANY kind of flammable material like carpeting, bedding, or hard-wood floors, you WILL have a fire. It's practically guaranteed.

[Pepperbelly]

83. horseshit ...

I have NEVER seen them cause a fire.

NEVER.

And I have seen them used a lot. I have used them.

[diamondsoul]

94. You're full of it, as I suspected.

"If you shoot one that lands on ANY kind of flammable material like carpeting, bedding, or hard-wood floors, you WILL have a fire."

Care to explain to me why law-enforcement continues to use it on a regular basis as one of the least lethal forms of controlling both crowds and hostage situations and I have yet to EVER see a fire caused by a tear gas cannister?

No, of course not because you can't back this up anymore than the rest of your lunatic ravings.

[DoNotRefill]

101. How many examples do you want?

Let me know and I'll post links to cases where they've caused fires OTHER than Waco. I can think of two or three off of the top of my head (the Posse Comitatus tax protester, one of the founders of The Order, and one for an ex-cop who got burned to death in his house after shooting a deputy). They're used because they're useful on multiple levels. Crowds are usually found in an urban environment. Last time I checked, asphault isn't terribly flammable.

[DoNotRefill]

42. Ah.

We've heard from our "Them religious freaks NEEDED to be burned to death fer following somebody who said he wuz Jesus! Fuck their civil rights, SET 'EM ON FIRE!"

"You know that it would be untrue,
You know that I would be a liar,
If I were to say to you
I didn't set your Dad on fire!
If you love somebody better set them on fire!" -Dead Milkmen

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

67. Watch "Waco: Rules of Engagement"

And get back to me.

[Spazito]

4. Go to google, see if it is true, and if it is not...

hope you will post that too!

[sangh0]

5. YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS!!

Outrageous claims (defined as anything that does not support your position) should be proven by your opponent.

It's not your job to prove your opponent is telling the truth. Call them a liar until they can prove what they say.

[SharonAnn]

9. Thanks for saying that. You're right! We shouldn't accept

responsibility for their false accusations.

Just repeat after me, "That's not true!"

I started doing this in July (actually it was on July 4th at a picnic) and it felt so liberating! It also stunned the other person into silence so it was effective. I've tried it several times since and it usually has the same effect. Even if the other person argues back, I feel better for having stood up for my beliefs.

[salin]

33. Absolutely.

DO NOT FALL FOR THE TRAP - outlandish claim/lie by opponent followed by "Prove this IS NOT TRUE"; since it is so outlandish one seeks negative verification but none exists (ie running google) because there is NO such event; opponent claims ... aha! See! I am right... it MUST be true because YOU can't prove otherwise.

It is a trap. And it is fallacious logic.

Sangha is correct.

Call them on their ridiculous lie/claim - and tell them that noone will believe it til they prove documentation to back their claim.

[HawkerHurricane]

37. "All claims require evidence...

The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required" - Karl Popper, philosopher of science.

[Iluvleiberman]

106. Punch them in the face and

tell to STFU it. That's what I'd do.

[zoidberg]

7. He was at Fort Hood at the time

- Commander of the 1st Cavalry Division (1992-1994) http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm

That's about all I could find from a website that even hinted of being factual.

[MrBenchley]

8. Without even looking...

Who the hell cares...Koresh barbecued his own followers.

[SharonAnn]

10. Bush Sr. started the whole thing with stationing troops there.

Remember, it was under his administration that the Waco seige started and that the Somalia "invasion" took place.

he left them as parting gifts to the Clinton administration.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Exactly, SharonAnn

And Clinton's gifts to Bush II were briefings on the seriousness of Al Qaeda plans and the Hart-Ruddman report, both which Bush left unopened.

[Brian Sweat]

15. The Wacko seige did not begin until Feb. 28, 1993.

That was over a month after Bush left office. Blaming Bush for Wacko, is almost as bad as the Wingnuts who blame Clinton for Ruby Ridge.

[Wednesdays]

20. Clinton & Reno, however, were exonerated

by no less than the GOP senator John Danforth. So, if you hear any dittomonkeys point the finger at Clinton or Reno, just let them know that it was one of their own who said there's nothing there.

On July 21, 2000, after a 10 month investigation, Danforth issued a preliminary report exonerating the government and its agents. His report concluded that federal agents did not start the fire, direct gunfire at the complex, or improperly employ US armed forces. Danforth assigned responsibility for the tragedy to the Branch Davidians and David Koresh.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html

[Brian Sweat]

21. I do not hold Clinton or Reno responsible for what happened at Wacko,

but that doesn't change the fact that the siege began after Clinton took office. The idea that the siege began will Bush was still in office and that Bush is somehow responsible is an outragious claim that cannot go unchallenged.

[pschoeb]

44. Yes, but it was planned at the beginning of January

The seige was planned starting in Nov 1992(the investigation of the Branch Davidians started in June). The date for the seige was set at the first week of January. Clinton took office on January 20, 1993.

Patrick Schoeb

[Brian Sweat]

48. They weren't planning a siege and it's disingenuous to suggest they were.

It was supposed to be a raid. The Branch Davidians were tipped off that the raid was coming and everything went south from there. The fact that the raid was planned before Clinton took office in no way implicates Bush or any of this people.

[zoidberg]

18. Not quite

The siege began on February 28, 1993.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html

[CBHagman]

65. Thanks for the link. Everyone should read the chronology.

Sometimes I feel that we're in a constant battle against short memories and failure to check facts. Read the account of who was involved and don't let the false claims pass without correction.

Jack Anderson's book on the NRA also goes through the Waco siege and mentions that the Texas Rangers were also present during the initial confrontation at Koresh's compound.

[jagguy]

99. what a load of poop that is

you may want to read up on this a bit.

[RobertSeattle]

11. Boy that's a stretch

Perhaps Combat Engineer vehicles in his command were used at Waco, but a General wouldn't be involved such a minor thing - they would have sent a lieutenant or a captain (at most) to handle manage the soldiers running the vehicles.

Sounds like the RW'ingers are pull out all the stops - ignore the truly disgraceful military service of Bush, Cheney and the rest of the chickenhawks, but come up with extraneous BS on someone who served honorably.

[Brian Sweat]

12. Posse Comitatus

Be-atch


Clark could not have been involved, it would have been a major violation of the law.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Exactly

THat's a major no no

The Army can not get involved in civilian law enforcement.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. Yes, they can, if drugs are involved

That's why they announced the Davidians were making meth - then they were allowed to get the military involved. Thank the drug war.

[Brian Sweat]

25. Not exactly

http://internet.cybermesa.com/~sam1/freedom/posse_comitatus.html


"Generally, court interpretations have held that military support short of actual search, seizure, arrest, or similar confrontation with civilians, e.g. traffic direction (i.e., traditional law enforcement functions) is not a violation of the act. Examples of such permitted support include the provision of information, equipment, and facilities."


In 1981 the Posse Comitatus Act was amended. The only significant change was that military personnel were allowed to operate and maintain equipment.

There is nothing in the the act that would allow a military leader to direct law enforcement operations inside of U.S. territory. Violation of this act is a felony.

[RobertSeattle]

24. But they can lend a equipment

At Waco, the Army provided some combat engineer equipment (The CEV tank you see getting plinked by the Branch Davidians) but the civilian law enforcement MAY have been operating them (not 100% sure of that) at the time of the "attack". But I would be almost 100% sure that some Army soldiers would have been around to maintain and assist with the equipmment since there is no way the civilians could have gotten proficient on the piece of machiniery.

[Kahuna]

19. Keep it up. So that all those who were bashing me last week for

being harsh will see that maybe old kahuna knows a thing or two about how distractors operate. DU should begin to take a look at their posting policies. They accept anyone who says they're NOT a republican or conservative, but let all the loonies stay and trash the place with this garbage.

[G_j]

23. Highly suspect, highly doubtful

it seems to me it shouldn't be hard to verify if it was true. Sounds like a deiberate fabrication/lie.

[sangh0]

27. You are right

We now have "liberals" who don't know why we have Social Security, and who support policies like "eliminating all taxes", and "eliminating public schools", and rape.

[graham67]

22. Counterpunch follow-up...

http://www.counterpunch.org/waco2.html

Though Clark (who had served with Schoomaker) was not directly involved in the onslaught on the Branch Davidians, the role of the US Army in that affair throws into harsh relief the way prohibitions against the use of the US military for civilian law enforcement can be swiftly by-passed.

So they insinuate he was there in the first article and admit he wasn't involved in the follow up.

This paragraph in the original article could apply to anyone in the Army's leadership...hello? Has counterpunch never heard of the Powell Doctrine??

Certainly the Waco onslaught bears characteristics typical of Gen. Wesley Clark...

http://www.counterpunch.org/waco

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. Exactly Right

Counterpunch's cheap hatchet job is as bad as or worse than Hackworth's.

DTH

[whirlygigspin]

103. counterpunch

I have always had a positive impression of counterpunch,
this is worrysome.

[lindashaw]

90. Thank you for this link, as I've always puzzled Vince Foster's death.

[DBoon]

26. If true, good for him

Those nuts fired on federal agents. Anyone doing this has 2 options:

- Surrender to the law immediately
- Die

They chose the latter

Any idiot knows you blow away federal law enforcement agents, you are in deep trouble.

The Black Panthers tried this decades ago. The surviving members of the Black Panthers now realize their mistake.

[G_j]

28. which Panther

cases do you refer to? Didn't you know there were many set-ups and frame-ups?
As for Waco, I didn't realise that children fired on the feds. But now that you've set that straight, I guess those children got what they deserved.<sarcasm>

ed; I'm certainly not defending Koresh, but I'm not convinced the children's lives couldn't have been spared. Anyway, I'm not an expert on the incident so I really can't carry on an in depth discussion about it, but I was concerned for the kids.

[Brian Sweat]

39. You start with the default position that the death of the children

was the fault of the FBI and the ATF. I reject the premise. I believe that the fire was started by the Branch Davidians and that the death of everyone in the compound was inevitable once the siege began.

[G_j]

41. as I said

I'm not well informed on this.


My response was more specifically addressed to (what I took as) the premise that the (children's) deaths were justified because someone fired on federal agents.

edited, for clarity

[CanuckAmok]

72. I tend to think, that...

ultimately, regardless of one's opinions of the Branch Davidians themselves, and whether or not the fires were set from inside, the operation's commanders were at fault for letting the situation degrade as much as it did in the last few hours. How can a multi-million dollar operation manned exclusively by professionals trained in these kinds of situations allow so many unknown variables to surface, and be taken by surprise by a handful of untrained zealots? Why weren't there enough ATF/military to storm the compound relatively bloodlessly (see the SAS operation on the Iranian Embassy in London), or via more stealthy methods? I'm not talking abou the initial ATF raid, but the day the compound burned down.

Basically, they professionals outside the compound had a duty to protect those inside the compound, even if that meant protecting them from themselves. They had a duty to secure non-combatants, and attempt to arrest combatants. It was a complete bungle, and command were never held accountable.

[Sterling]

73. I think that letting out government kill citizens is bad.

Especially children. There is always a better way to see that justice is done. It makes me sad that some here think it was ok.

[G_j]

89. yes

though I don't know the specifics, it seems to me also that there must be better, more intelligent and evolved ways to deal with many volitile situations. How can humanity possibly survive without searching for new paradyms that don't ultimately rely on violence and force?

The rationale used to excuse these deaths sounds strikingly similar to that used to justify the carnage in Iraq.
>Saddam is a "bad man". Koresh was a "bad man".

[Pastiche423]

91. It makes me sad too

It also makes me doubt if I belong here anymore.

[G_j]

92. sad

Sometimes I wonder if I belong in the human race. Is there anywhere to go where hate doesn't rear it's head?

[legin]

84. Yup

spot on.

[DoNotRefill]

45. Except, of course...

that they were found not guilty of murder and attempted murder charges, because the court found they had acted in self-defense. The ONLY charges that stuck were weapons violation charges.

There are reports that Koresh was the first one shot. He didn't die because the bullet had to go through the baby he was holding to hit him. Of course, the government denies this.

Waco was grandstanding by a rogue Federal agency eager for more budget money.

[oasis]

32. "Is it true?" "can we remain factual about it?"

No. Yes.

[diamondsoul]

34. He contributed a handful of troops and some equipment

from 1st Infantry Division to the Waco siege. I was there for it(not enlisted myself, but with my enlisted spouse), and General Clark did his job admirably. He didn't have a THING to do with commanding ATF forces, just the 15 or so soldiers from 1st ID. He was a wonderful leader.

Let me also say he didn't seem too enthused withthe notion of donating troops and equipment to an ATF run operation. He did so because he believed it was best for everyone at risk in the situation. I have no doubt he was not in the least satisfied about how things went down, but I'm also satisfied he had no direct control over those operations. Federal authority ALWAYS over-rides military authority.

[moondust]

36. He probably had to approve

sending a few Bradleys and a CEV from the 1st Cav but that's about it. Don't know who decided to use the 1st Cav. Maybe the same people who decided to use the 3rd ID in Iraq. The army works in mysterious ways.

[JVS]

40. Sounds like complete BS

[Adjoran]

46. His troops were there, and he may have been, too

No one has ever settled that question. Certainly he was NOT in command; it was an ATF (Treasury) operation with heavy FBI (Justice) support, so you bet the shots were being called from DC - especially with the heavy publicity surrounding the siege. Reno claimed "responsibility," whatever that means, but clearly no one at the scene was "in charge" of anything.

If Clark's military record is to be questioned, it will be on the basis of his order to attack the Russian troops who took over the airport in Kosovo. The British commander refused to obey Clark, and the situation went up the food chain until he was flatly overruled by the politicians. The real wingnuts may hold Waco against him, but the serious question will be this one.

[Julien Sorel]

47. He never gave any order to attack Russian troops.

He ordered the British to land helicopters at an airport the Russians were trying to secure in violation of previous agreements.

Why bother waiting for the other side to smear us with bullshit, when we do it so well ourselves?

[FubarFly]

51. Well, this kind of crap is just a taste of what Clark is in for...

if he runs. If this unfounded rumor does spread, it will be imperative that Clark or his supporters be able to squash it in the bud.
Be ready to fight, or the next thing you know, Wesley Clark will have invented the internet. Hopefully, this shameless and pathetic attempt at slander will be debunked on the official Clark websites before it gathers traction.


on edit: Sorry Adjoran, this post was intended as a response to the original message.

[diamondsoul]

55. Hi, Billy.

Thanks for that. None of this nonsense sounds ANYTHING like the General Clark I saw in action.

I also really hate the insistance that his military career is reason to think he'd be more inclined to use military force to solve disputes. It makes me nuts because I hold the exact opposite opinion. If anything the Clark that I met would be a whole lot less inclined to order military action. Men with a conscience tend to be reluctant to send kids off to kill or be killed, and Clark DOES have a strong conscience and some real knowledge of what declaring war actually means.

If he'd jumped in before I committed to supporting Kucinich I'd be facing a damned tough choice, and if Dennis drops out and Clark declares, that's the corner I'm headed to.

[Julien Sorel]

58. Actually, I've been meaning to pay you a compliment

for some thoughtful, patient posts. Patience is a weakness of mine, so I always notice it in other people. :-)

[Donna Zen]

77. OMG

>order to attack the Russian troops who took over the airport in Kosovo

Please get your facts straight:

An order had come down from Washington that Clark could use the Apaches to block the run ways. I mean sit there and stop the Russians from landing. Also, the British had tanks in position and were already at the airport. Clark's order was to put the tanks on the runway.

The Russians were playing games. They told Albright that they had 1) no intention of crossing from Bosnia into Kosovo 2) That they were not sending troops into Kosovo via air. At they same time they had 1) moved troops from Bosnia into Kosovo even though it violated their agreement with NATO for a 3 week advanced notice if they were to leave their position in Bosnia. 2) The Russians had for 3 straight days/nights tried to fly troops into Pristina. The only thing that stopped them were three small former Soviet block countries that refused the Russians air space who would not be able to keep refusing Moscow for long.

Why was Russia doing this? Well part of Moscow wanted to make nice with NATO and especially Washington; however the defense minister was making nice with Slobo. Slobo and the renegade Russian wanted to divide Kosovo with Belgrade taking control of Pristina. Clark knew that would mean the entire operation would have been for naught. He decided to block the runways. Washington, without notifiying Clark (thank you Bill Cohen) changed the order on the Apaches. Talk about a mess; but hardly WW3.

BTW, this all happened in the wee hours of a day that would see Slobo break and sign the agreement. The Russians made it difficult for NATO to use the airport by making us ask for permission and then grew tired of that game. The 10,000 troops never landed and the war ended.

[JackRiddler]

50. THANKS TO ALL

Am satisfied from other reading also that Clark was not instrumental in what went down at Waco.

Am disappointed at suggestions this was "disruption" - too many people are ready to level that accusation.

Am really fazed by those of you who thought burning Wacko was a good thing. Jesus H. Christ!

Anyway, in the process of checking more out, I ran across something that jogged my memory on something I'd forgotten - the "World War 3" moment during the Kosovo war, when the Russians grandstanded by rushing in a hundred troops to "secure" the Pristina airport, a ridiculous face-saving measure given that they had just capitulated on their previous support for Belgrade. Clark actually ordered an immediate operation to surround and remove them! This was wisely refused by the mutineer British General Michael Jackson, who said (according to Intl Herald Tribune), "I'm not going to start World War Three." Clark was reported as furious at this.

Sorry, we are here to debate and it's simply what I think, without being too attached to any of the candidates at the moment: Clark is a dangerous choice. A general will tend to see military and authoritarian solutions to problems.

[JasonBerry]

52. I am NOT a Clark supporter....BUT....

A lot of people here on DU know I do not support Wesley Clark. However, I never bought this at the time CounterPunch made the charge about Waco. I like the publication - it's pretty good most of the time. But, like with any publication, I don't agree with them all the time.

I don't care for Wesley Clark based on issues, on things that we all know Clark was involved with. We can agree or disagree with those things. HOWEVER, I think this kind of CRAP is not called for in the campaign (if there is to be one). If evidence surfaces, that's one thing. But barring that - and I don't expect it - it's typical political crap.

[TacticalPeek]

53. "Anyway, in the process of checking...something I'd forgotten"

Break me.

Don't you even read your own thread? "from other reading" (?), I guess self-conviction requires this, no?

Switching so blithely steeds, as you do, certainly invokes wonder over the puzzling smell of the one you rode in on.

[Julien Sorel]

59. You got Pristina wrong.

In actual fact, Clark's order to Jackson was to land helicopters at the airport, so Russian paratroopers couldn't land their transport planes there, not your 'immediate operation to surround and remove them!'. Clark gave his orders with the approval of Solana, the head of NATO at the time, and had cleared them with Joe Ralston at the White House beforehand. If his order was so dangerous, why did so many people sign off on it?

Don't apologize for expressing your opinion, which we all have a right to do; apologize for grossly mangling the facts, a right which none of us have.

[JasonBerry]

60. Billy, again, in all fairness

That is still a matter of bitter dispute. You are reciting Clark's version. The other's involved, still deny Clark's version. There is, beieve it or not, another side than what General Clark says about many things. He is not perfect and the Pristina airport command was a debacle from the word go.
edit: spelling error

[Pepperbelly]

61. no it's not ...

Jackson was hysterical and has not advanced that argument subsequent to their spat, the one that hurt his feelings.

Wesley did not order him to fire on or attack the Russians.

[Capn Sunshine]

78. According to whom?

Your aunt?
Or Reuters?

We know you are close to this Pepp, please source your assertions though. :)

[Pepperbelly]

82. put it together and apply ...

any sort of reasoning you want to it.

Look at the BBC report that puts it in the very worst light on Clark that any of the accounts did and even there, you would see that Jackson's histrionics were exactly that. Clark did not order him to fire on the Russians but merely to beat them to the airport. That was all.

Beating them to the airport and attacking them are very different things as I hope you would admit. And with that admission, the silliness of the Jackson statement becomes very clear. Jackson and Clark both had very large egos, Jackson rankled under command from someone else, and took that opportunity to bow up.

He got his feelings hurt. And, in the heat of an argument, made a hyperbolic assertion, absurd on its face, as we all do in the heat of an argument.

Gee, read the actual sequence of events and then claim that counterpunch and the others are right and if you can do so without having to invent additional facts to justify Jackson's position, then please tell me how so I can reconsider my conclusion.

[Julien Sorel]

62. Show me where Solana or Ralston has denied Clark's version.

[robbedvoter]

70. Debacle, huh? WWIII started or what? Define debacle.

What bad things exactly happened there BECAUSE of Clark?

[Sterling]

75. It sounds like nothing but only because of Jackson.

Sorry but giving an order to interfere with the Russian deployment does not sound very wise even if he did not give an order to attack.

That is a little scary folks.

[Pepperbelly]

85. Kee-rist ...

The Russians were making a power play and they were thwarted. Do you have a problem with stopping power plays? The Russians violated agreements even attempting to land there.

Please, sir, may I have another?

:eyes:

[Sterling]

95. Actually they were not "twarted"

They took control of the airport and all worked out just fine.

I prefer to do the sensible thing which is to aviod a larger conflict rather than get involved in a Dick swinging contest between to atomic powers.

We are not talking about the Cuban Missle Crisis or the Berlin blockade here, not worth risking another world war over don't you think?

WW1 started in Serbia and I am glad cooler heads prevailed this time.

[Pepperbelly]

98. actually ...

after Blair whimpered out of it, the same end was accomplished by refusing the Russians fly-over authority from the countries between Pristina and the cargo planes.

[Julien Sorel]

86. As Clark reports it, it was a tough decision.

Either he could have left the airport open, allowing for the potential partitioning of Kosovo -- which was exactly what they'd gone to war to prevent -- or they could send the helicopters in to block the airport, which actually had the advantage of preventing the concentration of large numbers of Russian troops in Kosovo -- a truly scary situation. At any rate, Clark ran it through the layers of command above him and got their approval before giving the order. Whether or not it was 'scary' is a matter of personal judgment, (not to say fortitude) I suppose. I seriously doubt that the 200 soldiers the Russians had nearby were going to start any war; obviously this conclusion was reached by Clark, NATO, and the U.S. as well. Not blocking the airport was ultimately a political, not a military, decision, as was made plain by the post below.

[Sterling]

96. I feel it was a wise choice

and one Clark was seemingly on the wrong end of unfortunately.

[Julien Sorel]

104. Your 'feelings' are noted.

[Wendec]

71. Semi-objective view

Although this article quotes numerous sources, it is at least an arguably objective account of the Pristina airport situation:

Faulty Allied Teamwork Helped Russian Dash
Airport Was Lost in Command Confusion
By Joseph Fitchett
International Herald Tribune
June, 1999
http://www.iht.com/IHT/DIPLO/99/jf061999.html]

PARIS - The Clinton administration and NATO's strategic commanders wanted allied troops to mount a swift lunge into Pristina last week in time to thwart the Russian troops that gained possession of the airport there, according to U.S. officials in Washington.

The officials, who declined to be identified, said that U.S.-backed plans, including one that envisaged force, if needed, to prevent the Russians from taking control of Kosovo's major airfield, were blocked by the NATOpeacekeeping force commander, Lieutenant General Michael Jackson ofBritain.

Apparently, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain did not want to risk a military showdown with the 200-strong Russian contingent and the unpredictable political aftershocks in Moscow.

In providing their account, these U.S. sources said that they were reacting to what they claimed was a disinformation campaign, apparently by Mr. Blair's aides, shifting the onus from London to Washington for Western hesitations over Pristina.

There has been no evidence of any personal strain between Mr. Blair and President Bill Clinton. But with both leaders' teams apparently putting their spin on it, the Pristina episode underscored the risk that their united front on Kosovo could be weakened over how to handle the Russians.

''It's more Blair chest-pounding,'' a Clinton aide said.

What really happened, the U.S. officials said, was that the White House and top NATO military commanders in Europe framed two plans for swift military action once the Russian column was detected leaving its position and heading toward Kosovo.

Both involved using elite units from NATO's peacekeeping force, which was poised on Kosovo's border in Macedonia for the alliance's scheduled move into the province the following day.

Initially, as the Russian column moved through Serbia, the U.S.-backed plan called for a mobile spearhead of NATO troops to make the 40-kilometer (25-mile) dash to Pristina first and cut the access roads to the airport before the Russians could get there.

Later on June 11 the Clinton administration's security team, along with the two top U.S. commanders in NATO, backed a bolder but still small-scale operation, essentially a helicopter-led landing by a NATO task force at Pristina airport before the Russians there could settle in.

Both operations failed to materialize when General Jackson declined to accelerate the timetable for a peaceful entry into Kosovo or to commit the mainly British forces under his command to an airport operation.

He ''was getting his orders from No. 10,'' the Downing Street office of Britain's prime minister, according to the U.S. officials, whose accounts were based on access to high-level consultations during the mini-crisis that started early June11 when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright landed in Macedonia for what she had expected to be ''a victory lap'' among cheering ethnic Albanian refugees.

Told about the sudden, still murky move by Russian troops who had defected from the NATO-led peacekeeping operation in Bosnia, she met immediately with General Jackson and Admiral James Ellis, the U.S. officer who commands U.S. and allied forces in Southern Europe and who has overall responsibility for the theater incorporating Kosovo.
Their meeting expanded into conference calls with General Wesley Clark, NATO's supreme commander, and U.S. decision-makers roused from their beds in predawn Washington, including Samuel Berger, the national security adviser, and civilian and uniformed chiefs at the Pentagon.

Agreement was quick among the Americans that a NATO task force should be sent to seal off the airport. But General Jackson objected that the move might poison the chances for good Serbian cooperation with the peacekeeping force.

Invoking the peacekeeping accord negotiated with the Serbian military by NATO, he said that advancing the arrival of peacekeepers could violate the provision for ''synchronization'' between the Serbian forces' withdrawal and the NATO forces' entry. U.S. officials explained that the accord also named General Jackson as the arbiter on interpreting how to carry it out.

As the meeting broke up, the U.S. officials and two top NATO commanders had the impression that General Jackson had been persuaded to act. But action did not materalize in the ensuing hours and in the afternoon a second set of consultations focused on the new situation: It was too late to prevent the Russians from reaching Pristina, but NATO still had a military option- slightly riskier but still overwhelming.

A much stronger force, ferried to Pristina airport by helicopters and backed up by assault helicopters, could evict the Russians or at least establish a NATO presence on the airfield that would prevent it from being left under Russian control.

Backing this plan, NATO and Pentagon commanders said that the military risks, while tangible, could be minimized since the Russian contingent would be outnumbered.

The political implications were manageable, the Clinton security team agreed, since NATO was challenging what appeared to be a rogue Russian military action.

NATO had intercepted communications from Moscow ordering the Russian convoy not to enter Kosovo.

Preparations seemed to get under way for the NATO operation on the afternoon of June 11 when reporters in Macedonia saw British paratroops separate from the main peacekeeping force, apparently for an immediate helicopter assault on Pristina.

But the preparations were then abruptly suspended by General Jackson any public explanation.

In the U.S. officials' view, General Jackson had been told again by the British government not to proceed with an action that risked being seen by Moscow as a provocation.

[whirlygigspin]

81. My Clark bar is melting

I don't know much about Clark and these stories make me want to know
even less.

Being associated with Waco in any way is BAD.

The shine is off the clark bar now Greta.

[diamondsoul]

97. Oh fer cryin' out loud!

Clark didn't have ANYTHING to do with what happened in Waco except to allow the use of some military vehicles and enough troops to perate that equipment! He didn't give any orders to do anythng to the compound or anything else! Once the people and equipment were lent to the operation they were ALL under the orders of the ATF and FBI!

Yeesh. Sorry, but it bugs the hell out of me to see a good man maligned over something he had NO control over once he made the decision to allow the use of his equipment.

[IndianaGreen]

87. Clark is under control of aliens from Area 51

Never mind the source of this story... Can we remain factual about it?

And the Pope wears pink bloomers under his robes. Never mind the source... blah, blah, blah.

Sorry, but your "source" won't even make the back pages of a trashy tabloid!

Your post properly belongs on The Lounge, where it will be duly buried by more pressing lounge issues.


:puffpiece:

[SOS]

88. Politics....

The rumor is floating that Clark will announce as a Democrat on Labor Day. That's only 6 days from now. The Republicans know that Clark would CRUSH Bush in the general election. Probably 55-45, maybe even 60-40.
Bush would be humiliated and run out of Washington as the loser he is.
Expect alot of "rumors" about Clark from here on.

[Tinoire]

102. Some info / Do your own research and Make up your own mind

You can start with the information pulled together here and go on to your own research. It is important that you do your own research on a man who's positioning himself, in my estimate, to run on whatever Party will give him the best chance for election and currently has people trying to hype up the Left, the Right, and the Independents. There was a story posted here today based on a CSPAN show with the 2 Draft Clark organizers -- one's a Dem, one's a Republican and who announced that there support is in thirds -- 1/3 Dem, 1/3 Rep, 1/3 Ind.

I am very wary of ANY candidate, and especially a General, running on HomeLand Security. From the DraftClark Website:

General Clark's foreign policy and homeland security expertise, thanks to a 34-year military career and his role as NATO Commander, coupled with his centrist domestic agenda, make him the ideal Presidential candidate.
--

You can see more about the attachement to Homeland Security here:
The Task Force on National Security in the Information Age
http://www.markletaskforce.org/

Wesley Clark, Stephens Group, Inc. is proudly listed on their home page which should eventually prompt you to do a search about the Stephens Group leading you to Jackson Stephens who sits on the board of Axciom, a charming little consumer data clearinghouse that knows way too much about most of us. The Acxiom database was considered for base efforts by Homeland Security in 2002 (not sure what happened with that). Same company also has cute little ties to Kissinger.

Clark wants more proactive government role in cybersecurity. This story was from an unusual source - Computerworld. Speaking at the Government Symposium on Information Sharing and Homeland Security (Second Annual Forum Linking All Government Sectors Involved with Homeland Security: Focus On Preventing Terrorist Threats While Protecting Sources and Methods) in Phladelphia on June 30-July 2, 2003, Clark demonstrated extensive knowledge on technology and security: (excerpt)

The government also faces challenges when it comes to information-sharing, he said. "There are enormous barriers between databases," said Clark. "Some are physical barriers, some are procedural barriers, and some are institutional and policy barriers. We don't need a single ... room-size data storage model. With the correct use of information technology, we can create virtual databases that will enable the Department of Homeland Security to become a real department instead of negotiating with its constituent parts."

"Winning the war on terrorism is all about information," said Clark. But trying to integrate hundreds of databases isn't a problem that's unique to the federal government, he said. Every major company in the U.S. has, at one time or another, wrestled with the same challenge, Clark said.

Tim Sample, a former senior staff member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, agreed. "The technology is not the holdup," said Sample. "Technology is not the issue. Bureaucracy is the issue."



http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,82646,00.html

----------------------------------

Now back to Waco:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=233137

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"

<snip>

* 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:

<snip>

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"

<snip>

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.

<snip>


http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/clarkatwaco.html
----------------

You can see a photocopy of the original article at: http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/war/fig/w_fig01. jpg (remove the space before jpg) and read the transcribed text here: http://textfiles.fisher.hu/politics/spy-waco.txt


Lots more pictures and snapshots of newspaper articles here: http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/war/page/w_catalo.html

If one looks interesting and you want the text- google the title in quotes and research it yourself. You're going to have to separate the wheat from the chaff yourself. The days of decent discussion at DU are on ice right now.

Do your own research.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Wesley+Clark+Waco+

[G_j]

105. thanks for taking the time

to compile all this.

:hi:

[Tinoire]

109. It was my pleasure

Thank you and people like you for asking these questions because the more you ask, and the more I look, and the more I learn, the more uncomfortable I am becoming with this entire campaign.

DUers I cannot emphasize enough- DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH on this guy.

If you're satisfied fine, but do your own research and rattle the closet doors!

[Tinoire]

108. Thread re Draft Clark Organizers; 1 Dem/1 Rep w/ spt from 3 parties

posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=233137

John Hlinko (Democrat from "Extreme Campaigns") and Josh Margulies, Republican Activist and head of "Republicans for Clark" are the 2 guys who founded the "Draft Clark" movement. Draft is a funny word don't you think, when Clark is the one telling the troops when to "Crank It Up"?

They announced on C-SPAN2 today that their support is in thirds -- 1/3 Dem, 1/3 Rep, 1/3 Ind.

Check out this message on this non-partisan page and shiver as you think of this guy's links to Homeland Security, Jackson Stephens, and Acxiom:

Wesley Clark founded Leadership For America a non-profit and non-partisan organization dedicated to bringing about a national dialogue about America's future which includes his vision:

"We begin from a basic premise: that we need a strong America, respected not only for its military might or material wealth but also for its values, vision and generosity. We believe in an America that works with others to end misery as well as war, tyranny as well as terrorism. We seek renewal and fulfillment of the traditionally held belief of an America as a land of opportunity, as a beacon of hope, as a protector of rights and as a vibrant experiment in democracy"

http://clark2004.yoll.net/

Is it any wonder Clark can't answer if he's a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent?

[Julien Sorel]

111. One too many paranoid tirades. Sorry...

[IranianDemocrat]

107. Flame bait garbage.

eom