| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Wesley at Waco |
| 2003-10-19 |
| ...Although Clark never publicly has discussed his role in the attack on the Branch Davidians and did not respond to Insight’s requests for an interview to discuss his role at Waco, there are indisputable facts that confirm he had knowledge of the grim plans to bring the standoff to an end. Between August 1992 and April 1994, Clark was commander of the 1st Cavalry Division of the Army’s III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas. According to a report by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the list of military personnel and equipment used at Waco included: 15 active-duty military personnel, 13 Texas National Guard personnel, nine Bradley fighting vehicles, five combat-engineer vehicles, one tank-retrieval vehicle and two M1A1 Abrams tanks. Additionally, Fort Hood reportedly was used for much of the training for the bloody attack on the Davidians and their children. Based on the fact that military equipment from Fort Hood was used in the siege and that training was provided there, say critics, it is clear the commanding officer of the 1st Cavalry had direct knowledge of the attack and, more likely than not, was involved in the tactical planning. West Point graduate Joseph Mehrten Jr. tells Insight that, "Clark had to have knowledge about the plan because there is no way anyone could have gotten combat vehicles off that base without his okay. The M1A1 Abrams armor is classified ’Secret,’ and maybe even ’Top Secret,’ and if it was deployed as muscle for something like Waco there would have been National Firearms Act weapons issues. Each of these M1A1 Abrams vehicles is armed with a 125-millimeter cannon, a 50-caliber machine gun and two 30-caliber machine guns, which are all very heavily controlled items, requiring controls much like a chain of legal custody. It is of critical importance that such vehicles could not have been moved for use at Waco without Clark’s knowledge." |
| Posted by:john |
| #15 I think it's absolutely hilarious watching the leftist sheep being corralled into rooting for a vain, glorious, bloody General. Hahahahaha. He stands for everything they have claimed to be against for the last 30 years - but that won't stop the bah bahing of these sheep-on-demand. What a bunch of pathetic losers. My take on all of this is that the left used Clark to take the spotlight off the real 2004 candidates while they were attacking each other in the primaries. It was a very shrewed move. It allowed the Democrats to shift the focus off their massive internal problems, as highlighted by their real candidates, and divert the press' attention to how badly Clark thought Bush was conducting the war. You gotta admit...it was a brilliant. Since the democrats have no military experts of their own, they were happy to wine and dine the vain/glorious Clark as long as he kept the dinner conversation on what he thought Bush was doing wrong. Now that the party has decided on their candidate(Dean), I'm guessing that Clark will only find himself welcome as long as he tows the line of bashing Bush and supporting Dean. |
| Posted by: B 2003-10-20 9:41:28 AM |
| #14 LOL--now the right wing SPIN starts on this General's career! BTW Rantbourgeois--the Waco issue doesn't play in miidle America--those people killed Federal officers--and deserved what they got if one values THE RULE OF LAW |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2003-10-19 11:01:21 PM |
| #13 ...Actually, it seems to me the questions we should be asking here are: "Did GEN Clark - on his own accord and without any consultation or notification of his superiors, use these weapons in violation of the PCA?" "Did any of GEN Clark's superiors - from the White House on down - direct him to make these weapons available to the Federal civilian authorities?" "If the answer to either one of these questions is 'NO', how does GEN Clark justify their use?" Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2003-10-19 8:44:52 PM |
| #12 Old Patriot, I would think that the enlisted folks would spread to different commands over time. It would take a pretty good conspiracy to track them all and keep them in line unless they were Delta Force. Just finding out that the "mission" had been classified Top Secret would be a fiind unto itself. If just one of those kids talked, the house of cards could fall down on Clark and maybe causing collateral damage to his support structure. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-19 8:24:11 PM |
| #11 Imagine this: March, 2004 Four FBI agents are shot dead attempting to serve warrants at a Los Angeles area mosque. The terrorists barricade themselves in the building with 80+ family members and supporters, including many children. After a two month siege, the authorities attack with tanks and tear-gas, the place burns to the ground and most of those inside are killed. At the very least, lefties and Islamos would riot all over the world, faculty-led Mumia-Cong mobs would shut down half the campuses in the United States, Dems would demand Dubya's resignation, Katie Couric would cry on the air, the UN would pass resolutions, and the International Kangaroo Court would return a sheaf of indictments. We seldom question the media-ordained double-standard, but it is literally killing us and destroying our country. Know the enemy: The Hollywood/Madison Avenue Cultural Axis. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-19 6:15:13 PM |
| #10 I'd be willing to bet that any mil personnel that have since retired or been discharged had to sign a 10-year no-talk agreement when processing out. If you had clearance to any "special material", you have to sign a 70 year agreement not to talk. I know from experience - my name's on one of them. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-10-19 5:38:02 PM |
| #9 I'd be willing to bet that any mil personnel that have since retired or been discharged had to sign a 10-year no-talk agreement when processing out. It's pretty standard, for folks with secret clearance and higher. The question is, does it cover things like deployments while on duty? |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-10-19 3:36:49 PM |
| #8 Sounds like they were Rangers. Probably the original American hardboiled hardass lawmen. The stories are amazing. The stories are true. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-10-19 1:28:15 PM |
| #7 Hell, I got one cousin and a dead Uncle who would have walked in and arrested DK armed with nothin but a pistol and the correct law enforcement attitude. (CLEAR?) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-10-19 1:15:57 PM |
| #6 If I know the metality of the military enlisted personnel involved, they would ahve been horrified at the results. An FOI to determine who they were would be the direction I would go. More than likely they are no longer in the service and would be willing to talk off teh record. This would answer why Wes is getting special treatment from the Clintons and why he would feel he could end run his commanders and go directly to the whitehouse. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-19 12:57:13 PM |
| #5 I missed the part where anyone said the Branch Davidians never did anything wrong. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-10-19 12:49:21 PM |
| #4 Thanks for the witty commentary, Anon. Next time you get a parking ticket, we'll surround your house with armored fighting vehicles and arbitrarily sentence you to death, too. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-10-19 12:30:58 PM |
| #3 Yeah, those davidians were a bunch of law abiding Christians who never did anything wrong... |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-19 12:01:51 PM |
| #2 Douglas -- his involvement also probably led to him being encouraged to run for president. After all, to the left, a general involved in the destruction of a Christian splinter group is admirable, while one (like Boykin) that is openly Christian has to be removed. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-10-19 10:55:03 AM |
| #1 According to my research Clark certainly crossed into a gray area regarding the Posse Comitatus Act. While it probably can not be proven, Clark's complicity in the massacre at Waco probably led to his Nato appointment and his involvement in Bosnia. This guy is a loose cannon, and he is not worthy of the rank he held or the office he seeks. |
| Posted by: Douglas De Bono 2003-10-19 8:40:17 AM |