Waco.. the Wesley Clark Connection
We all operate in ignorance at times in our walk but to continue on
that path by choice is an abomination.
Only when we know who YHWH's enemies are can we effectively deal
with them.
The Waco experience taught YahChannah and I some very important
lessons. We have subsequently come to see that too many people
would rather turn a blind eye toward truth for comfort sake. There was
an abundance of never fully revealed truths at WACO. Here is one
important example supplied by an
anonymous friend.
May we learn to do His will ...Yeri..
============================================================================
First received: Saturday, January 24, 2004 7:15 PM
Subject: Question for Gen. Wesley Clark ...
NB: indirect.com Websites were unresponsive.
Question for Gen. Wesley Clark ...
From: Dstacey <donald.stacey@comcast.net>
Indeed. What DID it take to kill 82 men, women, and children at WACO?
Well, for starters:
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:
- 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
"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***."(Archived)
http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/waco.html"
Where did the US military personnel and equipment used at WACO come
from?
Fort Hood, Texas
Who was in command at Fort Hood?
General Wesley Clark
So the question to be asked General Clark is: what exactly was your
role, General, in the planning and training for the military
attack upon the 82 men, women and children at WACO which resulted in
their horrible deaths as the complex went up in flames after being under
siege for over 50 days?
Before we vote to determine whether you should be President of the
United States, we want to hear a complete answer to this question!
This is a most serious question - one that IS NOT being
asked - and it must be!
The massacre at WACO was one of the worst atrocities that has ever
occurred in our country. It was followed by a massive cover-up and a
phony investigation, but many of us have clear memories of what
transpired there. Justice must be served.
Please read the following material carefully and forward it to others.
Don Stacey
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=48904;title=APFN
Kelly Patricia O Meara
SIR. WESLEY CLARK: Upon the sword of His Imperial Majesty
Thu Jan 22 13:42:10 2004
64.140.158.144
Knighthood
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/clark.htm
Swearing the Oath:
Crown: Upon which sword do you wish to swear your Oath?
Candidate:
Upon the sword of His Imperial Majesty.
Wesley Clark, U.S. General and NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe
made Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire
March 28, 2000.
General Wesley K. Clark,
US Army
http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm
Foreign Honors and Awards
http://www.jaymarlowe.com/clark.htm
===================================================================
ELECTION 2004
Clark tanks used in Waco siege
Democrat candidate's role in attack on Branch Davidians questioned
Posted: October 16, 2003 - 1:00 a.m. Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35094
Editor's note: WorldNetDaily is pleased to have a content-sharing
agreement with Insight magazine, the bold Washington publication not
afraid to ruffle establishment feathers. Subscribe to Insight at
WorldNetDaily's online store and save 71 percent off the cover price.
By Kelly Patricia O Meara
© 2003 News World Communications Inc.
Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark wants to be president and, given that he
is a man who has worn many hats during his controversial rise through
the ranks, many believe this qualifies him for the top political job.
But serious questions abound about his actions as commander of the 1st
Cavalry Division of the Army's III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas, in 1993.
Clark has worn the hat of first-in-his-class graduate of West Point,
Rhodes scholar, decorated Vietnam combat veteran, White House fellow,
four-star general and even Supreme Commander of NATO - a post from which
he was relieved.
There is one hat, though, that despite lingering suspicions and
accusations Clark neither has confirmed nor denied wearing - a hat that
many Americans might find very disturbing for a military man seeking the
top civilian post in the U.S. government without first registering with
either political party or being so much as elected dog catcher.
In his recently published book Winning Modern Wars, Clark proclaims that
the "American way was not to rely on coercion and hard pressure but
on persuasion and shared vision," which has been taken by
Democratic Party
doves to explain why the retired general has been an outspoken critic of
President George W. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. But while Clark
may prefer a "kinder, gentler" persuasion in dealing with U.S.
enemies abroad, critics are saying his actions at home should be
reviewed before deciding whether he is qualified to be trusted with
America's civil liberties.
For example, there is the 1993 siege of David Koresh's Mount Carmel
commune in Waco, Texas, where four law-enforcement officers were killed
and nearly 90 civilians - men, women and children - massacred by being
shot and/or burned alive. Those seeking an investigation of his part in
the Waco outrage say that Clark not only played a hidden role in the
military-style assault on the Branch Davidians, but easily could have
refused to participate in what was a clear violation of the Posse
Comitatus Act that bars use of the U.S. military for civilian
law-enforcement activities.
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 OK. 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."
"This is something that the general staff would
know in the daily situation report or manning reports. Clark would have
known and, given his obsession for micromanagement, there is probably
someone who can place him on the scene. He wouldn't have been able to
resist going in. At the very least there is no way he didn't have
knowledge,"
Mehrten continues.
So what if the general was aware that his military equipment was being
used against American civilians, and so what if he even participated in
the planning? Wasn't he just following orders from above?
"To follow that order," explains Mehrten, "is to follow a
blatantly illegal order of a kind every West Point officer knows is a
violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Clark's obligation was to say,
'No, I'm not going to do it.' Look, Clark went to the same institution I
did and at West Point we had extensive instruction in military ethics
and issues concerning how one avoids obeying an illegal military order.
It is drilled into our heads from the earliest days as cadets that the
'I-was-just-following-orders' defense isn't necessarily a good
one."
He had the juice to say no, concludes Mehrten, "and he could have
and should have. But if he had done so he probably wouldn't have gotten
his next star. There is a reason critics say this man was not
recommended by
the military for that fourth star but got it anyway because of political
clout, just as there is a reason that Chief of Staff Hugh Shelton
brought him home early from Europe because of 'character and integrity
issues.' Sure the Bradley vehicle could have been operated by a
civilian, but that's unlikely. This military equipment is very
specialized and would be virtually useless in the hands of untrained
operators. But just using military equipment against civilians is
running way afoul of Posse Comitatus. Legally, if he were involved in it
and there were active-duty units where these armored vehicles came from,
then it is a clear violation of the act. Clark's command at the time,
1st Cavalry, is an active-duty federal division and it is my
understanding that these vehicles used at Waco were from Fort Hood -his
command."
Tom Fitton, president of the Washington-based Judicial Watch, believes
Clark has some questions to answer.
"The question for Clark," explains Finton, "is a fair one
in terms of corruption. Many Americans still are troubled by what
occurred at Waco, and we're very interested in his role. Many people are
going to ask what are his views of the force [attorney general] Janet
Reno used at Waco and they'll want to know if he, were he to become
president of the United States, would authorize that kind of force
again. Specifically, was Gen. Clark comfortable allowing forces and
equipment under his command to participate in a police raid or, at best,
a hostage
situation? People are going to want to know these things."
Michael McNulty, an investigative journalist and Oscar nominee for his
documentary, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, tells Insight that,
"From the standpoint of what went on that operation had military
fingerprints
all over it. The chain of command being what it is, Clark had some
responsibility, but to what degree we really don't know."
McNulty takes a deep breath and then says, "My military sources
tell me that Clark and his second in command got the communication from
then-governor of Texas Ann Richards, who wanted help with Waco. At that
point Clark or [Gen. Peter J.] Schoomaker should have asked themselves,
'Religious community? Civilians, they want our tanks?' and hung up the
phone. Clark had to be involved at the tactical level, he had to know
what the tactical plan was and he'd have to approve it. No one has ever
asked these questions of this man. Clark wasn't even asked to testify
before the congressional committee investigating the circumstances of
Waco. For me the real question is one of character and, because of the
cover-up that's gone on with Waco, it could even be a question of
criminality. From the get-go, when the assignment came down from III
Corps, which is the primary Army unit at Fort Hood and his division,
Wesley Clark had the opportunity to say 'Hey, wait a minute folks, we're
not gonna give tanks and personnel to the FBI to use on
civilians!'"
True, explains McNulty, "Clark didn't do this in a vacuum. Whatever
he did he at least is guilty of being a good German - following orders.
He was in a position to put his foot down and say no. It was his men,
his equipment and his command. Everything that happened at Waco, from
the beginning, the U.S. military was involved - including the strategic
and tactical planning that went on from Feb. 29 to April 19. Why weren't
the guys making the decisions debriefed and questioned by the committee?
I would hope that Clark would answer these questions now, the sooner the
better, because it appears that Waco is about to follow him into the
political arena full force."
Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight. -
komeara@insightmag.com
=============================================================================
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, See below:
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 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***."(Archived)
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.
MORE:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/clark.htm
Waco
|