Clark had no role at Waco, ex-commander says | Chicago Sun Times

[Ediacara]

Clark had no role at Waco, ex-commander says

November 29, 2003

BY PETE YOST

WASHINGTON -- An Army division commanded by Wesley Clark supplied some of the military equipment for the government's 51-day standoff with a religious sect in Waco, Texas, and Clark's deputy, now the Army Chief of Staff, took part in a crucial Justice Department meeting five days before the siege ended in disaster, according to military records.

Clark's involvement in support of the Waco operation a decade ago was indirect and fleeting, said his former commanding officer. But the assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies by military officers around Clark and soldiers under his command has prompted a flurry of questions to his presidential campaign.

Internet chat rooms and several news stories speculate that Clark played a role in the tactical planning for the operation that ended with the deaths of about 80 followers of the Branch Davidian religious sect and its leader, David Koresh.

More at the Chicago Sun Times

[goforit]

1. OMG!!!!.............And the WH doesn't even get a 911 investigation!!!!

The murderers get off soaked in the victims blood!!!!


WACO?????...Nothing compared to the negligence of the
Bush Administration

[joeybee12]

2. I'm just curious as to how long the media will be fixated on this--I mean,

there's no story, but they keep reporting a non-story from a different angle.

I wonder what most journalists would have to do with they were forced to get real jobs. Probably starve.

[The Zanti Regent]

26. Won't stop the Press Whores and THE NATION from lying about Clark

I don't know which of these whores hate him more, the Nazi Press or the Nation!

[Mz Pip]

3. This piece ran today

in the SF Chronicle with the headline: "Clark questioned on arms supplied for Waco assault". Interesting to note that the "Internet chat rooms" phrase was not in it.

By removing "Internet chat rooms" the claim that Clark played a role is given more credibility. One has to read the entire piece to get to the part where he is removed from any responsibility. Even "indirect and fleeting" followed by the "But" fuel the fire of speculation. Many people do not bother to read entire articles. I suspect Yost knew this when he penned this hit piece.

This is a non story, but it fans the flames of mistrust for Clark which is what it is all about. If Clark was not involved, why print it? Edwards wasn't involved either.

MzPip
:dem:

[seventhson]

4. It was under his command, therefore

he was involved.

Maybe he made no decisions. Maybe he was being groomed then for his race today. Maybe he was kept out of the loop. Maybe he was kept out of the records.

But WHY would his second in command NOT report to him or get his approval for release of the tanks in the operation?

C'mon, people, THINK. Use your heads.

The reason Clark was only "indirectly" and "fleetingly" involved was because he WAS involved.

You can try tpo whitewash this all day long, but Clark was in the chain of command and provided military backup to a civilian operation (which arguably is UnConstitutional).

Bush set that scenario up and Reno played it out. Never trusted Reno anyway -- as US atty in Miami she HAD to have been in on a Million contra coverups for the Bushies.

[Frances]

5. This is crazy

[salin]

9. yes.

I agree with your assessment.

[Donna Zen]

8. And we wonder why we lose

C'mon, people, THINK. Use your heads.

You first.

The reason Clark was only "indirectly" and "fleetingly" involved was because he WAS involved.

That is the same logical progression that Rummy used. "The reason to bomb Saddam is because Blix has found no weapons. If he has no weapons then why would he hide them.

Keep working on it, your almost there.

[dfong63]

11. is Clark going to play the same game if he's elected president -

... whenever something goes wrong, blame it on subordinates, claim he wasn't involved - my, how "presidential". actually it DOES sound a lot like the way our current "president" behaves.

[dfong63]

10. if Clark wasn't involved - then why wasn't he?

as the commander of the base, why did he allow subordinates to make such important policy decisions without review?

[neuvocat]

13. Really.

Well if you want to buy into that argument then you're going to have to ultimately hold Bill Clinton responsible. Authority can be delegated but responsiblity cannot.

So what do you choose to do? Blame Clark and trash Clinton? With your little snip at Reno it sounds like you are.

[freethought23]

14. "Bush set that scenario up and Reno played it out. "

Correction: Not Bush, Clinton. Otherwise, you are right.

[hayu_lol]

18. Seventhson...

You really do like muddy waters don't you. Reputable articles on or about Waco clearly show that Clark was the Division Commander. He was ordered to provide vehicles that were to be operated by FBI and ATF people. He did not train them to use the equipment personally and was not further involved than that. A simple google search on the Waco mess shows this to be true.
This is just like the long diatribe you gave us on the Wellstone crash with your magic raygun and the like.
This is what you do. You are a first class disrupter.

[0007]

6. If course he didn't - Goes to show you how the repubs ..

have started their propaganda war against Clark. All the freepers and tinhatters over there just love to bash Reno and Clinton and place blame where it doesn't belong.

They refuse to look at the FBI and the ATF and the local Waco police.

[Myra]

20. Yup, and they've planted all sorts of absurd BS tidbits

Right at Thanksgiving so that sheeple will have
plenty of time to see it and be programmed with
the lie. And Clark is "at ease" for this holiday
so can't respond as quickly.

They're using T-giving just as strategically and
cynically as they used 911. What with these orchestrated
smear campaigns (like the trash in The Nation), and this
Waco idiocy and AWOL chimp boy rushing to Iraq to beat
Hillary there by hours.

[Donna Zen]

7. Letter

To Pete Yost:

Would not the public be better informed if you were to spend your time investigating the build up to the Iraq War, instead of using up ink to spread a filthy character assassination aimed at Wesley Clark? Right-wing chatrooms? What will your next project be? Why not take on the obsession of the right-wing chatrooms by repeating their lies about Bill Clinton. Oh right, you’ve already performed that service for the GOP.

That any paper or news organization of merit would disseminate this miserable excuse for reporting, makes this reader wonder if there is any mainstream journalism left in our country that is not preceded by the word “yellow.”

As we continue our sorry slide into a tabloid-national-disinformation regime, I suppose that you are somehow strangely comforted that your name will make the list of the “Founding Fathers” who wrote democracy out of existence.


DZ

[FrenchieCat]

12. But what's most unfortunate....

Is that rabid Dean supporters are willing to question the voracity of Clark so easily. That's the sad and filthy part of this whole deal. Right wingers, yes. Democrats, shame. They will be crying when their nominee gets the same treatment, when the press turns on him. How should we react at that time, when they cry unfair. Six degrees of separation and "it's the headline stupid" it the only theme of this article...that is being recycled throughout the United States as we speak. The headline in one paper read "Clark's run Tainted by WACO".

Here is an interesting reading on the subject above:

http://thedolphin.typepad.com/dolphin/2003/11/are_dean_democr_1.html

[curse10]

15. That's an awesome article

:-)

[neuvocat]

16. Yes, and many dems will buy the RW spin

just for the sake of trashing another candidate. Sad.

[Donna Zen]

21. They love it!

All other Democrats are cockroaches to them. A smear by the right wing press is just fine. Selective honesty is all the cockroaches deserve. That is philosophy. OTOH, the right wing know how divide an conquer works, while they march their lockstep troops up Pennsylvania Ave.

[neuvocat]

24. Exactly.

And what better way to do it than during the primaries? Its so obvious.

[alittlelark]

17. Clark terrifies the GOP

I used to support Dean financially, but now it goes to Clark. The more I see them trying to trash him, the firmer I am in my support of him. They know that Clark would beat Bushco hands down....even their right wing voting machines wouldn't help.

[KittyWampus]

19. General BOYKIN Was Directly Involved- Not Clark

Please make note of this and repeat when necessary...

The rightwing bigot, muslim hater BOYKIN was advising the Feds.

If they confront Clark hopefully he'll let the public know about Boykin.
Please repeat as necessary:

snip

The Justice Department and the FBI requested Schoomaker and William Boykin "by name to meet with the
attorney general," states one internal Army document created before the meeting. "These soldiers have
extensive special operations experience and have worked with the FBI on previous occasions. Schoomaker
"told my watch NCO ... that the FBI plans to pick him up at Fort Hood and fly him first to Waco to assess the
situation, and then on to Washington D.C.," states the internal Army document. Schoomaker, currently the
Army Chief of Staff, has a background in Army Special Forces. Boykin, who has similar experience, is the
Army general whose controversial church speeches cast the war on terrorism in religious terms, prompting
recent calls from some in Congress for him to step down.

At the meeting with Reno, Schoomaker and Boykin refused an invitation to assess the plan to inject tear
gas into the buildings, a move designed to force the Davidians to flee the compound, an internal Army
document states.

"We can't grade your paper," one of the two Special Forces officers was quoted as telling the Justice
Department and the FBI. The comment referred to the legal restrictions prohibiting direct participation in
civilian law enforcement operations.

[Donna Zen]

22. Boykin should have gotten the headline

In the best of all possible worlds. Although in this case, it would seem that even he has no blame. What ever was Reno thinking?

[robbedvoter]

23. How would Peter Yost feel if that happened to him? Let's see:

Why is Associated Press Peter Yost spreading innuendo about Wesley Clark's non-existent connection to Waco?
The whole story is a pretext for bad headlines. There's no content - just insinuations - that eventually get debunked way in the end of a long article. What's the point of it? Why did Peter Yost write this?
How would he like to be at the wrong end of such a campaign? What if someone would start writing :" AP WRITER PEDOFILIA RAISES CONCERNS On several boards, chat rooms and internet mails that go around the subject of Peter Yost's pedofilia was discussed, Invariably, people express a lot of concern over it. Many express opinions that the accusations will affect Yost's good standing as an AP writer. Further investigation proves that there is little to none to warrant such speculation. Nevertheless, it's disturbing and maybe we should stop reading Peter Yost's stuff." Now, imagine that I had the power to send this to most local papers in the country. They would print it with customized headlines ranging from IS YOST A PEDOFILE? to PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN- YOST IS NEAR Would you say I was perfectly innocent, because, after all, headlines are not my doing? Why would I want to do such a thing to anyone?

[roguevalley]

25. buying into this logic, anyone who is even on the outer most

fringe of anything, bears direct responsibility too.

This would also mean the following people are as guilty as
the actual participants if you want to dump on Clark this
way:

The child services that didn't take the children out of there
that David Koresh was having sex with.

The arms dealers that sold the guns that they used to shoot the
FBI/ATF people and each other with.

The society that allows total bastards that are this dangerous
to hurt themselves and others.

You and I have blood on our hands too under this logic. Jeez.
If I was the guy with the motor pool keys that gave the trucks
that actually were used by another service branch/law enforcement
branch to do something that ended in controversy, would I have
to go to prison too? Under this pattern of logic, yes.

Just say you hate Clark and let it go. You'll feel better.