Officer: Clark Indirectly Involved in Waco

[sleipnir]

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and ``we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion,'' says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady ``Pete'' Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.

``Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him,'' says Taylor, Clark's former commander. ``He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us.''

It is unclear from the public record precisely what military gear Clark's 1st Cavalry Division supplied to civilian law enforcement agents at Waco. One government list of ``reimbursable costs'' for the 1st Cavalry Division specifies sand bags, fuel for generators and two M1A1 Abrams tanks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3441113,00.html



Well, great, can you just imagine what the Freepers and other Nutjobs will think of this...even though it's a vague association. Just thought we should know that this sorta thing is out there.

[oasis]

1. Chimpy's "secret mission" and now this. The White House fears the General.

[IndianaGreen]

4. This issue has been discussed in DU before, and debunked

By that logic, anyone wearing a uniform that day was involved in Waco.

[oasis]

21. The Waco story is being recycled because the General is gaining momentum.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. Didn't Waco start under Bush I?

Am I right here? The original stand off with the ATF, and the plans to take down the compound were started under Bush I, and Clinton continued the plan. Can anyone tell me if this is true or not?

[KittyWampus]

14. YES! Waco Was Bush Sr. Fault. Koresh Wasn't A Hermit

Bush's Feds could have picked Koresh up on the street. He didn't hole up in the compound.

Why did Bush decide to have them seige the compound with all those women and children?

[Lurking Dem]

43. Koresh wasn't a hermit

He was in Deep Ellum every friggin' Friday night at any number of watering holes.

I never understood why they didn't just arrest him there.

[Lefta Dissenter]

3. uhhhhh, we KNEW it was out there,

along with a lot of other bullsh*t, but gee, thanks for the headline, anyway.

Feel free to send anyone to www.clarkmyths.com for info.

on edit: isn't it amazing how "we weren't involved in any way..." translates into "indirectly involved" ?????????

[SeveneightyWhoa]

5. Go to a rightwing site right now and post the word "Clark"...

..and the next twenty posts are guaranteed to include some combination of the words "Waco", "whacko", and "Clinton". As far as some people are concerned, Clark planned and executed Waco.

[Oberst Klink]

8. yea

sorry.... I got carried away. Not funny.

Still, they would have voted for the shrub.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

6. Gee, who should we run

instead?

Let's see Waco....Did you see the movie "6 degrees of separation?"..

Hey, I've got it! Let's have the Freepers tell us who to run...like maybe Howard Dean...cause he was not involved in WACO?

Wow!!!

Accusing General Clark of being involved with the seige at Waco, Texas is a sure fire way to stir up partisan political passions. Closely examining the facts is a sure way to douse them.

This is one of the more amusing smears, because it's not only untrue, it's ridiculous. The bottom line is this, from the Clark Sphere: "Clark was not present at Waco, nor did he plan, direct or authorize it. While observers from Delta Force were present, no elements of the First Cavalry were in operational control." You can find more below:

The Facts on Waco

Waco is Clinton's Bay of Pigs - an operation planned before he took office, and handed to his new AG. The tactical elements in charge had been selected before hand.

PBS compiled this timeline.

It takes the timelines from the two major reports - the 1993 report which had key omissions, and the later Danforth report. The FBI turned over to congress information relating to use of military shells, but did not highlight it, leading to charges of a cover up by Republican congressmen later. Waxman then documented that the material had been turned over to congress, but was buried among voluminous documentation.

This is the Department of Justice's first report on Waco and other materials.

It is important to remember that Clinton had been in office less than a month when the stand off started, and the action had been planned in advance. Reno was not even AG until March, and certainly had not had any time to even place her own people in charge. While the right wing likes to portray Waco as Clinton's fault - and Reno's - the truth is that the team doing the ground level work consisted of Reagan-Bush people, and at key points, it showed. Reno took full responsibility, which is what the person in charge should do - but let's not kid ourselves, ground level bungling made Waco what it was, and the people on the ground had not been put there by Clinton or Reno.

Both of these reports state that Acting AG Gerson ordered the military vehicles from Fort Hood, that they were driven by FBI tactical agents. That the only meetings with military commanders on strategy were not with Clark or other elements at Hood, but with US military Delta Force officers. Clark was ordered by McClarty on behalf of the Gerson to release vehicles to the operation, and, according to some reports train people to drive them. No members of the first cav were assigned, and Clark had neither operational nor advisory input on the matter. Both the Scruggs and Danforth reports concur on this point.

The military involvement at Waco has lead to wild speculation, and the conspiracy theorists urge to make everything one big glom - with their target du jour being the grand villain - has lead to Clark being thrown into the mix. However, Clark did not issue the tear gas, nor were any of his people present. The 40mm rounds were not issued by the First Cavalry. There were three Delta Force officers there as observers. Film included in the anti-Waco documentary shows that FBI agents were driving the tanks, and not military personnel.

The unforthcoming nature for years of the Clinton Administration did a great deal to damage the credibility of the initial report - and the concealment of evidence from Reno by the FBI lead to a reform at FBI by Freeh, who Clinton would later appoint as director.

The legal trail that Danforth pursued in his investigation is here.
Find law on the Waco stand off.

Bottom lines:
Clark was not present at Waco, nor did he plan, direct or authorize it. While observers from Delta Force were present, no elements of the First Cavalry were in operational control. The events of April 19th, 1993 were based on ineptitude of a number of FBI tactical agents, who repeatedly used ham-handed negotiating techniques, and possibly, a desire for glory hunting by those leading the siege. Many of the people involved in Waco were involved in previous questionable actions, including one sniper who was involved with Ruby Ridge in 1992, and who may have fired sniper rounds during the siege.

The record of Waco stands in stark contrast to the documented style of negotiations during Dayton and during Kosovo - clearly these operations were not conducted by the same people. Wes Clark has been adamant on a number of occasions that military hardware and personnel should not be used in law enforcement situations, they are too blunt an instrument. Waco stands in sharp contrast to the tactical doctrine of using minimum force that he taught prior to being a commander at Ft. Hood, and which he espoused afterwards as Southern Commander and then SACEUR.

While it is hard to prove a negative absent the government releasing logs of General Clark's wear abouts during this period, no reliable witness has placed him on the scene, nor is he mentioned in any documentation which has been released to the public."

[sleipnir]

7. Yes, I realize it's not true, only a vague associate BUT!

The AP is publishing this story, not some rightwing radical website. It's actually getting printed in papers in Europe and America. This may have been "Debunked" before, but it's going to be a major public issue I fear, now that the AP picked it up.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Did you read the article??????????

Or are just "too" worried to get through it? Or would you like for Clark to drop out because of this? Or do you want me to drop my support of Clark?

WHO DO YOU SUPPORT MR. "I'M SO SCARED TO DEATH BECAUSE THE FREEPERS WILL BRING UP WACO, BETTER TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE" POSTER GUY?

Clark's campaign flatly denies any planning role by Clark in Waco. And an investigation by a Justice Department special counsel, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., bears out that assertion. Danforth found no improper actions by anyone in the U.S. military regarding Waco and concluded that the fiery end to the siege resulted from the Davidians setting fires inside the building compound where they were holed up.

Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and ``we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion,'' says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady ``Pete'' Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.

Waco ``was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to'' and ``any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's,'' Taylor said this week.

[sleipnir]

13. NO I'm not.

I'm just pointing out the fact that we should be prepared for attacks centering on this position and get ready to defend Clark's position. Notice, the article's title isn't "Clark Has Nothing to Do With Waco" so there's already a mainstream spin on this issue. I'm not trying to bait anyone with this article, rather just pointing out that now the mainstream media has caught hold of this, we should just be aware of the angle of spin they are applying. Sure you have to read futher down the article to get the whole truth, but most Americans won't bother to read that far, that's why we have to know these facts, to counter any claims of his involvement.

Not that it matters, but I'm undecided as of late, used to be gungho for Dean, now I'm not sure, I like Clark more and more each day, though ideally I'd go for Kucinich.


Don't get so defensive, I'm just trying to show where the mainstream media is trying to obfuscate the truth through convicting headlines.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Well mainstream seems to be saying that Clark had no role....

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7369623.htm

Posted on Fri, Nov. 28, 2003

Commanding officer says Clark had no direct role in Waco siege
PETE YOST
Associated Press
--------
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.
-------
Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.

Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.

"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us."

[Bread and Circus]

27. The WACO thing is just another great example of how they...

really don't have anything on him.

They have to dive for lies because they can't hold a candle
against the truth.

It's called desparation.

It's also a good sign that Clark's momentum is making folks
try to revisit their tired canards.

[Rowdyboy]

9. Actually, Clark was too busy helping Hillary murder Vince Foster

to have spearheaded Waco. :eyes:

This has been posted and debunked here literally dozens of times. The mere fact that it continues to be posted does not make it any truer. However, if dredging up inaccurate trash to hurt Democrats is your aim, you're doing a great job!

[Jerseycoa]

10. Oh, gee

It also says:

"And an investigation by a Justice Department special counsel, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., bears out that assertion. Danforth found no improper actions by anyone in the U.S. military regarding Waco and concluded that the fiery end to the siege resulted from the Davidians setting fires inside the building compound where they were holed up.

Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and ``we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion,'' says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady ``Pete'' Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege."

This is the worst right wing crap.

Waco was planned by Bush I. Clinton was in office less than a month when it all started. The end came on April 19. Reno was not even AG until March, although she stood up and took responsibility like a champ. The acting AG ordered military vehicles from Fort Hood. They were driven by FBI agents. Clark was not present at Waco, nor did he plan, direct or authorize it. Clark did not issue the tear gas. None of his people were even there. The ammunition was not issued by the First Cavalry.

You probably think there was no genocide in Kosovo, too, right?

Kosovo Survivors Endorse Clark for President

Tell it to the Albanians. There are some still living.





:nopity:

[Terwilliger]

16. You knew it was coming

and for those middle-of-the-road white males, this could be a big issue

[TLM]

20. Exactly we hear over and over again from Clark folks

about the attacks that will be leveled at Dean on the draft and gays... then Clark is presented as if he is somehow immune to bullshit right wing attacks due to his military service.

However his militarism is exactly how the right wing will attack him... as a Dr. Strangelove power hungry opportunist, who was fired for f-ing up in Kosovo. They'll trot of generals to attack Clark as arrogant and untrustworthy. They will attack Clark on the military issue, make it a negative, and thus rob Clark of his only real advantage vs. Bush.

That will wipe out that middle of the road vote and republican vote that Clark supporters keep claiming he'll have locked up.

Then the repukes will play up Clark’s military war hawk image to discourage the liberal end of the spectrum that doesn’t want a hawk in the Whitehouse. And we all get to sit back and watch Clark get his ass kicked.

Oh but no worries for Clark, he'll just go back to being a defense contractor profiteering off the war on terror for 4 more years.

[TLM]

17. Even though it is bullshit and Clark did nothing but command the fort

that allowed use of equipment... he will get tarred as being part of Waco by the right wingers. Add that to a few generals saying what a arrogant fuck up Clark was in the military and that's why he got kicked out, and you've seen Clark's only real advantage, his military experience, turned to a huge millstone around his neck.

This idea that Clark is somehow immune to right wing attacks is BS.

He is the most susceptible to those attacks, and has nothing else to offer.

[AmericanDem]

18. Really?

The opinion of these generals sound very important to you. I wonder what they will say about a guy like Dean becoming president?

Yea, perhaps they will put his bad back aside.

[TLM]

23. You miss the point, likely intentionally...

If a general comes out and says Dean is a draft dodger, it won’t mean anything because Dean is not running on being a general the way Clark is. Dean is not dependant on that military leader image that Clark is so dependant on.

However Clark is running as a general… and to have other general come out and say bad things about him and his ability as a general, and his record as a general, it will completely stain the image that is the very foundation of Clark’s campaign.

To draw an equivalent to Dean, it would be like if a bunch of doctors came out to say what a horrible doctor Dean was and how he got his license revoked for medical malpractice etc. That would really hurt the doctor image Dean has. Although even then Dean is not as dependant on the doctor image as Clark is on the general image.

As much as Clark supporters think Clark is somehow invulnerable to the right wing attack, he is in fact the MOST venerable, because Clark only has one thing going for him. The military background and general image that Clark depends on is his biggest weakness.

[AmericanDem]

24. what Generals do you keep referring to?

Shelton, a general that has said the most negative things about Clark to date. The same shelton that has since refused to further speak in more detail about his words. The same shelton that is now a part of john edwards campaign for president. The same Shelton that General Barry Mc Cafferry ( MSNBC ) said he knew and also said he knew shelton regrets having said things like that.

As i'm sure you are aware these are petty political smears that have ben said and crushed as soon as they were said. your desire to stop at nothing for your support of Dean speaks volumes more then these smears.

P.S. I'm surprised you seen my post. You say you put alot of folks on "ignore". I guess to further stay in that bubble of your's.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Looks like you have a double standard,

my friend. Dean, to you, can beat Bush...although he is so open to attacks in all that is lacking in his abilities that will be raised in the framed "NATIONAL SECURITY TRUMP CARD" issue that the Republican will raise next year.....

But we better not choose Clark because of WACO??????????

I can only marvel at your intellectual Freedom!

[KittyWampus]

25. First Of All BOYKIN Advised The Feds & Reno

so Clark could turn the screws on him


Second, Waco was Bush Sr.s doing foro not picking up Koresh on the street. Why did they raid the compound withall those wokmen and children.

Third, for you to say that Clark has nothing else to offer is so stupid I will have to put you back on ignore.

[oasis]

26. Clinton/Reno hating RWers are not likely to vote for any Democrat.

[KittyWampus]

22. OMG, Reno Spoke With GENERAL BOYKIN!!!

Look, this article does the trick for the mediawhores by putting the title out there and implicating Clark with WACO.

But if you actually read down it mentions that the FBI requested that BOYKIN the pig that made that foul remark the other day.

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.

[dkf]

28. Freepers are saying they saw tanks tear down the walls of the compound

Has this been debunked?

[dkf]

30. Hmm. According to Clark Myths someone trained non-military

to drive the tanks.

Are they that easy to figure out how to drive?

[Liberal Veteran]

29. Hell, as a taxpayer, you could claim I was indirectly involved....

Since I paid for the law enforcement that raided the compound.

[Red_Storm]

31. media wise, what a week it's been for Clark..........

first, the character assasination piece in The Nation and now this, an attempt to link him with Waco.....yep the General has entered the right wing radar screen...........

[CWebster]

41. "The Nation" is not representitive of the right-wing

The radar will be searching from the Left and the Right.

[dkf]

32. Been doing my reading on the subject and it looks pretty bogus

after all.

Unfortunately, the headings all have Clark and Waco in the title and that is NOT something that anyone wants to be connected with.

This is similar to the Dean and Vietnam Draft thing where it doesn't sound good until you research it and there is nothing there.

The question is how many Americans make the effort to find out more before making a judgement.

Well Clark people, looks like you have your job cut out for you informing everyone what really happened.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Sure have a lot of this same goddamn story being posted...hel-lo

from earlier today - Amazed on how much an ap article from none
Is this turning into FreeperVille, or what?

other than an alledged deranged writer can generate....More Peter Yost slime First he slimes Clinton about Kathleen Willey. He was writing for the Moonie Times back then. Then he moves to AP and defends Bush about Harken insider trading. God bless the searchable Daily Howler. from a cleander source Guys, we are in the big leagues: we get Boyers, Yost, Mattai - the guys they used to smear Clinton and Gore. Me thinks Clark be noticed?

Here's background on Peter Yost:
http://www.drudgereport.com/Weiss/082000.htm
with this quote "Mr. Yost is obviously a resourceful fellow. But honor, it seems, is a motive he is not equipped to understand."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=791098

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=792117#792252

[mikehiggins]

34. Waco?

First of all, the general public may not give a rat's ass about something that took place at the beginning of Clinton's administration. Has anyone polled anyone on that question? It seems to me that most of the folks I know felt Koresh brought it all on himself and the other victims. (I'm not arguing, folks, just reporting)

Second, the folks that secretly are happy this happened (like me) take it as a sign that Clark is really attracting the serious attention of the forces of evil.

As TLN (or whatever) points out there are all sorts of ways to attack a soldier (just think about what happened to McCain and Cleland). We've seen them used. Of course, this is not then and people learn from what has gone before.

Clark has twice slipped the blade to Bush under the radar (I honestly beleive the comment about campaign finances was aimed at Bush, rather than Kerry and Dean. If you have some evidence--remember that word?--to the contrary, please post it) He doesn't seem to have any problem with doing it so I think the image of an awkward innocent at the mercy of superior intellects (Rove, of course, not Bush) won't hold up very long.

The only thing that the Bushoids can do is to keep Clark off the air, which they are mostly succeeding at, but if he gets the nomination that becomes a much harder task.

The way I see it, the committed among us are into this whole political thing year round. The slightly less committed come out on primary/caucus day and help pick a candidate. The vast majority of those who are going to even bother to vote come out on election day and, assuming things don't depend upon Florida and the Supreme Court, decide who is going to be the President.

All of this that we are going through is prelude. The answer will become available through the primary votes. The election will be determined by how good we are at getting OUR candidate elected in November, no matter who he (or she) might end up being. Dean has energised a large number of people; so has Clark; so have others (though probably not as many combined as Dean alone). With all those voices united how successful will the lies and omissions be? If every misstatement is greeted by a firestorm of letters and emails, how long before the media gets the message?

Hey its late and I'm rambling. I actually just want to say that I welcome this attack on Clark by the AP. I look forward to seeing more of them. I also look forward to those people who have reasons to support Clark that dwarf ours, like the million or so Muslims in the Baltics who beleive Clark saved their lives. This should be really interesting.

[VOX]

38. Excellent post, mike. Welcome to DU!

Great points.

:toast:

[AmericanDem]

45. Latest info on Repukes attacking Clark is...

They will now abandon the ignore trick ( it isn't working ), they will now start to spread crazy tails such as this WACO/Wacko thread. This story was actually reported by the AP yesterday and they listed internet chat rooms as a source ( does it get any lower then this? )

For those of you Clark supporters that retain articles and posts to beat down these crazy lies, be prepeared to work in overdrive. This is the new phase of trying to discredit Clark before the elctions.

Clark has been starting to shine in debates and appearances. The repukes are taking notice. You know as well as I do that is the LAST thing they want.

[Donna Zen]

35. Well DU posters are certainly doing their best

How many threads have there been about this today. (Notice I said today not the past four months) I can count three right now. I do not consider three threads on this subject currently showing on the first page of GD, as a slip of the keyboard.

Keeping it alive for the rovester!! Way to go DUers!

Hey_can you imagine what the internally polling on Clark vs Bush must look like? Whooooeeee!

Oh, and I don't mean this to start a rumor, but is Yost really accused of pedophilia?

Gert said pubs crossovers @ 30%. Sounds very high, but who knows?

To the Dean supporters: this headline ain't shit compared to what the whores can really do when they have red meat.

[FrenchieCat]

36. See my post....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=792353

[robbedvoter]

40. Yost's pedofilia: discussed on 2 boards and 2 chat rooms last night

and my neighbor sister in law swears she know someone who heard it's true!
Someone please write a headline: PETER YOST IS A PEDOFILE - INTERNET, WITNESSES SAY
Yost used to do Catherine Wiley stories and harkin whitewashing. Clark sure is assigned the big guns! I wonder why?

[Isome]

37. Frontline did a documentary about WACO.

Their conclusion was that the response from authorities was implemented poorly, but the fires were started by the Davidians themselves. They play audiotape wherein the voices are clearly talking about starting the fires and getting more gasoline.

I don't care what anyone says, when the authorities come to git yo' azz, either you go peaceably, or you set yourself up for disaster. Shooting at the DEA when they come to execute a warrant isn't an acceptable response, from anyone. The WACO morons were not innocent, unlike the woman who died of a heart attack after the police busted into her house by mistake, nor are they like the man who was shot, IN THE BACK, while handcuffed, and the police said he was reaching for a kitchen knife.

Oh', and Clark was never mentioned in the entire after-the-fact documentary on PBS.

.::.Watch it online here.::.

[robbedvoter]

39. Saved this DU post for this opportunity

diamondsoul  (1000+ posts) Fri Oct-17-03 03:25 AM
Response to Original message
8. As someone who was at Ft. Hood during the Waco standoff-
No, General Clark never went out there as far as I've ever been able to
find out. Given that it was on television right in front of my
constantly, the whole time, I'm guessing it would have been hard to miss
him, and especially when he'd have had to be in two places at once. If
he went it was well covered up to those of us on the base, lemme tell
ya! He was on television quite a bit doing his duty on base throughout
the Waco incident, not to mention I saw him personally a great many
times while the standoff was ongoing, and in fact on the day of the
final siege.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=62303

[ShaneGR]

42. Didn't Koresh's people murder like 12 ATF agents?

NOTE: I do no think Clark had anything to do with this, as Koresh wasn't going out with anything more than a blaze of glory. He thought he was Jesus and martyrdom doesn't fit with an 8x8 cell.

But seriously, it does crack me up to see left-wingers use all of this right-wing propoganda. BTW, the same right-wing propoganda that McVeigh used to blow up like 200 people.

[JNelson6563]

44. I hear President Clinton was involved too

Oy!

[Padraig18]

46. Sweet Jesus on a pogo stick! Not *again*???

:eyes: This whole story has been debunked repeatedly. Any officer in the Ft. Hood command structure who was running for any office today who was at Ft. Hood on the relevant date could be smeared with this... :eyes: