- I missed seeing Bowling for Columbine being told from
those who'd attended "it's just 30 miles up the road". Well,
nevertheless, no sleep lost. This movie is supposedly about the anatomy
of a trigger happy America. Michael Moore (male) is protrayed in the media
as America's clown prince of the proletariat. (Women in this role are protrayed
as hysterical-emotional-or hormonally challenged).
-
- In Flint Michigan, he comes across as blundering Everyman-a
merry prankster in ball cap who likes to ambush corporate villians with
a camera. Moore's film opens with the showing of a Michigan bank that gives
each of its new customers a free rifle. He escorts injured survivors to
Kmart headquarters to return the 17 cent bullets lodged in their bodies.
-
- Moore traces so-called senseless acts of violence to
a culture fueled by military bravado. He notes that the Colombine massacre
occurred on the same day as America's biggest bombing of Kosovo (headed
by General Clark). Lockheed Martin denies any connection between mass
murder and weapons of mass destruction.
-
- At the end he props a photo of a dead girl against a
wall. No the dead child was not one of the children found contorted and
twisted dying in agony due to the poison gas (outlawed in war) that saturated
Waco. Nor was it a picture of any of the children shredded in Kosovo by
our cluster bombs or poisoned by the tons of depleted uranium (waste from
nuclear sites). No, it wasn't a picture of any of the nuns-priests-children-or
numerous peasants in South American countries killed by those trained in
the School of the Americas (Assassins) in Georgia lauded by General Clark.
-
- Michael Moore supports General Clark a man with decades
of killing under his belt. What is wrong with this picture? But then Michael
is a male..the working man's clown. Really! And perhaps this is the most
insulting: that the American worker from the auto plants, mines, farms,
founderies, textile mills, fishing ports, etc. is represented as a ill-kept
slob, overweight, unshaved; filming evictions of those put out of work
and boarded rust towns.
-
- No, not all in middle America see the issues of the day
as buffonery nor do they want a war monger in the Whilte House. See enlightening
article below and how a man earns a fourth star!
-
-
- From Donald Stacey
-
- 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
-
- ãThe 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.htmlä
-
- Where did the US military personnel and equipment used
at WACO come from?
-
- Answer: Fort Hood, Texas
-
- Who was in command at Fort Hood?
-
- Answer: 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 coverup
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>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
-
- Wesley Clark's Tanks Used In Waco Siege
-
- Democrat candidate's role in attack on Branch Davidians
questioned
-
- October 16, 2003
-
-
- 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 ö
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 ö 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 ö men, women and children ö
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 ö 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
ö 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 ö
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."
-
- Related special offers:
-
- 'WACO: A New Revelation'
-
- http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ID=39&ITEM_ID=94
-
- 'F.L.I.R. Project': The video that started controversy
-
- http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ID=39&ITEM_ID=129
-
- 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 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>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>http://www.apfn.org/apfn/clark.htm
|
