disinformation campaign re clark

[linda d]

tired of the FAIR article, the accusation to start WWIII postings ad naseum?

here's a couple of links to those posters pro and con that you might take a look at:

http://www.theclarksphere.com/

http://www.women4clark.com/transcripts.htm

[whirlygigspin]

1. thanks!

now, explain to me about the Waco thing?

[linda d]

2. waco -- here you go

http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000281.html

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.

[dfong63]

3. so where did the tanks come from?

... and who authorized giving the keys to the FBI agents?

and under what constitutional authority?

using US military weaponry against civilians on US soil... that's serious. if as stated on the web page, ``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,'' then why did he allow his tanks to go to Waco?

[whirlygigspin]

4. So, the FBI stole Clark's tanks?

and he was where?

[whirlygigspin]

5. Never mind, I found it

In 1981, Congress enacted the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Officials Act. Amending Posse Comitatus, the legislation injected the Pentagon directly into the drug war, authorizing the transfer of equipment and expertise. The 1993 siege at the heavily
defended Branch Davidian compound near Waco, represented the single largest use of military weaponry in a civilian law enforcement operation.
The General Accounting Office later estimated the hardware's
cost at nearly $1 million during the 51-day standoff.
The Defense Department was involved from the start. A Joint Task Force Six mobile unit trained agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms before they launched a paramilitary raid on the
Davidian home on Feb. 28, 1993. When the raid failed and the FBI's elite Hostage Rescue Team took over, the military lent them heavy tanks and showed agents how to drive them. The tanks were
eventually used to ram the wooden structure and insert tear gas. A fire ensued, killing all of the men, women and children inside. "We got a tremendous amount of equipment from the military," said Bob Ricks, a former FBI agent who was at Waco. "We constantly were dealing and had to upgrade. We used Bradley's early on. When
Koresh said he could blow away the Bradleys, that's when we got Abrams ." The laundry list of combat gear loaned to the ATF and FBI would equip a good-sized Army unit: helmets, masks, night-
vision goggles, electronic jammers, ammunition and grenade launchers, tents, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, M1 Abrams tanks, reconnaisance overflights and a 24-hour health clinic. The Joint Chiefs of Staff approved dispatching three members of the supersecret Delta Force to Waco - - two to show the
FBI how to operate a classified piece of surveillance equipment, one to observe as a "lessons learned"
exercise.

[Brian Sweat]

6. No, they didn't steal Clark's tanks.

He didn't have any tanks. They all belong to the United States Government. That fucking pussy Clark refused to disobey an order from the President.

[Pastiche423]

7. The two websites

you posted are clark SUPPORTERS! Neither are affliated w/clark, nor are they non-biased.

[whirlygigspin]

9. The Law of Posse Comitatus

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Civil_Liberties/Posse_Comitatus_Law.html

[Donna Zen]

11. That's it?

They are Clark supporters so you can ignore the research. Is that how things are done? What intellectual dishonesty. If what those sites say does not fit with your mindset, then disqualify them on the basis of facts. Refute the research, but no, you can't because they are well researched and verifiable unlike hysterical cut-and-paste reasoning that blithering haters chose to cite.

[ima_sinnic]

8. with a military professional for a candidate, what do you expect?

this is not a banana republic and I for one do not like the idea of a general with ZERO political experience coming in like some johnny-come-lately on the coattails of the nine who bravely committed themselves months ago. I believe that Clark is DLC's boy. so far he has shown me NOTHING. his speeches have so far been vague and waffling. He "might" have voted for the Iraq war resolution--no, wait, no he wouldn't--so which is it? so flame me--I'm in a bad bad mood this evening.

[latebloomer]

10. You're absolutely right!

I do not trust him, nor the powers behind him.

[Donna Zen]

12. DLC?

But you just said that he is a johnny-come-lately. So which is it?

We've had 42 presidents and one pretender. Of those 10 have been Generals....many of those, including the First one have managed to do a better job than the one we have now. One in four...91% of our presidents have had some military experience. That by your standards should have disqualified them automatically.

Yesterday, Clark stated that the money for Health Care could be found and that the Pentagon budget was the place to start looking. Just forget it. It doesn't fit your pre-conceived, closed-mind notion of who this man might be. Don't mention that quote...shhhhh! tell no one.

DLCPNACNEOMILITARYCLINTONFROTHAEIROVE...That's all there is so keep stirring the shit.

[whirlygigspin]

13. Department of Defense Directive 5525.5

Ok, so I get from this that Clark was allowed to lend his equipment
out.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d5525_5.htm

E3.1. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES

Military Departments and Defense Agencies may make equipment,
base facilities, or research facilities available to
Federal, State, or local civilian law enforcement officials
for law enforcement purposes in accordance with this
enclosure.


--I still don't like it--

[ima_sinnic]

14. how does DLC not jive with johnny-come-lately?

and read this article:

Another Con Job from the Neo-Cons, by Wayne Madsen, who wrote the book "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II."

[MrPrax]

15. It's not necessarily about Clark?

"Yesterday, Clark stated that the money for Health Care could be found and that the Pentagon budget was the place to start looking."

Too bad Clinton didn't take this sage advice and he skipped the draft...

Imagine the 'flip-flop' with a General in charge of 'cutting' the military to give to health care...good luck

These people have no integrity...
That's the problem...floating some guy cause he might appeal to the GOP is not a strategy

[whirlygigspin]

17. Well, thanks for the info

I now know much more about what happened at Waco,
and do not think it reflects badly on Clark.
That being said, it does not help him either.
The republicans will use this stuff to turn people off.
One more reason why the military should NEVER be used
against Americans. More than ever, we need to secure our
fundamental rights against the overwhealming power of the
state.

[IndianaGreen]

16. The World War III "incident" at the Pristina airport is true

While there has been a lot of mud being thrown at Clark since he announced, much of it baseless, we would be remiss in our duty as conscientious citizens if we don't discuss the real issues regarding General Clark's record.

The WWIII incident at the Pristina airport is true! It was reported extensively in the British and US press at the time it occurred. It was the subject of a BBC documentary, and General Clark himself wrote about the incident.

The significance of the Pristina airport incident is that it raises the issue of General Clark's temperament. Was Clark willing to risk a military confrontation with the Russians at the Pristina airport? Was the British commander, General Jackson, correct in refusing to follow Clark's directives? If Jackson was wrong, how come the British government supported his role in Pristina? If Clark was right, how come Defense Secretary William Cohen replaced him as NATO commander three months before his tour was up?

A general that was willing to risk WWIII in a game of upmanship may not be the sort of man we would like to have as Commander-in-Chief, with his finger on the nuclear button. I know I dont' want Bush, with his Messianic delusions, anywhere near the nuclear button!

The following stories about the Pristina incident were published by the BBC and the Guardian in 2000 and 1999 respectively.

Thursday, 9 March, 2000, 14:14 GMT
Confrontation over Pristina airport


General Jackson: Backed by UK Government

Details of Russia's surprise occupation of Pristina airport at the end of the Kosovo war are revealed in a new BBC documentary on the conflict.

For the first time, the key players in the tense confrontation between Nato and Russian troops talk about the stand-off which jeopardised the entire peacekeeping mission.

<snip>

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were (looking at) a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

"I'm not going to start Third World War for you," Jackson told Clark.

Behind the scenes battle over Pristina airport between British and US generals comes to light

Mark Tran
Monday August 2, 1999

Nato supreme commander General Wesley Clark is not being allowed to fade away quietly. Days after the Clinton administration relieved him of his command two months early, Newsweek is reporting that the victor of Kosovo was blocked from sending paratroopers to Pristina airport to pre-empt an unexpected Russian advance.

Lieutenant-general Sir Michael Jackson overruled General Clark because the British commander did not want to spark a clash with the Russians.

"I'm not going to start Third World War for you," General Jackson told the US commander, according to Newsweek. In the hours that followed General Clark's order, both men sought political backing for their position, but only General Jackson received it.

News of the clash between the British and US commanders comes just days after the US snubbed General Clark by ordering him to step down next year, two months early, to make way for Air Force General Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208120,00.html