General Wesley Clark
Translate this Page!
From Waco to Yugoslavia:
The US military was at Waco
General Wesley Clark was involved in the siege and final assault near Waco, Texas that killed, by a combination of toxic gas and fire, at least 82 people including some three dozen women, children and infants. As outlandish as this claim may seem, it's a reasonable conclusion that can be drawn by any fair minded person who takes the time to examine the evidence. Further, there is substantial circumstantial evidence that, Clark, in addition to acting as a tactical consultant, may, in fact, have been the prime architect and commander of the entire operation.
If this is true, why is it important? First, it represents a clear violation of US law. The military is banned from involvement in the enforcement of US civil law except under certain carefully defined circumstances. The incident at Waco did not come even close to legally qualifying. Second, it casts light on some of the more outrageous tactics used in the war against Yugoslavia, in particular the bombing attacks on Yugoslavian news media, essential life support services, and on civilians, the latter which were sometimes, but not always, described as "accidents." Third, President Clinton began the year with the statement that he is considering a Pentagon proposal to create a new US military command, commander-in-chief for the defense of the continental U.S., a first in peace time and an alarming move for reasons described in "Bombing 'suspended' - and now, the future"
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
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."
Related special offers:
'WACO: A New Revelation'
'F.L.I.R. Project': The video that started controversy
Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight. - email@example.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 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.
There is another press photograph taken the day after the raid which shows at least nine military vehicles stationed at nearby Texas State Technical College which very soon after the raid was completely taken over as a command center.
The presence of so much military owned equipment on the scene, along with the documented fact that the raid was prepared for at Ft. Hood by military trainers seems to me to be all the evidence needed to show heavy military involvement preceding the initial raid. Perhaps equally significant is the amount of dissembling that surrounded the undeniable fact of pre-raid military involvement. For example, the governor of Texas claimed to the press that she requested National Guard presence after the raid. President Clinton was quoted as saying: "The first thing I did after the ATF agents were killed, once we knew that the FBI was going to go in, was to ask that the military be consulted because of the quasi-military nature of the conflict." (Washington Times, April 24, 1993) Attorney General Janet Reno attempted to explain away the "FBI" use of US Army tanks as being equivalent to an innocuous "rent a car" arrangement.
The statements of these three individuals obscure the simple fact that the military vehicles, and personnel who operated and maintained them, were part of the initial raid - and therefore in clear violation of US law. Also, government statements relayed to the public by the US news media made much of the fact that one of the tanks was operated by an FBI agent. It's interesting to note that no reference was ever made to the operators of the other 16 military vehicles used in the operation. * Showtime As I mentioned earlier, the code word that launched the raid was "showtime." The name of the operation itself, according to the aforementioned Department of Justice report, was "Operation Trojan Horse."
Early in the siege, "Operation Trojan Horse" became a popular destination for special forces officers both from around the United States and from its closest ally, the UK. They came to observe the effectiveness of various high tech devices and tactics that were being tested against the Branch Davidians. Source: London Sunday Times, March 21, 1993: "FBI brings out secret electronic weapons as Waco Siege drags on" You can see a photocopy of the original article at:
The raid was on February 28. The London Times article ran on March 21. It's noteworthy that Waco became a focus for US and UK special forces officers so quickly. The 3/21 London Times report states that "observer teams from the American Delta Force and British SAS have *already* visited Waco." (Emphasis mine.) Organizing groups of officers to make a field trip normally takes far more lead time than a couple of weeks. This is the military, not a group of freewheeling bohemians who can pile in a van and travel across the country, or the globe, on a whim. Yet, there they were, with plane and hotel reservations, briefings, tours and the like, all arranged. Such organization implies pre-planning or at least very strong pre-existing relationships with Delta Force and SAS on the part of the officer in charge. It would have taken an officer with unusual connections and motivations to pull off this level of "show and tell."
By the way, the notion that Delta Force and SAS officers would make such a trip to observe the *FBI* using various secret high tech warfare devices is laughable. Who in the FBI would know how to operate them? In any event, the equipment and tactics used came from the military, not any law enforcement agency. In reality, the FBI was not in charge of the Waco siege. Its role instead was twofold: 1) to keep up fruitless negotiations with the Branch Davidians and 2) to act as the front for the real operation which was under military command and therefore entirely illegal. * Cold blooded murder Based on the claim that Branch Davidian leader David Koresh was abusing the children in the compound - a lie according to survivors - and sympathy for the "tired" FBI agents, Attorney General Janet Reno signed off on the plan for the final assault which resulted in the death by toxic gas and fire of over 80 civilians.
Who presented the plan to her? An article in CounterPunch relates the essential facts: "Two senior Army officers subsequently travelled to a crucial April 14 meeting in Washington, D.C. with Attorney General Janet Reno and Justice Department and FBI officials in which the impending April 19 attack on the compound was reviewed. The 186-page "Investigation into the Activities of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Towards the Branch Davidians", prepared by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and lodged in 1996 (CR 104 749) does not name these two officers..."
Was Clark at Waco?
On February 28, 1993 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms launched its disastrous and lethal raid on the Branch Dividian compound outside Waco, Texas. Even before the raid, members of the US Armed Forces, many of them in civilian dress, were around the compound.
In the wake of the Feb 28 debacle Texas governor Anne Richards asked to consult with knowledgeable military personnel. Her request went to the US Army base at Fort Hood, where the commanding officer of the US Army's III corps referred her to the Cavalry Division of the III Corps, whose commander at the time was Wesley Clark. Subsequent congressional enquiry records that Richards met with Wesley Clark's number two, the assistant division commander, who advised her on military equipment that might be used in a subsequent raid. Clark's man, at Richard's request, also met with the head of the Texas National Guard.
Two senior Army officers subsequently travelled to a crucial April 14 meeting in Washington, D.C. with Attorney General Janet Reno and Justice Department and FBI officials in which the impending April 19 attack on the compound was reviewed. The 186-page "Investigation into the Activities of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Towards the Branch Davidians", prepared by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and lodged in 1996 (CR 104 749) does not name these two officers and at deadline CounterPunch has so far been unable to unearth them. One of these officers had reconnoitered the Branch Davidian compound a day earlier, on April 13. During the Justice Dept. meeting one of the officers told Reno that if the military had been called in to end a barricade situation as part of a military operation in a foreign country, it would focus its efforts on "taking out" the leader of the operation.
Ultimately tanks from Fort Hood were used in the final catastrophic assault on the Branch Davidian compound on April 19. Certainly the Waco onslaught bears characteristics typical of Gen. Wesley Clark: the eagerness to take out the leader (viz., the Clark-ordered bombing of Milosevich's private residence); the utter disregard for the lives of innocent men, women and children; the arrogant miscalculations about the effects of force; disregard for law, whether of the Posse Comitatus Act governing military actions within the United States or, abroad, the purview of the Nuremberg laws on war crimes and attacks on civilians.
From the sound of this, it appears clear that the final solution to the growing political problem of Waco came directly from the US military. How odd if, in fact, Waco was an FBI operation. * The final solution The final assault on the Mt. Carmel complex occurred in three stages: 1) armored military vehicles punched holes in both ends of the main building of the complex, 2) "crowd control" gas was sprayed in, and 3) a fire started which destroyed the complex Witnesses expected that the gas would drive the inhabitants out. Instead, no one came out and the complex was engulfed in fire. Why didn't the residents come out?
The cover story as related by the FBI and the Department of Justice is that the Branch Davidians killed their own children and then themselves and simultaneneously set the complex on fire rather than surrender. There is no forensic evidence to support this claim. Here's what a Failure Analysis Associates' study found about the nature of the "crowd control" gas that was used: "1. The first assault started at approximately 6:00 A.M. .... CS concentrations in the rooms directly injected by the M5 delivery alone ranged from 2 to 90 times that required to deter trained soldiers. Methylene chloride concentrations in the rooms directly injected by gas were as high as 1.8 times the IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health) concentration and nearly to the concentration that would render a person unconscious. 2. The second assault started at approximately 7:30 A.M. CS concentrations in the rooms directly injected by gas from M5 delivery alone ranged from 2 to 80 times that required to deter trained soldiers. Methylene chloride concentrations ... were as high as 1.6 times the IDLH...."
All in all, nearly 400 gas filled projectiles were fired into the building, and CS was sprayed from four tank rack dispensers on the armored vehicles. As Failure Analysis Associates concluded in it report, this was the most intensive use of crowd control chemicals in the history of the United States. Methylene chloride is even more dangerous than CS--and five pounds of MeCl were injected for every ounce of CS. MeCl is an industrial solvent, with powerful anesthetic properties. It was once used as paint remover before being banned for that purpose for being too dangerous to handle. Both gases are flammable. In other words, the gases used and the quantities they were used in were sufficient to kill many of the inhabitants on contact, especially the young children, and would have been more or less capable of instantly incapacitating the rest. Finally, there is the issue of the fire which destroyed most of the evidence. Edward Allard, a leading expert in FLIR (forward looking infrared recorder) stated his conclusions in a court document after reviewing the official FLIR footage of the final assault: "11. At 12:08:32, the FLIR depicts events at the rear of the building, where the large "gymnasium" structure has largely been demolished.
Two very bright thermal flashes are visible near to or in the window at the center, in front of and to one side of the (armored vehicle) which is stopped there. I see no natural explanation for these flashes. They would not, for instance, be reflections of sunlight off glass... I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DEBORAH BROWN, et al., Civil Action No. H95-587
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.
DECLARATION OF EDWARD F. ALLARD, PhD.
Edward F. Allard declares and states as follows:
1. My name is Edward F. Allard. I have worked for many years in the field of radiation physics related to thermal imaging, thermal signatures, thermal suppression and especially in aspects of those subjects relating to Forward Looking Infrared [FLIR] military systems.
2. My experience is set forth in my curriculum vitae, which is attached to this declaration. I received my Bachelor of Science in physics from Boston College and my doctorate in physics from the University of Missouri. I hold Patent no. 4,413,668 on a device to suppress thermal signatures and Patent no. 5,013,092 on a microdischarge image intensifier. My inventions and studies will enable use of uncooled thermal imagers with predicted performance better than the current TOW antitank missile night sight; design and calculation for these required an expert knowledge of photocathodes, photo detectors, signal detection, noise, charge transfer and optics for thermal imaging devices.
3. I began my career in this field as a supervisor at the Defense Department's Night Vision Laboratory, later becoming Deputy Director, Systems Development. My team developed and defended a variety of programs in the area, including the L3TV systems, the thermal night sight for the Dragon antitank weapon, the night sight for the TOW antitank missile system, and other programs. NVL pioneered the Common Module System that is the foundation of the thermal imaging systems used in Operation Desert Storm.
4. As a defense contractor and government employee, I have analyzed a number of thermal imaging devices. These include comparisons of L3TV with thermal imagers, comparisons of American and foreign imagers, analyses of the thermal imager for the M1 tank, design of thermal pointing systems, construction of a T-62 thermal target for tank gunnery, and countermeasures to completely hide an M60 tank from enemy FLIR and to reduce FLIR signatures of tents, trucks, ships, and individual soldiers. The interpretation of FLIR imagery requires skill and experience. As but a few examples, materials which reflect sunlight and thus seem bright in the visual spectrum will often appear indistinct, or even dark, to a thermal imager; the very reflective properties that make them bright to the eye make them appear cool, and thus dark, to FLIR systems. Interpretation of thermal images requires a knowledge of the reflective properties of both natural and man-made objects.
5. I have reviewed a FLIR tape depicting the events outside Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993, which tape was obtained from one of the defense attorneys involved in the criminal cases that arose out of those events. My analysis of the tape follows. All times given are those shown in the timeclock shown in the tape. All directions are given from the standpoint of the viewer.
6. At 11:24:31, the FLIR is recording events in the rear of the building, where the Combat Engineering Vehicle [CEV] has partially demolished the area known as the "gymnasium." The FLIR shows several flashes appearing from a point to the left of the CEV. These are elongated in shape, several feet long, and appear and disappear at a regular rate with regular spacing between them. I note five flashes from one point, appearing and disappearing at the rate of 7-10 per second. At this location some non-flashing movement also appears visible. There is no natural explanation for these flashes. Natural phenomena do not heat and cool in fractions of a second. My expert opinion is that these flashes appear to be the muzzle flashes of a fully-automatic firearm, firing at about 500 rounds per minute cyclic rate. Carefully examined, in slow motion and by frame-to-frame observation, the flashes originate to the left and progress to the right, indicating that they are being fired from a source outside the building, and fired into the building.
7. At 11:42:56, the aircraft bearing the FLIR is circling the side of the building. A hot image is visible inside the side, ground floor, window of the "corner tower." As the aircraft continues its movement the image vanishes, underscoring the fact that the image is of a hot object inside the room, the sight of which is lost as the aircraft moves on and alters its perspective through the window.
8. At 11:44:52, a momentary flash of radiation is seen to the rear of the central "tower." This may be at a location in the open area to the immediate rear of the building. The flash is visible for ten frames, approximately a third of a second, much longer than the flashes described above. It is not possible with these data to determine the cause or source of the flash.
9. At 11:47:50, the FLIR is recording events at the front of the building. A CEV has driven into the building, withdrawn, and has a large piece of rubble lodged on the front of the vehicle. An individual is dimly visible exiting the vehicle, walking to its front, and dislodging the rubble. The CEV is at this point halted within a vehicle length, perhaps twenty feet, of the front of the building.
10. At 12:07:40-42, the aircraft bearing the FLIR is circling past the right tower. A heat source, long and narrow in form, quickly appears across a window of the tower. Upon careful examination, slow motion and frame-by-frame, I believe this is more likely to be a heat source outside the window, than one inside it. It is noteworthy that the image does not vanish or fade as the aircraft flies past, in contrast to the heat signature noted at 11:42:56.
11. At 12:08:32, the FLIR depicts events at the rear of the building, where the large "gymnasium" structure has largely been demolished. Two very bright thermal flashes are visible near to or in the window at the center, in front of and to one side of the CEV which is stopped there. I see no natural explanation for these flashes. They would not, for instance, be reflections of sunlight off glass.
12. At 12:08:52 there are again radiation flashes, which I believe to be firearms fire, from the side and rear of the CEV. Again, when carefully examined they appear to move in the direction of the building.
13. In brief, my examination of the FLIR tape indicates:
a. An analysis of the tape, field by field, reveals thermal flashes occurring that have pulse times and time intervals between them consistent with the intervals of automatic weapons fire. Pulses of approximately 1/15 second occur. There are no naturally occurring phenomena that could explain these events.
b. Other thermal flashes of radiation, approximately 1/3 second in duration, occur in various areas of the building complex. Again, no naturally-occurring phenomena can explain this.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.
Edward F. Allard, Phd.
Less than one minute after this hot, bright sustained flash occurred "in front of and to one side of the (armored vehicle)", the Mt. Carmel complex began the process of burning down Fire department personnel on the scene were told they could not move forward to put out the fire until "the danger had passed." The FBI determined the danger had passed well after the building had burned to the ground. * Who commanded "Operation Trojan Horse"? Let's review the evidence that the US military was involved in the raid, siege and final assault on the Branch Davidian complex outside of Waco, Texas:
1. The training, and probably the tactics, for the raid were designed by the Army and provided at its base in Ft. Hood, Texas.
2. At least some military vehicles were at or near the scene of the initial raid the day it occurred and nine or more were stationed nearby no later than the day after.
3. Advanced "non-lethal" military tactics and technologies were used to surveil and harass the Branch Davidians in the complex and, as a result, the Mt. Carmel center quickly became a study destination for special forces officers from both the US and the UK.
4. The Justice Department admits at least 15 active duty personnel and 16 armored vehicles (and one tank retrieval vehicle) were involved in the operation.
5. Lethal quantities of toxic gas were used in the final assault and FLIR video documentation shows that there was a bright flash in the front of one of the tanks used for spraying the gas less than one minute before the fire began.
6. Two unnamed high ranking Army officers personally presented Attorney General Janet Reno with the final assault tactics for her, as chief law enforcement officer of the US, to sign off on. It sure sounds like a military operation to me. If so, then who was the military commander behind Waco? You can learn a lot from reading a man's resume which may explain why the US news media has gone to such great pains to avoid even the suggestion that General Wesley K. Clark, Supreme Commander of NATO, had a life before his current exalted position. But he did and here's his official bio from the NATO web site: (Archived): http://www.shape.nato.int/Biographies/gen_CLARK/GEN_CLAR.htm Clark was the Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas from August 1992 to April 1994. The Mt. Carmel raid was on February 29, 1993. The arson-murders occurred April 19. This means he would have been the officer who authorized and commanded the armored vehicles used in the raid, the siege, and the final assault.
This alone is sufficient to make Clark a prime suspect, but there is much more. Clark came to Fort Hood with an unusual background. He had been Commander of the National Training Center (October 1989-October 1991) and Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine and Developments, US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Fort Monroe, Virginia (October 1991-August 1992) See: http://www-tradoc.army.mil He was not your typical armor officer. If there were a high profile, cutting edge training exercise to be conducted at Ft. Hood, it probably would have been handled, if not initiated, by him.
Here's why: TRADOC, where Clark was Deputy Chief right before becoming an armor commander at Ft Hood, has as its primary mission to "prepare soldiers for war and design the army of the future." And what will that army look like? Item number one from the TRADOC vision statement: "...enable America's Army to operate with joint, multinational and interagency partners across the full range of operations." This would include working the ATF and FBI which would have put Clark in touch with the high ranking officials in both agencies long before Waco. Further, Clark's resume explains the mystery of the quick appearance of special forces study groups at Waco. His background - was there another officer at Ft. Hood with similar credentials? - gave him exactly the kind of clout and professional relationships needed to arrange for the hosting of special forces officers from the US and UK at the Mt. Carmel siege on such short notice. *
Clark's tactics re-emerge in Yugoslavia There are many similarities between the war in Yugoslavia and "Operation Trojan Horse" at Waco, but most of them are part of the conduct of any US war. Here's a quick short list of seven:
1. Exert tight information control over a mostly cooperative US news media
2. Attribute civilian casualty reports to "propaganda"
3. Declare that the attacks are for humanitarian purposes, to "stop the bad guy." 4. Break numerous agreements then call the other side unreliable
5. Offer absurd terms in negotiation sessions, hide these terms from the public, then punish the other side for its recalcitrance in failing to accept a "reasonable" settlement.
6. Coordinate a propaganda effort against the other side before the assault (The Waco Tribune-Herald ran a two part smear piece against Koresh on Feb 27, 1993, the day before the raid, and on the morning of entitled, "The Sinful Messiah")
7. Accuse the other side of being responsible for crimes they did not commit.
In addition to these commonly used tactics, there are a few unique similarities in tactics between Waco and Yugoslavia that show Clark's unique stamp:
1. Symbolic destruction of property dear to the "bad guy" Yugoslavia: Milosevic's private home was bombed repeatedly in spite of the fact that it was not a military target and was located in a residential neighborhood. Waco: Tank operators repeatedly rolled over and destroyed numerous vehicles belonging to the church which Karesh, an avid car mechanic, had personally worked on.
2. Obsession with silencing the victim's "propaganda" Yugoslavia: Clark repeatedly bombed Yugoslavian television and radio transmitters and stations, even though NATO had promised in writing not to attack stations. Several workers were killed in these attacks. Clark declared them "legitimate military targets" though their only function was news reporting and entertainment. Waco: One of the first acts of post-raid Waco was cutting off the complex's phone system to anyone but the FBI and disabling its short wave radio system. As the siege wore on, the electricity was also cut off, turned back on, then cut off again.
3. Mislabeling the nature of the attacking force Yugoslavia: The war was painted as a NATO operation. In reality, the vast majority of funding, manpower, aircraft, targeting and munitions were provided by the US and the operation was commanded by a US general. The entire operation was in violation of the NATO charter, US law, and the UN Charter. Waco: The assault was painted as an ATF, then FBI operation. In reality, the training, tactics, equipment and essential manpower were provided by the US military and the operation was commanded by a US general. The entire operation was in violation of US law.
4. Failure to plan for obvious contingencies Yugoslavia: No meaningful preparations were made for the likelihood of large numbers of refugees, who, after all, the war was supposedly being fought on behalf of. However, immense military power was arranged for. Waco: No ambulance was on call during the initial raid in spite of the fact that over 100 armed agents were involved and the complex housed numerous women and children as well as men who were thought to be armed. However, a convoy of armored vehicles was provided as a "backup."
5. Assuming the victims would "fold" immediately to a massive show of force Yugoslavia: It took over 70 days of terror bombing and attacks on basic life support services to win a surrender. Clark initially predicted settlement in a matter of days. Waco: Mr. Carmel residents, who, in keeping with rural Texas culture, were well armed, (they were also legally licensed gun dealers), returned fire on the attacking ATF agents killing four of them. They then held out for another 50 days until being gassed and burned alive. (It's important to note that the ATF agents continued firing until they completely ran out of ammunition. They then had to retreat one mile across an open field. Not a single shot was fired by the Branch Davidians during their retreat.)
6. Non-combatants were killed in large numbers "by accident" using the most vicious of weapons. Video evidence of assaults was "lost" due to unlikely technical problems Yugoslavia: Clark's PR people claim the flight camera malfunctioned in the US warplane that killed 87 Albanian refugees in Korisa in Kosovo. Clark's extensive use of cluster bombs and his targeting of hospitals and other health care facilities, including old age homes and maternity wards, is well documented Waco: Key video taken during the initial raid was declared "not shot" because, say ATF officials, the Branch Davidians "jammed" their video camera operations with "radio signals." (Video people know this is ridiculous.) The footage from other videos and still pictures, official and unofficial, taken during the raid also "disappeared." The gas attack on the residents of Mt. Carmel was sheer savagery.
7. And last but not least, tactical incompetence on an epic scale driven by Clark's desire to have his accomplishments recorded for posterity on video. Yugoslavia: Clark stopped the movement of British troops into Kosovo to give unprepared US troops a chance to get in place for a triumphant televised liberation scene.
Meanwhile, the Russian army, which Clark was trying to keep out of the Kosovo "peacekeeping" mission, marched in and secured the province's key strategic area, the airport at Pristina. Waco: Local television news media were informed of the Mt. Carmel raid the day before and by showing up at the scene (one news van got lost and reportedly asked neighbors where the raid was), removed the surprise element and completely undermined the raid. The bottom line on Clark's modus operandi: Murder innocent civilians with cold blooded viciousness for personal and political gain, add heavy doses of military incompetence, then sell it to the President, who is apparently an eager buyer. This is the man Bill Clinton, who like Clark is 50-something, an Arkansas native, and a Rhodes Scholar, would like to make commander-in-chief for the defense of the continental U.S. In the meantime, he intends to be supreme commander of "peacekeeping" efforts in Kosovo.
One last thing about Clark. In between Waco and Yugoslavia: "General Clark's last assignment was as Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, Panama, from June 1996 to July 1997, where he commanded all U.S. forces and was responsible for the direction of most U.S. military activities and interests in Latin America and the Caribbean." - the part of the world where the US has raised military, police, and paramilitary (death squad) collaboration to a high art. More on Wesley Clark's career: http://www.counterpunch.org/clark.html
Swearing the Oath:
Crown: Upon which sword do you wish to swear your Oath?
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
American Patriot Friends Network
"....a network of net worker's..
APFN Site Map
APFN Contents Page
APFN Home Page
Last updated 11/26/2010