George Bush - UK Next Week

[looney]

Highfeilds

No it isn't, you dont know what democracy is. Its about the election of gov by the masses therefor must allow as many as possible to have there say in a debate free from intimidation.

Protests are a form of brow beating in relation to Democracy.

There ok if your argueing in favour of freedom but theyve got f*** all to do with democracy ever heard of the silent majority?

 

[looney]

Raphaele meade.

There was more than the FBI and ATF involved at Waco, I'll go hunt some info.

 

[Raphael Meade]

you didnt answer me looney?

hehe... jumped the gun again!

i dont think there was actually. i know there were some special forces observers (including SAS that travelled over for the 'event') but i have read an article about how the army wouldnt even look at the fbi plans to see if they were any good.

hang on..... *searching* (sorry for the cut and paste people)

Army reportedly declined to review FBI approach to Waco siege
'Can't grade your paper'
From CNN National Security Producer Chris Plante
August 31, 1999
Web posted at: 2:41 a.m. EDT (0641 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, August 31) -- Just days before the fiery end to the Waco standoff, top Army Special Forces officials were asked to offer their views of an FBI assault plan for the Branch Davidian compound but refused to do so, CNN has learned.

The meeting, held on April 14, 1993 at FBI headquarters, was called at the request of the Justice Department and attended by Attorney General Janet Reno and top FBI officials.

According to a once-secret Army memo, Gen. Peter Jan Schoomaker, who was in charge of a special forces unit at the time, declined to provide an assessment of the FBI plan for the siege of the compound.

The siege ended on April 19, 1993, when the compound was engulfed in flames, killing about 80 people, including 21 children.

Senior congressional Republicans said this week they intend to move quickly to open House and Senate investigations of the handling of the 1993 Branch Davidian confrontation.

Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said he would issue subpoenas this week to Justice and Defense Department officials to ask why information on the Waco operation is just coming to light now.

Last week, the FBI revealed that military-style tear gas grenades -- which are flammable -- were fired at a bunker near the central compound where the government lay siege to the Branch Davidians for 51 days. The news contradicted prior claims that no pyrotechnic devices were used in the final assault on the compound.

"This was not a military operation and could not be assessed as such," Schoomaker, a career special forces soldier, wrote in the memo describing the meeting.

"We explained that the situation was not one that we had ever encountered and that the Rules of Engagement for the FBI were substantially different than for a military operation."

One of the soldiers told the Justice Department officials in attendance: "We can't grade your paper," according to the memo.

Experts in hostage missions attended meeting
Two senior U.S. Army special forces soldiers attended the meeting, including Schoomaker and Major Gen. (then Colonel) William Boykin. Both men are considered experts in hostage rescue missions.

There was a third soldier at the meeting; a U.S. Army major assigned to the Army Deputy Chief of Staff's Operations section. The major's name was apparently never noted in the U.S. Army memo regarding the meeting.

The names of Schoomaker and Boykin initially were redacted from the once secret memo outlining the substance of the meeting.

In April 1993, Schoomaker was a brigadier general (one star) assigned to Fort Hood, Texas as Assistant Division Commander, 1st Cavalry Division, according to his biography. Schoomaker also participated in the ill-fated 1980 effort to rescue U.S. hostages held by Iran known as "Desert One".

He is now a four-star general.

Military not authorized for domestic actions
Despite the new admissions by the FBI, officials continue to insist the Davidians started the fire that engulfed the compound.

It also was learned that three Army soldiers from the shadowy Special Operations unit known as the Delta Force were present during the FBI raid.

The Defense Department said the soldiers were there in an "observer role" for the FBI and "did not perform law enforcement functions."

The U.S. military is not legally authorized to participate in domestic law enforcement actions such as the one at Waco without a presidential waiver.

Reno is considering hiring an investigator from outside the Justice Department to conduct an independent review of the case, Justice Department officials have told CNN.

 

[looney]

One problem with that article. It pre-dates mine by 4 years, therefor invalid.

 

[Raphael Meade]

that was just one of the articles i found quickly on google that i remember reading before. i can assure you it was not a military operation and it was the FBI HRT that carried it out. as i said the whole thing came about because ATF tried to enter the property as they were packing some hardcore gunnage, a number were killed and the seige started.

as it says in the article. the military couldnt have been involved without a presidential waiver, and that certainly hasnt changed in the last 4 years.

i dont mean to sound rude, but did your article come from one of those conspiracy websites?

i've got a mental picture of you now as mel gibson sitting in a flat thats wired to blow drinking coffee out of a locked jar. sorry.

 

[looney]

also out of date but.............

What Did They Do?
The GAO reports that units of the Texas National Guard, US Army, Alabama National Guard and US Air Force provided the following services and equipment:

Surveillance
Reconnaissance
Transport
Maintenance & Repairs
Training & Instruction
Helicopters
Unarmed tactical ground vehicles
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bl090599.htm


You RM are missing the point of my original post if Clark was O/C of military forces he bares some responsibility and needs to explain why they were used even in assistance with the storming
of the compound.

 

[Raphael Meade]

why not? if they didnt storm the compound and provided logistic support, where is the problem?

 

[Raphael Meade]

and the rest of your article:

Was it Legal?
The GAO concluded that ATF's request for military counterdrug assistance did meet the requirements for authorizing such assistance under the relevant statutes. In addition, GAO found that the military's decision to provide the support was appropriate and authorized under the statutes.

 

[looney]

I was waiting for the "Conspiracy theorist" Smear..............

The Daily Oklahoman newspaper quoted Bob Ricks, the FBI's spokesman in 1993, as saying to Janet Reno, "You probably don't realize it, but in the Midwest Waco is still an extremely big deal out here, and it's the subject of much conversation." Reno's reply, according to Ricks, "I don't think the American people care about Waco anymore."

Reno's spokesman denies this, but Ricks' account is all too believable. Until new evidence surfaced, those who questioned the Davidians' fate were alleged to be "right-wing extremists" and "conspiracy theorists." Now, amid a growing public outcry, government officials are scrambling for cover, pointing at each other, and even raiding each other's offices for evidence. Even liberals are beginning to ask questions. Now does anyone think "the American people don't care about Waco"?

Watching that orange ball of flame illuminate the Texas sky, as tanks advanced on the victims and the victors planted their flag in the ruins, people of my generation could not help but think of Vietnam. Growing evidence of direct U.S. military involvement confirms we were at war. But with whom?

The Waco massacre did not occur in a vacuum. The Brady bill signaled the beginning of an accelerated campaign to effectively repeal the Second Amendment, and the tactics of the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tax and Firearms) had already drawn plenty of vocal criticism -- far below establishment media radar, a melange of "constitutionalists," secessionists, tax protesters, and proto-libertarians emerged with no real national center.

United around opposition to gun control, fear of federal encroachment, and contempt for the new Clinton Administration, this mass of discontent was galvanized by the events of April 19, 1993. They saw it as a murderous assault on harmless outsiders -- and they were right. They said that "investigations" by various government agencies were a cover-up -- and they were right. Now they say the latest investigation will come to nothing because powerful forces stand in the way.

Are they right, again? According to the "Drudge Report," a government informant is telling congressional investigators he has first-hand knowledge of direct military involvement in the massacre. Matt Drudge, a hero in these circles, headlines "Government Informant in Waco Case Given Protection; Says Feds Threatened Him, Son" confirming rightist suspicions.

One remark posted on Freerepublic.com, a popular conservative website, sums up the rightists' worst fears, asking: "Are we becoming some kind of banana republic?" For conservatives, who all see themselves as patriots, Waco is the end of innocence. Revolted by an administration that seems to embody moral corruption, they are ready to believe Clinton and his cabal are capable of anything -- as are millions of Americans far outside the ranks of the organized right.

As the California Militia put it, "When the executive branch of government turns to murdering the citizens, what redress do the citizens have? Who will arrest and try a murderous general, and who will arrest and try a murderous attorney general?" Militias were mocked for suggesting that Americans need to be armed, against their own government, but new revelations of military involvement make this seem less like paranoia and more like hard-headed realism.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a leading intellectual of the Hard Right, writes, "And they wonder whatever happened to the civic pride of the good old days? The answer: it went up in flames at Waco."

The media accepted the government's story for six years. It took two crusading investigators, Mike McNulty, an independent film-maker, and David Hardy, an Arizona lawyer to uncover the truth. And that truth, says Rockwell, is that "Waco teaches us something important about the nature of government. It hates dissent, and it doesn't hesitate to kill its opponents."

This realization is radicalizing not only conservatives, but also ordinary Americans, as the extent of the crime -- and the cover-up -- comes out.

The key question of just who gave the orders to execute the Branch Davidians is still unanswered. Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily.com, speculates about a "Little Rock connection."

The anger in the rightist response is not far below the surface: "Officers Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell were sent to prison for violating the civil rights of ex-felon Rodney King ," writes conservative columnist Linda Bowles, but now that the truth about Waco is coming out "why isn't Janet Reno in jail?" Not belonging to an approved victim group can have deadly consequences in the America of the new millennium. It will take more than the jailing of Reno to quell the thunder on the right -- but that, at least, is a beginning.

http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/5.18/990908-waco.html

 

[looney]

These points show some of the fog vis Waco, and also why Clark is liable....

MILITARIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

"Unfortunately, we saw in the Waco tragedy the blurring of the lines between domestic law enforcement and military operations: an operation carried out pursuant to a strategy designed to demolish an 'enemy,' utilizing tactics designed to cut off avenues of escape, drive an enemy out, and run roughshod over the 'niceties' of caring for the rights of those involved. The protestations of the Attorney General to the contrary, that she authorized the injection of debilitating CS gas into closed interior quarters with no ventilation where dozens of women and children were concentrated out of concern for the children, do not match the Government's actions...."

POSSE COMITATUS AND MILITARY INVOLVEMENT

"I seriously question the role of military officers being involved in strategy sessions as on-site 'observers,'the presence of foreign military personnel, and the use of military equipment such as armored vehicles. Contrary to the conclusion of the [majority] report, I am not convinced that the separation between military operations and domestic law enforcement, codified in the U.S. Code's 'Posse Comitatus' provisions, was not violated in the Waco operation."

BREACH OF ETHICS AND POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION

"Government documents clearly show deliberate efforts by Government attorneys to stop the collection of evidence and possibly cover-up evidence the Government did not want to be available later on.... I consider it extremely serious, especially when considered with evidence that two of the ATF agents [were] first disciplined and fired and then later reinstated and [had their] records sealed.... Documents explicitly showed that - 'DOJ [Department of Justice] does not want Treasury to conduct any interviews...[that might] generate...material or oral statements which could be used for impeachment'- of Government witnesses.... In handwritten notes, taken at some point during the seige, Government attorney Ray Jahn directs that interviews are to stop because exculpatory statements may be generated."

COMMITTEE RULES AND RESTRICTIONS

"Important evidence was not available [to the committee] because of tactics by the Government and minority members of the subcommittees to keep evidence out of our hands, such as the weapons taken by the Government from the burned Davidian compound. We were never able to test the weapons to determine whether they were in fact unlawful weapons as the Government charged (which provided a primary justification for the Government's initial action against [David] Koresh and the Branch Davidians)."

There it was in black and white, an official report issued by Congress three years ago with all the "dark questions" about Waco laid bare for the world to see. Yet the establishment press didn't breathe a word of it.

If the Waco cover-up survives intact after this latest round of Congressional scrutiny, it will be because the mainstream press has a vested interest in keeping their own laziness and bias on Waco under wraps.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=1999/9/22/102357

 

[Raphael Meade]

i will read all that when i get back but i gotta go win me a baseball match....

*on hold*

 

[n1 gull]

I think its really important to protest against Bush.
Where are the weapons of mass destruction Mr Bush/Blair?
I think the world is a better place without Saddam, but we didn't have a mandate to change the regime. Why get rid of Saddam and not Mugabe? Oil. End of story.

To cap it all Dick Cheney and his cronies are making a fortune re-building the country they destroyed - disgusting, really disgusting.

I will be protesting and I'm no looney radical.

 

[NMH]

Sorry Beach Hut, not really an intelligent reply, so; I agree. I'm convinced that Blair was convinced it was the right thing, but I'm not. He could have sealed his place in history by dragging Bush (and us) back from the brink and standing up for everything in which we believe democracy is about - using powers of persuasion and evidence (if it existed, which it doesn't look like it did) to go back to the security council for a second resolution.

I'm surprised that the UN haven't thrown the US and UK off the security council for 20 years for taking the law into their own hands.

Democracy is what we stand for and we didn't give it even lip service (gets down from soap box)

I'll go with that.

If Waco wasn't a military debacle aimed at interference with someone else's regime by killing innocents - then Iraq definitely is.

I imagine that there will more likely be nazi salutes aimed at Bush.

We are making the world safe for (American) capitolism .

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Bush should know that he is not welcome by many people in this country. It will be portrayed as protests by the looney left (like our very own looney) but from people I know there is a deep groundswell of opinion against Bush for many reasons, and a deep mistrust of the relationship between Blair and Bush.

I am sorry Mr Bush, but there is no welcome from me.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

We are making the world safe for (American) capitolism .

true nmh, very true.

And safe for no-one else.

 

[Dandyman]

www.amnesty.org.uk/action/camp/saudi/index.shtml

and

www.lalkar.demon.co.uk/issues/contents/jan2001/us.htm


are worth checking out for anyone interested in Bush's electoral "victory" and the nature of his Saudi best buddies.

 

[Marc]

heres a highly charged anti-bush/political site from various Punkers around the globe...note not all punkers think the same so dont sterotype (f*** me it took 5mins to think of that damn word)

http://www.punkvoter.com/home/home.php

 

[Sonic]

Personally, I would like to see George Dubya caught by a giant kitten or an oversized dougal, as in 'The Goodies'. Either that or squashed by a giant Monty Python foot.
I suspect that's just me though. Sorry!

 

[chip]

Interesting that when the Chinese leader visited London some years back that protesters with placard where forcibly removed from the route of his motorcade. No questions about whether he should be allowed to visit or not. China has certainly committed acts on a par with the US but for direct expansionist reasons. Similarly Red Ken has recently had delegations from Shanghai visiting London and no complaints about that (except from his staff who where banned from using the lifts).

Bush may not be welcomed by some (or many) people in this country but he is still the leader of our closest and most important ally. At the end of the day, I don't really give a toss as long as it doesn't interfere with McGhee signing Henry on loan or something else important like that.

 

[Bare]

I'm a new guy introduced to your forum by one of your posters.
I thought a long time before I threw my hat in the ring on this issue. I looked at from a Presidential view. How best to serve the USA, defense wise.
The USA is the scapegoat for all the problems in the Middle-East. 99% of it comes from our support of Isreal. A small percentage of fanatics are the one causing the bulk of the trouble. They actually believe the anti-American rhetoric.
Sodomy Isane was a "tinhorn dictator." Overthrowing him is a humanitarian gesture. Much the same as any dictator in the past has been overthrown. Not a big issue. There were other issues that supported the war to oust him.
He was to relinquish all WMDs after the Gulf in 1991. A man of his character should not be in control of anything like WMDs.
The UN sent in weapons inspectors to oversee this project. 'Inspector' is probably a bad choice of word here but for lack of a better word it, will have to do. Their job was to oversee the elimination process not play hide and seek with WMDs. The Iraqs were to eliminate and destroy WMDs and WMD producing material and equipment. The inspectors were to supervise this process. Instead, it turned into a game of hide and seek. Frustrated with the whole affair, the inspector left. Clinton, being to busy chasing Bimbos around the White House, couldn't devote any time to this matter.
To believe someone like Sodomy Insane when he says he no longer has WMDs is stupid.
Terrorist camps were starting to form in Iraq and these people should not have WMDs. There is a great concern in this country that terrorist may have radioactive material to make a dirty bomb. We are not willing to wait for the next 9/11 to do something about it
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair and the rest of the coalition has the weight of every terrorist in the world pressing against them to fail.
They have my support to succeed.