Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Clinton Just Tortured the Children at Waco, Before Killing Them

Some twerp is attempting to justify the Clinton/Reno massacre at Waco (below.)

Pertinent fact:

CS gas was used at the compound, in order, as senior White House adviser George Stephanopoulos said, echoing senior Justice Department statements, to "try and pressure" those in the compound. It was hoped, he said, that as this "pressure was increased, the maternal instincts of the mothers might take over and they might try to leave with their kids" (Washington Times, April 23, 1995).

But the FBI knew beforehand that adults in the compound had gas masks; the gas therefore would not put pressure on them. On whom, then? If the FBI knew that the adults had gas masks, but went ahead with the gas attack anyway, it is plain that this "pressure" was brought directly against the children because, as the FBI knew, they could not fit into adult– size gas masks. "Maternal feelings", the FBI hoped, would be unleashed in the mothers by watching their children choking, gasping and blistering from the gas.

The plan Reno approved and took to President Clinton for approval contemplated the children choking in the gas unprotected for forty-eight hours if necessary, to produce the requisite "maternal feelings". By taking aim at the children with potentially lethal gas, their mothers would be compelled, according to the FBI plan repeatedly defended by the Clinton administration afterwards as "rational" planning, to flee with them into the arms of those trying to gas them.

More at the link, including a near-outright condemnation of Clinton/Reno by a Harvard prof.

Great plan. Torture the kids with CS (which is also flammable, so fires are started.) That way the mothers will have a change of heart.

HT: ConYank


Anonymous said...

So Clinton/Reno's actions at Waco were the primary motivation for McVeigh to act in a violent manner towards the government, even though his actions, in the end, weren't justified? It was mainly the fault of the Democrat, and not the individual.

Seems logical to me...NOT!

Did Koresh come out peacefully when being served with a warrant? No. Absolutely.

Could Koresh have addressed the charges, regardless if those charges were trumped up, on his own without endangering the lives of his fellow Branch Davidians? Yes. Absolutely.

Was Koresh praying for a violent confrontation with the government as the vehicle to achieve salvation? I say yes.

Was McVeigh exploiting anti-government sentiment--the supposed planned "execution" of a "peaceful" group by the feds--to "prove" his point? I say yes.

The government certainly should be held accountable, without a doubt, but it was Koresh who provoked and instigated. Primary responsibility lays with him.

Dad29 said...


You seem to think that:

1) I endorse McVeigh's murder; and
2) That murder-by-Democrat President is fine and dandy.

You have issues, sonny.

Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, the old " I have issues" come back. I suppose without any specific evidence to refute my points, that form of "intellectual discourse" is required.

It would seem you are putting little, if any, of the responsibilty on the shoulders of Koresh and the Branch Davidians toward law enforcement. It would also seem you are sympathetic as to the reasons why McVeigh committed an act of domestic terrorism. You may not "endorse" the result, but it would appear you "endorse" his methods.

After all, McVeigh was heeding your battle cry. He put into action, with horrifying results.

Extremism is extremism, regardless of whether the person engaging it has liberal or conservative beliefs.

Dad29 said...

Koresh was easily available (and apprehend-able) when he went into Waco for groceries. ALL the local LEO's knew that, but it seems that nobody from DofJ bothered to ask.

No, I am NOT sympathetic to McVeigh, despite your raving-lunacy affirmations of that. You have an issue: you think you can read minds.

And "ammo" never, ever, refers to fertilizer bombs, despite your raving-lunatic attempt to mis-characterize. FYI, "ammo" doesn't refer to nukes, either, nor grenades--just in case you were wondering. Another issue: you think you are Webster's.

dmurray said...

I like your blog. I endorse your treatment of anonymous commenters. Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

"Koresh was easily available (and apprehend-able) when he went into Waco for groceries. ALL the local LEO's knew that, but it seems that nobody from DofJ bothered to ask."

Correct, Koresh was easily available, from June 1992 to February 1993. But there were no charges filed, no reason during that time for the feds to further question him after an initial conversation in July 1992. Moreover, the sheriff had told Koresh not to worry, his guns were legal. Besides, the feds are under NO obligation to "tip their hand" during an ongoing investigation. But you knew that, right?

Raving lunacy affirmations? Why, that's Encyclopedia Brittanica. I simply wanted clarification, you provided it. I never asked for your definition of "Buy More Ammo", I simply said that a person can apply that statement to their own ends, whether it using guns, bazookas, TNT, etc. to take a violent political stand against authority.

VSO said...

Is there a point in there somewhere Anonymous? If you put as much energy into making money as you do harassing a blog you'd be targeted by the liberal elite by now.

Anonymous said...

Are you saying that by challenging a person's thought process it amounts to "harassment"? Wow, what insight!

And, you know my current socio-economic level (or my political persuasion) to boot??? Wow, a soothsayer!