Three articles on Waco
By Dr. STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
Those interested in tracking the crimes of the Empire at home might want to take a look at three recent articles on Waco. All of the articles are on line.
The Establishment uses different standards to judge different events. Linda Bowles points out in her article "Excessive Use of Force" that there was no remorse or handwringing following Waco compared to that following Columbine or the death of John Jr. The established media were apoplectic over the "excessive use of force" by the Los Angeles police in the Rodney King case, although King didn't even sustain serious injury. But the killing of 80 people at Waco for a gun-license violation (at worst) didn't generate such Establishment concern.
I might add that standards of proof also differ. For a certain well-known mass-murder event, eyewitness accounts are considered sufficient proof. For Waco, though, no eyewitness account, document, or photograph would seem to be enough to really implicate the White House in mass murder. In the case of Waco and other non-PC events, all the evidence can have varied interpretations.
***
Vin Suprynowicz, in "Set the Branch Davidians Free," advocates just that and outlines some of the many lies the federal government has used already in the Waco case.
Now, in days of yore, average, uneducated folk believed that if a person lied a couple of times he was untrustworthy on everything — that is, they believed that the past could provide lessons for the future. Modern Establishment-directed educated folk, however, are too sophisticated for that hidebound thinking. So what if much of the feds' story on Waco has been shown to be untrue? That doesn't mean that everything the feds say is untrue.
And the feds can always spin new stories — stories that, although they contradict their previous disproven ones, can be used to deny guilt. So, yes, the feds may have tossed in a couple incendiary canisters, but that doesn't mean they actually caused the fire. And, yes, members of Special Operations military forces were on the scene, but they were just advising. And maybe documents can be traced to the White House, but that doesn't mean anybody there actually paid any attention to them.
***
Bill Clinton has always been able to destroy his enemies when an investigation of his scandals is attempted, validating the old adage that a "good offense is a good defense." Remember the personal destruction that ensued in the Lewinsky matter. Robert Novak, in "Blame spins from Reno to Freeh," shows how Clinton is deftly shifting the blame for Waco onto FBI director Louis Freeh, whom Clinton views as acting too independently. Of course, Freeh was not in office at the time of Waco, but logic has never prevented Clinton's strategy from working in the past.
I would also assume that Clinton's smear brigade will go into action against filmmaker Mike McNulty ("Waco: The Rules of Engagement"), who is just digging up too much evidence for his own good.
September 7, 1999
What do you think of Dr. Sniegoski's
analysis? If you'd like to see your brief comments posted on the site, please
respond here. All comments will
be subject to the usual editing, and we will be looking for those that are the most
thought-provoking, pro or con. Return to the "Sniegoski" table of contents.
Notice to visitors who came straight to this document from off site: You are deep in The Last Ditch. You should check out our home page and table of contents.
Dr. Sniegoski originally provided a link to this article on the Web, but in reposting the article I found that the link is now broken. Nicholas Strakon
Dr. Sniegoski originally provided a link to this article on the Web, but in reposting the article I found that the link is now broken. Nicholas Strakon
December 5, 2001
December 5, 2001