Sniegoski on the Empire 6 – responses To the editor ...

Of course the "investigation" will be a whitewash! Having Reno, who claimed to have approved the final attack, also appoint the "independent investigator" is a macabre joke! The true debate ought to be directed on the initial attack which was "botched" and "bungled" but which was really an outrage.

The great Charlie Reese once wrote, "The easiest way in the world to manipulate people is to make sure they debate the wrong questions." The question of what the FBI fired into the Davidians' home on the last day of the war is irrelevant compared to the question of the initial attack.

Discrediting some of the lurid claims made in "The Rules of Engagement" would be a decided coup for our rulers. Incidentally, this possibility was pointed out by Carol Valentine's Waco Holocaust web page.

— Susan Loeffel


I consider #2 to be the most profound of Dr. Sniegoski's reasons.

However, #4 is interesting on many fronts. ("Danforth is an Establishment insider. The lavish praise heaped on him by the Establishment media and politicos underscores his Establishment credentials.") You would think that Democrats would hate Danforth and stay as far away from him as possible. He, after all, was the demon behind the Clarence Thomas nomination; he defended Thomas tooth and nail, and in the end foiled the massive left-wing attempt to discredit Thomas.

That he is called on for the Waco "investigation" means either that (a) he can be trusted, the Thomas nomination notwithstanding; or (b) he has been "forgiven."

That latter is simply silly. Clearly he is a desirable choice because the liberals (and conservatives, for that matter) will be able to say, "Well, you certainly can't think that the defender of Clarence Thomas would be a part of a cover-up for the Clinton administration, can you?"

— Ronald N. Neff
Senior editor
The Last Ditch


Some of the more-skeptical talking heads on the telescreen are pointing out that Danforth's investigation is already forcing Congress's own investigation to take a back seat. Implicit in that, of course, is an assumption that a congressional probe would be more of a take-no-prisoners, damn-the-torpedoes affair! But we know well how pusillanimous, corrupt, and servile the Republican Congress really is.

The talking heads may still have a point, though. Maybe a Danforth probe, i.e., a probe under the control of a single Insider of proven reliability, is seen as being less likely to slip out of control than a congressional probe. Congressional incumbents do have to answer to their Insider masters, naturally; but shepherding them can get messy because they tend to get preoccupied with their own micro-agendas (such as sniffing after sound-bites and headlines); some of them are garrulous drunks; and a fairly high proportion of them are just unreliable idiots. In "Godfather" terms, letting them run the principal probe would be like assigning an important hit to a gaggle of Carlo Rizzis instead of a single Luca Brasi. In short, with a congressional probe, you might wind up with too many clownish, demagogic cooks salting the stew.

— Henry Gallagher Fields

Return to the article.

Return to the table of contents.