Hillary Clinton gave order for Waco massacre

In the end what difference does it make, she had a hand in it, even if she didn't tell Reno to act:
"Report: Clinton, Reno deceived public about Waco tragedy"

by Lee Hancock and Michelle Mittelstadt ("Dallas Morning News," October 19, 2000)

A Congressional report released Thursday alleges that President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno misled the public for years with claims that U.S. military experts endorsed the "flawed" FBI tear gas attack that ended the Branch Davidian siege. "President Clinton and Attorney General Reno have deceived the American people for over seven years by misrepresenting that the military endorsed, sanctioned or otherwise approvingly evaluated the plan," stated the report by the House Government Reform Committee.

The 99-page report also vigorously criticizes that Justice Department's response in the aftermath of the tragedy, contending that all of the agency's actions "were consistent with an organization that was not eager to learn the full truth about what happened on April 19, 1993."

Source sharing articles

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I'm taking the side that has actual evidence to support it.

I'm taking the side that has the person responsible for what took place admitting that they were responsible for it.

I'm taking the side that Doesn't rest on multiple high level officials in Government taking orders from a First Lady simply because they are frightened of her because she's mean.

I'm taking the side that makes sense and the pieces fit rather than the side that alleges her motive for causing a major multi agency disaster was all motivated by her desire to kill and cover up the death of 4 agents.

I'm taking the side that doesn't rest on the testimony of Linda Tripp.

I realize you have an aversion to Facts and do all your judgements out of ignorance and based on what you Don't know rather than what you Do know so you won't ever accept such a theory. It doesn't fit your agenda.

Irregardless of the play-by-play and tenuous connections of this particular episode, it proves how absolutely regressive it would be to elect another Clinton as president. People do not want or need crap like this being warmed-over for another decade....she and it all need to go away.

Did we not figure it out with the sonofabitch George Bush Jr? We elected the director of the CIA and his son, how sophisticated is that? Holy cow. We criticize Russia for having Ex-KGB as President but because it's the USA it's ok. Now we elect the zany wife of dirty former presidents, geez. Is that the American way?

Also, it's no coincidence these two presidential families are from the same area of the country...where JFK was lost!

a reply to: ColaTesla

And she would have stolen Christmas too if those damn Whos didn't stop her.

a reply to: diggindirt

[Citations needed]
2nd

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I'm taking the side that has actual evidence to support it.

I'm taking the side that has the person responsible for what took place admitting that they were responsible for it.

An admission isn't the same as evidence. Unless someone got video or audio, there would not be evidence of her influencing/pushing for such a decision, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. As admission, though? There are people who confess to crimes they didn't commit, quite frequently. Some do it for attention. In a case like this, it would be more of taking the fall, instead of being taken out. You have to see how that's possible.

originally posted by: mOjOm
I'm taking the side that Doesn't rest on multiple high level officials in Government taking orders from a First Lady simply because they are frightened of her because she's mean.

I'm taking the side that makes sense and the pieces fit rather than the side that alleges her motive for causing a major multi agency disaster was all motivated by her desire to kill and cover up the death of 4 agents.

Do you believe that no one was ever killed because of crossing paths with the Clintons? Have you seen the death lists? Did you hear about the three people, last month, who were killed, and associated with her, one a likely source for leaks? If they have in fact, been responsible for even a portion of those deaths, then this is feasible. As far as disasters go, we could talk about Benghazi. Clearly, she's prone to disasters in tense situations.

originally posted by: mOjOm
I'm taking the side that doesn't rest on the testimony of Linda Tripp.

What, exactly, is your objection to her as a source? Plenty of people made claims against Bill Clinton, and they weren't all lying. Why do you not believe her?

originally posted by: mOjOm
I realize you have an aversion to Facts and do all your judgements out of ignorance and based on what you Don't know rather than what you Do know so you won't ever accept such a theory. It doesn't fit your agenda.

No, you realize I don't agree with your point of view, and that's not at all the same as an "aversion to facts". All you have is an official story. Gee, they never lie about those, do they? /sarcasm

I said I can believe this is true. You refuse to even consider it. Who has an aversion, again? All you offer is the story they fed you. I have no agenda here. I simply look for the truth.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: ColaTesla

Sure she did.

Hillary also stole my bike!

No doubt.

She'd steal a hot stove.

Hillary also wanted her for AG in the first place. Bill said it was his worst mistake.

Btw, her hillary care cost $80 mil.

originally posted by: rollanotherone
So, let me see if I understand correctly here. The Hillary Kool Aide crowd is saying as First Lady, she wasn't involved in any pollicital affairs, and didn't make the call for Waco, but in the same breath, use her time as First Lady as presidential experience? Which is it? Either she had her hand in calling shots, or she was just smiling for the camera while propping Bill up as president.
Does her time as First Lady qualify her experience, or doesn't it. Simple question.

I found some stuff while looking up the Waco deal.

A little Clinton history for our younger members who did not have to live through it all.

The Clintons Weren't so Bad...."Hillary for President?" When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

Next she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake." Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

www.democraticunderground.com...

Appearing on Hannity on April 19, Dick Morris dropped a bombshell claim that has "never been said before," that in 1997 then-Attorney General Janet Reno threatened Bill Clinton that if he did not reappoint her as Attorney General she was "going to tell the truth about Waco." He very specifically claimed that "Clinton told me -- that I couldn't not appoint Reno because she would have turned on me over Waco.

mediamatters.org...


Well it seems there is something about Waco that's not straight up, involving the Clintons.

And maybe Morris knows he is expendable, hence the reversal.

a reply to: mOjOm

And you should give me a break. You have proven nothing other than an intense desire to believe I am wrong. Many people have failed to provide proof of the clintons criminal behavior. That list is huge. And when there is proof, it mysteriously disappears or gets destroyed. And when there are witnesses, they mysteriously die. But I am the one who talks with no proof. Except I am the one who knows the parents of one of the people who was murdered there. They were there on site before the event ended. They eventually got their sons's remains to bury him. He was not burned. He was shot once in the back of the head assassination style. You say I dont know a damn thing. All you know is what you read on google from the msm. I know a hell of a lot more than that. You just choose to ignore it. That is your choice. I knew my friend very well. I met david koresh. I know my friends family. I do not believe anything they said to me was a lie. And all I did was relay their story here. If you choose to believe the msm over eye witness familial relation to the event, then you have said everything you need to say.

And again, if you think bill or anyone on his staff made one decision that hillary was not involved in, you have issues. There are many who believe that this was just another of an endless string of distractions from bills escapades and hillarys personal gains. You can believe what you want. But you would do well to remember that just because I disagree with you does not mean I am wrong. You choose to believe the spoon fed slanted media over the eyewitnesses and the family of the slain. Well done.

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ColaTesla

Clinton was not in any position that would have given her authority to order or escalate the siege that ended with the deaths of 76 religious cult members in 1993.

False according to Snopes.

Snopes

Hillary was never sick according to Snopes either. Why don't you just cite the "Ministry of Propaganda"....

Snopes caught lying for HIllary again.

Snopes wrong again re:rape case

Long Read - Rebuttal to Snopes on Parkinson's speculation

Snopes - Anti-Bernie propaganda machine

Snopes - Liberal Bias - Snopes got snoped.

Snopes tries to exonerate cry-bullies, gets facts wrong

While I don't believe it's possible to "debunk" a person, a channel, a source, for instance, an outlet or source of information can easily water down their messages by displaying repeated bias time over time, and Snopes does that by consistently failing to dig into any issue beyond what a simple Google search yields. And that's what the site is basically, two people googling their way to support the establishment "official story" on everything.

So when we know for a fact the government, and more specifically, the parties DNC or RNC, (but especially DNC as leaks has shown they are violating all kinds of laws, basically acting like a government-sanctioned-mafia -e.g. pay for play, pay for ambassadorships, etc) why in the %@$# would we believe anything they have to say?

I do chuckle at the constant use of Snopes. It's a left-wing political propaganda site.

You know those paperbacks you get at the airport, silly curiosities to while away the time. Stuff like 'Ripley's Believe it or Not"


Well after the election I can see someone capitalizing on a 'Silly stuff Hillary did' book...... Just a chuckle....

a reply to: Swills

Is this your bike?

a reply to: ColaTesla

In other news the Stay Puft marshmallow man is being blamed for childhood obesity.

Please. This was not Hillary's fault-the FBI could've taken a more subtle approach and the whackjob that ran the Davidian could've stopped being a dolt in a dunce hat and brainwash people. These deaths could've been avoided but I very much doubt that Hillary had any authority do so because back then she was A FIRST LADY.

If anything Bill could've been the one to do something, Hillary was in no legal position to do anything. I swear some folk swing so far to the left or right they lose balance and get concussed.

So maybe unlike many of you I (not sure just guessing by reading the posts) am old enough to have voted during the Clinton years. You could say It was the time of my life when I became politically aware.
Waco was an eye opener for me.
Waco was an event that solidified the beliefs that many had about the Clintons.
If you felt like it was no big deal then you continued to love Bill and Hillary
If you saw it as a horrible and gross example of raw government power then you simply began to hate the Clintons.
I was not a hater of the Clintons at that time but Waco started me on that path.

Keep in mind this was pre internet as we know it today.
There were chat rooms and BBS's that information would get exchanged through but most conspiracy and insider information flowed through word of mouth and alternative press magazines.

Yes Janet Reno took the fall for giving the orders to raid the building.
It was long rumored however that she simply fell on her sword to take the fall for Bill and Hillary.
That rumor circulated well before Linda Trip openly expressed it. IS there evidence of that rumor?
Maybe someone has an old zine that has it spelled out but it was defiantly going around.
The story back then was that Reno, the Clintons and a few others had meetings on the Waco siege along with all of the other business that a President would be discussing.
During these meetings Hillary had no patience for the siege tactics being employed. She wanted the FBI to raid the compound and end the standoff so that it would stop dominating the headlines and news time.
No one suggested that Hillary directly gave the order to set the building on fire. It was just pressure from her to end the standoff. Reno understood that she had to give the order to raid the buildings and end the stand off because her boss's wanted that done ASAP.
People asserting that Hillary had no power as first lady are completely clueless and I can only assume that they were children during the time or not born at all.
It was well documented and talked about in the media about the power that Hillary had in the Whitehouse.
So when Janet Reno says "Yes I gave the order to raid the buildings" she is correct, but the pressure to give that order came from the top.
Again this was well understood for decades by anyone who followed the Waco conspiracy.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: schuyler

And you have presented nothing but denial. The lack of evidence is not proof of anything. No, I do not have the definitive proof you seek. ....

All you have done is demand proof and deny. You have proven nothing at all except that you want very badly to deny the possibility that hillary had anything to do with this.

You have presented ZERO PROOF that Hillary had anything to do with Waco and I'M the one in denial???? "Lack of evidence is not proof of anything."?????? Good Lord, what standards of evidence do you suppose we should use? You have an unsupported and erroneous "suspicion" and that's it?

And here even your claim that all these agents were on their "next assignment" from a Clinton detail has evaporated in a puff of smoke due to a member who did some actual research.

You cannot be taken seriously here. You've lost all credibility.

a reply to: dreamingawake

This is also the reason the FBI had to stop using the 10mm round. Over penetration through walls, causing "accidental" deaths to people in adjacent rooms/structures.

a reply to: mOjOm

I could list many things. This is not even close to my point.

To say or assume Hillary had no pull while Bill Clinton was in office is silly. Did she not cite part of that as her experience, if not recent I believe in the primaries with Obama. If I am wrong she still held positions of pull or power. How could name be in so many whatever gates. I am not interested in comparing facts. My OPINION i guess for now is it's very silly to think she was simply team mom the whole time making sure wardrobe and dinner plans were correct.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ColaTesla

Clinton was not in any position that would have given her authority to order or escalate the siege that ended with the deaths of 76 religious cult members in 1993.

False according to Snopes.

Snopes

And tell me why we believe Snopes? Do they have some magical powers?

Just like Michelle O, Hillary was a powerful force in the Clinton administration.

a reply to: Dragoon01

The story back then was that Reno, the Clintons and a few others had meetings on the Waco siege along with all of the other business that a President would be discussing. During these meetings Hillary had no patience for the siege tactics being employed.

Coincidentally, I heard that Barbara Bushed called the shots during the Ruby Ridge standoff! It was Nancy Reagan's idea to exchange guns, purchased with drug money from drugs sold to American inner city customers, to pay the Iranian terrorists ransom demands in order to release American hostages.

I was also a voter and politically aware during the Clinton presidency and watched the WACO standoff unfold. I don't remember Hillary being the news in that regard one iota! As well, for the First Lady to attend any presidential briefings or strategy meetings, well that would be highly inappropriate, and I doubt that it ever happened.