…at Waco. We should make him regret dredging this stuff up. It’s like he’s vying with Jimmy Carter for worst ex-president ever.
[Update a few minutes later]
Damn Tim McVeigh to perdition. He’s managed to take this anniversary and turn it into mediafest about a sociopath murdering government workers, instead of the one about the government murdering children two years earlier. And the irony, of course, is that both occurred on the same date as the first shots to win our independence from a tyrannical government.
[Update a few minutes later]
What Bill Clinton has in common with King Edward Longshanks:
…powerful people in government have been making that argument literally for centuries.
Take England’s King Edward I, aka “the Longshanks” of “Braveheart” cinematic fame. It wasn’t just William Wallace and the Scots who made Longshanks uncomfortable; he also took very unkindly to criticism from his own subjects. So much so, in fact, that he manipulated what in 1275 passed for the English Parliament to approve Westminster I, a re-codification of basic English law.
Westminster I made it a crime to sow “tales whereby discord or occasion of discord or slander may grow between the king and his people or the great men of the realm.” That law put a stop to criticism of Longshanks and his best buddies among the nobles.
The Dems must really hate that pesky First Amendment.
[Update a while later]
The nonviolence of the tea parties is driving the Democrats nuts. Well, actually, there has been some violence. But only by leftist and union thugs.
So Clinton saves millions of lives by getting cheap anti-retrovirals to the HIV-infected, but he’s History’s Greatest Monster because of things he said in an op-ed about Waco. Got it.
“An independent report on Waco written by the Harvard Professor of Law and Psychiatry, Alan A. Stone, for the then Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann, says it “is difficult to believe that the US government would deliberately plan to expose twenty-five children, most of them infants and toddlers, to CS gas for forty-eight hours”. Unfortunately, however, that appears to have been exactly the plan. . . . “
It isn’t what he’s said about it that makes him scum. And philanthropy doesn’t eliminate heinous crimes, even through that defense has been used by dictators of all stripes, until even the cows should be able to grok that situation.
I didn’t say he’s “history’s greatest monster.”
Are you saying that I should “move on”?
Sorry, I’ll keep reminding people of what a corrupt sack of scum he was (and remains). Particularly since younger people are unaware of it. The fact that you don’t like it only encourages me further.
So in Jim’s book, as long as you save lives some time by claiming credit for work done by industry, then you can get away with direct culpability in other heinous crimes. Got it.
I think it’s important to remember that Waco started with the murder of 4 federal law enforcement agents enforcing a lawful search warrant. It is also important to remember that the Davidians had ample opportunity to comply with the law and surrender.
It’s not a war crime, because we were not at war with anybody. The Davidians were criminals.
The final assault on the building was in fact botched. But if you forcibly resist arrest and use your children as human shields, it’s hard to argue that their death is entirely somebody else’s fault.
None of this in any way excuses McVeigh’s murder of 168 people. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
None of this in any way excuses McVeigh’s murder of 168 people.
Who said it did?
The Davidians were criminals.
The children weren’t. The FBI and ATF were grandstanding.
Chris,
I am not going to make excuses for the Branch Davidians, who were (as you correctly point out) criminals who created the conditions necessary for much of what happened next. With that said though, you are ignoring the point. Reading the report, it is fairly clear that the government was reckless in the extreme in its planning and execution of their assault on the compound, and ignored reasonable concerns about excessive use of CS. At the very least, the administration had nothing to be proud of in their mishandling of the situation at Waco…at worst there should have been some criminal investigations of those in charge.
As for ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’, I wonder how you would react if this had been the Bush administration and a group of radical eco-terrorists. Something tells me that we wouldn’t be hearing defenses of the DOJ and its minions…
Rand – I suspect if I substituted Palestinian for Davidian you’d be singing a different tune.
Again, use of human shields puts everybody in a difficult moral position. And trying to wait somebody out who’s got months of food stockpiled leads to its own problems.
I suspect if I substituted Palestinian for Davidian you’d be singing a different tune.
You’d be wrong.
Again, use of human shields puts everybody in a difficult moral position. And trying to wait somebody out who’s got months of food stockpiled leads to its own problems.
I see. We had to kill the kids in order to save them. The Davidians weren’t a threat to anyone as long as they were in the compound. This was about storm troopers showing who was boss.
As for it not being a war, yeah, I guess that’s why they used a tank.
Scott – If a group of eco-terrorists kill 4 federal agents, you will find me very unsympathetic, regardless of who’s President.
Kenneth Anderson at Volokh is explicitly connecting McVeigh to the (admittedly botched) raid without noting that the Davidians were murderous felons. Rand is arguing that because (in his view) Bill Clinton is guilty of “war crimes” Clinton has no authority to condemn domestic terrorism.
Rand – so when Israel bombs a settlement and Palestinians are killed, that’s a war crime? Yet we must support Israel at all costs?
Rand is arguing that because (in his view) Bill Clinton is guilty of “war crimes” Clinton has no authority to condemn domestic terrorism.
I am? I must have missed that. Can you point out where I made that argument?
…so when Israel bombs a settlement and Palestinians are killed, that’s a war crime?
No.
Rand – “we should make him regret dredging this stuff up.” Regret what “stuff” – condemning a terrorist? A terrorist who attacked in support of a group of felons?
Regarding the killing of Palestinian children by Israeli bombs – how is that different then what you just called a war crime in Waco?
“Again, use of human shields puts everybody in a difficult moral position.”
It’s worth noting that the chief terrorist/suspect/jackass went to town regularly for supplies. There was no particular reason to institute a siege to capture him.
Al – you are correct. Koresh could have been arrested outside the compound. That does not excuse the violent resistance and murder of ATF agents. The siege started after that murder.
Regarding the killing of Palestinian children by Israeli bombs – how is that different then what you just called a war crime in Waco?
The “Palestinians” are actually at war with Israel. And the Israelis take great pains to avoid collateral damage.
What Clinton and and Obama are up to apparently has a long history. See:
http://video.ap.org/?f=VAAJN&PID=EVi5PZJmk2sWw1ev4SQ8iOXZBuGejmpv
As I often say, “liberals” are the New Tories. They’ve just updated “The Divine Right of Kings” to “the Divine Right of Elected Officials and Their Bureaucracies.”
You can read more about it in the Tory Screed, WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH MASSACHUSETTS?, OR: WHY DON’T THESE UNGRATEFUL PEASANTS JUST QUIETLY SUBMIT TO BEING BUGGERED BY THEIR BETTERS? by King George’s leading apologist of the day, Sir Thomas Frank.
Sorry for the redundant link to the “Longshanks” article. I overlooked that Rand had already linked to it.
You’ll remember Longshanks from BRAVEHEART. In a deleted scene, just after Wallace makes his “But they’ll never take out FREEEDOM!!!” speech, one of the English barons, Sir Christopher Gerrib, shouts back, “But you guys started it.” And Sir Christopher’s squire Jim adds, “Freedom’s overrated, anyway.”
Rand – I would argue that a 51 day siege is “great pains.” But at the end of the day, the Davidians were not surrendering. Should gas have been used to force them out? I don’t know. What other alternatives were available?
As far as McVeigh, if you want to make a case without him, you should start with explicitly disavowing him. Then make your case about the botched raid. Especially if you are saying “make Clinton regret dredging this stuff up.” Because if you don’t, and the “stuff” in question is decrying domestic terrorism, it sure looks like you’re actually supporting the terrorist.
Bilwick1 – there is a difference between saying “you shouldn’t say X” and “it’s against the law to say X.” You shouldn’t call people unpatriotic if they disagree with you. It’s not illegal.
As far as McVeigh, if you want to make a case without him, you should start with explicitly disavowing him.
Why should I have to disavow someone whom I’ve never avowed?
Especially if you are saying “make Clinton regret dredging this stuff up.” Because if you don’t, and the “stuff” in question is decrying domestic terrorism, it sure looks like you’re actually supporting the terrorist.
Bill Clinton is not decrying domestic terrorism. He’s trying to blame others for it to get them to shut up about big government. And the “stuff in question” is his own role. He’s more responsible for McVeigh’s actions than Rush Limbaugh was. At least if we are to go by McVeigh. He’s a demagogue, and I’m going to continue to call him on it.
Chris, the difference between the Palestinians and the Davidians should be obvious, but I will spell it out for you:
The Palestinians are actively killing Israelis. Waiting causes more deaths. The Davidians were sitting in a camp and hiding. Waiting causes no additional deaths. If the Israelis were just killing Palestinians whenever they broke the law, that would similarly be reprehensible. We don’t kill murderers without a trial.
In essence:
If someone is shooting at you from behind a human shield, you shoot back and search for forgiveness later. If someone is taunting you from behind a human shield, you man up and wait for them to give up.
Why should I have to disavow someone whom I’ve never avowed? Because if you don’t, people will assume you are avowing him, especially in the context of domestic terrorism.
Because if you don’t, people will assume you are avowing him
Only an illogical loon would make such an assumption.
“Bilwick1 – there is a difference between saying “you shouldn’t say X” and “it’s against the law to say X.” You shouldn’t call people unpatriotic if they disagree with you. It’s not illegal.”
Oh, of course, Chris. I’m sure that Obama (via Clinton) has no other agenda than condeming terrorism. Their committment to liberty is too well-established to suspect they might be trying to squelch amti-statist dissent.
(Does anyone know where I can find an emoticon for sarcasm?)
As for it not being a war, yeah, I guess that’s why they used a tank.
Well, when your enemy has AR-15 semi-auto rifles using 5.56 NATO ammo (just like an M-16) with suspicion of a conversion of said rifles to auto fire. Plus you know that they are holed up in a tall building with a lot of open space all around, just perfect for sniper fire. Plus they already shot someone… Yeah I am going to want some serious chunks of armor between me and the target. Like an IFV. Or several.
Excessive use of force? Indeed. Nonsensical? Not really.
As for Clinton I am not particularly fond of his military interventions.
David – the Davidians were shooting at Americans – 4 of whom were killed. You can (and we should) argue about tactics and appropriate level of violence. But when somebody breaks the law and murders police, bad things can happen.
My argument about the Palestinians is this: Most of the people on this blog are strongly in favor of Israel using whatever force it sees fit to accomplish its ends. From the Palestinian point of view, they believe themselves to be in the same situation as and as justified as the Davidians felt themselves to be.
So if you think that the use of force against the Davidians was excessive and counter-productive, consider the Palestinian point of view. Don’t get me wrong – Israel may have no choice but to use force. That doesn’t mean it is a good option – just a least bad option.
That does not excuse the violent resistance and murder of ATF agents.
Who is making that excuse??? Bill Clinton directly gave the go ahead to target the children with a potentially lethal gas. They died as a result. Address that issue. Not some red herring.
My argument about the Palestinians is this: Most of the people on this blog are strongly in favor of Israel using whatever force it sees fit to accomplish its ends. From the Palestinian point of view, they believe themselves to be in the same situation as and as justified as the Davidians felt themselves to be.
No, they don’t. The Branch Davidians didn’t have as a goal the murder of all federal employees.
I didn’t say he’s “history’s greatest monster.”
Borrow a sense of humor, and follow the link.
Jim,
Cute video, but you miss the point. Clinton is trying to equate folks who believe in limited government and say so, with the “bad atmosphere” that created the bombing in Oklahoma City. Rand’s point is that Clinton himself had as much to do with that particular atmosphere as anyone else, so he doesn’t have the moral authority to make a pronouncement on the current “hateful” atmosphere.
The nonviolence of the tea parties is driving the Democrats nuts.
Naturally. They are shocked and dismayed that middle-aged “white people” (their words!) are out protesting en masse and not trashing the joint like young leftist thugs. It gives them less ammo for their ad homs, so they’re reduced to calling tea partiers ingrates and making tortured connections to domestic terrorists.
Pathetic.
Chris,
I believe that we agree that there is NO excuse for the murder of 4 American citizens by the Branch Davidians. Nobody here is trying to suggest that there was any basis at all for not bringing those responsible to justice. With that said, the BD was penned up in a compound, surrounded by the authorities, and not going anywhere. They could have been easily (albeit expensively) waited out. What seems to be the issue here is that the Clintonistas were in a big hurry to wrap the thing up, and as a result, they moved in using excessive force and inappropriate tactics. Part of this was the overmilitarization of law enforcement (which would have been a problem with any administration), but part of it was the direct result of the administration’s desire to close this matter as quickly as possible.
Regarding the Israelis/Palestinians, others have pointed this out, but let me add my voice to theirs. The Palestinians have openly declared themselves to be at war with the Israelis, they commit numerous acts of terrorism (Kassam rocket launches, for instance, though numerous other acts can be easily identified), and make it clear that they will continue to do so. Under these circumstances, the Israelis have little choice but to conduct military campaigns against them. These are not (the DOJ’s posturing notwithstanding) simple lawbreakers or even murders, they are terrorists conducting military operations, and are (appropriately) treated accordingly.
As for suggestion that you would be just as concerned if the shoe was on the other foot (so to speak), I simply don’t believe you. Your record as an apologist for the left is quite clear to everyone on this blog (OK, not Jim or his ilk, but I rather doubt we are using them as a baseline for rationality these days), and your credibility is thus somewhat strained at best.
Gerrib: Because if you don’t, people will assume you are avowing him
Rand: Only an illogical loon would make such an assumption.
I have to call you on this, Rand. Your making an assumption that Gerrib understands the root concept of “vow” or “avow”. That’s a pretty bad assumption considering Gerrib’s history of reading comprehension problems. I’m thinking he’s just pulling out some phrase; “you must disavow” and applying it here, not realizing how inappropriate it is. Any logic involved is based on a misconception of the word.
And this is a key point, because if Gerrib could understand what “avow” meant, he would understand the vast difference between your arguments as criticism of the administration as not being “support for domestic terrorism”. Particularly when compared to Bill Clinton, who did avow for Janet Reno and specifically to the operations
herhis DoJ performed at Waco.The following might add to the discussion:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Report_to_the_Deputy_Attorney_General_on_the_Events_at_Waco,_Texas/Child_Abuse
The argument is that waiting was not believed to be benign.
In and amongst all this, let us not forget that the fuse on the whole mess was lit at Ruby Ridge.
Chris: Can you not make a point without bringing in a strawman? Yeesh.
I would guess that that Clinton (and others, including Reno) weren’t as aware of the hazards of tear gas as they should have been. “Tear gas” sounds less hazardous than it is — a disabling weapon that is risk-free non-lethal safe-for-children might be wishful thinking, but many people wish for it, and many assume it already is available — even police officers who should know better do this. The same kind of wishful thinking has led to more recent well-publicized taser deaths…
Leland – Bill Clinton was decrying an act of terrorism. Rand accused Clinton of being a war criminal for the same act that set Timothy McVeigh in motion. Rand thus linked the two actions. Unless you de-link them, they remain linked.
G. Clark – I’m not the one who used “war crime,” that was Rand.
Bill Clinton was decrying an act of terrorism. Rand accused Clinton of being a war criminal for the same act that set Timothy McVeigh in motion. Rand thus linked the two actions.
No, I didn’t. The action I linked was Bill Clinton decrying peaceful protests against big government, and linking them to Tim McVeigh, when he had a lot more to do with Tim McVeigh than supporters of limited government. Learn to read.
Rand thus linked the two actions. Unless you de-link them, they remain linked.
Ok Rand, you were right. He is an illogical loon.
I used to believe that the Branch Davidians had it coming and were acting foolishly to exacerbate the situation.
Then, I watched this documentary about the incident called: Waco: The Rules of Engagement. It’s available on Netflix on demand and probably can find it on the Amazon clicky thing on the side bar.
In the documentary they piece together a bunch of video and audio clips that were acquired by FOI request that were never played by the MSM. They played unedited audio clips of Koresh talking with the ATF and FBI negotiators where Koresh repeatedly and emphatically let it known that he didn’t want anybody to get hurt. They point out that they were some how able to dig through charred rubble and find one weapon that was possibly modified to fire full auto but they couldn’t find the huge metal door to the front of the compound that would have shown whether the ATF or the Davidians fired first.
The documentary points out that the ATF, at that time, was a fairly new law enforcement agency and that they wanted the Davidian raid to be a grand gun bust to tout out onto the nightly news as a big staged PR event. But the perplexing question is, why is a bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms serving warrants regarding statutory rape and meth labs? The allegations of modified fully auto weapons was based on anecdotal testimony by witnesses at a gun show the Davidians frequently sold guns and ammo at.
Probably the most disturbing part is when they show the FLIR video from the various helicopters and airplanes flying over head that suggests that the agents surrounding the complex were firing on people trying to flee the burning building. And the Congressional hearings were just a complete circus. Remember who was one of the more outspoken members of the Senate hearing? Joe Biden. He verbally chastised and sneered at several of the surviving Branch Davidians during their testimonies. The whole thing is just sickening.
Rand’s point is that Clinton himself had as much to do with that particular atmosphere as anyone else, so he doesn’t have the moral authority to make a pronouncement on the current “hateful” atmosphere.
There’s a big leap between “doesn’t have moral authority” and being the worst ex-president ever.
Clinton screwed up at Waco; he also did welfare reform, passed NAFTA, saved Kosovo, eliminated Iraq’s WMDs, and ran the first surplus since the 50s. On balance, he was the best president we’ve had since Ike (excepting our current one).
As ex-president, he wrote a crummy memoir, hurt his wife’s presidential campaign, and isn’t keen to accept responsibility for Waco; he also saved millions of lives. On balance, he’s looking pretty good.
There’s a big leap between “doesn’t have moral authority” and being the worst ex-president ever.
Didn’t say he’s achieved that. Yet.
Clinton screwed up at Waco; he also did welfare reform, passed NAFTA, saved Kosovo, eliminated Iraq’s WMDs, and ran the first surplus since the 50s.
It’s not clear that he eliminated Iraq’s WMDs (how did that happen, exactly?), and as for the rest, none of it would have happened absent a Republican Congress.
On balance, he was the best president we’ve had since Ike (excepting our current one).
I’m holding my sides. I can actually see my liver. But Jim, contrary to his prior comment, may have a sense of humor, but he has none of irony.
“Clinton… he also did welfare reform, … eliminated Iraq’s WMDs ….”
Two outright lies.
Clinton didn’t “do” welfare reform, even in the sense that he “did” Monica; the Rtepublican Congress created and passed Welfare reform- over Bill Clinton’s objections and his predictions that it would lead to starvation in the streets.
And if he “eliminated” Iraqi WMD’s, why was it that he, his wife, his VP, and all of the bigwigs in his party were claiming that Iraq STILL HAD THEM, as late as 2003? Was he lying, or are you?
I gotta say Jim, you sure don’t mind proving what a moron you are.
Clinton screwed up at Waco; he also did welfare reform, passed NAFTA, saved Kosovo, eliminated Iraq’s WMDs, and ran the first surplus since the 50s. On balance, he was the best president we’ve had since Ike (excepting our current one).
FWIW I was against the intervention at Kosovo. I prefer to call it the NATO bombing of Serbia. I considered it an internal problem. I was also against the Somalian operation.
I dislike wars which are non-defensive in nature. So I supported WWII, Gulf War. These wars were started in reaction to invasions by someone else.
Korean War and Vietnam are more iffy IMO since these were disputed regions with not very well defined borders as a result of disintegration after colonization or whatever.
However I supported the bombing of Al-Qaeda bases at Afghanistan and elsewhere (which was highly criticized at the time, as a Clinton electoral move by several people). You cannot allow someone to attack your embassies and people with impunity.
I actually agree with your surplus and best president since Eisenhower assertions. Curiously both these presidents were elected after two major wars had ended (WWII and Cold War respectively) and worked on policies to reduce defense expenditures to profit from the peace dividend to stimulate the economy. Quite contrary to the policies of their predecessors. While Clinton was not quite of the same caliber or moral fiber he was still better than most.
If anything I consider Obama to be acting kind of like Lyndon Johnson (yes strange I know) since wars started in the previous administration seem to be escalating rather than the opposite. Plus there are social concerns. Oh and stimulus (although LBJ mostly wanted stimulus for the South rather than everywhere).
What sort of budget surplus would there have been the the late 1990’s had Clinton been successful in his attempted government take over of health care in 1993? If it had passed government expenditures are sure to have been much greater, is Clinton to be given credit for his health care plan failing?
What if the GOP had not taken control of Congress in 1994? The GOP taking congress led to his now famous “move to the center”, which surely resulting in less spending/more surplus. Does Clinton get “credit” for the GOP winning control of congress?
What if there had been mid-late 1990’s technology boom? It certainly contributed to the economic growth, and then fall, of the period when surpluses were seen. What exactly were the specific Clinton policies that led to the boom? Other than his VP inventing the internet of course.
Maybe a closer look will show that the surpluses of the late 90’s were in spite of Clinton rather than a result of his polices.
I actually agree with your surplus and best president since Eisenhower assertions
Do you really fantasize that Clinton would have had a surplus without a Republican Congress? I guess you could argue that he was a cause of the Republican Congress (as Barack Obama will be next year), but it makes no sense, other than that, to say that he caused the surplus, because he certainly had no plan, in his own words, to achieve one prior to that.
Korean War and Vietnam are more iffy IMO since these were disputed regions with not very well defined borders as a result of disintegration after colonization or whatever.
I guess South Korea had it coming.