Hillary Clinton gave order for Waco massacre

originally posted by: windword
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.

If you dont recall Hillary getting grilled by Republicans for having too much sway in the White House then you were just completely not paying attention or willfully ignorant. Her entire Hillarycare plan was soundly trashed because it was argued that she was the first lady and had no place purposing such government programs.
She was put in charge of the Healthcare task force which was the first time a first lady had been officially given an official post in the cabinet. If she was in charge of an official post then she de facto attended Presidential strategy sessions.

Edit to add*** Let me say that you are correct that during the time of the Waco hearings no one "officially" was saying Hillary had pressured Reno to raid the Davidian compound. This was something that was implied because the hearings clear intent was to hang the decision on Bill Clinton directly. The Republican congress was out for Clintons blood and they wanted Reno to roll on Bill and Hillary and lay that order directly at his feet. Reno didnt do that. She took all the blame for it. After the hearings and the water settled the rumors in conspiracy circles began to circulate that the decision went all the way to the top. Linda Trip either confirmed that or used that story to add some meat to her narrative depending on who you believe. Like I said before this was not a mainstream story but it was in conspiracy circles going well back into the 90's.

I am not asserting it as truth BTW, I am just saying that it has a very high degree of plausibility knowing what we know about the Clintons and how they operated.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Simple common sense would tell you this is pure BS. Hilary Clinton was First lady. She had no official power or authority back then to make any decisions of the kind, or give orders. Janet Reno was the beast in charge, it was her orders, her choice.

One would think, with all the legitimate, solid dirt on Hilary Clinton, that one could stick to the facts, but I guess not.

Like I said you guys just dont have a clue.

This is from an interview with Dee Dee Myers.

"How powerful was she?

She was definitely a force. No question about it. And to a certain degree it depended on the issue and the time. I mean obviously around health care she was extremely powerful. Always to do with personnel issues if she wanted to weigh-in, she could affect a lot of change. Almost all first ladies have had tremendous power on personnel issues, whether the public realized it or not, whether it was Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan or whoever. And I think a part of it would depend on kind of the ebb and flow of her weighing in on policy decisions and on the ebb and flow of her relationship with the president.

Were people afraid of her? Were people afraid to speak out against her?

Yeah. And I think because not only would she sort of humiliate you in front of your colleagues or whoever happened to be around. It wasn't like she did it every day. I found that she wasn't the most direct person. Although that was very direct, that to me was the exception rather than the rule. Hillary tended to kind of campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience. She was not happy with me, but she never confronted me. She never had a conversation with me about it. She would go call Leon in and yell at him and then he'd have to call me in and say, "Mrs. Clinton is really upset about X. You said Y, and she disagrees with that, and you know, she wants you to fix it," or whatever. As opposed to her picking up the phone and calling me. Sometimes it's appropriate, I think, to go through the chief of staff because it's the chain of command. Maybe she's talking to him about six things and one of them is me. But there were times when I thought she should have dealt with me directly and she didn't."


And here is a link to an old Print story from Newsweek in 1993 just a few months after Bill took office. The message was very clear that Hillary had a lot of power in the White house.
www.newsweek.com...

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

What is it with you people and Snopes? They've been outed time and again as a gatekeeper, yet some people insist on linking to them, as if they would honestly answer questions truthfully all of a sudden.

I mean, give me a break. Snopes still insists that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, even though even Congress in 1977 concluded in their Select Committee on Assassinations that it was a conspiracy, and numerous authors and attorneys and investigators have written books documented with proof, from court documents, FOIA requests, and death bed confessions, showing exactly WHO was involved in that murder. Heck, even Hunt's attorney in Watergate came forward and stated that he was told who killed Kennedy (and hint, it WASN'T Oswald). Even LBJ's mistress came forward and stated that LBJ was involved in the murder. There are sound and ballistics experts who have even decoded the repaired Zapruder film and show exactly where the shots came from and how many there were (hint, a LOT more than 3 of them!)

And ditto for the RFK assassination. Snopes still insists it was Sirhan, but there is a mountain of evidence, even from the freaking medical examiner who proved that RFK was killed from a shot behind his head, and within 3 inches (a contact wound), while Sirhan never got closer than 6 feet away as is proven from the film.

So please stop with the Snopes. Everyone who has a brain stopped believing a thing they print years ago...It's like trying to prove a point by linking to Veteran's Today...

originally posted by: Dragoon01

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Simple common sense would tell you this is pure BS. Hilary Clinton was First lady. She had no official power or authority back then to make any decisions of the kind, or give orders. Janet Reno was the beast in charge, it was her orders, her choice.

One would think, with all the legitimate, solid dirt on Hilary Clinton, that one could stick to the facts, but I guess not.

Like I said you guys just dont have a clue.

This is from an interview with Dee Dee Myers.

"How powerful was she?

She was definitely a force. No question about it. And to a certain degree it depended on the issue and the time. I mean obviously around health care she was extremely powerful. Always to do with personnel issues if she wanted to weigh-in, she could affect a lot of change. Almost all first ladies have had tremendous power on personnel issues, whether the public realized it or not, whether it was Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan or whoever. And I think a part of it would depend on kind of the ebb and flow of her weighing in on policy decisions and on the ebb and flow of her relationship with the president.

Were people afraid of her? Were people afraid to speak out against her?

Yeah. And I think because not only would she sort of humiliate you in front of your colleagues or whoever happened to be around. It wasn't like she did it every day. I found that she wasn't the most direct person. Although that was very direct, that to me was the exception rather than the rule. Hillary tended to kind of campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience. She was not happy with me, but she never confronted me. She never had a conversation with me about it. She would go call Leon in and yell at him and then he'd have to call me in and say, "Mrs. Clinton is really upset about X. You said Y, and she disagrees with that, and you know, she wants you to fix it," or whatever. As opposed to her picking up the phone and calling me. Sometimes it's appropriate, I think, to go through the chief of staff because it's the chain of command. Maybe she's talking to him about six things and one of them is me. But there were times when I thought she should have dealt with me directly and she didn't."


And here is a link to an old Print story from Newsweek in 1993 just a few months after Bill took office. The message was very clear that Hillary had a lot of power in the White house.
www.newsweek.com...

Yeah, that's an incredibly ridiculous statement on his account. Most first ladies get involved in charities and stuff. Pickles was heavily involved in the health care fiasco, to the point she was dealing with members of congress DAILY. That is NOT what a first lady has done in the past. It's obvious and has been to anyone with eyes to see, and who has researched the crimes of the Clintons, that we are talking a definite partnership--Billy is more interested in saying he was President and chasing women and girls than in actually doing the work.

Just take a look at the current election! You have a woman who KNOWS she is universally hated by over 70 percent of the population, KNOWS that many people know about the corruption of the Clinton/Bush cabal (heck, there are at least 20 books written about that subject! And not ONE of the authors has even been sued). She has obviously serious health issues, yet she is so obsessed with power, she will not recuse herself from the race! We are talking serious psychopathic issues here folks...and this woman is so selfish that she would rather the Democrats lose the election (and they WILL lose), than recuse herself for someone who would actually have a chance, like Sanders.

I am absolutely stunned that there are people who manage to overlook the above. No sane person with her issues would be running for ANY office, nevermind the Presidency of the USA. She can't even manage an office in Benghazi, can't manage dealing with emails, has NEVER created a bill that means anything in the Senate. This woman has trolled Washington DC for decades, and not accomplished ANYTHING, except to reward herself with hundreds of millions of dollars from graft.

Pray tell, whatever happened to Presidents retiring on their pensions? Like Truman, Eisonhower, Nixon, Carter? Not one of them turned their run in office into HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS for creating NOT ONE PRODUCT. Not ONE real thing. It's beyond disgusting.

a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

It really is fascinating to listen to all the conservatives here cry about how mean Hillary was as First Lady and how scared we should be of her.

But not one of you have any kind of evidence she had something to do with Waco. Not one of you can show how a first lady could possibly have had authority or the power to call the shots.

All you have is a fringe unbelievable theory with no evidence or even a reasonable argument.

So just so we're all on the same page here, "Ya, we get it. She's corrupt. We get it. But unless you can back up your claim with something solid, you don't have sh*t and should shut up."

How can you expect anyone to believe anything you say without any evidence for it at all??? You wouldn't do the same in reverse so who do you think your kidding??

a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

Great post. I can't believe this election is real in general. And the choices are? Damn.

Denny

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

It really is fascinating to listen to all the conservatives here cry about how mean Hillary was as First Lady and how scared we should be of her.

But not one of you have any kind of evidence she had something to do with Waco. Not one of you can show how a first lady could possibly have had authority or the power to call the shots.

All you have is a fringe unbelievable theory with no evidence or even a reasonable argument.

So just so we're all on the same page here, "Ya, we get it. She's corrupt. We get it. But unless you can back up your claim with something solid, you don't have sh*t and should shut up."

How can you expect anyone to believe anything you say without any evidence for it at all??? You wouldn't do the same in reverse so who do you think your kidding??

Stop putting words in my mouth. Pray tell, show me anywhere where I state or show that I am a 'conservative'. Or that I accused Hillary of causing Waco. Some people just can't respond intelligently so they jump on platitudes and try to put words in people's mouths that are blatantly untrue. But, hey, when you can't discuss something with facts, that's what yer left with.

And btw, there are two books of the Clinton White House years that discuss Hillary's involvement in Waco and the administration in general, both very negative. Too bad people like you don't actually read books, but lap up the propaganda on the television. To say there is no 'proof' of Hillary's crimes is beyond ridiculous. Just because crooked federal prosecutors like Bill Weld threatens local police and state prosecutors and investigators to lay off Mena Airport and the coc aine trafficking going on, doesn't mean there weren't any crimes, nor does it prove there is no evidence. There is a MOUNTAIN OF IT. But it's in books, written by authors who had no where left to turn, because the mainstream media is bought and paid for and the federal gov't is completely corrupt.

You're the one with your head in the sand. But keep believing the papp you type. Just stop putting words in people's mouths. Anyone reading these posts see through your act...

a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

Well, I never said she wasn't a criminal, just that she isn't responsible for Waco. Which BTW is what this thread is about.

So as soon as you have some evidence to show that she's was responsible for Waco you let me know.

Because until you do everything else you're saying makes no difference at all.

If I misjudged your position on things it's because you sound just like everyone else in this thread putting forth unsupported theories and conjecture with no evidence to support any of it. Remember, I'm talking about Hillary and Waco, not just Hillary being crooked. We all know she's crooked. Even when just a first lady. That doesn't mean she had the power or opportunity to control what happened at Waco and that is what this thread is about.

Hate me all you want, but that's the situation.

a reply to: boncho

Two of your links disagree with you. Did you read them?

a reply to: mOjOm

Was never saying she was the mastermind. It just seemed obvious simply being a lawyer and working with and knowing all those people with her connections to the white house as well. She had no influence. Can't say if it was her influences or Bill or counterpart asking to help influence someone or something. The poster made it sound like she was a stay at home mom or something removed from politics which is absurd.

Your putting words and ideas in my mouth I never thought or spoke. I had no theory or trying to push anything except that Hillary has had influence in politics and decisions back then way more than a spectator was my only real point. Not a lot made sense to me really as to what I said you were arguing to. I also have no idea what your talking about in your last paragraph.

I was a Bill Clinton supporter until I got the facts a long time ago. I do not look at the substantial stuff as much as the hard facts, documents, signatures, and names listed in official documents have all been enough in the past and current to tell me she was involved enough in these things to if not knowingly landed on the wrong side of the fence. These things have formed my opinion over 10 plus years. I am a innocent until proven guilty guy even with Hillary and Trump. You can prove to me one way or the other sometimes before the court does and sometimes if no court is involved my opinion can be proven one way or another by facts, but sometimes could get stronger or weaker with substantial but mostly after something hard.

a reply to: randomthoughts12

Well the title is Hillary gave the order for Waco. That's not the same as she might have influenced it to some degree. Lot's of people influenced others involved. But it was Reno that gave the orders. It's really that simple.

a reply to: mOjOm

yea your right, I replied I thought to a specific person not the op.