Movie Night
I watched Waco: The Rules of Engagement again last night. I saw it a few years ago when it was released, and remembered it to be a shocking indictment of US federal action. Some of the most horrifying footage shown was of the infra-red variety, taken from a plane circling above. In this, the viewer is convinced that the encircling law enforcement teams had machine guns trained on the exits and they were shooting whilst the building was burning. It doesn't take a genius to work out that people would be trying to escape a burning building. Pretty hard when machine guns are firing at you. The documentary methodically exposes the monstrous lies told by FBI and ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms) agents after the compound burned.
Watching it again in the current "Bush-hate" climate is illuminating; out of all the exposes of Bush's purported crimes, I haven't seen one that comes anywhere near the credibility and comprehensiveness of Rules of Engagement. Even for a sceptical home viewer such as myself, the docco demolished any belief I may have had in the ATF's and FBI's version of events. For me, there were no "on the other hand", "hang on a minute" or "what about..." type moments that liberally pepper the output of Michael Moore, Naomi Klein and those of their ilk. The federal agencies at Waco, monitored and controlled by Washington, at best routinely lied to the American people about the situation there after unnecessarily allowing it to develop to the point whereby 86 people - many of them children - died horrifically. At worst, these agencies provoked and inflamed the confrontation, burnt the building and shot those escaping from a wing that the news cameras couldn't monitor.
This movie makes me baulk at the current hysterical climate Bush's opponents have created. I remember thinking when watching this movie - why aren't the liberals up in arms about this travesty? Why aren't they burning Bush effigies all over the place for this? Oh yes, Bush wasn't in power then. Just goes to show how even a sceptic like myself has become conditioned to form judgement at the slightest whiff of non-event. When something truly horrendous occurs, I'm reminded of how trivial many of Bush's alleged misdemeanours are, and how wildly oversensitive his opponents have become. Waco clearly showed that partisan interests were involved; during the Senate hearings investigating the fiasco, the Dems were broadly defending the Feds whilst the Republicans were busting balls. Imagine if a Waco-type event was exposed during Bush's watch (by Waco-type event I mean one where both sides of grassroots politics concede that federal outfits exhibited blatant and undeniable ham-fistedness, callousness and brutality) - Bush'd burn for it, and rightfully so. Why didn't Clinton?
Watching it again in the current "Bush-hate" climate is illuminating; out of all the exposes of Bush's purported crimes, I haven't seen one that comes anywhere near the credibility and comprehensiveness of Rules of Engagement. Even for a sceptical home viewer such as myself, the docco demolished any belief I may have had in the ATF's and FBI's version of events. For me, there were no "on the other hand", "hang on a minute" or "what about..." type moments that liberally pepper the output of Michael Moore, Naomi Klein and those of their ilk. The federal agencies at Waco, monitored and controlled by Washington, at best routinely lied to the American people about the situation there after unnecessarily allowing it to develop to the point whereby 86 people - many of them children - died horrifically. At worst, these agencies provoked and inflamed the confrontation, burnt the building and shot those escaping from a wing that the news cameras couldn't monitor.
This movie makes me baulk at the current hysterical climate Bush's opponents have created. I remember thinking when watching this movie - why aren't the liberals up in arms about this travesty? Why aren't they burning Bush effigies all over the place for this? Oh yes, Bush wasn't in power then. Just goes to show how even a sceptic like myself has become conditioned to form judgement at the slightest whiff of non-event. When something truly horrendous occurs, I'm reminded of how trivial many of Bush's alleged misdemeanours are, and how wildly oversensitive his opponents have become. Waco clearly showed that partisan interests were involved; during the Senate hearings investigating the fiasco, the Dems were broadly defending the Feds whilst the Republicans were busting balls. Imagine if a Waco-type event was exposed during Bush's watch (by Waco-type event I mean one where both sides of grassroots politics concede that federal outfits exhibited blatant and undeniable ham-fistedness, callousness and brutality) - Bush'd burn for it, and rightfully so. Why didn't Clinton?
posted by James Waterton at 11:35 pm
5 Comments:
Because the dem's were waiting for something REALLY ATROCIOUS to pounce on, like the Koran mistreatment in Guatamalo. Besides, Clinton was too busy getting his knob polished by his intern to notice Waco at the time..
Because, shitting in your daipers at the time, you wouldn't have realised that Clinton had only been inaugurated 1 month before the first shooting occurred. And there was a huge outcry at the time, but you are judging history based on a movie? Now THATS hysterical!
David Ian, you illiterate twat:
A little presumptuous, I feel. I remember Waco perfectly. And the outcry was nothing compared to something like, say, the wee-wee-on-the-Koran "scandal" at Guantanamo that deity mentioned above. So, whose head rolled or who fell on their sword due to Waco, smart guy? Precisely.
Also, so what if Clinton was only one month into his presidency? I didn't realise there was a clause stipulating an "immunity from responsibility" period in that job...you idiot.
But thanks for stopping by. Do come again.
No, but one month into Clinton's term meant that the previous 16 months investigation and formulation of plans for Waco was under George Sr. who should also share some blame under your conspiricy theory. Do a little research... you slacker. If you really think that the 'abuse' at Guantanamo has had more coverage and outcry than Waco (based only on your opinion) then the deduction is that you are really a tree hugging lefty writing this blog to make the 'right' look like dickheads. Congratulations, you're a winner!
Point is Dave, you fucking genius, the 16 months planning didn't envisage a 51 day siege, right? A quick raid, propaganda victory, pats on the back all round was the expected outcome. When the operation went belly up, then State took control, right? But you'd have known that, due to your extensive research, right? SO the Clinton administration was directly responsible for how the siege was handled - ie. extremely badly. Bush Snr. doesn't even come into that part, so you can forget him. He bears absolutely no responsibility for the outcome of the siege..
And you haven't answered my question. Which federal employee, regardless of seniority or method of appointment, felt the consequences of the bungled raid and siege? And if there were repercussions that you're aware of, do you think they were commensurate with the gravity of the fiasco?
Post a Comment
<< Home