 |
Did we neglect to mention...? They've Got Excuses to BurnBy Rick Horowitz
There's a perfectly reasonable explanation, you know. For six years, the FBI's been telling anyone who'll listen that they had absolutely, positively nothing to do with the fire that brought down the Branch Davidian compound near Waco back in April of '93. Not only didn't they have anything to do with it, the FBI has been insisting all this time, but they couldn't have had anything to do with it: Nothing they used against the Davidians in that final, deadly assault was even remotely flammable. That's the FBI's story, and they've been sticking to it. For six years. That's what Janet Reno's been saying all along, too -- to Congress, to the media, to the public. No flammables, no way. No ifs, no ands, no buts. Guess what? Turns out the FBI's story isn't quite...right. Adamant is one thing; accurate is something else again. Turns out the FBI fired at least two "pyrotechnic devices" -- that's "pyro-" as in "fire" -- near the Davidian compound that gruesome day. These were military-style tear-gas grenades, officials now admit, perfectly capable of throwing sparks as they went about their gassy business. Doesn't matter, the FBI still insists. Even if they did use a few "pyrotechnic devices," they didn't cause the fire. For one thing, the FBI says, the grenades in question were launched a good six hours before the blaze broke out. And these particular grenades weren't even aimed at the wooden main building, the one that eventually went up in famous flames, but at a concrete bunker more than 30 yards away. It was David Koresh and his crew who torched themselves, the FBI still contends, with gasoline and lighter fluid and camp-stove fuel. They talked about doing it -- FBI bugs caught them talking about doing it -- and then they did it. Arson investigators saw the evidence. Case closed. Entirely possible. The FBI may be perfectly blameless in this whole mess. But they might -- might -- have had a better chance of convincing people of that if they'd come clean in the first place. What they're standing in now smells a whole lot like a coverup. Of course, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for sitting on the story. The FBI may not have spilled the beans while the beans were hot, but they're bound to have a good excuse for it. Or even more than one. In fact, now that they've launched their new-and-improved, let-the-chips-fall-Willie-Mays investigation, you can expect to hear a few of these pleas for understanding and forgiveness any day now. Explanation No. 1: "We didn't want to bore anybody with details." Explanation No. 2: "Oh, did you mean Waco, Texas?" Explanation No. 3: "We thought we'd save a few tidbits for a slow news day in August of 1999." Explanation No. 4: "Would you want your sister to hang out with those loonies?" Explanation No. 5: "It had something to do with Y2K." Explanation No. 6: "Are you saying Janet Reno isn't an honorable person?" Explanation No. 7: "If we had told you, we'd have had to kill you." Explanation No. 8: "Can't you take a joke?" Explanation No. 9: "It depends on what your definition of 'flammable' is." Explanation No. 10: "Aliens ate our testimony." Explanation No. 11: "The truth?! You can't handle the truth!" And of course, there's always that time-tested favorite... Explanation No. 12: "We forgot." What part of "no" didn't they understand? Stay tuned. Posted
8/27/99. While you're waiting for an answer, come back to Rick's for
more fresh satire and commentary. You'll like it here!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz