This site revisits the massacre that occurred at Waco in 1993. Although there are no doubt many who will say that it's time to "move on," there are several good reasons to revisit the massacre. One is the fact that there is no statute of limitations for murder. Another is the fact that all the reasons for which the massacre was perpetrated to conceal still exist. A third is the fact that some very prominent people involved in covering up Waco still are very public figures who really need exposing. Indeed, Waco has a direct bearing on the Democratic candidates for the presidency in the forthcoming election. At least for the most part, this site follows the KISS principle – i.e., keep it simple, stupid. That’s easy to do here, because what happened at Waco in 1993 is simple.
The article starts with a very brief sketch of the history of the Branch Davidians, and then summarizes the events that occurred in 1993. Then the following seven points will be established:
The first four points can hardly be termed remarkable – they were all accepted by the Government Reform Committee in House Report 104-749.1 In fact, much of what is written here with regard to the first four points will simply be excerpts from this report. The bulk of this site will be directed toward demonstrating point five. The assertion here is that the surveillance operation was intentionally open and notorious in order to conceal the fact that the government already had operatives on the inside of the compound, and that the unnecessary military style raid was conducted to provide cover for the murders that were committed by the operatives already in place. The government’s primary motive was to avoid embarrassment from what the defense at any trial would have revealed.
Basically, the Branch Davidian sect is an offshoot from the Seventh Day Adventists. The Seventh Day Adventist denomination originated with William Miller and his followers, known as the Millerites. Miller was almost as noteworthy for what he was not as for what he was. He was not college educated. He was not formally trained in the methodology of Biblical interpretation. He was not knowledgeable of Greek and Hebrew, the original languages of the New and Old Testaments, respectively. He was not a Christian during his youth, but rather was a Deist. His limitations notwithstanding, Miller is credited with having written a book (Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ about the Year 1843) and purportedly developed a system – complete with rules and algorithms – for interpreting the provisions of the Bible.
In 1831, Miller announced that he had determined from the Bible that the Second Advent was going to occur in 1843. (He later revised this prediction to 1844.) He further stated that he had arrived at this conclusion as early as 1818, but that fear of error and rejection due to his status as a mere farmer prevented him from making his conclusions public. He was permitted by numerous pastors of several denominations to utilize their facilities on his lecture circuit, and was accordingly able to acquire a substantial following. Miller estimated that he personally lectured to as many as half a million people. Miller also acquired a small following in Britain. The sect gained even more notoriety when, in 1838, Miller forecast that the Ottoman empire would crumble in 1840. At least some Millerites were committed to mental institutions for insanity allegedly caused by Millerism. Newspaper reports of instances of alleged insanity due to Millerism began to appear in 1842, and were abundant by 1843. In Janu ary of 1845, the American Journal of Insanity asserted that fifty eight percent of the residents in New England insane asylums were there due to the “evils of Millerism.” The failure of Jesus to meet Miller’s deadline is still known today among Seventh Day Adventists as “The Great Disappointment.” In 1845, Miller issued his Apology and Defense, and admitted therein that he had twice erred with regard t o the time of Jesus’ second coming.
Motives for alluding to Biblical passages that are problematic become obvious when the fact that America was gearing up for a possible war with England (remember James K. Polk and 54-40 or fight?) is considered. England relied at least somewhat on the divine right of kings, and the King of England was the titular head of the Church of England. Any successful undermining of Christian doctrine thus had a tendancy to undermine the King's authority to recruit soldiers to fight a prospective war. At the same time, Miller mania also provided a cover explanation for the swell in the ranks of the institutionalized, many of whom were no doubt committed due to desire to avoid war.
We now skip forward about ninety years. In 1934, a group of SDA led by Victor Houteff splintered from the SDA and "gathered" at Waco, Texas, purportedly intending to move to Jerusalem to witness the Second Coming of Jesus. This group became known as the Davidian Seventh Day Adventists. Houteff informed his followers that someday they would receive an as yet unrevealed six-letter name, and somehow managed to procure non-combatant status for his members in the armed forces. Perhaps this last fact explains how Houteff was able to attract some 100,000 followers. Houteff died in 1955, at which time his wife Florence became leader and, as such, predicted that Christ would return on April 22, 1959. When Christ failed to do so, Ben Roden led another splinter group, and added six letters to their existing name. They were now known as the Branch Davidians. Ben Roden died in 1978, at which time his wife Lois became leader of the sect. She died in 1986. At some point between her husband's death and her death, Lois and Koresh became lovers, notwithstanding an age difference of forty-three years. Koresh won the power struggle with George Roden, the son of Ben and Lois, which ensued after Lois' death. George ended up in a mental institution. At this point, Koresh legally changed his name from Vernon Howell to David Koresh - David for King David and “Koresh” being Persian for “Cyrus.” It is well documented that Koresh stated on a myriad of occasions that he was Jesus and that he was the messenger. In 1993, a group of about one hundred twenty-five Branch Davidians was living in a compound just outside Waco, Texas. A warrant was issued for the arrest of Vernon Howell, better known as David Koresh, for weapons violations. A warrant to search the premises was also issued. The feds executed the warrant via a commando style raid, which some of the Branch Davidians resisted with gunfire, killing four BATF agents. A fifty one day standoff resulted. When the feds finally attempted to force the resid ents of the compound out with tear gas, fires were started, shots were fired, and seventy-six Branch Davidians were dead, including nineteen children.
The military style raid on the compound was necessary neither to effect the arrest of Koresh nor execute the accompanying search warrant. Koresh was frequently off the site of the compound, and also frequently jogged on its perimeter. It is this last fact that inspired the testimony of BATF agent Robert Rodriguez’s testimony that had the white male jogger cited in the surveillance log been Koresh, the agents would not have known it. Cite HR 104-749 at p. 25. According to Rodriguez’s testimony, “the only picture identification that the agents possessed was ‘a driver's license picture of him, which was not that good. That was one reason we [later] needed to make contact with the people inside the compound, so we could identify him. I myself did not know what he looked like [at the time of surveillance].’'” Hooey! The fact is that Koresh had always cooperated with the authorities in the past. He did not resist when he was arrested for the attempted murder of George Roden in 1987, he obeyed all court orders in the matter of two of his children, even though those orders were adverse to him. Finally, in early 1992 the Texas Department of Protection and Regulatory Services and McLellan County Sheriff's Department personnel to inspect Mount Carmel on three occasions. Small wonder, then, that the Committee On Government Reform and Oversight, as well as the Committee on the Judiciary concluded that:
David Koresh could have been arrested outside the Davidian compound. The ATF chose not to arrest Koresh outside the Davidian residence and instead were determined to use a dynamic entry approach. In making this decision ATF agents exercised extremely poor judgment, made erroneous assumptions, and ignored the foreseeable perils of their course of action.
The decision to pursue a military style raid was made more than two months before surveillance, undercover, and infiltration efforts were begun. This was the stated conclusion in HR 104-749. Note that this means that the decision was made under the Bush administration. Obviously, one would expect that a function of the surveillance would be to determine, among other things, both the necessity for and the viability of a commando style raid. The fact that the decision was made before any surveillance was conducted should sound alarm bells in everybody’s head.
The surveillance operation undertaken in January of 1993 lacked the lacked the minimum professionalism expected of a Federal law enforcement agency. Indeed, it was so shoddy that it looks like nothing so much as the Keystone Cops. The agents who conducted it posed as students at a local community college. Here is an excerpt of the report:
There is substantial evidence to suggest that Koresh and the Davidians knew that the undercover house established by the ATF across the street from the compound was occupied by law enforcement officials. Koresh told his next door neighbor that he believed that the self-identified ``college students'' were too old to be actual college students, with cars too new and expensive to be owned by college students. He commented that they were probably Federal agents. The agents were also informed by one of Koresh's neighbors shortly after they began surveillance that Koresh suspected they were not what they claimed to be. On one occasion, the Davidians visited their new neighbors in the undercover house to deliver a six pack of beer, but the occupants of the house would not let them in. Finally, Koresh complained to the local sheriff that the UPS delivery man was an undercover police officer. Koresh commented that he did not appreciate being investigated. At the hearing, Agent Rodriguez testified that `` all of [the undercover ATF agents], or myself knew we were going to have problems. It was just too--too obvious.'' (Citations omitted.)
Their professed ignorance of Koresh’s physical appearance has been noted. Also more than merely remarkable is the ATF's failure to develop nearly 900 photographs taken from the undercover house or to review videotapes of the movements of the Davidians. As noted in the report, “This evidence represented an opportunity to develop critical intelligence regarding the habits and movements of compound residents, including Koresh.” More alarm bells should be sounding. Klaxons, even.
The inferno that resulted in the deaths of so many residents of the compound was started from within the compound by one or more of the residents there. Here is a brief excerpt from the report:
The evidence demonstrated that three distinct fires began in three separate parts of the Branch Davidian residence within a 2 minute period on April 19. Additionally, the fire review team found that a number of accelerants were present in the structure, including gasoline, kerosene, and Coleman fuel, and that in at least one instance these accelerants contributed to the spread of the fire in a manner that indicates an intention to spread the fire.
The committees ruled out three other possible causes: 1) methylene chloride in the CS riot control agent used by the FBI; 2) the irritant chemical in the CS riot control agent used by the FBI; and 3) the combat engineering vehicles used by the FBI. They did not consider the possibility that pyrotechnics started the fire. The government initially denied using it, notwithstanding accusations that it did from the likes of Bill Johnson, the prosecutor of some of the surviving Branch Davidians. In this light, the conclusion in the report is interesting – “While not dispositive, the evidence presented to the subcommittees indicates that some of the Davidians intentionally set the fires inside the Davidian residence.” It almost seems as though the committees were anticipating the accusation that pyrotechnics were used. Even if they were, it would seem incredibly unlikely that pyrotechnics, which were formerly used at many venues for the most part without incident, were the cause. Although they capable of s tarting a fire, it is extremely unlikely that they started three different fires in three different locations.
The arson was not motivated by religious fanaticism. It should be noted at the outset that one of these facts is that Koresh once referred to the Branch Davidian sect of the Seventh Day Adventist denomination as "a game for gain." The history of the Branch Davidians contains allusions to passages of the Christian Bible that are problematic, and two are peculiar to Koresh. For the purpose of this article, the word "problematic" means that the passage is susceptible to an interpretation that is inimical to Christian dogma. Apologists will say "no problem - here is the correct interpretation." Critics will say that the passage militates against the accuracy of Christian dogma. For the purpose of this article, it doesn't matter which, if either, is correct. It only matters that the passages are problematic because the allusions to them are at least in some instances unmistakable, and there are too many to be considered coincidental, especially when considered in conjunction with Koresh's characteriza tion of Branch Davidian as "a game for gain."
The first set of problematic passages pertain to Jesus tardiness with regard to the date that he himself set for his return. Note that in Mark 13:24-30, Jesus purportedly prophesies his own return:
But in those days after that tribulation the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from the sky, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And they will see 'the Son of Man coming in the clouds' with great power and glory, and then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the end of the earth to the end of the sky.... Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.
Also note that in Matt. 16:27, he also is reported to have said, “Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” If the common meaning of Jesus’ words is assigned, then at least one member of the generation to which Jesus spoke would be alive when Jesus returned. His failure to return would have been viewed as increasingly problematic as more and more of those “standing here” died off.
Christianity confronts this problem in one of two ways. One attempt to resolve this problem was made by the author of the Gospel of John, a book which everyone agrees was written no earlier than 90 AD, and which some contend was written as late as 120 AD. In John 21:22-23, it is reported that, in a post-resurrection discussion with Peter regarding an anonymous disciple, Jesus said, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” We are next told that as a consequence a rumor spread through the community that this anonymous apostle would not die. However, the author of John makes the point that Jesus never actually said that the apostle wouldn’t die. It appears that the author of John was attempting to supersede the versions denoted in Mark and Matthew with regard to the time of the parousia. At the point in time he wrote, there was obviously an expectation that Jesus would return before the death of the apostolic generation. The author of John attempted to demonstrate the origi n of this expectation, and then to explain it away as a misunderstanding with regard to what Jesus actually said. The probability is that no witnesses still lived who could contradict his version of what Jesus said. In any event, the author of John paved the way for the author of II Peter, who wrote after the author of John, no earlier than 100 AD, and maybe as late as 140 AD. In II Peter 3:4-8, we are informed that “with the Lord, one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like one day.” Thus, according to some apologetics, the Second Coming hasn’t even begun to approach being tardy due to the fact that God keeps time on a different calendar than we do.
A second Christian circumvention of the problem posed by Jesus’ failure to meet his own deadline is based upon the passage found in Luke 17:20-21. Those verses state:
Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he said in reply, “The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce ‘Look, here it is’ or ‘There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is among you.
From this passage, some choose to infer that no second coming was ever planned.
The Catholic commentary to John 21:22-23 notes that “[t]he death of the apostolic generation caused problems in the church because of a belief that Jesus was to have returned first. Loss of faith sometimes resulted.” This statement, without more, should establish that the passages denoted above are properly regarded as problematic. The similarity of the situation of the Millerites and the early Christians is self-apparent.
The second set of problematic passages pertain to the purported virgin birth of Jesus. Aside from inherent unbelievability, the myth of the immaculate conception is problematic for a number of reasons. It's inception is rooted in the so-called messianic prophecy found in Isaiah 7:14. That verse states "the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and shall call him Immanuel." According to Catholic commentary, "[t]he Church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother." The book of Isaiah was originally written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "alma". It is necessary to note that in Hebrew, the word "alma" can mean either "virgin" or "young woman". When this verse was translated into Greek and became part of what is now called the Septuagint, the translator, for whatever reason, opted for virgin. The verse noted above must be considered in conjunction with that found in Jeremiah 23:5 - "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up a righteous shoot to David ...." Catholic commentary to this passage states, "A messianic king will arise from the line of David who will rule our Judah and Israel with the justice of the Lord ...." Thus, according to modern Christian dogma, the prophecy regarding the coming messiah says that he will be BOTH of the line of David and born of a virgin.
There is convincing evidence contained within the Christian Bible itself that the myth of the Immaculate Conception was fabricated, presumably for the dual purpose of demonstrating fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and of establishing the Christian claim of Jesus' divine status. Both Matthew (Matt. 1:1-16) and Luke (Luke 3:23-38) contain genealogies of Jesus. Both genealogies (note that they are inconsistent), by their express terms, purport to trace the lineage of Joseph. Biblical scholars, be they apologetics or critics, are unanimous in concluding that the reason for the inclusion of the genealogies was to demonstrate that Jesus was from the line of David, and thus fulfilled the purported prophecy regarding the lineage of the messiah. This assertion presents a paradox for Christianity at a very basic level. If Jesus was immaculately conceived, then he is not the son of Joseph, and, consequently not of the line of David, and can therefore not be the messiah. If he is the son of Joseph, then Jesus cannot be the Son of God, and the Immaculate Conception must be a myth.
The Apostle Paul, writing to the Romans in Romans 1:1-4, explains the basis for regarding Jesus as the Son of God. He omits any mention of Jesus's immaculate birth. That omission is at least interesting. No less a personage than David Freiderick Strauss stated that the inclusion of the genealogies prove that at least at one time Jesus was regarded as human. Note that the Virgin Mary is frequently referred to as "The Madonna," both within Christian literature and in countless paintings.
At his point, the assertion is that it is difficult to see what Koresh and his predecessors had in mind if not alluding to the problematic passages regarding the "Branch of David" and "Designation of Cyrus" as God's Annointed noted above. Should any doubts linger, it should be noted that Koresh had a band, that he wrote songs for the band, and that he wanted Madonna (like the Virgin Mary is sometimes called) to be the lead singer for his virtually unknown band. 2
The third set of problematic passages pertain to the designation of Cyrus as "[the Lord's] annointed." To make a long story very short, the kingdom of Judah was conquered by the Babylonians in the early part of the sixth century BC. The destruction of the Jewish temple in 586 BC was a component of this conquest. Many of the members of the upper echelons of Hebrew society were deported to Babylon, where they remained for a number of years during the period known as the Babylonian Captivity. This situation persisted until the Babylonians were militarily defeated by the Persians, under the leadership of Cyrus, the Persian king. Under Cyrus, the Hebrews were permitted to return to their homeland and rebuild their temple. The book of Isaiah either foretells these events or relates them historically in the form of prophecy. In any event, the following passages are found in Isaiah 45:1-5:
Thus says the Lord to his anointed Cyrus, whose right hand I grasp, Subduing nations before him, and making kings run in his service, Opening doors before him and leaving the gates unbarred:
I will go before you and level the mountains; Bronze doors I will shatter, and iron bars I will snap.
I will give you treasures out of the darkness, and riches that have been hidden away, That you may know that I am the Lord, the God of Israel, who calls you by your name.
For the sake of Jacob, my servant, of Israel my chosen one, I have called you by your name, giving you a title, though you knew me not.
I am the Lord and there is no other, there is no God besides me. It is I who arm you, though you know me not.
The significance of designating Cyrus as "anointed" is as follows. The word "messiah" is derived from the Greek "meshiah." "Meshiah" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "anointed." Thus, the passages denoted above, read literally, can be understood to refer to Cyrus as the Messiah. The fact that Cyrus is the one who alleviated the circumstances giving rise to the necessity for a messiah militates in favor of the correctness of this reference. Obviously, if the Messiah preceded Jesus, then Jesus couldn't be the Messiah. The passages are therefore problematic. Note that “Koresh” is Persian for “Cyrus.” Again, if the player in the game for gain did not have this problematic passage in mind when he took the name Koresh, then what was he thinking?
A blatant contradiction contained within the Gospels is seen when Matthew 11:14 is compared with John 1:21. In Matthew, Jesus is reported to have expressly stated that John the Baptist was "Elijah, he who is to come." See also Matthew 17:13. However, in Gospel of John, it is reported that the Baptist, after having been asked point- blank if he was Elijah, responded completely unambiguously, "I am not." Analysis of this contradiction draws Jesus' mindset into question. If Jesus indeed said that the Baptist was "Elijah, the one who is to come," it becomes logically imperative to determine what event Elijah's coming was prophesied to precede. The relevant prophecy is found in the book of Malachi, the last book in the Old Testament. In Malachi 3:23 is written: "Lo I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and terrible day...." It is next necessary to determine what is meant by "the day of the Lord, the great and terrible day." The coming of that day is prophesied i n Malachi 3:1: "Lo, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me; And suddenly there will come to the temple the Lord whom you seek, And the messenger of the covenant whom you desire. (Emphasis added.) Yes, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts." Malachi 3:2 then begins a description of the greatness and terribleness of this prophesied event.
It is important to note that either the phrases "the Lord" and "the messenger of the covenant" are intended to refer to the same entity or Malachi 3:1 envisions the appearance of two entities at the temple - that of "the Lord" and that of "the messenger of the covenant." The former possibility is excluded by the language used at the beginning of the chapter, since the concept of the Lord "sending" himself to prepare the way for himself is untenable. It is thus safe to conclude that Malachi envisioned the appearance of two separate entities in the temple on the great and terrible day of the Lord - both the Lord and his messenger of the covenant.
If indeed Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was Elijah returned, then it is clear that Malachi formed the framework for his mindset. According to Malachi, the plight of Judah was due to two transgressions: 1) Judah had profaned the temple which the Lord loves; and 2) Judah has married an idolatrous woman. See Malachi 2:11. According to Malachi, the temple had been profaned due to erroneous religious instruction given by and partial decisions made by the temple priests and blemished sacrifices offered by the Jews. See Malachi 2:8-9, 1:7. Also in Malachi is found disapproval of divorce, notwithstanding the permissibility of divorce under Mosaic law, presumably due to the practice of Jewish men remarrying women who were not Jews. Jesus' stance on divorce bolsters the proposition that Malachi formed the framework for his mindset, and so do his activities in the temple.
Attributing a Malachian mindset to Jesus would provide an insight into what he sought to accomplish when he "cleansed" the temple. It would indicate that he sought to precipitate the advent of the "great and terrible day" when the Lord will suddenly come to the temple. It also would indicate that he perceived himself as the messenger of the covenant and not as the Lord. The fact that Malachi envisioned the presence of both the Lord and the messenger of the covenant in the temple and the absence of any personage other than Jesus in the temple during its "cleansing" eligible to be the messenger of the covenant would combine to defeat any claim to the contrary. That Jesus did not perceive himself as a deity can also be inferred from analysis of other passages in the gospels. Mark 1:1-13 (See also Matthew 3:1-17; Luke 3:1-22) reports the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. According to Mark, the purpose of baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. When the purpose of baptism is considered, from Jesus' b aptism can be inferred that he regarded himself as a sinner. Another passage from which can be inferred that Jesus did not regard himself as the Son of God is found in Mark 6:1-6. (See also Matthew 13:54-58; Luke 4:16-30.) That passage relates the story of Jesus teaching in the synagogue in his hometown of Nazareth and the rejection of him and his teaching by his fellow parishioners. Jesus' reportedly responded to those who rejected him by asserting that "[a] prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house." For this statement to be relevant to that situation, Jesus must have regarded himself as a prophet. The messenger of the covenant to whom was referred in Malachi comes within the definition of prophet. Indeed, the title of that prophetic book is a proper name fashioned from the Hebrew expression for "my messenger." Thus, Jesus' tacit reference to himself as a prophet is inconsistent with a divine self-perception and is completely consistent with the assertion that he perceived himself to be the messenger.
It is seen that these passages are susceptible of being read as indicating that Jesus regarded himself as the messenger to whom was made reference in Malachi, and are therefore properly regarded as problematic. Recall that Koresh stated on a myriad of occasions that he was Jesus and that he was the messenger. To anyone with knowledge of the problematic nature of the passages digested immediately preceding, this allusion isn't exactly subtle. Koresh was obviously equating Jesus with the messenger to whom was referred in Malachi.
We now have enough insight into what Koresh meant when he said Branch Davidian was a "game for gain." Whatever else Koresh may have been, he certainly was not a religious zealot. The fires, which did originate from within the Waco compound, were not set by somebody motivated by religious zeal.
The government had a motive to kill Koresh. Allusions to problematic precepts of Christianity were not the only allusions Koresh was making. There were at least one other, that being allusion to the assassination of JFK. His arms cache is reminiscent of that found at Lake Ponchartrain in 1963, and his band had a drummer named Thibodeaux, a recent convert whose last name was the same as the town listed as Rose Cheramie’s birthplace on one of her arrest sheets. There was also a buried school bus within the compound that was used as a shooting range by the members. It’s symbolic significance is as follows. Malcolm X said the JFK assassination was a case of the “chickens come home to roost.” He himself was subsequently assassinated. RFK said that he “now fully realizes that only the power of the presidency will reveal the secrets of my brother’s death.” He was subsequently assassinated. Mick Jagger said “I shouted out who killed the Kennedys, when after all it was you and me.” An attempt was made to assassinate him at Altamont Speedway. If the scenario outlined at the JFK site linked to from this homepage is correct, then who killed JFK could easily have been part of Hoffa’s power play. Hoffa is presumed to have been assassinated. So how many guys can be targeted with what looks like knowledge of the Kennedy assassination without that being ascribed as the motive? Start with Malcom X. No serious researcher can truly believe that he was assassinated for accusing Elijah Muhammad of adultery, especially since Elijah Muhammad admitted his adultery and attempted to mitigate and maybe even excuse it by pointing to certain Old Testament practices by Hebrew patriarchs and kings. Malcolm X’s three “big ones” were Christianity, JFK, and education. Somehow education was made it to prominence with the concept of busing at relatively shortly before RFK was assassinated, as well as the attempt on Mick Jagger, see Keyes v. School District # 1, Denver, Colorado, and then again with the same case be fore Hoffa’s disappearance and presumed assassination. (At least George de Mohrenschildt was permitted to kill himself in busing decision peace.) Making it appear that education was the real reason behind Malcolm X’s assassination was the least of the three evils. Really, how would it look if Black America assassinated one of its own because he blabbed some and might have blabbed more about who killed the guy who did so much for it and would have done more, at least for its workers? Burying a school bus might well have been Koresh’s allusion to the purpose of busing in Denver, Colorado.
It looks like Koresh had next, the more so because his alleged sexual activities (and use of the word alleged is not intended to imply innocence) pretty much forced the government to do something. Had he asserted at trial that he was being framed and his allusions to the JFK assassination were the reason, a boatload of embarrassment to the government would have ensued. There is the primary motive.
Government officials have deployed misdirection with regard to certain events that occurred surrounding the Waco tragedy. The focus here will be on three attempts. First is the numerous references to the “leaking” of news of the impending raid. By informing Koresh and his followers of the coming raid, the feds took the case of John Bad Elk v. United States out of the equation. Neither Koresh nor any of his followers had reason to believe that the raid was not legitimate after having received the information that it would soon be upon them. Any reliance upon the leak to demonstrate that the feds wanted the confrontation is therefore wholly misplaced. The second attempt is the previously mentioned assertion that the feds used polytechnics during the course of the final raid. The most prominent accuser was Waco prosecutor Bill Johnson, and he was granted political asylum in Australia to make it look like the government disfavored the allegation. This accusation actually exculpates the feds as far as intent goes, and relegates the detractor to a negligence theory. The feds have in fact already “owned up” to using polytechnics. It looks like those in the committees that prepared HR 104-749 were men aforesighted. Yeah. Right. The third attempt at misdirection is the “claim” that the feds fired into the flames while the compound was in flames. In the words of the Danforth Report, this claim “amounted to "an unsupportable case based entirely upon flawed technological assumptions." Those who levied the accusation lost a lot of credibility, and accordingly will not get much attention if they claim instead that those on the inside who did the shooting were acting on behalf of the government.
Koresh was never arrested by state authorities notwithstanding the existence of probable cause to do so because the plan was to kill him, not to try him and convict him. Koresh simply knew too much about the misdeeds of both the Texas government and the federal government ever to be tried. The decision to conduct a military-style raid upon the compound – unnecessary in the first instance - before the extremely conspicuous show of surveillance indicates that the government already had its information, and it could only have come from having a presence inside the compound. The fact that the Branch Davidians had been advised that they had a right to resist the raid with deadly force all but guaranteed that the ensuing conflict would occur. The conflict that occurred provided the opportunity for those aligned with the government inside the compound to effect the massacre, and the non-existent but apparent religious zeal of the Branch Davidians served as a ready explanation for the deaths. That those insi de the compound who effected the massacre were indeed aligned with the government is demonstrated not only by the non-existence of religious zeal and the existence of a motive to kill on the part of the government, but also by the fact that the government has undertaken at least several ploys to misdirect the public’s attention with regard to the events of Waco, and especially from the fact that it has refrained from explaining its decision to publish the fact that a warrant had been issued for Koresh in the Waco newspaper the day before the raid was executed.