Wow, do we read the Stone review differently:
Stone: "Some of the documentary's allegations about federal agents seem reasonable, and correspond to what I learned from my own efforts to understand what happened at Waco. Other allegations push the envelope of credibility and some strain credulity to the breaking point. "
Stone: "Gazecki seems to want us to believe that FBI agents intentionally crushed Branch Davidians with their tanks and slaughtered them with their automatic weapons. Again, this is a mirror image account of the FBI's description of the Branch Davidians killing their own people rather than letting them escape the mass suicide. Surely the human truth lies somewhere between these extremes."
Stone: "...Gazecki builds the viewers' sense of moral outrage by his method of juxtaposition. Because much of what he shows us does seem to be true, his further allegations of extreme wrongdoing become more believable."
Stone: "Gazecki stops short of suggesting that Waco was a government conspiracy, but he gives conspiracy theorists all the ammunition they will need. Unfortunately, the responsible officials did such an inadequate job of investigating Waco that most viewers will have almost no realistic basis against which to measure Gazecki's film."
Every allegation of substance in "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" is also in the Frontline documentary "Waco: The Inside Story," <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/>
What Gazecki does is add in much conspiracist speculation that undermines an already strong case against the government.
Let's be clear that I don't make it a point to go around complaining about "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," I am responding to people asking me what I think. In every interview I stress that the main issue is the government misconduct and the subsequent cover-up. I have no control over how an interview is used, especially on radio or TV.
I would be interested in reading the transcript of the segment where I am apparently critical of the video. That way we could have an intelligent discussion.
-Chip
Below the original message I have posted an excerpt from a similar criticque of the video "Coverup."
= = = = ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 1:27 AM Subject: Waco: Rules of Engagement
>
> I wrote:
>
> > Chip, have you written up your criticisms of "Waco: Terms of
> > Engagement?" Many of us who found that a powerful movie would love to
> > see a detailed critique of its arguments.
>
> And Chip wrote:
>
> > Check out the articles linked on the PRA web page:
> > http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/waco.html
>
> Chip, of the three documents on that web page, only one deals with the
> film: Alan Stone's 43 screen article from the Boston Review entitled
> "Sifting the Ashes." And as far as I can see, his criticisms are mainly
> in the way of friendly amendments that make the core argument of the film
> even more plausible. Concerning the hardest to believe assertions, which
> come near the end of the film -- the heat-film analysis that "showed" the
> FBI spraying the house with automatic weapons fire during the delivery of
> the gas; the assertion that FBI gas canisters ignited the gas and caused
> the fire; and the footage purporting to show a section of the house
> harboring women and children being injected with gas and crushed by tanks
> while the people were still in it -- Stone comes to the conclusion that
> not one of these assertions is impossible, and that there is corroborating
> evidence for all of them. And he says this even though he personally had
> concluded the opposite before he saw the film, and published his findings
> in The Stone Report (which you also offer on your website).
>
> If that's the toughest critique available, I'm forced to conclude that the
> film is remarkably accurate -- breath-takingly so, considering how
> outrageous are the charges and how partisan is the approach.
>
> Michael
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com
>
>
= = = = =
>From Right Woos Left:
The Christic Institute and the Empowerment Project which distributes the film "CoverUp: Behind the Iran-Contra Affair" are major promoters of Barbara Honegger's theories regarding an alleged "October Surprise." The October Surprise was the term used among Reagan campaign aides to describe the possibility that the Iranian government might arrange for the release of U.S. hostages prior to the election which pitted incumbent Jimmy Carter against challenger Ronald Reagan.
Honegger, a former White House aide, alleges in her book October Surprise that officials connected to the Reagan Presidential campaign plotted with Iranian officials to delay the release of hostages in the Middle East until after the election. Substantial circumstantial evidence exists to suggest such a charge might be true, but there is little incontrovertible proof.
Honegger's research and analysis are questionable. In the 1989 edition of her book October Surprise, Honegger cites frequently to LaRouchian publications. While some LaRouchian material is factual, other material presented as fact is unsubstantiated rumor or lunatic conspiracy theories. Some anti-fascist researchers also assume that information in EIR occasionally represents calculated leaks by current and former government intelligence agents and right-wing activists to achieve a desired political goal. This practice is a common tactic in power struggles and faction fights over policy. While Honegger sometimes cites to progressive periodicals such as In These Times and The Nation, more than six percent (49 out of a total 771) of the footnotes in Honegger's book cite LaRouchian publications such as EIR, New Solidarity, and New Federalist. In one chapter on "Project Diplomacy," Honegger LaRouchian cites account for over 22 percent of the total number of footnotes. Honegger also makes assertions that strain credulity. She quotes without comment the claim of Eugene Wheaton that the CIA is actually secretly controlled by a group of retired members of the OSS.
In the July/August 1991 issue of The Humanist, both David MacMichael and Barbara Trent of the Empowerment project defend Honegger and suggest PBS refused to show "Coverup" because it contained serious charges against the U.S. government. As Trent put it:
"It was no big surprise that there was a problem getting `Coverup' on PBS. Programs that address U.S. foreign policy in particular and are not in agreement with the policies of the sitting president rarely get much of a chance on TV."
In fact, PBS has aired on the "Frontline" series programs about the October Surprise and CIA involvement in drug trafficking. PBS has also aired two Bill Moyers specials on Iran-Contragate that concluded that Reagan lied repeatedly and may have committed impeachable offenses, and that evidence exists to suggest that Bush's role in the Contra resupply operation was far more direct than he has admitted. The primary difference between the shows broadcast by PBS and "Coverup" is the reliance in "Coverup" on Barbara Honegger and Danny Sheehan and their unsubstantiated and undocumented charges. It would have been difficult for PBS to justify running Honegger's assertions given her reliance on material supplied by neo-Nazis with a history of circulating unreliable information.
"Coverup" also promotes the Christic theme that Iran-Contragate was caused by a long-standing conspiracy of individual agents. In contrast to this individualistic formulation, the Moyers programs stress a systemic failure: that the lack of congressional oversight over foreign policy and covert action has created a Constitutional crisis where the balance of powers between branches of government has been skewed toward the executive branch.