A nonfiction book of this sort is the most difficult to review because there are so many factors to consider. About the writing style: I felt it was quite good (thus four stars), but I would have liked the story to move along faster. Much of the book could have been condensed, leaving room for all of the things that were left out (and I'm convinced a whole bunch of stuff was).

The author seemed determined to show how it was rational for him to haved joined this group, but he failed. I kept reading between the lines thinking, WHAT WAS HE THINKING? This is not an objective report. This does not tell you what really happened at Waco. But perhaps that is not the author's fault. I doubt any book on the subject CAN be objective. What those of us who weren't involved must do is read everything we can on the subject and draw our own, hopefully rational conclusions. A lot of people made mistakes in Waco. David Thibodeau is no exception.

I am always interested in why people do the things they do, and this book answers the question of why someone like David Thibodeau became part of the Mount Carmel community. I think the author tries very hard to be unbiased. I didn't understand everything Koresh taught, but I think it's important to read about all sides of the Waco story. I think the author accomplishes his stated purpose of trying to make the world understand that this was not about a bunch of wackos, but about real people with real spiritual needs under the leadership of a flawed man.

David Thibodeau's mother was the leader of what they called the hostage families during the Waco siege and it is one of the fortunate things that happened that her son siurvived the fire. This book apparently goes into what life was really like at Waco, just how bad and just how good.

Although not mentioned by Kirkus or the author for some reason, perhaps a fear of controversy I think this book would have to talk about the fire and the events that ended the compound at Waco, and probably deal with some of the not so little lies said during and after the siege, like the claim that it was called Ranch Apocalypse.

David Thibodeau has said it is not true that any shots were fired from inside the compound on April 19. He was interviewed a few times during the Congressional hearings. I don't know how much of what he knows got into this book, but it is something I am going to get.

(The story of the events of the siege has been made very complicated, of course, so to really deal with it, rebuttig all the things said that are wrong and rebutting the attempted rebuttals of the rebutalls would be very long.)

By way of background, explaining where I am coming from:

I have a personal opinion about the fire, which is that is was done to protect J. William Buford head of the bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Fire- arms in Little Rock who had murdered three agents under his command. they were not former Clinton boodyguard, Bill Clinton himself was responsible for starting that story by claiming in a speech to Treasury department employees in March 1993 that they had been assigned to his security something most likely untrue and if true very incidental. His motive may have been to disguise the reason for their murder. Clinton sent Roger Altman to personally speak to Buford after the raid - this was ovrheard by a Wall Street journal reporter present in the White House to do a story about a week in the President's life. (the story was in the March 9, 1993 Wall Street Journal - and it is the only place this connection was mentioned in all the news coverage about Waco. It is mentioned in Carol Moore's book, because I wrote her and told her about it.

After the fire the place of the death of the three agents, originally placed in a room on the second floor (see March 17, 1993 newsweek diagram) was moved outside, and Buford himself was moved into the room into which he shot. This would probably

not have been posisble without the destruction of the building and the deaths of so many of the people in it and their deaths also disguised how the shooting began on Feb. 28.

I think the reason for Buford machine-gunning three of the men under his command was that he knew the warrant, which he had helped prepare, was not good and the intention from the start was to have a shootout. In order to make that shootout look justified or necessary Buford arranged to kill three men under his command and blame their deaths on koresh (prior approval by Clinton is possible too - or it may be the McArthur murder in 1982 (see the book Widow's Web) that may have been reason Clinton arranged tp protect him. The timing of the planning of the raid followed Clinton's eelection prospects: starting in earnest in June 1992, right after he won the Californoa primarty, slowing down in July, starting again right after the November election - and on january 1 and 3 1993 Buford got personally involved, putting the sex allegations into the warrant, although they were legally irrelevant to the matter at hand, which was guns.

In any case, the plan to kill three agents and have their deaths blamed on Koresh, relying on the confusion to hide the true cause, fell apart because Koresh had access to a cellular phone and a second phone billed to a law firm in Waco also still worked and also maybe because the shooting got videotaped by TV station KWTX-TV , Channel 10 in Waco. There was a BIG problem for Buford now.

It took seven weeks for Clinton to finally save Buford's skin.

On April 19 there was a plan on paper with a loophole authorizing the real plan to be implemented.

It was vital it include tear gas and that was why FBOI Director Sessions's plan for water cannon had to be argued down so hard. The fire was caused by the injection of CS tear gas near 12 P.M. Before that they used other tear gas.

There ought to be things in this book to bear out or dispute many theories about Waco, and the more you know the more you will be able to use this.