Clinton, Obama, and Cluster Bombs

If you're a friend of mine, or a fan of "Get Your War On," you probably know how important the issue of cluster bombs and landmines is to me.

It was America's use of cluster bombs during Operation: Enduring Freedom that led me to start GYWO seven(!) years ago this fall, and it has been my pleasure and my honor to donate the royalties from the two GYWO anthologies to Mine Detection & Dog Center Team #5, a landmine removal team in western Afghanistan.

If you ever attended a GYWO reading, you probably sat through my video of landmine removal teams in the field, or listened to me read off statistics about that dangerous mission, or indulged me by taking an informational flyer about MDC Team #5 and the sacred work they do.

(If you bought one of the GYWO books, you've helped that work, and I thank you.)

Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Analysts say Clinton did not want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility.

I'm not a single-issue voter. But as Obama and Clinton share many policy positions, this vote was revelatory for me. After all, Amendment No. 4882 was an easy one to vote against: Who'd want to risk accusation of "tying the hands of the Pentagon" during a never-ending, global War on Terror? As is so often the case, there was no political cost to doing the wrong thing. And there was no political reward for doing the right thing.

But Senator Obama did the right thing.

Is Senator Obama perfect? Of course not. Nobody who voted for 2005's wack-ass energy bill is perfect. Nobody who voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act is perfect.

But of the two remaining Democratic candidates, one decided her vote on Amendment No. 4882 according to a political calculation. The other used a moral calculation.

I'm 35 years old, and over the years, I've had two experiences in the voting booth: I've voted for politicians I really respected, who I knew could never win. And I've voted for politicians I didn't really respect, because I knew they could win.

Tomorrow, I'm going to vote for a politician I really respect, who I know can win.

Comments

[Garvagh]

Great piece! The idiot currently occupying the White House wants to have the US spend as much on "defense" as the rest of the world combined. Hillary Clinton shows a lack of understanding of the damage the standing of this country suffers when the military profile is so high, particularly in the Middle East (where Israel illegally used cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians in 2006).

[AlatheiaEunomia]

*Le sigh* I am so, so, so fond of David Rees. He is my hero!

[deminmo]

I will play Devil's advocate.
Both Obama and Clinton have voiced their
opinions on Iraq, but not on Afghanistan, so
what is their plan? And let's say that Bush
really believes he has the right to pre-emptive
attack on a percieved threat to the US. And
he has been told he cannot go to war without
the approval of Congress, but considering he
makes his own rules anyway, what will Obama
and Clinton do if he decides to go after Iran?

We all know declaration of Martial Law keeps
a sitting President in for as long as the
threat exists. Have these candidates even
considered the remote possibility?

[StanQ]

Hillary makes me want to vomit.

[user168]

"The enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution."

"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death."

"He who conquers others is strong; He who conquers himself is mighty. "

No other candidate has ever delivered a speech with such insightful wisdom, profound justice, and universal truth than Senator Obama -

"You have to believe in yourself."
"From caring comes courage."

Here is Senator Obama’s speech delivered on October 26, 2002 opposing the use of force in Iraq…
————————–

http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/barack-obamas-speech-on-iraq-2002/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

[ibsteve2u]

Disappointing, to see comments from women that can be summarized as "Yes, she does vote for horrible things, but she is a woman! Vote for her anyway!".

I'm thankful that the comments I refer to are not a representative sample of womanhood.

[BillScheurer]

Really? Did Obama make a moral calculation, or just use a different political calculus?
What were his moral calculations on the horrible votes he has made?
Like approving Rice for Secretary of State, funding the Iraq war, etc.
Believe what you will. These are just two politicians making different calculations.
I'm going with Cynthia McKinney in '08. We're outta here!

[bottomdwellah]

Bravo!! This is without doubt the best post I have ever read on this site. Short and pointed, well spoken sir. I thank you for your work on this most disturbing issue. The world needs more like you and less like "W"!!!!

[KarenZipdrive]

Alas, as a woman, I think Hillary has had to appear more hawkish than she actually is in order to mollify the millions of voters who believe women are too soft to be effective as Commanders in Chief.
As Bill Mahar recently observed on his show "Real Time," a lot of people say they hate Hillary, but when pressed they can give no solid reasons for their hatred.
I think a lot of males just don't accept females as equals.
So, yeah, Hillary will continue having to butch (hawk) it up to appeal to the doubters.
I don't really care what she has to say or do to get elected- I have faith that once she's in, she can return to being the decent, kind, hardworking woman she was before she decided to run.
Yeah, she's phony- they all are at this level of political ambition. Let's not be naive about it.

[awb]

she's a hawk

do we want someone who thinks she has to rpove she's tough?

that's the flip side/aka dangerous side of a woman president

[mamacat]

An interesting article.
Googling "afghanistan" and "orphans", I found an article that stated that of the 2 million orphans in that country, 400,000 of them have been maimed. I wonder what role cluster bombs played in the maiming of those children. The article said the main cause was Russian land mines, but the Soviets left a long time ago. Anyway, a greater awareness of the issue of so-called corollary damage in warfare might help to save the lives of some innocent children.

[MaynardGK]

This makes #3 on my gripes against HC today:
1. She supported Leiberman against Demo Lamont, Conn 2006. Not that I hate Leiber, but he had his Democratic shot in the primary> If you are gonna run in the party machine you have to stick to its rules.
2. She'd dissed code Pink. My word these are the only people she knows are forced to vote her in should she get nominated.
3. Cluster bombs. I believe this is probably related to another weakness I would suspect, in that Israel used cluster bombs against Lebanon, so maybe she thinks, a vote against CBs is a vote against Israel.
H.C. shows no creativity in our Israel policy, and I've heard nothing about Cuba. My suspicion is that for past political expediency she is in a box on these two issues, also.
Here in CA I was gonna throw my vote away to Dennis K. but instead I will join what I hope to be an Obama Tsunami.

[ariadne1]

remember pol pot and the khmer rouge, remember diana going to cambodia to raise the worlds consciousness on the maimed and crippled children irreparably damaged as a result of the land mines?

and hillary does not vote to ban them "in order to
look tough on the issues"... shame on her.

[resonate]

This article should be up higher on the page.

[mrfrazzlebottom]

"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.