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

[itwaslost]

Amen!

[research]

Since the War profiteers own the MSM, all candidates will have to be pro war to get elected.

I''m voting democratic.

I will have to wait and see what the new president actually does: campaign talk is cheap.

[hopeless277]

Of course she voted to murder and maim hundreds of thousand of innocent civilians! She didn't want to 'appear' soft on terror. The Repuclians are laughing their asses off at her. To submit to political blackmail is to endorse the practice. I think Hillary's position is clear.

[cambio]

Very good post. I think it is the FIRST time I have heard anyone other than myself mention Hillary's horrible position of wanting to allow landmines and cluster bombs. This is also a big issue for me (although only one of many in which I find Hillary deficient), but there has been of course no discussion of her views on civilian-killing weapons, or her pockets full of cash from arms manufacturers, or his disdain for the UN and ICC on important issues of human rights. I for one cannot believe that there has been so little (nonexistent) mention of these hugely important issues.

So thank you for giving this issue some recognition!

[Witkacy]

I say Hillary's vote for Kyl-Lieberman is the non plus ultra: what's more sinister than a vote shoring up the *ideological* structure of mass murder? Contrary to what Hillary says, she and every other damned body knew well when they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq that the use of force was - duh - imminent..­.But even in the face of the horror of the slaughter in Iraq, the way the U.S. has dumped the country upside down like a kid with a bucket of blocks, Hillary retains her vicious resolve to mete out punishment to someone else in the Muslim world for her own political gain...

David, I don't think that Clinton's care for the Iraqis and the Afghanis qua human beings suffering and dying extends to the concrete nature of, say, deployment of land mines or of cluster bombs. Clinton's of a mind with Madeleine Albright, who so famously stated the "price" of half a million dead children "was worth it"...

[S1m0n]

All Hillary's votes on war and military issues are the same: her sole concern when deciding how to vote is the impact each may have on HER political ambitions. Questions like "Is this right for America?" or even "Is this right?" don't seem to have entered her head, and definitely didn't factor into her calculations. It's telling that when voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, Hillary Clinton didn't read the intelligence briefing that senators were provided. If she read anything, it was the polls, not the intel.

I'm sure that a certain amount of self-centred narcissism is unavoidable in any candidate for high office, and may even be necessary. However, this gross dereliction of duty should rule Clinton out from any further promotiohns. There comes a time when every president must make decisions not for themselves, but for their nation. There's no indication that Hillary can rise to this task.

[Lon]

This was never going to be the issue that turned my vote. But I did read it hoping that Obama got it right. And I was glad to see he did. Another point in his favor.

The Clinton vote, while not decisive, gets at why she has been my least favorite democratic candidate from the beginning. Anyone afraid to look weak by voting against land mines is going to have trouble getting us out of Iraq.

[Macready]

Thank you David . . . I really hope the pro-hillary mob wakes up . . . hillary has no moral integrity.

[TripleDeuce]

I just wish Obama was as morally correct on so many of his other votes and pandering statements.

[cheerleaderBush]

That's sadly amusing, Clinton's vote to support killing and maiming civilians (mostly children) was viewed as a vote for being "soft on terror" - i mean, there is something very 1984-ish about this, if one takes an honest view.

Based on recent history, support for the so-called "war on terror" amounts to support for "terrorizing civilian populations" - so if someone is against the "war on terror", they're ACTUALLY AGAINST inflicting "terror" on civilians.­..

i think my head is going to explode.

[ljsfolly]

Thank You sir. I very much admire your work as I did when Princess Diana took it to be her cause. Such needless destruction of life and limb only to secure areas then walk away when those who placed them leave for the children to find. I am glad you reminded me of the votes on the ban as I remember thinking it was a no brainer. But like the not reading the NIE report before voting on the Iraq war to begin with Hillary has based way too many votes on her thoughts of what the vote would look like when she would run for president. I doubt many votes were even thought of much beyond those terms. I fear she will win and we will face yet even more years mired in the middle east and the economy will not come back as quickly as it would without a warmonger in the oval.

[LeonBNJ]

I believe that the bill for the USA to agree to a treaty to ban the use of land mines failed as there are several key areas where they continue to be used, mainly along the border between North and South Korea. Then their is the probable issue that USA companies still make land mines. At least Sen. Obama and a few others realize that then use of land mines is barbaric and no longer acceptable, but Sen. Clinton feared pissing off the military.

[greejambri]

OK, Clinton kool-aiders! Let's hear your spin on THIS one. It should be entertaining! The defense of Hillary Clinton's Neocon-colluding voting record goes on and on.......

[RusStyles]

Thanks for that revelation; the press hasn't said boo about it--yet. There are other voters still on the fence or leaning toward Obama, and they need insighful facts to help them make an informed decision. This tendency to vote in order to bolster her I-can-be-t­ough-as-a-­man image or presidential cred has become more increasingly transparent.

[greejambri]

Oh, I am SHOCKED, just SHOCKED by Hillary's vote on a cluster bomb ban. She only did it because she had to look tough like the big boys! Why is everybody always picking on her? Give her a break! It's a HARD balancing act portraying yourself as a liberal while voting like a Republican hawk.