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

[Boadicea]

Thank you for bringing this vote forward. It's one of the many foreign policy reasons to vote against Hillary Clinton tomorrow. Her foreign policy is indistinguishable from McCain's. In a contest between these two war candidates, McCain, with his broad popularity and his long patriotic record, would win in a landslide.

[tstamp]

thanks--didn't know about this vote.

[MA]

One rationale from the US is that land mines are vital to the protection of South Korea.
However, if N. Korea ever decided to invade the South they would prove ineffective.
It's an outdated tool of warfare that primarily targets civilians.

[LAcarlito]

Hillary lost me on so many votes. She clearly does not have either the experience OR judgment to be President.

Let's send Hillary back to the Senate to get some real experience to fight for the programs that President Obama will bring forward. Let's see if she can play to her strength as an "in the trenches" fighter.

Time to turn the pages and bring a leader out of the Democratic Primary process. Let's FINALLY expand the base of our party and give ourselves the best chance to win in November. Move forward, Dems!!

[Zenpilot]

Yup. Hillary's votes have nothing to do with values or principles. They are about increasing her chances in general elections. They also show contempt for Democrats who oppose the war. She'll throw them under the bus because she knows they won't have any other choice in November.

[broilinginhouston]

For me, it was her sponsorship of that idiotic flag-burning law. HRC lost me with that one -- permanently.

[sanglug]

Same rationale as her Iraq vote. Yikes.

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

Hillary's votes are all about Hillary from the Iraq war (without reading the NIE) to let's cluster bomb innocent civilians. She is no friend of the common man and she certainly is not a Progressive. She sponsors or co-sponsors bills that stand no chance of coming to the floor to get a "liberal" rating, but then votes with Bush so she won't appear soft. That is exactly what we don't need in a leader. More smoke and mirrors. That and she also has a civil fraud court date in LA on the 21st of February, 2008 stemming from her and her husbands 2000 Clinton Gala Fundraiser activities for which her campaign has already been fined.

[HowardRoarke]

"Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not."

I wonder if the US intends to use landmines to protect its borders. At $1 a mine, I guess it'd be cheaper than a wall, if you're into that sort of thing.

[jvarga]

Wow, I didn't realize that we hadn't signed the mine ban treaty. Is the US actively using them (in Iraq or Afghanistan or where ever)?

[pbarba1969]

Another Obama supporter who it looks like won't support Hillary if she wins. Its amazing to me that they had all this love for Hullary over the years and now with Obama they treay her like she's the anti-Christ...