Hillary: Cluster Bombs Are Not Village-Friendly

Yesterday, Democratic Senators Pat Leahy (VT) and Diane Feinstein (CA) tried to push through an amendment that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in densely populated areas and prohibited the U.S. from selling cluster bombs to countries unwilling to abide by the restrictions. Hillary Clinton voted against the amendment. It made me wonder: is there a limit to the level of violence and killing Hillary Clinton is willing to tolerate and support?

In Lebanon, children and their families are returning to devastated villages trying to salvage a future. As much as forty percent of the munitions dropped by cluster bombs end up failing to detonate immediately and are left scattered in gardens, streets and fields where civilians end up coming in contact with the deadly explosives. "For too long, innocent civilians, not enemy combatants, have suffered the majority of casualties from cluster munitions," Leahy said. "The recent experience in Lebanon is only the latest example of the appalling human toll of injury and death."

There has been a growing international movement to ban cluster bombs, akin to the clamor to eliminate land mines. Back in 2003, during the Iraq war, USA Today described the effects of cluster bombs: "Rashid Majid, 58, who was nearsighted, stepped on an unexploded bomblet around the corner from his home. The explosion ripped his legs off. As he lay bleeding in the street, another bomblet exploded a few yards away, instantly killing three young men, including two of Majid's sons -- Arkan, 33, and Ghasan, 28. "My sons! My sons!" Majid called out. He died a few hours later."

These weapons are horrific. Sen. Clinton, it may take a village to raise a child--but only if the village is still standing and the children still have life and limbs.