Reply #69: not so fast [View All]

[dfong63]

DU has been used in almost every skirmish since gulf war 1 and before, does it's use in these wars reflect badly on those that support ALL the candidates that had no problem with these other wars, or just Clark?

of the current candidates, only Clark was in a position to make a decision regarding the use of DU. he wants to take credit for his role in the war, he has to take responsibility for the not-so-wonderful aspects of that war also.

i hope Clark will be asked about this issue in the debates or in an interview. it's not just about Iraq, it's about hundreds of thousands of our own vets who were exposed to DU. it's also an environmental issue. the man claims to be thinking environmental issues in his 100-year vision for America. so let's think about what Iraq will look like in 100 years, if nothing is done to cleanup the radioactive mess. let's think about what all the other battlefields of the world will look like if we continue to use DU in future wars. let's think about how we'll feel if our opponents start using DU on us. let's think about the vets who are already, not only suffering horribly but having children with birth defects. what are the 100-year consequences of this?

i could go on by listing the international political consequences of the US continuing to use what most of the world regards as an illegal weapon.

so let's hear from Clark about this. i fully admit, this issue is bigger than Clark. it's not JUST about him. but since he actually fought a war with DU, i think he has a special responsibility to speak out on the issue. if he's in favor of its continued use, then he has to take the heat for it. if he's not in favor of it, then he has to take the lead in getting rid of it.

i'd also like to hear his thoughts on cluster bombs and the land mine treaty that Clinton sabotaged.