Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama outshines Clinton on human rights....Clinton supported exports of cluster bombs

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 02:49 PM
Original message
Obama outshines Clinton on human rights....Clinton supported exports of cluster bombs
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 02:50 PM by TeamJordan23
Obama outshines Clinton on human rights
By Sami Haddad

Iowa & Beirut - The 2006 war in Lebanon revealed a U.S. foreign policy with a severe case of multiple personality disorder. Will the next administration take action to prevent reckless allies like Israel from repeating such atrocities?

Senator Hillary Clinton has refused to support the international treaty to ban land mines, which are responsible for killing and maiming thousands of civilians worldwide, a disproportionate percentage of whom have been children. Then she voted down a Democratic-sponsored resolution restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries using them against civilian-populated areas.

The U.S. administration refused to broker a ceasefire in Lebanon until weeks into the conflict, by which it was too late, Israel dropped about 4 million cluster sub-munitions. Unexploded bombs now lie all over the place. In a Senate bill voted on in February 2007 to limit U.S. sales and transfers only of newer bombs with low error rates, Sen. Barack Obama backed that plan while his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sens. Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd, opposed it.

A cluster munition is a large bomb, rocket or artillery shell that contains hundreds of small submunitions, or individual bomblets. In some cases, up to 40 percent of the bomblets fail to explode and therefore pose a significant danger to civilians long after conflict has ended. Over 98 percent of the victims are civilians according to Handicap International, a UK-based NGO. If Israel’s motive was to seek and destroy Hizbollah via a short-term incursion, why use weapons designed to destroy the civilian population generally - and for years to come?

More importantly, how could the manufacturer of the very same bombs, that scored an average of two casualties per day for months after the end of the conflict, condone such use of its weaponry, particularly when that country is the United States, the alleged beacon of freedom and democracy? The outrage came late, but finally surfaced three weeks after the end of the conflict in Lebanon on September 6, 2006, when Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA) proposed a benign amendment to simply restrict the usage of cluster bombs in civilian areas throughout the world.

The amendment did not pass after being rejected by 70 "distinguished" members of the Senate. Politics aside, when voting for America's next president, consider asking a fundamental question of humanity: does the presidential hopeful condone the mass murder of innocent children? Not a single Republican senator, John McCain included, voted to prevent the use of cluster bombs on civilians. Many Democrats followed suit, including Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman, Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd.

Senators who voted for the amendment include Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy, Russell Feingold and Barbara Mikulski.

For Full article: http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/12/obama_outshines.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. unlike other bullshit, this seems like a fair argument for BO and against HRC...
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 03:10 PM by annie1
Biden and Dodd. it's not the random hogwash that gets thrown around on this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Cluster bombs should be banned althogether IMO. nm
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 03:43 PM by TeamJordan23
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. Annie you should know that Hillary & Edwards have refused to sign the Anti-Torture Pledge from the
American Freedom Campaign as Obama, Buden and Dodd have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. it's hard to take you seriously when you are always one sided...
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 06:22 PM by annie1
and hell bent on denigrating certain candidates. But i'll look into it anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. and it wasn't true. i shouldn't have taken you seriously after all.
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 06:50 PM by annie1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. Why?!? Seriously, I want to know.
Why would any Democrat (or Republican with integrity for that matter) not sign it? Was there something on it that Clinton or Edwards found objectionable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. looks to me like she did, but this is my first time looking it up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. ok, i double checked, she did sign up for the pledge. i don't know about edwards.
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 06:34 PM by annie1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. That looks like she supports it. Here's another link
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/torture-is-torture/

Granted, it's a blog but it's saying that she stated that she wants to reserve the right to make an exception to the ban for narrow circumstances. I still can't figure out if she signed it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. she did. 3 signed on the dotted line, the others, Biden, JE, HRC, sent their letters supporting...
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 06:36 PM by annie1
the pledge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #10
28. You're one of the good ones, Annie. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
34. Yeah, you would
know about "random hogwash".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is a topic of no small importance, easily lost in the daily banter and barrage of
sniping. Thank you for clearly outlining it. The land mine ban opposal is also very troubling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. those things are horrible
but, you know, gotta look "tough" for the voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BringBigDogBack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. hehe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
36. I think they've toughened
her up so much that she needs some tenderizer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Franc_Lee Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
49. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. And who introduced that legislation, even though it got pared down
from his original proposal? Pat Leahy.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200702/021507d.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BluegrassDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. Shame on Hilllary!
Thanks posting. I got even more reasons for not supporting her now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. And Dodd and Biden too. So be sure to add that to more reasons to not support them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. Stories like this need to be on the front pages of all the major papers and magazines.
VERY important information. More important than the fact she was friendly with Bhutto (who supported Obama's policy on Pakisatan, which I have yet to see reported).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is disgusting.
Thank you very much for posting this article. I've been leaning very much toward Obama but I might have finally fallen over. Clearly he has the judgment I'd like to see in a President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
9. The vote to amend was defeated 30 to 70? Must be more to this story....
...or another phony NIE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Well, I don't know about the others, but
here ws Biden's statement about it;

Senator Biden:

"Mr. President, I share the concerns that prompted the introduction of this amendment, but I am not prepared to approve a far reaching measure without a clear legislative record regarding the need for it and its likely impact on U.S. and allied forces.

Clusterbombs have always posed problems for responsible military forces like those of the United States.
The weapons are very useful militarily, but they also carry a real risk of causing civilian casualties if they are used where civilians are present or if too many submunitions fail to explode when they hit the ground. This is a legitimate issue to consider and, perhaps legislate.

But it should be done in a careful manner, after holding hearings and with proper preparation.

I urge the Senate Armed Services Committee to hold hearings on the issue of cluster munitions so that we can all gain a better understanding of how to maintain their usefullness while maintaining their risks.

The committe should also make sure the Defense Department lives up to its claim that it "is working towards minimizing "dud" cluster munitions by phasing cluster munitions systems with more reliable or self-destructing fuzes" Success in that effort would go far to reduce the risks of postwar casulties.


I yield back the balance of my time"

Joe Biden September 06, 2006
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
48. There is - Israel had just used cluster bombs in Lebanon
a point referenced by HRC. (To me this does NOT make it better.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'm surprised by her in this. She generally is a very empethetic person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy M Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
13. The way I read it Obama voted for.....
limiting US sales and transfers of newer cluster bombs with low error rates. He didn't vote to ban cluster bombs he voted to use better ones. Subject line is a little misleading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
16. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
17. Like I said - there is more to this....
Obama outshining Hillary on human rights? I don't think so.

Better check on Hillary's record on human rights....

Google: Hillary Clinton human rights advocate

Here is just one: http://blogtoendaids.blogspot.com/2007/12/hillary-clinton-proposes-integrated.html

And one from way back here: http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/womens-rights-are-human-rights

Women's Rights Are Human Rights
Rate this Speech:
By Hillary Clinton

September 5th, 1995
Mrs. Mongella, Under Secretary Kittani, distinguished delegates and guests:

I would like to thank the Secretary General of the United Nations for inviting me to be part of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. This is truly a celebration - a celebration of the contributions women make in every aspect of life: in the home, on the job, in their communities, as mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, learners, workers, citizens and leaders.

It is also a coming together, much the way women come together every day in every country.

We come together in fields and in factories. In village markets and supermarkets. In living rooms and board rooms.

Whether it is while playing with our children in the park, or washing clothes in a river, or taking a break at the office water cooler, we come together and talk about our aspirations and concerns. And time and again, our talk turns to our children and our families. However different we may be, there is far more that unites us than divides us. We share a common future. And we are here to find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world - and in so doing, bring new strength and stability to families as well.

By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on issues that matter most in the lives of women and their families: access to education, health care, jobs and credit, the chance to enjoy basic legal and human rights and participate fully in the political life of their countries.

There are some who question the reason for this conference.

Let them listen to the voices of women in their homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces.

There are some who wonder whether the lives of women and girls matter to economic and political progress around the globe.

Let them look at the women gathered here and at Huairou - the homemakers, nurses, teachers, lawyers, policymakers, and women who run their own businesses.

It is conferences like this that compel governments and people everywhere to listen, look and face the world's most pressing problems.

Wasn't it after the women's conference in Nairobi ten years ago that the world focused for the first time on the crisis of domestic violence?

Earlier today, I participated in a World Health Organization forum, where government officials, NGOs, and individual citizens are working on ways to address the health problems of women and girls.

Tomorrow, I will attend a gathering of the United Nations Development Fund for Women. There, the discussion will focus on local - and highly successful - programs that give hard-working women access to credit so they can improve their own lives and the lives of their families.

What we are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish.

And when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish.

That is why every woman, every man, every child, every family, and every nation on our planet has a stake in the discussion that takes place here.

Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children and families. Over the past two-and-a-half years, I have had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my own country and around the world.

I have met new mothers in Jojakarta, Indonesia, who come together regularly in their village to discuss nutrition, family planning, and baby care.

I have met working parents in Denmark who talk about the comfort they feel in knowing that their children can be cared for in creative, safe, and nurturing after-school centers.

I have met women in South Africa who helped lead the struggle to end apartheid and are now helping build a new democracy.

I have met with the leading women of the Western Hemisphere who are working every day to promote literacy and better health care for the children of their countries.

I have met women in India and Bangladesh who are taking out small loans to buy milk cows, rickshaws, thread and other materials to create a livelihood for themselves and their families.

I have met doctors and nurses in Belarus and Ukraine who are trying to keep children alive in the aftermath of Chernobyl.

The great challenge of this Conference is to give voice to women everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go unheard.

Women comprise more than half the world's population. Women are 70% percent of the world's poor, and two-thirds of those who are not taught to read and write.

Women are the primary caretakers for most of the world's children and elderly. Yet much of the work we do is not valued - not by economists, not by historians, not by popular culture, not by government leaders.

At this very moment, as we sit here, women around the world are giving birth, raising children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning houses, planting crops, working on assembly lines, running companies, and running countries.

Women also are dying from diseases that should have been prevented or treated; they are watching their children succumb to malnutrition caused by poverty and economic deprivation; they are being denied the right to go to school by their own fathers and brothers; they are being forced into prostitution, and they are being barred from the bank lending office and banned from the ballot box.

Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the responsibility to speak for those who could not.

As an American, I want to speak up for women in my own country - women who are raising children on the minimum wage, women who can't afford health care or child care, women whose lives are threatened by violence, including violence in their own homes.

I want to speak up for mothers who are fighting for good schools, safe neighborhoods, clean air and clean airwaves; for older women, some of them widows, who have raised their families and now find that their skills and life experiences are not valued in the workplace; for women who are working all night as nurses, hotel clerks, and fast food cooks so that they can be at home during the day with their kids; and for women everywhere who simply don't have time to do everything they are called upon to do each day.

Speaking to you today, I speak for them, just as each of us speaks for women around the world who are denied the chance to go to school, or see a doctor, or own property, or have a say about the direction of their lives, simply because they are women. The truth is that most women around the world work both inside and outside the home, usually by necessity.

*******

The voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard loud and clear: It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.

It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution.

It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.

It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.

It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes.

It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.

It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, it is that human rights are women's rights - and women's rights are human rights. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely - and the right to be heard.

Women must enjoy the right to participate fully in the social and political lives of their countries if we want freedom and democracy to thrive and endure.

It is indefensible that many women in nongovernmental organizations who wished to participate in this conference have not been able to attend - or have been prohibited from fully taking part.

Let me be clear. Freedom means the right of people to assemble, organize, and debate openly. It means respecting the views of those who may disagree with the views of their governments. It means not taking citizens away from their loved ones and jailing them, mistreating them, or denying them their freedom or dignity because of the peaceful expression of their ideas and opinions.

In my country, we recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of women's suffrage. It took 150 years after the signing of our Declaration of Independence for women to win the right to vote.

It took 72 years of organized struggle on the part of many courageous women and men. It was one of America's most divisive philosophical wars. But it was also a bloodless war. Suffrage was achieved without a shot being fired.

We have also been reminded, in V-1 Day observances last weekend, of the good that comes when men and women join together to combat the forces of tyranny and build a better world.

We have seen peace prevail in most places for a half century. We have avoided another world war.

But we have not solved older, deeply-rooted problems that continue to diminish the potential of half the world's population.

Now it is time to act on behalf of women everywhere. If we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families too.

Families rely on mothers and wives for emotional support and care; families rely on women for labor in the home; and increasingly, families rely on women for income needed to raise healthy children and care for other relatives.

As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace around the world - as long as girls and women are valued less, fed less, fed last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled and subjected to violence in and out of their homes - the potential of the human family to create a peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.

Let this Conference be our - and the world's - call to action.

And let us heed the call so that we can create a world in which every woman is treated with respect and dignity, every boy and girl is loved and cared for equally, and every family has the hope of a strong and stable future.

Thank you very much.

God's blessings on you, your work and all who will benefit from it.

» Copyright © QuoteDB 2005




Had enough?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. information and facts mean very little to many hil haters. Like the GOP, they want her gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Ever heard the phrase, "she talks the talk, but does she walk the walk? " nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Talks the talk AND walked the walk....
...all the way to Communist China where she gave this astonishing speech to the worst perpetrators of human rights on the planet - China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. Silly me, I thought she flew in Air Force 1!
This speech was a personal risk for her, how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Nice speech, but what does it have to do with her vote on cluster bombs? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Cluster bombs? " Obama outshines Clinton on human rights..." That's in the thread title
...Obama has a long way to go before he "outshines" Hillary Clinton in anything.

Anyway, as pointed out, Obama didn't vote against cluster bombs because that is not what the vote involved. It was about a newer and more efficient bomb.

In a Senate bill voted on in February 2007 to limit U.S. sales and transfers only of newer bombs with low error rates, Sen. Barack Obama backed that plan while his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sens. Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd, opposed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurking Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. This is a different issue.
They are talking about the Feinstein/Leahy amendment to the appropriations bill in 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Look over here... a shiny object!
I guess cluster bombs are ok then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. Can someone explain to me what was especially risky or brave about this speech?
I don't remember hearing about it at the time. Was the CHinese government shocked to learn that the US is against forced abortion? Was there a chance that Clinton was going to be arrested and shot for voicing these concerns? I agree with Clinton's statements, I just don't understand why this speech is now being produced to prove that she takes risky stands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:24 PM
Original message
Can someone explain.....?
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 04:29 PM by suston96
I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
43. You can not answer the question, then?
Words are cheap for women whose children have been maimed or killed by cluster bombs.

I like the speech, and agree with the sentiments, but what in real terms did this speech accomplish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. nice article, but what's it got to do with Cluster bombing rights
of the M.I.C.
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. What does this have to do with cluster bombs??? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #17
33. It's a wonderful speech but is there anything in there that Obama or the others would oppose?
Really, I do like the speech but it has nothing to do with the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. I'm an Obama supporter, and I think it's a great speech.
It does not address the topic of the OP, however, as you correctly point out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
41. Good words, but cheap words for women whose children have been maimed or killed by cluster bombs.
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 06:34 PM by calteacherguy
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
30. This are the kinds of posts showing real differences between candidates I truly appreciate.
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alteredstate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #30
45. k & r n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. Sometimes around here, people forget who used the cluster bombs recently...
guy named Bush don't ya know. We all know he is caring and sympathetic about the people he kills.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. I'd like to hear the Clintons denounce this
or any of the gratuitous violence inflicted by this administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC