Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Can't Support a War Criminal like Wesley Clark

Granted he did answer the questions, after leaving the interview and being followed, but I refuse to support someone for president who supports the use of depleted uranium.

I would vote for Clark if he was nominated, because he's the lesser of two evils, but until he states what he already knows - depleted uranium is a war crime and should be banned - I refuse to give him one ounce of support.

From NPq:

We thus know very well what the correlation of radiation content to risk of depleted uranium is. It is measurable, and it is very low-40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. There has never been any correlation between this level of radiation and a specific effect. Simply put, depleted uranium falls within the scale of what is safely admissible.


Ok, so he claims there's no "specific effects" from DU exposure, but then...

In the case of depleted uranium, as in all radiation, you don't want the radioactive substance inside you where it does more damage.


There's no specific effects, but it does less "damage" when it only touches everything outside of you (Read: try not to breathe).

NPQ | So, this is a tempest in a teapot?

CLARK | I would never put it that way because an issue like this must be taken very seriously. But I am certain no new, unexamined correlation between DU weapons and health will be found.

All we have here are two sets of facts: First, 31,000 rounds of depleted uranium weapons were fired over a period of two months throughout an area 60 miles by 60 miles-almost 4,000 square miles. Second, some number of European soldiers are ill.

Somebody correlated these two. But there is no basis for this correlation scientifically, medically, statistically or experientially.


1. Radiation causes human sickness
2. Depleted Uranium radiates
3. Use of DU in an area caused human sickness
4. Correlations made
5. Clark discredits undefined basis, and supports the use of DU(!!!)

The basis is fact 1: DU RADIATES YOU. It makes you sick.

From The Progressive:

One part dealt with the use of depleted uranium. He said there have been a lot of studies on depleted uranium, and "there is no indication it causes any trouble," except perhaps if you put something in your mouth that is covered with it.

Or breathe air in the region where DU munitions were used. Or pump ground water from these regions. Tell that to the ground troops and the civilians from your A/C'd office on high I suppose?

Screw that. Wake up Clark, you are tiptoe-ing around your disdain for using a known weapon of mass destruction.

Just ask your fellow troops:

What can you tell me about cluster bombs, or depleted uranium?

Depleted uranium. I know what it does. It's basically like leaving plutonium rods around. I'm 32 years old. I have 80 percent of my lung capacity. I ache all the time. I don't feel like a healthy 32-year-old.

Were you in the vicinity of depleted uranium?

Oh, yeah. It's everywhere. DU is everywhere on the battlefield. If you hit a tank, there's dust.

Did you breathe any dust?

Yeah.

And if DU is affecting you or our troops, it's also impacting Iraqi civilians.

Oh, yeah. They got a big wasteland problem.

Do Marines have any precautions about dealing with DU?

Not that I know of. Well, if a tank gets hit, crews are detained for a little while to make sure there are no signs or symptoms. American tanks have depleted uranium on the sides, and the projectiles have DU in them. If an enemy vehicle gets hit, the area gets contaminated. Dead rounds are in the ground. The civilian populace is just now starting to learn about it. Hell, I didn't even know about DU until two years ago. You know how I found out about it? I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine. I just started inquiring about it, and I said, "Holy shit!"


If Clark has so much integrity, where is his statement against using WMDs against his own troops and civilians? His inaction is not the trait of a good leader, it is the trait of a warrior who uses any tactic to win - including torture, rendition, and other tactics that Bush uses to win whatever mission he has decided to embark upon with wanton respect to human rights and international law.

He already discussed it at length and considered all the angles - Bush does that quite often, so he says - but that doesn't mean Clark won't throw depleted uranium at any given country doomed to suffer the terror it leaves in its wake. I don't give a fuck what Clark considers in his mind if he continues to support evil in his actions. It's about taking action - the ball is in Clark's hands. And right now those hands work in support of using weapons of mass destruction against our troops and our enemies.

Therefore, I can't support Wesley Clark in any way, shape or form.