Clark hasn't explained why he thinks DU is OK

[Hawkeye-X]

Depleted Uranium, that is..

This is from an old article...


Clark Responds to Kosovo Questions

After his speech at the press conference in Madison, Wisconsin, on October 27, Clark took a few questions. I asked him a three-parter on the war in Kosovo, which he led.

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.

http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wx1027b03.html

[neverforget]

1. I don't like Clarks answer to DU but I still support him. Where does

Dean stand on DU?

[madfloridian]

2. I was thinking about this yesterday, and putting together some links.

Yesterday in GD I posted on a thread about our wounded and their horrible
treatment. I mentioned two families I know of whose sons were sent home
with broken limbs from accidents. However, they are having serious lung
problems. The parents seem in disconnect about the fact that broken limbs
are not usually accompanied by severe lung problems. I don't know what
they have been told, but they seem to think it is ok. So, I started
wondering.

http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2001_spring/little_risk.html
SNIP..."Little Risk in NATO's Depleted Uranium Weapons

Gen. Wesley K. Clark, as supreme allied commander of NATO, led the alliance
to victory in Kosovo. He spoke with NPQ in Washington in January.

NPQ | A furor has arisen in Europe over the illness of Italian and other
soldiers said to be exposed to the depleted uranium weapons NATO used during
the wars in Kovoso and Bosnia. Is there anything to this in your view?

WESLEY CLARK | There are very well-known safety standards for exposure to
radiation, set internationally by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy
Agency) and other institutions, based upon extensive research and testing by
the US and other governments over the years. NATO has always abided by those
standards.
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...."

More on my concerns:
Have depleted uranium dangers been debunked? Or is it a way of avoiding
taking responsibility for the illnesses of our soldiers?

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/8.html

http://www.fair.org/extra/0301/blitzer.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0615-01.htm

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du60min.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/0,7368,419839,00.html

http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/duposes.htm

My question is sincere, as I have seen its use defended a lot. I was
surprised, and I wondered if I were out of the loop on this. I thought it
was dangerous. But I am not a scientist.

[dfong63]

9. Clark's aversion to giving straight answers

CLARK: There are very well-known safety standards for exposure to
radiation, set internationally by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy
Agency) and other institutions, based upon extensive research and testing by
the US and other governments over the years. NATO has always abided by those
standards.
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...."

Clark's argument is so full of bogosity, it's hard to know where to begin.

so it falls within the scale... of what some self-interested "experts" said was acceptable. that alone should raise a huge red flag to anyone who is familiar withh the history of nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

who set the scale? who set the standards? the history of nuclear standards is that they started out way too lax, as these industry-tainted "experts" pulled the wool over the public's eyes. the industry has always said their current standards were "safe". and yet, the standards keep getting lowered as damage is discovered from lower and lower exposures. we now know that people died horrible deaths and their children were ruined by exposures that were considered "safe" and "acceptable" at the time. there is every reason to believe that the current standards are not sufficiently protective also.

and just remember, when Clark says DU is 40% less radioactive than ordinary uranium, that the latter is not something you want to be exposed to anyway. ordinary uranium is radioactive enough, and toxic enough, to kill. would you want to drink rat poison that had been diluted to 40% strength?

furthermore, anyone who reads the news (and i assume that includes Clark) knows that reactor waste has been discovered in what was supposed to be "depleted" uranium.

[Brian_Expat]

71. It's a chronic, almost daily problem with Clark. n/t

[maxr4clark]

23. Why do you think their lung problems are related to DU?

It seems much more likely to me that some blood seeped into their lungs, or that they received anesthesia that caused fluid buildup in their lungs.

I am not aware of any specific threat DU would pose to lungs in particular.

Also, note that Clark said that DU was less than 40% as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium. I received a piece of naturally occurring uranium in a rock collector's kit when I was a child, in the 70s. It is a harmless rock; it barely registers at all on a Geiger counter, and Geiger counters are extremely sensitive to radiation. Uranium has to be enriched to be used in nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons, which means the radioactive part (about 1% I think) gets separated from the non-radioactive part (the other 99%).

DU does not pose a radioactive threat to anyone. It cannot create a nuclear explosion. It may be poisonous, but then again most heavy metals are. All shell casings are made of some heavy metal or another.

[madfloridian]

41. I don't know that. I said that lung problems don't come with broken limbs

necessarily. All our kids have had broken legs or arms,and they are not on oxygen and/or having lung problems.

[dfong63]

3. so much for Clark's environmentalist vision

Clark sounds just like the people who tried to cover up the problems with Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome. "there have been a lot of studies"? "no indication it causes any trouble"? shame on general Clark. he may not be experienced as a politician, but he's already adopted the trait that politicians are most famous for - doubletalk. there are plenty of indications of extremely serious trouble, to anyone who looked objectively at the evidence.

[JohnKleeb]

6. This is more than an environmental issue

honest but these comments about DU aren't so good to say the least. DU is NOT good news, its what many of the Gulf War veterans with the Gulf War Syndrome as they call it suffer from. If I am correct in remembering correctly, DU was used in the war Clark commanded in Kosovo and Bosnia, not only has the once successful agriculture industry been destroyed or at least crippled, many people suffer from the defects of it. This troubles me about Clark too.

[jmaier]

15. It's not

established that the Gulf War syndrome is related to DU. I think the studies which looked into various agents for Gulf War syndrome actually looked at DU and several other candidates, for example the myriad of nasty pesticides used during the Gulf War:

http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/01-01-16a.htm (excerpted below)

Rand's survey suggests that pesticides, specifically acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as organophosphates and carbamates, could be among the potential contributing agents to some of the undiagnosed illnesses reported by Gulf War veterans. The Defense Department now says exposure to these pesticides cannot be ruled out as a potential contributing factor to some of these undiagnosed illnesses.

Researchers identified 64 different pesticide products containing 35 active ingredients that were used during the Gulf War. The survey considered 12 active pesticide ingredients that Gulf War veterans were exposed to - five organophosphates, three carbamates, two pyrethroids, one organochlorine, and one repellent, DEET.

[jmaier]

13. Please

feel free to show me the evidence, conclusions actually, which have been looked at objectively. While you're at it, I'm also interested in where the other candidates stand on this critical issue -- googling hasn't been very informative. Since this is evidently a big issue, we should compare where each of the major candidates stands.

[Hep]

4. To be fair

The amount of DU used in Kosovo was a lot less than in both Iraq wars, no? But I'd love to know how he feels about DU given the effects it has had on Iraqi citizens.

[JohnKleeb]

7. I know you're trying to be fair and all

but the DU in Kosovo has affected the people who live there greatly. I can't provide you with links because its a friend who is from the region orginally who visits the region quite often who told me this. I would like to know too.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. Which candidate is calling for a ban on DU Weapons?

I'd love to vote for them? Dennis?

[SEAburb]

8. Recycling old stories! Clark must be a hard candidate

to attack.

[Hawkeye-X]

10. No, he's quite easy...

but the issue still remains -- why has Clark not explained depleted uranium is OK. Inquiring minds wants to know.

Hawkeye-X

[dfong63]

11. old stories? sounds like Arnold's refrain

unfortunately for Arnold, and for Wes Clark, the truth doesn't suffer for being "old".

[CWebster]

12. Right

Since Clark has no political record, like the other candidates who worked their way up the ranks, we are expected to believe everything his hacks print-out for him as policy, without the benefit of researching his past positions? Sounds almost as if you want to suppress the knowledge which helps citizens inform their choices, preferring to buy the package as a impulse purchase.

[BootinUp]

14. Your thread topic and the content are in contradiction

to one another.

Clearly, Clark's position is that science has determined there is very little risk. He also typically calls for evidence that can be reviewed if there are serious concerns on environmental issues. I believe he is sincere about environmental issues.

I have no position on it (DU) as I have not looked into it, but to say Clark doesn't explain his is inaccurate.

[democracyindanger]

16. Exactly

"...but to say Clark doesn't explain this is inaccurate."

Because the intent of threads like this one isn't in a search for more information, but simply--and childlishly--a set up for all the 'Heathers' around here to smear a candidate.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Scott Lee]

18. Wrong.

Here is the thread title:

Clark hasn't explained why he thinks DU is OK



Inside the post we see...

Hawkeye clarified "DU" in this post as an abbreviation for "Depleted Uranium"

"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."

Clearly illustrating that Clark didn't think there was a problem with it (hence the term 'OK with it', which follows).

Clark did not elaborate on this in his answers to Hawkeye's questions.

Ergo, there is no thread title/ post content disagreement.

[Cocoa]

20. he cites military studies

I heard him do it.

So it's a lie to say he hasn't explained. It's not Clark's fault you didn't happen to catch him explaining. I've never seen Dean go to the bathroom, but I'm not going to accuse him of not going.

[Scott Lee]

24. Were you at the same interview Hawkeye attended?

If not, I accept your apology in advance.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scott Lee]

31. Again - were you at the same event as Hawkeye?

It's really a simple question....yes or no?

[NV1962]

39. r-e-a-d-i-n-g is just soooo h-a-r-d

"the same interview Hawkeye attended" huh... Here, I'll make it easier to read for you:

This is from an old article...

No apology needed. :evilgrin:

[wyldwolf]

64. Will someone explain exactly WHAT interview Hawkeye attended?

???

[Turkw]

57. When did Hawkeye talk to Clark? I just saw old, short article link

Why don't you ask the reporter why he asked a three part question that encompass three unrelated issues of the Kosovo war. Why don't you ask the reporter to do more research to ask a more detailed question about DU. OH, that's right, because the reporter is not is not a viable alternative to your candidate.

You,hawkeye, Scott, and a few others, have the power to be reasonable and objective if you choose to, or you can continue to engage in partisan attacks. This is not set up to be a neutral debate on DU, it is just a drive by attack on Clark, like all of your threads attacking him.

[Cocoa]

19. exactly right

I would call saying "Clark hasn't explained it" a lie. I saw him answer the question and he cited studies that he bases his opinion on. I don't have an opinion on the studies, but it's false to say he's somehow dodging the question.

[Scott Lee]

38. Wrong. Were you at the same event Hawkeye is addressing?

If not, then we accept your apoligy in advance.

[maxr4clark]

17. Just because you don't understand the answer,

that doesn't mean he hasn't answered it. Amply. The IAEA set the standards, as he said; somebody had to set standards, so the world got together and set up the IAEA to do that sort of thing. This is the same group that oversees nuclear safety all over the world, and has been responsible for looking into claims of nuclear weapons in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. If you want to know about their tests, get the information from them, I'm quite sure that it is publicly available.

Uranium is far less radioactive than radium, which used to be used in glow-in-the-dark watches. Depleted uranium is barely radioactive. Naturally occurring water, seawater for instance, is also slightly radioactive.

The inherent radioactivity of Uranium isn't the reason it is used in fission bombs, anyway; what happens when it reaches critical mass (by being squeezed to much smaller than its original size by explosions surrounding the uranium) is what makes it explode so violently. Different elements decay differently when you squeeze them to critical mass. There is an isotope of iron that would be far better for creating nuclear weapons from, if it weren't so hard to squeeze to critical mass. Nobody is griping about the use of iron in shell casings!

The part about putting it in your mouth suggests depleted Uranium is probably more poisonous than it is likely to cause radiation sickness or mutations leading to cancer. Lead, the alternative used for bullets, is also poisonous. I don't know whether lead or depleted uranium is more poisonous; do you?

There is no conspiracy to use depleted uranium to give people the US shoots at cancer or radiation sickness, and blaming Clark for military use of depleted uranium makes no more sense than blaming Kucinich or any other member of Congress for it. After all, by continuing to take part in the House of Representatives, Kucinich (just to take an example, I'm not anti-Dennis) is complicit in all decisions made by that body to exactly the same degree that Clark is complicit in decisions made by the Army by virtue of having remained an employee of theirs.

[Scott Lee]

22. I guess Clark doesn't understand it either...

The Pentagon's pat dismissal of concerns over DU is not even in sync with the science:

"In 2003, depleted uranium munitions were used again in the Iraq war. A controversial material, depleted uranium is a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process and is used in anti-tank weapons and possibly other weapons systems. The Pentagon maintains that there are no long-term health or environmental effects from depleted uranium contamination. However, their own research, and that of others, confirms DU is both radioactive and chemically toxic.

NPRI held its first scientific symposium on June 14, 2003 to explore what is currently known about the health effects of depleted uranium munitions. Key experts from a variety of fields convened at the New York Academy of Medicine to present their findings, answer questions and review current policies."

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/Issues.cfm?NewsTopicID=8


I wonder...is Clark's past status as a cog in the wheel of the military institution the reason he's not concerned about this either?

Do you want a person like that sitting in the Oval Office? I sure don't.

[jmaier]

29. Scott

I'd recommend that you vote for the candidate that has come out strongly against the use of any DU munitions then. This appears to be a make or break issue with you. :-)

[Hoppin_Mad]

32. Easy to NOT vote for the one candidate who ordered their use -eom-

[Turkw]

59. Yes, too bad they did not use Happy thoughts bombs, or just hug the

soldiers that were busy raping and murdering. OHH they could have canted you have the power at them, that would have led immediately to peace.

What weapons and tactics should they have used? Wes tried diplomacy first, didn't work. War was the last resort.

[Scott Lee]

33. Imperialist war in Iraq, and illegal invasion/occupation are my issues

And Dean has come out on the right side of those - which is, vociferously renouncing them.

Depleted uranium is an extension of those crimes. I can assume, by deduction, that Dean is on the right side of that issue as well.

[jmaier]

35. You know

what they say about assuming. Really, you support Dean and it's convenient to believe that he shares your views on an issue where he has articulated no position. Fair enough but call it what it is -- faith not evidence.

[Scott Lee]

36. I've never heard Clark say he's against genocide

So by your reasoning, I should assume he's for it.

Please. You guys are getting so desperate, your tactics wearing soooo thin.

[jmaier]

42. Scott, old boy

You really need to slow down and read for comprehension. I was criticizing your position of "assuming" Dean agrees with you on the DU issue simply because he's taken no issue.

I was not saying ANYTHING about either Clark or his positions OR your belief/non-belief in Clark's positions. :-)

[TreasonousBastard]

21. I dug into this a couple of years ago..

and found a bunch of "studies" that examined the radiation hazards, but didn't talk about the dust that gets inhaled or ingested.

The radiation hazard was deemed minimal-- no more than normal background radiation we all receive, and far less than radon hazards.

The problem not addressed was inhaling or eating the dust, which is a heavy metal like lead or mercury. This could cause a concentration of radioactive particles in an area, or just cause the many problems heavy metals cause. This was simply dismissed as not a significant problem, but not really looked into at the time.

I'm pretty well dead set gainst DU on principle, but it should be noted that there have been many symptoms found in soldiers and civilians in war zones lately, and they might not all be DU related. DU is not the only hazardous substance the military uses, and there are plenty of other things that could cause disease.

Every war has had its group of veterans who complained about health complications. Even WWII had uninjured vets coming back with health complaints. Some of this is considered psychosomatic, but others are unidentified, and probably will be for a long time.

[BobbyJay]

25. Dean hasn't explained why he's obsessed with losing the general election

by wanting to raise taxes on everybody--which is how it will be spun.

The public understands "taxes up" and "taxes down". Dean is taxes up.

[madfloridian]

45. Stop, that is silly, This is about Clark's statement.

It has nothing to do with Dean and anything.

[BobbyJay]

49. Yes, it's about bashing Clark over a non-issue.

I'll bring up a REAL issue about Dean.

[neverforget]

27. I'll ask again: where does Dean stand on this issue?

[Melinda]

28. U.S. forces unleashed at least 75 tons of toxic depleted uranium on Iraq

U.S. forces unleashed at least 75 tons of toxic depleted uranium on Iraq during the war, reports the Christian Science Monitor.

An unnamed U.S. Central Command spokesman disclosed to the Monitor last week that coalition forces fired 300,000 bullets coated with armored-piercing depleted uranium (DU) during the war.

“The normal combat mix for these 30-mm rounds is five DU bullets to 1 -- a mix that would have left about 75 tons of DU in Iraq,” wrote correspondent Scott Peterson.

Peterson measured four sites around Baghdad struck with depleted uranium munitions and found high levels of radioactive contamination, but few warnings to this effect issued among the populace at large.

While the Pentagon maintains that spent weapons coated with the low-level, radioactive nuclear-waste are relatively harmless, Peterson notes that U.S. soldiers have taken it among themselves to print leaflets or post signs warning of DU contamination.

"After we shoot something with DU, we're not supposed to go around it, due to the fact that it could cause cancer," said one sergeant requesting anonymity.

http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=1247&blz=1

And another from our very own DU articles:

Last spring, BBC News ran a segment on depleted uranium. Featuring an Iraqi doctor discussing increased cancer rates in areas where depleted uranium-tipped artillery shells were dropped during the Gulf War, the report chronicled the plight of 13 and 14-year-old girls undergoing mastectomies. In doing so, it delved into territory rarely seen. The clincher wasn't just that the BBC addressed uranium-associated horrors, which, in itself, was a TV-Land rarity, but that they did so without some British Paula Zahn accusing them of "drinking Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."

Sans Fox Newsian experts discrediting testimony, the piece was entirely convincing. Though, admittedly, it was hard for this American to fathom that the U.K was seriously considering discontinuing its use of depleted uranium ammunition, due to ethical concerns. Would another nation actually admit it might have made a terrible mistake? And that it could somehow be culpable? Here in the Land of Pentagon Infallibility, where we export seeds for germ warfare (and act shocked afterwards), that was hard to imagine. And frankly, one felt "anti-American" for noticing.

Dancing with Depleted Uranium

Certainly, though some journalists, scientists and citizens struggle for clarity, it's as if caring about the fate of Iraqis or suggesting the U.S might be harming its own soldiers is treasonous - even if it's true. Thankfully, some forge ahead regardless. The Christian Science Monitor, for example, should be commended for its valiant efforts with its "Trail of a Bullet" series, while Gulf War veterans should be applauded for their untiring search for answers.

And despite the government's aversion to inquiry, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, former research scientist with the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs, is a hero for investigating the link between depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome. Now a professor of medicine, this former U.S. Army colonel has found a "significant presence" of depleted uranium in the bones of Gulf War veterans and estimates that tens of thousands of Gulf War veterans suffer the effects of radiation. With veterans of the conflict in Croatia showing similar symptoms, this can't be blamed on Saddam.

Moreover, if depleted uranium is "safe" why do military safety regulations call for those working near depleted uranium sites to wear heavily insulated clothing? And why have cancer rates risen 400% in Iraq since 1991? Are American tax dollars paying for mass genocide, as some suggest?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/10/p/10_truth.html

One more:

US forces' use of depleted uranium weapons is 'illegal'

According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.

DU has been blamed for the effects of Gulf war syndrome -- typified by chronic muscle and joint pain, fatigue and memory loss -- among 200,000 US soldiers after the 1991 conflict.

It is also cited as the most likely cause of the 'increased number of birth deformities and cancer in Iraq' following the first Gulf war.

'Cancer appears to have increased between seven and 10 times and deformities between four and six times,' according to the UN subcommission.

The Pentagon has admitted that 320 metric tons of DU were left on the battlefield after the first Gulf war, although Russian military experts say 1000 metric tons is a more accurate figure.

http://www.sundayherald.com/32522

------------------

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jmaier]

34. That is BS

imhotep. I'm scientifically skeptical. The reports that I've seen are inconclusive but I agree it probably warrants more study. I'm not sure who your candidate of choice is but where does he/she stand on this issue? This is a cheap shot thread. I don't agree with Wes Clark on every issue but if you are going to slap around a candidate about his position on an issue you really should 1) have a sound basis for doing so and 2) make sure your guy/gal is ON RECORD with whatever position you think is the right position. Otherwise it's just jump on the bandwagon bashing.




Wes Clark. He will make an extraordinary American President.

[imhotep]

55. This issue is about Clark

He is the only one who thinks depleted uranium is good for you.
Would you live in and eat food grown in an area bombed with depleted uranium?

[Turkw]

62. depends on what we learn, if we have new data the shows it is harmful

then no, if new data confirms the data the Clark is quoting, then yes. You would have to to a controlled study, they use a lot of toxic materials in combat. Any negative effects could be caused by a number of materials, or a combination of them. It is an important thing to study and lean about. I would like to see any scientific data on specific toxins.

But to say conclusively the any one thing caused illnesses or worse would have to be backed up by hard evidence. Not that any lack of such conclusive evidence would stop some of Clark's attackers, anything for a cheap shot, as long as it is not at Dean, I guess.

[TexasSissy]

37. That's a pro-Dean organization. It doesn't print the whole

excerpt, or even quote, from the interview extensively. It looks pretty one-sided to me.

As for depleted uranium, I know nothing about it or its health effects. If it's harmful, maybe he was unaware of it. Why did they ask him that, did he spread some of it around or something?

As for the other items in the article, I saw nothing wrong with Clark's statements about them. Non-issues.

[Hoppin_Mad]

40. Yes - Clark authorised their use in Kososvo -eom-

[madfloridian]

43. Which site are you referring to? Link. Please.

.
If you mean this one, show me it is pro-Dean.
http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2001_spring/little_risk.html

[madfloridian]

44. Have you noticed how this was turned into an anti-Dean thread?

Quick, get the focus off depleted uranium and onto Dean
A little much.

[jmaier]

46. not really

it's just commonsense. If a candidate is being bashed by Dean supporters for taking an ill-advised and/or immoral position then it's simply fair to turn the question around and ask where your guy stands on the issue. If this is a BIG issue in the campaign, then let's examine all the candidates positions.

Is there something inherently wrong with that?

[madfloridian]

48. Yes, it is an old GOP tactic.

Avoid the issue. They are all quite good at it. This was about Clark's statement that it is ok to use DU.

[jmaier]

54. Actually

I didn't avoid the issue but addressed it directly above in as much as the evidence appears somewhat inconclusive though, I agree, it needs more substantive investigation. I suspect now, however, if you take these munitions out of the arsenal before you field a replacement that would not be a very good thing. As most issues, it's not amenable to some sort of immediate black-and-white action.

[Hoppin_Mad]

47. Yes - even the Dean=Taxes-One-Trick-Pony had to inject his venom

[BobbyJay]

50. One trick pony, huh? Watch the one-trick pony in November.

[Hawkeye-X]

51. And what are you going to do if our one-trick-pony wins the GE?

celebrate? Cry? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Hawkeye-X

[BobbyJay]

56. What if pigs fly out of my ass?

It's about as likely as a tax-raising candidate winning the presidency vs an incumbent (who is seen as a tax-lowerer).

[Turkw]

58. I have noticed that a few specific Dean supporters Attack Clark nonstop

with neither reasonable or objective issues, questions, or topics.

You have the power to be reasonable and fair in your questioning, I don't mind debate on issues, let me know when you are ready to engage in reasoned debate and not smear.

[Padraig18]

66. I've noticed the exact same thing about a few specific Clark supporters.

I agree with the sentiment expressed in the body of your post, however. :hi:

[tishaLA]

52. Well, I think Clark is probably wrong on this

and I support him.

I'm willing to support a candidate with whom I disagree on some issues, however. Otherwise I'd always write in my own name.

[KittyWampus]

53. Brilliant Strategy Hawkeye! Democrats REALLY Need DU As A Campaign Issue

NOT!

Let's see the Democratic Party be made to look weak on Defence... that ALWAYS plays well in General Elections. It's not likek Junior is going to be running as GI Joe.

By the way, where does your candidate stand?
By the way, your headline is misleading because Clark made his thoughts on DU quite clear long ago.

[neverforget]

60. What's Deans stand? So far, only Clark has been asked that

question as far as I know. I think it's fair to ask Clark and all the other candidates where they stand on this issue.

[H2O Man]

61. It's an important issue.

I'm a Clark supporter. I'm not comfortable with d.u. and do not believe that General Clark's position, as reported here, is okay. I have said that there are things I like about Dean, and tend to believe that as a doctor, he would have concerns about health risks associated with d.u. exposure.
I think that it is possible, even likely, that Wesley Clark has been exposed to only one side of the d.u. information available. Not an excuse, merely attempting to explain why he has apparently made a wrong choice here.
More important is that in both Clark and Dean, we have strong candidates with the ability to learn and evolve. Again, I contrast that with Lieberman, who I believe has SHRUNK as a democrat since 2000. Or, look at the fellow pretending to be president: if the space between his ears isn't stagnant, depleted waste, what is? And I am sure that if we asked General Clark today, he would identify bush's grey cells as toxic.

[ozone_man]

63. My gut feeling is that DU is bad stuff

but what I have read seems to imply that the danger is greatest on impact (especially if you are hit, joke). Dust particles formed at impact when ingested or come in contact with the skin may have a bad chemical reaction in the body. Maybe this is why Clark mentions ingesting DU as possibly dangerous. I can imagine that U.S. or Iraqis troops are at greatest risk, but also Iraqis civilians in the area that breath. I suspect there is a cover up like there was of agent orange. It wouldn't surprise me to find that is the source of Gulf War Syndrome, but who knows.

[reprehensor]

65. He also thinks...

That the school of the Americas, is A-OK!!

Maybe that's even worse.
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/13799.htm

Yeah, I know. It's the NYPost. Murdoch's ass wipe propaganda machine. But they also published the infamous Post 9-11 headline 'BUSH KNEW' so they are indeed soul-less money grubbing leeches.

[Tinoire]

67. Kucinich: Depleted Uranium (For jmaier / post 13 & anyone else interested

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 24, 2003

Democratic Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich will be releasing a multi-part World Peace Initiative. The first piece, being released today, addresses the elimination of nuclear weapons through a 12-point program.

<snip>

1. Leading the way toward the complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the earth. Kucinich's goal as president will be a steady movement toward complete nuclear disarmament.


2. Renouncing first-strike policy. Kucinich will set aside the Bush Administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which is a strategy for nuclear proliferation. He will assure the world community that the United States will not be the first to use nuclear weapons.


3. Cancellation of all U.S. nuclear weapons programs. Kucinich will work to put an end to the development of any new nuclear weapons, to the manufacture of any nuclear weapons, and to any plans to test nuclear weapons.


4. Stopping the use of all depleted uranium munitions. Kucinich will order an end to the United States' use of depleted uranium munitions. He will lead an international effort to recover depleted uranium. He will promote environmental remediation. He will develop a program to provide care and restitution for people suffering as a result of the United States' use of depleted uranium munitions, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons production, nuclear testing, and uranium mining.


5. Banning all nuclear weapons testing by the United States. Kucinich will enact a new policy banning nuclear testing and will work to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.


6. Opening talks with all nuclear powers. Kucinich will begin new talks with Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Israel, and Pakistan to develop a plan aimed at the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. The first step will be to suspend all "readiness" levels of nuclear weapons systems, including those of the United States.


7. Encouraging participation in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Kucinich will encourage all nations to actively participate in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, and will meet personally with the leaders of India, Israel, and Pakistan to request that they sign as non-nuclear weapons states. He will also meet personally with Kim Jong Il to encourage North Korea to re-join the community of nations through reaffirming its participation as a non-nuclear weapons state.


8. Discouraging nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. Kucinich will work with the nations of North Korea, Iran, Algeria, Sudan, Syria, and others to discourage the acquisition of nuclear weapons capability.


9. Reinstating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and Canceling the Ballistic Missile Defense. Kucinich will work with Russian President Vladimir Putin to reinstate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The treaty prevents both the United States and Russia from developing nationwide ABM defense systems and limits employment of new ABM technologies. Consequently, the ballistic missile defense program will be cancelled.


10. Meeting all requirements of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Kucinich will work to ensure that the United States leads the world again in fulfilling all requirements of the treaty. This means the United States must negotiate the complete elimination of its nuclear arsenal.


11. Committing to greatly expanding inspections. Kucinich will work with the 188 signatories of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency to greatly expand the use of inspections in all nations.


12. Leading an international effort to bring terrorists to justice. Kucinich will cause the United States to participate in a cooperative world effort to track down terrorists who are seeking to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_122403.php




Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium

<snip>

Depleted uranium is a problem in other former war zones as well. Yesterday, U.N. experts said they found radioactive hot spots in Bosnia resulting from the use of depleted uranium during NATO air strikes in 1995.

<snip>
A second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits its target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn up on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain. Studies show it can remain in human organs for years.

<snip>

The U.S. Army acknowledges the hazards in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

<snip>
On Oct. 17, 2001, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., introduced a bill calling for "the suspension of the use, sale, development, production, testing, and export of depleted uranium munitions pending the outcome of certain studies of the health effects of such munitions. . . ."

More than a year later, the bill -- co-sponsored by Reps. Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico; Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Barbara Lee, D-Ca.; and Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- remains in committee awaiting comment from the Defense Department.

<snip>

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

Napalm sticks to kids! If anyone has the courage to see what DU did to Iraqi kids, click here

main page of that site

Rep. Tony Hall Joins Veterans' Advocates in Pressing for Study of Depleted Uranium in Iraq


WASHINGTON - June 9 - Rep. Tony P. Hall (D-Ohio) joined Congressional leaders known for their advocacy on behalf of American veterans in calling for an investigation of depleted uranium's effects on human health.
In a letter to President Clinton on Thursday, Hall and eight other Members of the U.S. House of Representatives urged him to request a World Health Organization study of depleted uranium in Iraq.

"We are concerned by reports that the United States Government has blocked an investigation by the World Health Organization's experts into the effects of depleted uranium on Iraq's civilians," they wrote. "If these reports are true, we are sacrificing an opportunity to help our own veterans to political concerns; we also may be putting those who serve in the U.S. military now at risk needlessly."

<snip>

The full text of the letter follows. Joining Hall in writing were Reps. Lane Evans (D-Ill.); Bob Filner (D-Calif.); Sam Farr (D-Calif.); Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio); Robert A. Underwood (D-Guam); John W. Olver (D-Mass.); Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii); and Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas).

June 8, 2000

Dear Mr. President:

As you know, American veterans of the Gulf War are fighting health problems which are not well understood by medical professionals, but which are real and affect their lives in significant ways. There are credible reports that Iraqi civilians too are suffering: cancer rates in Iraq appear to be significantly higher than the worldwide average, although the reason for this has not been determined.

The suspected culprit in both cases is depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive metal. Yet, nine years after the Gulf War ended, few efforts have been made to examine its effects on human health.

We are concerned by reports that the United States Government has blocked an investigation by the World Health Organization's experts into the effects of depleted uranium on Iraq's civilians. If these reports are true, we are sacrificing an opportunity to help our own veterans to political concerns; we also may be putting those who serve in the U.S. military now at risk needlessly.

The General Accounting Office recently criticized the U.S. Government for mishandling its investigations on the possible effects of DU exposure on our Gulf War veterans. Critics of U.S. humanitarian policy toward Iraq also take issue with our response to this and other problems plaguing Iraqi civilians.

Mr. President, your leadership is needed to reverse this troubling record. We urge you to put the health of American veterans and innocent Iraqi civilians ahead of political efforts to isolate Iraq's government by immediately requesting the WHO to conduct a comprehensive investigation of this matter.

Whatever WHO finds will better inform our country's decisions about protecting American troops and others in the future. Its work should not be delayed.

(signed: Hall, Evans, Filner, Farr, Kucinich, Underwood, Olver, Abercrombie, Reyes)

http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0609-05.htm

We are the change we've been waiting for."

-Dennis J. Kucinich,

[Feanorcurufinwe]

68. Good stuff from DK

[Tinoire]

70. Always!

:hi:

[TrueAmerican]

69. What's the NRA's stance on DU?

Isn't Dean a card carrying member of the NRA? Not that there is anything wrong with that.