Posted on 09/06/2006 8:22:07 PM PDT by kerryusama04
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday rejected a move by Democrats to stop the Pentagon from using cluster bombs near civilian targets and to cut off sales unless purchasers abide by the same rules.
Snip
Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy have long sought to keep cluster bombs from being used near concentrated areas of civilians. They say that as many as 40 percent of the munitions fail to detonate on impact — they can still can explode later — leaving innocent civilians and children vulnerable to injury or death long after hostilities have ceased.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Do we need another reason for Republican turnout in November?
These people can never again be in power. God help us all.
I am curious as to how anyone arrived at that number. Certainly not in the field and I have a tough time believing the military would sign off on an ordnance that had a 40% failure rate on the range.
Card-carrying members of the axis of idiots.
I LOVE cluster bombs. Lordy, have you ever seen them go off? Awsome. We need more of them, not less and all used on the Taliban and Islamofascists everywhere.
Ka boom, boom, boom,........boom, boom, etc, etc,....
Gee, the Dems never opposed cluster bombs when Clinton was dropping them near Serb civilians!
Well, where did they get the 40% dud rate? I remember reading that it was more like 5%, and this number could probably be improved - if only because one's own forces could be later advancing into cluster-bombed area.
"They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means."
Let's send the babe, Dianne, and the pug, Pat, to Lebanon to gather up all the duds!
Meanwhile should the enemy wish to use "cluster" bombs, the DNC says okey dokey. (The DNC's usual cluster f--k panel.)
I was one who said they wouldn't vote for a RINO like Rudy or John, but these last few months have changed my mind. I know I wouldn't be happy with either one of them in office, but when I look at the alternative, it sure changed my mind about not voting for a RINO. As much as I detest them, there's just not another alternative. A RINO or a RAT isn't much of a choice, but I'd have to go with a RINO, IF that's our only choice.
I'll be there, irrespective of the *Immigration Problem*, M.
Glad I'm not the only person on Earth who's figured that one out. Having the dems win a major election at this point would be like handing the keys to the assylum straight over to the lunatics.
And if that does not scare you, THIS is what passes for sane Democrat Leadership these days.
Oh yeah. There is a reason God gave the Christians the Cluster Bomb Units.
John McCain has crafted legislation to protect terrorists from bodily harm.
Currently he is protesting the administration holding military tribunals.
McCain is worse than being simply a Liberal Republican.
His allies in the WOT are the same you denounce, rightly so, here.
John McCain as CIC would be disastrous, and certainly not better than a Democrat.
I won't protest Rudy's credentials on the WOT, though I see no reason we can't selecte someone who's actually a conservative in the primary. After all, rudy would appoint someone like O'Connor or Kennedy. And it is the Supreme Court at fault for many of the setbacks in the prosecution of the WOT. In his own way, perhaps though not intended, allowing Rudy election could result in Justices on the Court that continue to handicap our fight against the terrorists.
No, Rudy isn't John McCain or Ted Kennedy on the WOT. The last two should horrify any thinking person. But someone that will not appoint Justices like Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas could allow the damage done by the Courts to continue. And that we cannot allow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.