Reply #208: What I see quite clearly is

[metalluk]

that Obama's anti-war stance consisted of a rather tepid speech delivered in 2002 in which he had more to say about not opposing war in general than he had to say about opposing invasion of Iraq.

I see that Obama's speech clearly reveals that he did not understand, at the time, the most compelling arguments against initiating the war: that it was being done without consultation with allies, that it was strategically unsound, and that it was unprovoked.

After his election to the U.S. Senate, Obama took no anti-war initiative: no stirring speeches against the war, no bills introduced to end the war.

I understand from closely reading his most recent "Iraq Speech" (not the cost one, but the preceding one) that he anticipates expanding the war into the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan and increasing the troop commitment to Afghanistan.

I understand that one of his campaign aides told the British press that Obama would not necessarily keep his pledge to begin withdrawing troops within 4 months of taking office.

I understand that Obama characterizes the problems in the Middle East as "emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam," which is the kind of incendiary language befitting Bush and the neoconservatives -- the kind of language Obama may have learned from twenty years under the tutelage of Rev. Wright.

I understand that Obama has stated that the vote of Senator Kerry to authorize the war was a decision that could be legitimately argued either way, but that he now unequivocally faults Hillary Clinton for making the same decision as Senator Kerry.

You are missing the point. If Obama is elected to the presidency, many of those who will have supported him will not be actually getting what they thought they were voting for.