I wanted to post on the thread on this topic earlier in the day but that is now closed, so using this method to express my disappointment with Obama and ask my fellow Kosmopolitans a basic question about who is really left in our presidential field who is against this war. (continues on flip)
First, it seems that Obama has been all talk and no action on this issue. Not only is he failing to do all he really can to press Bush on the war, he is now actively undermining true opposition to the war, as represented in the Senate by Feingold-Reid. He hasn't supported Feingold-Reid, and the quotes attributed to him in the earlier thread actually echo the Bush line about what enfding funding for the war (bvy Congress) means in practice. Sopecifically, Obama is quoted as saying (paraphrased), "I want the troops to have what they need in the field." This perpetuates the absurd fiction (beautifully exploded in Doonesbury a few Sundays ago) that stopping funds for the war will somehow deprive troops in the field of e.g., weapons. My understanding is that cutting off funds would do no such thing -- it would just in fact bring them home. (In Doonesbury, the way it was put was, roughly, the people who "support the troops" [by continued war funding] actually "keep them in the meatgrinder," while the people who "don't support the troops" will bring them home to their families.
So here's my question: is it just me, or is Obama actually now framing this issue exactly the same way as Bush? The only true anti-war candidates I see left are Edwards and Richardson. If anyone feels they can seriously argue differently, I'd like to hear their arguments.