Direct from the horse's mouth.
(notes from the campaign trail)
"We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there ... I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan".... Barack Obama (Sept. 26, 2008)
"Our nation is fighting two wars. There are terrorists who are determined to kill as many Americans as they can. The world's most dangerous weapons risk falling into the wrong hands. And that is why the single greatest priority of my presidency will be doing anything and everything that I can to keep the American people safe.
Our military is overstretched in Iraq. We have nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq, many on their second, third, or fourth tour of duty. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is sliding towards chaos, and risks turning into a narco-terrorist state. The Taliban is on the offensive in the south. A recent Taliban prison break in Kandahar freed hundreds of militants, and underscored the volatile situation on the ground. The coalition casualties in Afghanistan last month were higher than in Iraq. That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism... We need more resources in Afghanistan. I have been arguing for this since 2002, when I said that we should finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban instead of going into Iraq".... Barack Obama, June 18, 2008
well, i strongly support additional troops to Afghanistan. In 2003 i thought it was crucial to continue much harder in Afghanistan before even thinking of Iraq...
but one thing in that post above struck me:
"There are terrorists who are determined to kill as many Americans as they can. The world's most dangerous weapons risk falling into the wrong hands."
in all fairness, how many of you have constantly ridiculed Bush (or McCain) when they have stated something similar, just as forcefully?
something tells me that if this line especially "
The world's most dangerous weapons risk falling into the wrong hands."
was uttered by George W. or Cheney et al, the many people on here who dislike Bush immensely for the many reasons he has given them to, would take that line and scream bloody murder, about lying, "WMD's" an excuse and it is just to enrich Haliburton etc.
regardless of how one feels about Bush or Obama on a personal level, past behavior suggests that the specific line, uttered by Bush in any form, would bring a blizzard of condemnation, venom and disbelieving snorts and rolleyes...
so, why is it different when Obama said it? Despite their other many policy differences, why is it that the specific line, uttered by Obama is somehow forward thinking, but if Bush uttered it, would be war-mongering...
also, i would like to know how that specific line relates to Afghanistan?
"The world's most dangerous weapons risk falling into the wrong hands."
Let us assume that he is talking about nuclear weapons, since there is nothing more dangerous on this earth than a nuclear weapon (except maybe a Michael Bay movie or a Beyonce commercial)
how are world's "most dangerous weapons risk falling into the wrong hands"?
Afghanistan does not have nuclear weapons. Neither does Iran or Syria. Neither does Al Qaieda, Hamas or Hezbollah...
so who has them?
Pakistan
North Korea
who wants them?
Iran
Syria
Al Qaeida
Hamas
Hezbollah
so it sounds to me, like Obama wants to stop the nukes falling into the wrong hands...so how do you do that without taking military action to stop that from happening?
so how do you stop that? You obviously have to bomb and destroy nuclear facilities right?
so what can Obama do? He can't bomb Pakistan. He can't bomb North Korea. Everyone here does not want him to bomb Iran or Syria (Israel took care of that)....yet these are the only folks who have or will soon have these weapons.
so essentially his quote is either meaningless posturing, or a serious threat against certain countries...
so, in a roundabout way back to the point...what exactly is the difference between Bush and Obama on that point?
the only way to stop these people (Iran) is with action and you cannot stop North Korea and Pakistan since they already have their nukes.
So if Bush had said that, would many of you be as understanding and supportive of that line as many of you have been over Obama's saying it?
If Bush or Cheney had made that threat, i know many folks here would be screaming "warmongerer" "lunatic" etc...so when Obama espouses the exact same threat, what is the difference?
if he is not prepared to take the miltiary action needed to stop from happening what he says will happen, it is utterly meaningless...but if he does take that action...he will be espousing pre-emptive warfare. Will people be as lenient if that is his choice? Will people judge him as harshly as Bush over pre-emptive warfare?
I doubt it...but we will see how it plays out...my guess is that the scond he starts bombing, we will hear unanimous support from many here, who doubtless would have voiced near unanimous condemnation if the previous bad president and his cabal had done it.
ost: 
