On the August 15 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, author of Obama: From Promise to Power (Amistad, August 2007), commented on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) August 1 statement that "[i]f we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will," saying: “I think that maybe he has sent some mixed messages to some of his true believers who think that he -- since he was the anti-war candidate early on that he was much more of a dove than he is.” In fact, while Obama has always said he opposed the Iraq war, he is not, as Mendell suggested, “anti-war” with respect to all military conflicts. He was quoted in an October 17, 2001, Chicago Defender article -- a year before his speech declaring his opposition to the Iraq war -- stating that a “military response and a criminal investigation” were necessary to “dismantle” terrorist organizations following the September 11, 2001, attacks. Further, in his October 2, 2002, speech, Obama specifically stated: “I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.” In an August 1 speech, he elaborated on the 2002 speech: “I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support 'a dumb war, a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about a 'U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences' in the heart of the Muslim world.”

From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the August 15 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:

CHRIS MATTHEWS (host): OK, let's go, let's go to David Mendell. Congratulations on your book.

Let me ask you about the candidate you've written about in here, Obama. Obama called for direct action -- unilateral American action to go after [Al Qaeda leader Osama] bin Laden in where we think he is, in northwest Pakistan, with or without the help of Musharraf, the president of that country, the dictator of that country. Now, today, John Edwards said the same thing to me independently. He said we ought to go after bin Laden with or without Musharraf. What do you make of that very aggressive statement by the guy you covered in your book?

MENDELL: Right. Well, I heard former Senator Edwards say that on your program earlier today, and it did remind me of the statement. It was almost right in tune with what Senator Obama said a little while ago, and caught some heat from that. Senator Obama I think has tried to position himself neither as a dove nor a hawk. I think that maybe he has sent some mixed messages to some of his true believers who think that he -- since he was the anti-war candidate early on that he was much more of a dove than he is.

As Obama explained in his August 1 speech:

OBAMA: We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists' base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support “a dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we “finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda.”

The political winds were blowing in a different direction. The President was determined to go to war. There was just one obstacle: the U.S. Congress. Nine days after I spoke, that obstacle was removed. Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war, giving the President the broad and open-ended authority he uses to this day. With that vote, Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war. And we went off to fight on the wrong battlefield, with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create, and no plan for how to get out.

Obama said in his October 2, 2002, speech:

OBAMA: After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

[...]

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

From the October 17, 2001, Chicago Defender article, retrieved from the Nexis database:

Asked what should the U.S. do, Obama said: “We're engaged in a military operation. I don't know how effective that operation is, but it's absolutely vital that we pursue a military response and a criminal investigation to dismantle these organizations of violence that have cropped up.

”We should also examine the foreign policies of the U.S. to make sure that we occupy the moral high ground in these conflicts. In particularly, we have to examine some of the root causes of this terrorist activity," Obama said, referring to terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and his “sleeper” cells throughout the world.