I tried to point out above the many variables that determine how a member of Congress 'votes', and why a voting record is NOT always a clear indicator of basic beliefs and opinions

You make it sound like it has to be complicated, Bill, and the fact is that it really doesn't have to be complicated. I agree that members of Congress are often presented with difficult choices about how to vote because of things like riders. But when it comes to war, the choice is very simple and very clear. For instance if a rider to fund school lunches is attached to a bill to fund the war, the Congressmember can vote against funding the war, and then introduce a new bill, separately from the war funding bill, to fund the school lunches.

If a member of Congress votes to fund the war, he or she is supporting the war. If he or she didn't want to support the war, war being about killing large numbers of people and all, he or she would absolutely find ways around voting to fund it. It's really that simple. Obama did not do this. He voted to fund the war. If he believed that the war was wrong, he would have stood up for his beliefs and voted against funding it. In the absence of acting on what he says are his beliefs, anything he says is rhetoric at best, and lies at worst.

The members of Congress did it before with Vietnam, so we know it can be done.