Several things are wrong with an Aug. 26 column's account of Sen. Barack Obama's recent "town meeting" (in fact, a PR exercise). I'll mention two:

First, I don't see how the writer can find the actions of the local group, Anti-War/Anti-Racism Effort "disruptive and rude" unless he believes, with the national commander of the American Legion, that all "public protests" should end. For those who do believe in the First Amendment, AWARE's experience at the rally was unsettling. Serious efforts were made to prevent their access to public space with anti-war signs and flyers, until the senator, displaying public magnanimity, invited them into his meeting. But the authors of the Bill of Rights did not think First Amendment rights should depend on the permission of even a senator.

The second error is more serious - the column omits any discussion of the war. But then, so did the senator, for the most part: he took just one (gentle) question on the matter, and never mentioned torture, Iran, the Downing Street minutes, Israel, impeachment, imprisonment without trial by the US government, etc. Even more surprising was what he did say: he "hopes U.S. troops could begin to leave "Iraq next year, (but) ... Iraq" would simply collapse if we left now." That's the administration's position, and it ignores the fact that a majority of the Iraqis want us to leave now, understandably enough.

Sen. Obama revealed himself as a liberal enabler of the death and destruction the United States has brought to Iraq - like most of the Democratic Party. His position contrasts sharply with that expressed by Cindy Sheehan, who points out that one is either for the ending of the war and the withdrawal of the United States from Iraq, or for its continuance.

C. G. Estabrook Visiting Scholar, UIUC