After Ed Case announced last year that he'd challenge two-term U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka in the Democratic primary, a prominent Democratic elected official told me he liked Case, but would support Akaka because of his opposition to the war in Iraq.

"Sometime in the next session, the U.S. Senate will have an opportunity to vote to end the war," he said. "I know Danny Akaka will be there for us when that time comes. I can't count on Case to be there."

Such passions against the war in Iraq were key to Akaka's victory. Many reform Democrats and independents who normally would have gravitated to Case backed Akaka because he voted against authorizing the war in the first place and unequivocally supported a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops, while Case insisted on talking about the complexities involved in winding down the war.

It's funny that we've barely heard a peep from these folks now that Akaka had his chance to vote to end the war — and flinched.

Akaka, along with Hawai'i's senior Sen. Daniel Inouye, voted with an 80-14 Senate majority to provide $95 billion to continue funding the war. The bill was stripped of any language to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces after an earlier veto by President Bush.

Akaka said he was disappointed that Bush hadn't agreed to start bringing our troops home and said he'd continue to push for an end to the war.

But he said the bill he voted for "was necessary to support the troops on the ground by providing the emergency funding."

Akaka and Inouye could take solace that the bill, laden with pork that Democrats forced on Bush if he wanted his war funding, contained nearly $40 million earmarked for Hawai'i projects, primarily disaster relief related to the October earthquakes.

But it seems unbecoming for them to even mention such crumbs to justify votes on a matter of war and peace, with thousands of American lives and countless billions of dollars in spending at stake.

This is not to suggest it was an easy vote; it's always politically untenable for lawmakers to vote to deny funding to support the forces we've deployed.

The point is that it was Case's argument — not Akaka's — that the war is complicated. For Akaka, it was a simple matter of setting timetables to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.

It shouldn't go without note that when push came to shove, Akaka cast the same vote to continue funding the war that Case probably would have.

In the House, Hawai'i Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Mazie Hirono opposed the war as fervently as Akaka did in the 2006 campaign, and both stuck to those convictions by voting against the funding bill on the losing side of a 280-142 House tally to pass the measure to the Senate.

Hirono said the withdrawal timetables stripped from the bill were vital to keeping promises made by Democrats that they'd start bringing the war to an end when they swept Republicans out of power in the 2006 election. Abercrombie, who strongly backed Akaka over Case, accused Bush of bullying Congress and derided the Iraq funding bill Akaka voted for as the "Stay the Course Act of 2007" — one of the catch phrases the Akaka campaign used against Case.

Abercrombie took the opposite position of Akaka's on the necessity of providing more funds to support troops already in Iraq or scheduled for deployment.

"I cannot vote to allow this president to send one more American soldier or Marine into combat without the equipment and training they're supposed to have," he said.

David Shapiro, a veteran Hawai'i journalist, can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net. Read his daily blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com.