That fateful vote of October 2002 carried both houses more than 2 to 1 with half the Democrats voting "yes," but we hear little about those bold and insightful souls who opposed the war from the start. It's fashionable for most who supported the war authorization to say if they knew then what they know now they would not have voted the way they did. If only they had known there were no weapons of mass destruction . . . if only they understood there were no links between al-Qaida and Iraq . . . if only they were less trusting of the intelligence . . . if only they realized how badly the war would be run . . . if only . . .

Poor John Kerry couldn't utter those words in 2004 and it may have cost him the election. He did only after President Bush was reinaugurated.

The 2008 field includes one former senator and three incumbents who voted "yes" -- John Edwards, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd. All now agree they would have voted "no" if they knew then, etc.

The difference is whether they admit their "yes" votes were mistakes. Most do -- Edwards first and most profusely. Clinton, despite what is now a vigorous anti-war position, somehow cannot bring herself to acknowledge error. The field includes Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the war; also Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who gave a strong anti-war speech at a Chicago rally in 2002 when running for office.

An interviewer reminded Edwards that Obama was against the war early on. The former senator snidely noted that Obama, as a mere candidate, was not "burdened" by the intelligence presented to Congress -- hinting Obama might have voted differently had he been in office. The answer is speculative, but it's fair to suppose that Obama would have voted against the war, along with Illinois senior Sen. Dick Durbin and eight out of nine Democratic members of the House: Chicagoans Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson Jr., William Lipinski, Luis Gutierrez, Danny Davis and Jan Schakowsky, plus Downstaters Lane Evans and Jerry Costello.

Only then-congressman Rod Blagojevich, running for governor, abandoned fellow Democrats, while Rahm Emanuel, running to succeed him, ran from the issue.

Who knows why?

Pete Visclosky, from an adjacent district in Indiana voted no -- as did Republicans John Hostettler of Indiana and Jim Leach of Iowa. In all, six brave Republicans joined 127 House Democrats opposing the war.

The big issue that's never been pursued in questioning Edwards, Clinton, Biden and others is why they were gulled by the bad intelligence or trusted Bush more than 21 other Democratic senators. The 21 came from all across the nation, not just liberal Massachusetts where Ted Kennedy voted "no" while Kerry strangely didn't join his role model. Nays also came from New England's Republican Lincoln Chafee and Republican-Independent Jim Jeffords.

Was it ideology, a lack of insight, a too-great trust of Bush or simply fearful politics and a failure of nerve that led generally sound thinkers such as Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards and other Democrats to vote as they did?

You expected the usual suspects -- progressives Barbara Boxer of California, Pat Leahy of Vermont and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin -- to vote "no," with Minnesota's late Paul Wellstone, up for re-election. But Senate dean Robert Byrd from red-state West Virginia -- no great liberal -- voted against and continues the fight. Military expert Bob Graham of red-state Florida, a candidate for president in 2004, recognized the bad intelligence and called for a "no" vote.

Why weren't more listening to them, or to Michigan's highly respected Carl Levin? Kent Conrad, from Bush-loving North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico were paying heed -- why weren't Biden, Dodd and Edwards?

Ask Clinton why she didn't join women Patty Murray of Washington State, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Speeches by Murray and many others cut through the cloud of cherry-picked intelligence and easily foresaw the disaster to follow the initial military phase. As Murray presciently put it: "Without a clear objective, victory cannot be measured. Indeed, it appears the administration established a solution -- going to war -- before it defined the problem or the goal. . . . I'm very concerned that a unilateral race to make war on Iraq will weaken the support we need worldwide to win the war on terrorism."

It was all clear back then.

On this tragic anniversary, saluting the wise, courageous legislators who voted "no," we also must question the judgment of those who voted to give Bush his predictably disastrous war. Especially those who want to lead us now.

Don Rose is a Chicago-based political consultant and analyst.

###