AT ANNIVERSARY OF IRAQ VOTE, DEMS SKIRT ISSUE.

Byline: Lisa Friedman Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - As the nation approaches the second anniversary of the congressional vote that authorized war in Iraq, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, says he would not have voted for it if he had known weapons of mass destruction wouldn't be found.

But most Los Angeles-area Democrats who voted in October 2002 to give President Bush the green light to invade Iraq sidestepped that hypothetical question - which even Sen. John Kerry stepped into last month.

Under pressure from Bush, the Democratic presidential candidate - who voted in favor of war authorization - acknowledged he would not have voted differently even if he had known Saddam Hussein's supposedly massive WMD stockpile was nowhere to be found.

Republicans have ridiculed Kerry for his answer, casting his comments as yet another new position from the candidate on Iraq.

Democrats, meanwhile, say they are befuddled as to why Kerry did not distinguish himself from Bush on the war more forcefully, and why he even entertained a question many called irrelevant.

``I don't think John Kerry should have answered that,'' said Rep. Howard Berman, D-Van Nuys. ``It's beside the point.''

But as the anniversary of the vote approaches, area lawmakers who voted yea on the critical question of war also are assessing their former position.

Area Democrats who voted in favor of authorizing a U.S. invasion of Iraq were Reps. Brad Sherman, Henry Waxman, Jane Harman, Schiff and Berman.

Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the war. The bill passed the House 296-133 and the Senate 72-23.

Alone among area Democrats, Schiff now says he would not have given Bush the OK had he known no biological and chemical weapons cache would be found.

``For me, the authorization was all about weapons of mass destruction,'' said Schiff. ``I think it was the right vote given the information that we had.''

But he added: ``If I knew then there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I would not have supported the authorization, and I don't think it would have passed.''

Schiff's Republican challenger Harry Scolinos did not return a call for comment.

On the other end of the spectrum, Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks, was the only area Democrat to definitively say he would have cast the same vote even if he had known no WMD stockpile would be found.

``If I knew everything then that I know now, even then I'd have to say, if we defeated the resolution, what would have happened? Even worse than invading in the wrong way would have been to say, oops, we're going away; Saddam can do anything he wants,'' Sherman said.

``If the choice was between the aggressiveness of George Bush and the kumbaya of not doing anything at all, then I would have gone with the misplaced over-aggressiveness of George Bush.''

Sherman's Republican opponent Robert Levy said he, too, would have voted for the war and still believes it is an important element in the war against terrorism.

``If we did nothing else by invading Iraq other than stop a source of payment for suicide bombers in Israel, then that would have been a good thing for us to do,'' Levy said.

The other pro-authorization Democrats called the ``what if'' question unanswerable.

In 2002, Waxman issued a statement saying he hoped war authorization would force the United Nations to come to a consensus on dealing with Hussein. He also cited Bush's allegations that Hussein had rebuilt substantial chemical and biological weapons, adding: ``No one doubts he is trying to build a nuclear device.''

Asked recently if he would have cast a different vote had he known U.S. intelligence on Iraq's WMD program was so flawed, Waxman replied that Congress never would have been asked to debate war under those circumstances.

``I don't think the president could have presented the case with a straight face,'' said Waxman, D-Los Angeles. ``I don't think the American people would have supported it.''

Waxman's Republican challenger Victor Elizalde pointed to the discovery of a mustard gas shell and a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent as proof that chemical shells do exist in Iraq. ``I would have voted for troop deployment in Iraq then and now.''

Harman, D-El Segundo, concurred with Waxman.

``It's a hypothetical question because there never would have been such a vote. I do not regret my vote under the circumstances at the time.''

Harman's Republican challenger, Paul Whitehead, said he would have voted for war. ``Hindsight is always 20/20. I think we did the right thing.''

Like Waxman and Harman, Berman declined to box himself in.

``I don't know a way of telling you how I would have voted if a critical piece of information was different,'' said Berman, a key power broker on the 2002 resolution who helped negotiate language changes in it and worked to build support for it among Democrats.

``I believed Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and I believed he was pursuing a nuclear capability. That belief was a critical part of my decision.''

Asked if he now regrets his vote, Berman said, ``When the dust settles, I'll be able to answer that question.''

Berman's Republican opponent, David Hernandez, said he did not doubt then, and does not now question, the decision to invade. ``After Sept. 11, how could we afford to not call Hussein's bluff?''

Southern California Republican congressmen unequivocally said knowledge that estimates of Hussein's WMD stash were overblown would not have changed their vote.

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Santa Clarita, said the WMD issue was ``one tiny thing'' among many elements that made war necessary, and he noted that some weapons were found.

``I still would have done it,'' McKeon said. ``The important thing, I think, was eliminating his capacity to hurt us.''

His Democratic challenger Tim Willoughby called the war ``ill-advised'' from the beginning and said information about the lack of weapons only confirms longtime opponents' beliefs.

``It seems apparent that those of us who were concerned about the aftermath of war may have been right,'' he said. ``Invading Iraq has caused a lot of difficulties for our country.''

Among Republicans, only Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Thousand Oaks, allowed that the mood in Congress may have been different if intelligence flaws about Hussein's weapons were better known.

``I'm not sure that the resolution would have been exactly the same,'' Gallegly said. But, he added, ``We clearly did know that he had WMD at some point. He had 'em. He used 'em. It was the correct decision.''

His challenger Brett Wagner called the threat to the U.S. supposedly posed by Saddam Hussein ``unfounded and ungrounded.''

``Personally, I am quite glad to see Saddam Hussein removed from power,'' Wagner said, adding that Iraqi people are better off now than they were. But, he said, ``That's not how the war was presented to the American people. That's not the argument that won the American people's support.''

No member of Congress advocated pulling troops out of Iraq. Rather, each maintained the importance of remaining in the region to help Iraq restore security and establish a representative form of government.

Lisa Friedman, [phone]

lisa.friedman(at)langnews.com