The truth is, most everybody didn't know the same things at the same time. When the Iraq resolution came up for a vote, the U.S. Congress had more hawks than a falconers' convention. A review of statements made prior to the invasion reveals a nearly universal lack of ambivalence.
A few dissenters seemed to know more than the rest, though they opted not to share until Iraq was coming apart. Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., wrote in The Washington Post one week after Edwards (do you suppose they chatted?) that a classified report to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee -- on which both he and Edwards served -- included ``vigorous dissents'' about whether Iraq had WMD and whether, if they existed, Saddam would use them.
On the basis of that report, Graham says he voted against the war. Edwards' pre-emptive mea culpa apparently shielded him from any flak sparked by Graham's revelations.
Hillary, who was not on the intelligence committee, may have known less. Or, as the wife of a former president, perhaps she knew more. In July 2003, Bill Clinton told Larry King:
``People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.''
There's no dishonor in not being prescient. No one can predict a war's outcome, especially not in the midst of it. But if things were going differently in Iraq today -- and they might have under better management -- we can be sure the woulda-coulda-shouldas would be singing a different song.
Not ``If I'da known ... ,'' but, ``Who didn't know?''