By Rhonda Chriss Lokeman

IN THE course of this unnecessary war in Iraq, two elected dissenters stand out for having spoken out. They approached this war on opposite sides but their courage and conviction led them to common ground.

This is a tale of two critics.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd opposed the war from the start. He asked for more credible evidence before troops went in, using Vietnam as a historical footnote.

Byrd also warned of the makings of an imperial presidency in which the role of Congress would be minimised and the Constitution trivialised.

Pennsylvania’s John Murtha supported the administration’s policy in Iraq. When the Democratic hawk discovered that the White House mission remained unclear and endangered our troops unnecessarily, he changed his mind.

In 2005, he insisted that it was time to bring the troops home and that the administration had failed them by not having an exit strategy.

Murtha, ranking Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, had heard horror stories from frustrated military officials who dared not risk insubordination by publicly disagreeing with the commander in chief.

He was attacked by Vice President Dick Cheney and others who accused him of wanting to "surrender to the terrorists."

Byrd and Murtha remind us that although our freedoms are eroding in the global war on terror waged by the Bush administration, America is still home of the brave.

For his "political courage and his dedication to principled public service," Murtha last month was given a 2006 Profile in Courage Award from the John F Kennedy Foundation.

Murtha shares this prize with Alberto J Mora. Mora, who retired this year as general counsel of the Navy, tried unsuccessfully to change policies permitting torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

Murtha and Byrd have supported past military actions. But each man in his own time learned that things are different now because this presidency is different.

This presidency, says Byrd, is "reckless and arrogant" and has no respect for the Constitution and civil liberties. He is spot on the mark.

So is Murtha, a 37-year veteran who says this presidency exhausts our armed forces.

The former Marine recently condemned alleged atrocities committed by Marines in Haditha and suggested a possible cover-up of the massacre last November.

"They killed innocent civilians in cold blood," Murtha said.

Such war crimes happen when "our troops overreact because of the pressures put on them," Murtha added.

Murtha is up for re-election in November. I hope he wins.

Byrd made eight significant speeches that challenged the Bush administration on domestic and foreign affairs. He delivered his best on February 12, 2003.

"To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any president who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is ‘in the highest moral traditions of our country,’" said Byrd.

He added: "Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making."

In another speech in 2002, Byrd pointed out a subtle but important difference in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which he supported, and what came out of the Senate in 2002.

"With the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Congress could ‘terminate’ military action," Byrd said.

"S J Resolution 46 will allow the president to continue war for as long as he wants, against anyone he wants, as long as he feels it will eliminate the threat posed by Iraq."

As Byrd predicted, the foundation for an imperial presidency was set.

As Murtha discovered, our troops are stuck in a war without end.

* Rhonda Chriss Lokeman is a columnist for the Kansas City Star.