The ranks of those who disagree strongly with Congressman Stephen Lynch's 2002 vote to support the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq- and his subsequent vote to authorize an additional $87 billion to support the war effort- have swelled considerably in the intervening months. But the fact that Lynch now recognizes and is willing to publicly acknowledge that his October 2002 vote was "wrong" is an admirable quality in a representative. That Lynch would go a step further and convene a public meeting to explain his policy decisions around Afghanistan and Iraq - as he did last Monday at Milton's Curry College- is an even greater service.

Lynch's present position - that the U.S.-led forces in Iraq need to move towards withdrawal in synch with May elections in Iraq- is in line with conventional positions of the minority party in Washington, D.C. But it remains unpopular among strident war opponents, who want our troops brought home immediately.

Lynch has shown good diligence in his four trips to the Persian Gulf region to personally inspect conditions there. No doubt, those trips have informed Lynch's evolving position and helped him to determine the need for a U.S. withdrawal in the near future. Opponents who are disappointed with Lynch's present position are right to call for accountability from their delegate in Congress and to scrutinize his decision-making process. That Lynch has chosen to make that challenging process more transparent through such a public forum is something that should be applauded and encouraged, not derided.

At the same time, Lynch and his colleagues on Capitol Hill should demand the same of the Bush administration, whose lack of candor and, perhaps, outright obfuscation in the run-up to Iraq has done such a disservice to those fighting on our behalf so many miles from home.

Cheney's wild weekend

When it comes right down to it, the question must be asked: What in tarnation was the vice-president of the United States thinking? His Saturday evening "peppering" of a 78- year-old acquaintance during a quail hunt on a Texas ranch has become great fodder for stand-up comedians. But there are some serious issues here that must be resolved and they have real bearing on the prestige of the presidency.

Accidents happen, to be sure. But, when accidents happen involving the second most powerful office in the land, the public expects and deserves a swift and full accounting of the facts. That did not happen in this case.

Why was the vice-president not interviewed by local authorities in the minutes following the alleged accident? Why wait until ten hours had passed to speak to local police? Why did the White House not divulge at least the bare-bones details of the incident until nearly a day later- and then at the prompting of local Texas news reporters who got the story from the civilian ranch owner? Answers to these and other reasonable questions are painfully absent from the administration to date.

The suspicious actions of the Bush-Cheney White House have transformed this incident from a bizarre accident into a potential scandal for the nation's top office-holders. This administration's more serious credibility problems- stemming directly from the widely-held perception that they conspired to deliberately mislead the American public and Congress in the days before the Iraq invasion, have everything to do with this reaction. Our democracy hinges on the public's ability to trust their elected leaders on matters as simple as a quail hunt and as large as war and peace. This administration, sadly, has failed on both counts.