By Bill Forry

The two men who represent Dorchester in the U.S. House of Representatives, Mike Capuano and Steve Lynch, have a lot in common. For a while, they shared an apartment in D.C. as Lynch, picked to replace the legendary Joe Moakley in 2001, tried to get settled in the midst of the post-9-11 anthrax scare that paralyzed the nation's capital.

But, when it came to last year's vote to authorize this American president's war in Iraq, Mike Capuano and Steve Lynch parted ways.

In the run-up to the decisive vote on October 11, 2002, Lynch was identified by the Bushies as a potential ally, shuttled to a White House briefing, and was personally lobbied by Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. In the end, the former state senator from South Boston was convinced that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, as outlined by the Bush's closest aides, were a real and present danger.

"In the end, I felt that I would be leaving the people I represent at unreasonable risk if I didn't stand with the president. And that's basically why I voted that way," Lynch told the Reporter shortly after the vote.

Capuano was not so sure. The former Somerville mayor was unconvinced by the "evidence" presented by Powell and others. In the end, Capuano found the language in the war bill "unreasonable."

"One of reasons I voted the way I did is because I didn't like the president's rhetoric," Capuano told the Reporter around the same time. "I found it dangerous.

"We're the biggest, baddest guy on the block. We don't need to bluster," Capuano said.

Today, with America's War on Iraq officially victorious - at least, according to the president - Capuano and Lynch seem to be a bit closer on the issue. One thing is certain: Steve Lynch will think twice before he buys into the next "intelligence" churned out from the West Wing.

When the Reporter asked Lynch this week if he was now more wary of taking the Bush administration hawks at their word, the Ninth district delegate answered thusly:

"Without question. That's not just a Democratic sentiment; that's, I think, a consensus in Congress among Democrats and Republicans alike. I think the information coming out of the White House now is suspect until proven otherwise," said Lynch.

And while Lynch stands by his vote of October 2002, he says he thought he was authorizing Bush only "to take out Saddam, if all other diplomatic means failed.

"The vote wasn't to rebuild Iraq," Lynch says. "The vote was to take out Saddam.

"I don't believe the American people should shoulder that burden [of rebuilding Iraq]," Lynch said.

It's not exactly clear what Congressman Lynch thought would happen after Saddam was forcibly removed from power. Perhaps he was of the same mind as Donald Rumsfled and company, who, it appears, were willing to leave such considerations for someone else to figure out.

Capuano, whose stand against the war has been cemented by the travails of the last days and weeks, says Bush's call to empty the American treasury to pay for an open-ended Iraqi "adventure" validates all of the third-term rep's pre-war anxieties.

"There was never a doubt that we'd win the war, but it was winning the peace that was a concern," Capuano said this week in an interview with the Reporter. "Right now, we're not doing a good job of it. It's a political morass and I don't know that it will get much better."

Although Capuano's Eighth district constituency, which includes Cambridge and Boston's more liberal wards, is likely more well-disposed to an anti-war position than Lynch's Ninth, Capuano is not exactly a dove when it comes to using force abroad. He voted with an overwhelming majority of Congress to send troops to Afghanistan in 2001, a vote that he says has been undermined by Bush's headlong leap into Iraq.

Now, he's hopeful that the Administration might somehow get the United Nations to take a larger role.

"If [the president] does go the international route and reduces the amount of American troops in Iraq, we need to take them and send them to Afghanistan and finish that job," says Capuano. "I'm not worried about losing face. I don't want to do a disservice to the people of Iraq or the Middle East.

"Depending on the day, it seems as though the president might do the right thing," says Capuano. "His voice is asking for help, but his hands are not. We'll wait and see if we're heading in right direction. There's no way we can do this without international help."

In the meantime, as the country observes the second anniversary of the nation's bloodiest single day since the Civil War, Mike Capuano believes the lingering occupation in the Persian Gulf has actually made his constituents more exposed to future attack.

"I never thought that it would [make us more safe], but it has made us less safe.

"I want to live in the America I grew up in, a free and open society. That makes it more dangerous, but I'm willing to live with that danger," says Capuano. "Look at Israel. They're the most secure country in the world and they can't do it. What makes us think that we can? I wish the administration would tell the truth. It's more difficult. But there's no way we can promise no terrorism."

And yet, despite all their misgivings and, at times, outright disdain for this government's current foreign policy, it's not outside the realm of possibility that both of Dorchester's Washington delegates will help vote through the Bush war budget this fall.

"I haven't made a decision on that yet," says Lynch. "I think I need to hear my colleagues out and hear the administration out and make an informed decision. Anything else right now would be a pure guess."

"If you're going to ask Congress for more money, he sure has some explaining to do, as they say. That's why he went on TV the other night. Because he had to," says Lynch.

Capuano is similarly conflicted.

"It's a catch-22. If I vote yes, I support a policy I oppose and spend money we don't have. That $87 billion will come directly out of Social Secuirty and Medicare. But without it, I fear that we put our men and women in more danger.

"It's easy to say that I wouldn't have sent in troops without UN support. The question is, what do you do now. The world is on the edge of disaster, in my opinion. I just wish the president had seen these options before," Capuano says. "The world would be a better place if I were wrong. Unfortunately, life isn't that simple."