On April 26, as the Senate prepared to vote on supplemental spending for the war in Iraq, Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii made one of his rare floor speeches about the conflict. Notably, the Democrat never directly criticized President Bush or his administration.

The night before, Rep. John P. Murtha, who like Inouye is a decorated war veteran and chairman of a Defense Appropriations subcommittee, had not minced words in a speech flush with anger and a sense of betrayal directed at Bush. “The troops are burned out,” Murtha growled. “What we are trying to do . . . is hold the White House accountable for the policy mistakes that they made.”

There was nothing so vengeful in Inouye’s address, as he instead cast blame by inference. “We won that part of the war, the part the military can win,” he said. “We failed in not preparing for the aftermath of direct conflict, and now we are enmeshed in an untenable position.”

Venerated for his World War II service (he received a Medal of Honor in 2000 for heroism in Italy) and 53 years in public office — since before Hawaii became a state — Inouye could have taken a leading rhetorical role in the public debate on Iraq. Instead, he chose to wield power backstage as a legislative tactician, a path that has led to some successes — such as a House-Senate compromise on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, though Bush vetoed it — but limited influence beyond Washington.

Inouye no doubt feels as strongly about the war as Murtha does. He told his colleagues in the fall of 2002, “To attack a nation that has not attacked us will go down in history as something of which we should not be proud.”

He has made speeches when Democratic leaders ask him to, but he avoids strident denunciations of Bush and his policies. His approach to the supplemental spending bill and demands by party leaders for a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal was to broker a deal that made withdrawal a goal but not a mandate.

The Senate’s third-most senior member, the 82-year-old Inouye is a lawmaker of the old school, and one of the least partisan. In his ceremonial office where he greets visitors, he proudly notes that the decor does not reveal which party he belongs to. Inouye believes it is essential to preserve legislative comity — to disagree, as he says, without being disagreeable.

Inouye has no interest in being a standard-bearer for the anti-war movement because he shuns the limelight — he has never called a news conference in a half-century in Washington — and because he fears that such a role might endanger his other causes, which include serving the interests of Hawaii.

“I’m not a one-cause person,” Inouye said during an April 16 interview in his office. “And if I should take this up as a cause and walk around with a placard and give wild speeches, I may place in jeopardy some of the other causes that I believe in.

“And secondly, I believe that quietly you can accomplish things just as well as someone who speaks up.”

Unlike Murtha, who changed his position on the war, Inouye does not have anything to make amends for. He was one of 23 senators to vote against authorizing the use of force against Iraq in October 2002.

Inouye has never been ambivalent about the war, which for him seems to have unpleasant cultural as well as policy implications.

“I’ve never said this before, but I was saddened and stunned when the president spoke of going on a ‘crusade,’ ” Inouye said. “And if you know anything about that area, that’s a bad word because it conjures up horrendous pictures of white men wiping out their civilizations and religions. And the terrorist groups immediately took it up and said, ‘You see? That’s what we’ve been saying.’ ”

Inouye has seldom publicly elaborated on his opposition to the war. “I am a good listener. I very seldom speak on the floor,” he told colleagues in 2002. But he was worried. “I am concerned about what history will say about this nation 50 years from now. Did we brutalize people, or did we carry on ourselves as civilized people?”

Murtha, who served as a Marine in Vietnam, supported Bush’s plan for Iraq but later changed his mind and came out vigorously against it. He said he felt an obligation to publicly correct the record. “I think so. I think the fact that I was so wrong,” he said, adding that many House Democrats look to him for how to vote on military matters. A number of them, Murtha said, would not have voted for the resolution authorizing force in Iraq if he had not done so.

Democratic Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii said that although Inouye was vigorous in his opposition to the war when he was in Hawaii, “I think his view is that unless you work at being a national public figure, individual pronouncements at different times really [don’t] make an impact nationally.”

Even if Inouye had taken a more aggressive approach to the war and spoken out against the Bush administration, it might not have made much difference to Congress or public opinion, despite how well-respected he is, experts say.

Murtha made a difference because he had backed the war but changed his mind, said James Lindsay of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas.

Now, Lindsay said, “The state of play on the Iraq War is far more advanced than can be shaped by any individual senator. What matters now is what happens among Republican opinion leaders, not among Democratic opinion leaders.”

Inouye has never sought much publicity. During the Watergate investigation of the 1970s, it took then-Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, a Montana Democrat, four or five attempts to persuade Inouye to serve on the Senate’s Watergate committee.

The notion of following Murtha’s path of public advocacy is alien to Inouye. “Murtha is correct,” he said, “but sometimes you get used by others. They might take his words out of context to use it to your benefit or somebody else’s benefit.”

Inouye worries that his words might affect other programs and responsibilities. In addition to overseeing the defense spending panel, he is chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and a member of the Indian Affairs and the Rules and Administration panels. One of his big concerns is a bill that would create a process for native Hawaiians to form their own sovereign government.

Inouye is well-known for securing generous federal funding for his home state — a penchant he shares with the ranking Republican on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Ted Stevens of Alaska. Budget watchdog groups have frequently criticized the pair for their appropriations earmarks.

Inouye is unapologetic about that and says he can justify every earmark he’s requested. In an April 12 tribute to his close friend, Inouye boasted of his and Stevens’ ability to get earmarks for their states. “[H]e and I have received the crown of being ‘pork men of the year.’ We are No. 1 in add-ons in the United States Senate,” Inouye said. “Mr. President, I am proud to call Ted Stevens my brother.”

Stevens said in a recent interview that Inouye’s reluctance to speak out frequently on the war was not because he thought people might dislike him or that it could hamper his ability to deliver federal funding. “It’s just a different style, that’s all,” he said.

Inouye says he worries about the morale of American troops in combat. “I just feel bad for the soldiers and sailors and airmen out there, because I don’t want them to get the impression that we have forsaken them,” said Inouye, who served as a member of the “Go For Broke” 442nd Regimental Combat Team of Japanese-American soldiers that fought in Europe in World War II. “I served in uniform, and I know how it is if the government should suddenly decide not to support you. We support them.”

Inouye was an architect of the $124.2 billion war supplemental Bush vetoed last week, which included a plan for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. The compromise bill included benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet that had been promulgated by Murtha. But on the most contentious provision — whether to include a firm deadline for withdrawal — the conference committee went with a non-binding “goal” that Inouye preferred, which was weaker than the House’s language.

Inouye said such a tougher mandate would not have been realistic, because the government could not control the weather or combat conditions. And the more flexible language was necessary to win passage of the bill.

Inouye won the point without fiery speeches about the danger of a binding timeline for troops. And it was in keeping with his way of working.

“Inouye doesn’t raise his voice but he speaks very softly, and when he starts to speak the room gets very quiet so people can hear him,” said Scott Lilly, former Democratic staff director for the House Appropriations Committee. “He makes himself heard by speaking softly.”

Even though Inouye has not stood alongside Murtha at press conferences to berate the course of the war, he provides behind-the-scenes support. After Murtha spoke out in November 2005, he said Inouye called and sent him a note of encouragement.

Murtha calls Inouye “one of the most knowledgeable, taciturn persons I’ve ever known. He says very little, but he says it with his vote, he says it with his agreement; he sends me notes all the time about different things.”

As Congress begins the work of crafting a war spending bill that Bush will actually sign, Inouye will continue to play a key role. But he would not predict the terms of a bill that Bush might accept. “I have no idea, personally. Long ago I said to myself, let’s not predict what the president’s going to do,” he said.

Inouye does have a prediction regarding the end of the Iraq War, though: It will not have the same sense of closure as the war he fought in, more than 60 years ago. “See, we had V-J Day, Victory Over Japan Day; V-E Day, Victory in Europe Day,” Inouye said. “I don’t think you’ll have a Victory in Iraq Day. Who’s going to sign the papers?”

Defense supplemental, p. 1348.