Have you noticed that politicians like Murtha who were calling for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year about four months ago have quietly shifted to a timetable that would have us fighting this war for another 18 months? How foolish it seems to miss the opportunity to make ending this war into an election campaign issue! Are you discouraged and annoyed that we passed a provision forbidding permanent bases in Iraq with the last appropriation bill, yet work on the bases continued, and now we're being asked to pass the identical provision in the new appropriation bill? What is it going to take to impose constitutional limits on the power of the commander-in-chief?

There is currently legislation in the House that represents a new twist. Mike Thompson (D-CA) introduced H.Con.Res.348 in February, to express the "sense of the Congress" that redeployment of the troops should commence by the time the Iraqis revise their constitution or by the end of September '06, whichever comes first. And it gets better. Other provisions of this bill make it clear that Congress opposes the building of permanent bases or a permanent military presence, and that this country does not seek to control the flow of Iraqi oil.

The bill was quietly sent to committee, but in response to the sham debate about US policy in Iraq earlier this month, Thompson spoke about it for the Record last week. It has garnered bipartisan support; 29 Democrats and 6 Republicans have signed the bill so far. Click here to see if your Representative has co-sponsored this legislation. If (s)he has, write a thank-you note. If not, request that (s)he sign on. This is not the exercise in futility it might seem. How else will we know which incumbents should keep their jobs and which should be sent home?