With apologies to Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, here is another of my, as he has stated, "far too frequent letters to the editor."

In response to Rep. Thompson's Jan. 27 statement in the Napa Valley Register, that the White House policy in invading Iraq was only about weapons of mass destruction, he is patently incorrect. As President Bush said on CNN in 2002, "The American people know my position, and that is that regime change (in Iraq) is in the interest of the world." Surely Thompson remembers the Democrat presidential campaign of 2002, with its motto, "Regime change starts at home." (Maybe not, as like everything else to do with John Kerry, it was eminently forgettable.) Having visited Iraq before the war with fellow congressmen "Baghdad Jim" McDermott and John Boehner, Thompson should be familiar with the many justifications for the war: the repeated violations of United Nations resolutions, the many violations of the cease-fire agreement from the first Iraq war, the harboring of known terrorists, the untenable sanctions program that was resulting in the death of thousands of Iraqi children every month and especially the spectacular failure of the Oil-for-Food program which, due to the corruption at the highest levels of the U.N., resulted in $10 billion being secretly funneled back to Saddam, and potentially, to terrorist organizations.

Thompson was not yet elected in 1998 when Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, Public Law 105-338, but he should certainly be aware of Congress' intent: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

It was a sensible law then and it provided a prescient road map of things to come. Also in 1998, Congress passed Public Law 105-235: Categorically detailing the dozens of Iraqi treaties and U.N. resolution violations:

"That the government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the president is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."

The stalemate in Iraq continued 13 years after the war and could have gone on even longer had Sept. 11 not forced Americans to realize that the world had suddenly become a much more dangerous place. Thompson was able to overcome his partisanship for once and voted "aye" for Public Law 107-40, "Authorization for U.S. Military Forces": "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Post-Sept. 11, Saddam's lack of cooperation was now unacceptable, America could not fail to "connect the dots" yet again. But in spite of the known threats facing America, Thompson voted against Public Law 107-243: "Authorization of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq" (which incorporated all the laws above):

The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Before criticizing the president's position on Iraq, Thompson should make sure he knows what Congress' position is. It would appear that the president and Congress have been on the same page all along.

The Register's article also states that Thompson is concerned about the federal deficit, yet he doesn't explain why he voted "nay" on the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Granted, $45 billion over five years is not much of a reduction in a $2.4 trillion annual budget, but it's a small start. Thompson states he would like to institute "pay-go" in Congress to eliminate deficit spending. Yet in the very next paragraph he is asking the federal government for $114 million in emergency disaster relief. Where would the money come from if we had "pay-go?" Obviously, sometimes deficit spending is necessary at the federal level.

Thompson has voted "nay" on all of the following bills (fortunately all were passed by the House), yet he does not take the opportunity in the Register to explain his vote:

Defense Appropriations Act of 2006; Pension Protection Act Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Act; USA Patriot and Terrorist Prevention Authorization Act; and the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, Illegal Immigrant Control Act.

Rep. Thompson obviously needs to stop the partisan bickering and start representing the people that sent him to Washington.

(Hangman lives in Napa.)