ON JAN. 12, Bay Area congressional representatives Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, and Sam Farr joined Democratic colleagues from across the country in signing a letter to President George W. Bush calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) was notably absent from the list of signatories.

Despite the growing death toll of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians and November's citywide referendum – in which a resounding 63 percent of San Francisco voters approved a measure calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq – Pelosi refuses to reconsider her strident support for the war and occupation.

Unlike Rep. Tom Lantos and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Pelosi didn't vote in October 2002 to authorize Bush to invade Iraq. Since then, however, despite raising some concerns regarding the way the Bush administration has handled certain aspects of the occupation, she has been a steadfast defender of the U.S. takeover of that oil-rich country and the Bush administration's rationalizations for the war.

For example, in December 2002, as independent strategic analysts were arguing that the evidence strongly suggested that Iraq had rid itself of its chemical and biological weapons some years earlier, Pelosi categorically declared on NBC's Meet the Press that "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

In response to those who argued that Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States and that United Nations inspectors should have been allowed to complete their mission to confirm that Iraq had indeed disarmed as required, Pelosi went on record in March 2003 as saying that "reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone" couldn't "adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

This made it extremely difficult for Democrats in this past fall's election campaign to accuse the Bush administration of exaggerating the danger posed by Iraq when their own leader in the House of Representatives was doing the same thing.

As a counter to those who argued that the war has been a diversion of critical personnel, money, and intelligence from the battle against al-Qaeda terrorists, Pelosi also went on record declaring that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "part of the ongoing global war on terrorism." As recently as this past September, despite a Central Intelligence Agency report to the contrary, Pelosi also went on record claiming that Hussein allowed terrorists linked to al-Qaeda to use Baghdad "as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies."

Such assertions proved costly to the Democrats in the election: exit polls showed that 80 percent of those who believed the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism voted for Bush.

As long as hawks like Pelosi remain in the Democratic Party's leadership, it will be extremely difficult for Democrats to regain their congressional majority, much less stop the war.

Yet San Francisco voters have the power to change this. One need only think back to 1970, when 9th District congressmember Jeffrey Cohelan – a liberal incumbent who nevertheless supported the Vietnam War – was defeated in the Democratic primary by antiwar challenger Ron Dellums. This rare loss by an incumbent in his own party's primary sent shock waves nationally, leading scores of previously hesitant congressional Democrats to finally go on record against the war.

A primary defeat of their House leader would be even more significant, perhaps finally forcing Democrats nationally to show some backbone. Perhaps it's time, then, for those of us in the 8th District to seriously consider organizing a serious effort to unseat Pelosi in 2006.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).