Coming on the eve of another war-funding vote, many wondered if the memos leaked by Wikileaks on the details of the Afghanistan deployment might make a difference. At the first test, the answer appears to have been no.

The House approved $33 billion for a 30,000-troop escalation in Afghanistan this week and in doing so took money away from other places it was desperately needed: public schools, green energy and job creation, the lot. Sixty percent of Democrats and 93 percent of Republicans think increasing the deficit is just fine when it comes to war.

But David Swanson found some good news in the clear vote on the war funding measure. At least antiwar folks know who�s on what side: who�s with and who�s against.

Swanson pointed out that a good chunk of the Democratic caucus is opposed to more money for war even when their own leadership is asking for it. Republicans are clearly willing to keep fighting, and funding, regardless, despite their howls about waste and big government. There�s one more fact too: the number of antiwar Congress members has risen -- significantly -- approaching the number of members willing to vote for a mild non-binding timetable for withdrawal.

Wrote Swanson on his blog: �Willingness to express mild interest in ending the war has reached a plateau. Willingness to take serious action to end the war is rapidly catching up. Of course, both have to top 218 before we win.�

With the WikiLeaks documents, and the media�s attention on the topic, it�s time to redouble efforts to push more members of Congress against the war, says Swanson. And barring that, there�s an election�s coming up.

Do you know how your Congress member voted? There�s a link here if you want to check.