If congress wanted to create an indelible impression of its departure from reality and common sense, they could not do better than this: They are preparing to pass a war appropriation of $108 billion to express their unwavering opposition to the war.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly plans to hold out for extended unemployment benefits by making war-funding contingent on unemployment funds. Put in human terms, we will pay for a needless extension of a war that we cannot afford but at least we’ll keep the unemployment checks coming. 

Representative Barbara Lee of Oakland, California said it best: “It just [doesn’t] make sense to force [us] to choose between providing food stamps for people who are hurting and need help during this terrible time and funding an occupation that people do not support.”

Here’s an idea: Pay for the direct and immediate withdrawal of all military personnel and equipment (not a penny for military installations, mercenaries or Fort Embassy) and deliver the savings to the infirm, the unemployed, the homeless and the wounded warriors coming home to a rude awakening: All is not well in the homeland.

The Battle for Basra gave way to the Siege of Sadr City, leaving in its wake a broken Iraqi government, the promise of inclusion irrevocably betrayed, a surge of violence, death and destruction, and the words of General David Petraeus on the progress of the war still ringing in our ears: “Fragile and reversible.” 

In contrast to his first testimony before Congress, the second round of the Commander’s report to Congress elicited sympathy. It was sad, even tragic to witness yet another military leader playing point man for the White House in defense of a strategic catastrophe.

After an explosion of violence, the stunning defeat of government forces and the subsequent disenfranchisement of arguably the most powerful and influential Shia party in Iraq, with missiles raining down on the once secure Green Zone, the best the General could do was to claim progress that was “fragile and reversible.”

After five years, at a cost approaching a trillion dollars, with 4036 dead American soldiers, tens of thousands wounded and as many or more than a million Iraqi dead, with apologies to the General, “fragile and reversible” is no progress at all.

By general agreement, the most powerful man in Iraq is currently residing in Iran. At various times over the course of America’s five-year occupation, he has been an invaluable ally and our most feared enemy. His power and influence have been both exaggerated and dangerously underestimated.

More than any other individual, including General David Petraeus and George W. Bush, this man was responsible for the decline in death and destruction during the American escalation known as “the surge.” His surname is imbedded in the Baghdad landscape, the son of a Grand Ayatollah and the leader of Iraq’s most powerful militia. His political party is poised to take control of southern Iraq in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

He is Muqtada al-Sadr and by all but the most extreme and philosophically biased accounts, he has once again stared into the eyes of the most powerful occupying army in history and its collaborators in the Iraqi government and lived to tell the tale.

I remember it clearly. It was a bone-chilling autumn day. The air was thick and brittle with fear. On the advice of NATO command, we were crouched behind the barrier on the tarmac, awaiting the “all clear.” Suddenly, the tender and quivering voice of a child broke through the chill. “I’m scared,” she cried.

Hillary stood at once, throwing back all attempts to coax her back to reason. A shot rang out, so close it reverberated in my ears, then another and another.

Hillary broke toward the child. “This is nothing,” she exclaimed. “I was in Belfast for the Saint Patrick’s Day Massacre! I was in Port au Prince when Papa Doc Duvalier went down! I stood between the Hutu and the Tutsi in Rwanda! This is a walk in the park!” She embraced the trembling child, tucked her in her arms and carried her to safety. I was writing furiously. It was the most courageous act I had ever witnessed. She grabbed my hand, whispering “Not a word.”

It was not about words. It was all about action.

One of the great wrongs of the current presidential campaign is that Hillary Clinton is being allowed to define the terrain.

With the economy sinking like a torpedoed cruise liner, we leave NAFTA and Free Trade behind because Hillary has decided it is time to discuss thresholds for Commander-in-Chief. Little wonder: Any discussion of the economy that does not begin with trade policy is like debating which brand of aspirin we should purchase for a dying patient. 

Hillary’s duplicity on Free Trade is a well-chronicled record. Husband Bill was of course the Free Trade champion who pushed NAFTA into law. Said the former president at the NAFTA signing ceremony (12/8/93): “We are on the verge of a global economic expansion that is sparked by the fact that the United States, at this critical moment, decided that we would compete, not retreat.”

Imagine the smile that curled the lips of Senator Hillary Clinton when, on the eve of the Ohio and Texas primaries, she came across a story from the Canadian press that her opponent had delivered a duplicitous message on NAFTA to the Canadian government: We are going to play some political games with NAFTA but don’t worry, we are not serious.

Clinton knew full well that it was in fact her people that had contacted the conservative, pro NAFTA, pro Free Trade government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to deliver that same message: We intend to play political games but it is only for show. We will not act. We will not renegotiate NAFTA to include the rights of labor.