I spend a lot of time chastising the traditional media for not really practicing journalism anymore, but Ilona at Political Cortex wants to give them credit where credit is due. And it's a valid point: would we know about the conditions at Walter Reed without the press?

Political Cortex: The news just keeps on coming.

This time, Newsweek reported that between 500 and 1,000 OEF/OIF veterans are homeless and that "[military] families [are] sliding into debt as VA case managers study disability claims over many months, and the seriously wounded [require] help from outside experts just to understand the VA's arcane system..."

Last week it was the Washington Post. In December it was NPR. And at various times last year it was the Hartford Courant, the San Diego Union Tribune, The Oregonian or the Colorado Springs Independent.

Each delivered exceptional news coverage. Here's some of their best, along with an invitation to be the first to read the opening installment of a new series on combat PTSD appearing this morning on General Wesley Clark's Clark Community Network blog, Society and the Soldier.

As many of you know, I've been covering the story of troop reintegration and combat PTSD for a while now. I've noticed (as I'm sure many of you have) that some stories rise above the others, taking the issue to the next level. Some reporting, like that done by Dana Priest and Anne Hull for the Washington Post last week, is literally life-changing for troops who have been neglected at Walter Reed.

That number of homeless vets (which is just a small fraction of the total number of homeless vets, I know) is just inexcusable. I hope that Congress gets wind of this and pressures the DoD to make assistance available to them.

Gen. Wesley Clark's WesPAC, in conjunction with VoteVets.org, has created a site, StopIranWar.com to be a one-stop resource for all Americans to help stop the looming conflict with Iran. The latest news on Iran will be available as well as online tools to contact President Bush, lobby members of Congress, and write letters to the editor to local and national print media.

All Americans want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and interfering on the ground inside Iraq. Yet President Bush's saber rattling gives the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerates a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.

Whatever the pace of Iran's nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administration's rhetoric and accusations, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict.

[..]Military force against Iran is not the solution now, and if we adopt the right strategy, perhaps it need never be. Urge him to work with our allies and use every diplomatic, political, and economic option at our disposal to deal with Iran. War is not the answer.

Go sign the petition to President Bush here.

Is War with Iran Inevitable?

As the President fights for public support of his troop surge in Iraq, he is also ratcheting up the pressure on Iran. A second aircraft carrier battle group (with Newsweek reporting a third group likely to follow), Patriot missiles to protect our allies, arresting Iranian personnel in Iraq, releasing additional information about Iranian involvement, appointing a Navy Admiral to command forces in the region, even seeking diplomatic support from Sunni Arab friends in the region - Yes, the Iranians are interfering inside Iraq and seeking nuclear capabilities. Yet the President's recent actions give the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerate a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.

He's scheduled to be there for the next hour or so. Go ask some questions.

There's perhaps nothing funnier than a propagandist college dropout trying to explain military strategy to a Rhodes Scholar retired four-star Army General. Well, maybe a quick Google search that proves the propagandist wrong is a little funnier. Although General Clarke misspoke and said "seize, clear and hold" -- he meant to say "clear, hold and build" -- he's dead on that this is not a new strategy. (h/t nitpicker)

Download | play Download | play

Hannity: Alright. You said there was no new strategy. Let me tell you what the new strategy is ‘cause clearly uh I guess you’re missing what the President’s saying here. The prior strategy, and the President admitted that there were some mistakes made, was that they go in and they’d clear out the insurgency and they didn’t stay long enough or hold those areas long enough. Now the new strategy with the troop surge will be go in, remove the insurgents, hold the areas as pa...and also accelerate the training of Iraqi troops and police. That is a new strategy.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: I don’t think that’s a new strategy. [...] I’ve heard him for a year talking about "seize, clear and hold."

Hannity: No. That’s what it is now.

That's what the strategy is now? Hmm...

Condoleezza Rice, October 19, 2005: In short, with the Iraqi Government, our political-military strategy has to be to clear, hold, and build: to clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build durable, national Iraqi institutions.

George W. Bush, October 28, 2005: As Secretary Rice explained last week, our strategy is to clear, hold, and build.

Condoleezza Rice, November 20, 2005: When we talk about clear, hold, and build, what we really mean is that we and the Iraqis have been successful now in clearing areas. Iraqi forces are now attaining the numbers and capabilities that will allow them to hold those places and not allow bad guys to come back. And then they can build economic and political institutions.

Title of strategic "Fact Sheet," March 20, 2006: Strategy for Victory: Clear, Hold, and Build

So tell us how you really feel, General Clark. There's no wiggle room in this ad as Clark comes out fighting and calling Holy Joe on his insane stance on the Iraq war. You gotta love Wesley's commitment to the voters of CT that got up---registered---and voted to make their voices heard in the Democratic primary. Meanwhile---Joe needs the lifeline being supplied to him by more Republicans to keep his chances alive.

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

Clark: Re-elect Joe Lieberman? Well, there's a word for it: Mistake

Joe sent in this video debate between O'Reilly and Clark over the Iraq war as I was about to make the clip. O"Reilly got very angry at Wesley last night because he thinks he's the expert on everything. He's the Culture Warrior! He forgot that Clark was the NATO Supreme Commander at one time and might know a thing or two...

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

O'Reilly: I'm not opposed to chatting. I just don't know if it's going to do any good.

Clark: I call it diplomacy, Bill. not chatting. Diplomacy.

O'Reilly: OK, you can call it whatever you want, General--you're still moving your lips...

Guess what Billy saved for the end of the segment.--Here's a hint---He's the boogeyman----George Soros. Clark told Billy that George Soros is a good man which almost made O'Reilly's head explode...

Newshounds: Bill O'Reilly , obviously puffed up by recent media attention, got his first surprise from Clark when he stated that we need to realize that there will be no democracy in Iraq.

He'll be in CT. on Friday. Way to go General.

via email

"In Connecticut, Ned Lamont is running the type of campaign all Democrats can be proud of. Standing up to President Bush's failed policy in Iraq, dispensing with self-serving and wishy-washy notions of "independence," and pledging to invest in America's future, Ned Lamont is a candidate for Senate who I am proud to endorse.

Of course Ned's opponent, Joe Lieberman, after refusing to abide by the results of August's Democratic primary election, has decided to do his best to drag every Connecticut Democrat's electoral prospects down with him. He continues to provide political cover to President Bush and other local Republicans despite their clearly failed policies.

By supporting Ned Lamont, you are not only helping to elect a proud Democrat to the U.S. Senate from Connecticut, but you are also helping three Democratic challengers in tough House races who are running with Ned's name at the top of the ticket."

Today Show interviews Andrew Card and Wesley Clark.

Card won't involve himself in a debate with Clark.

Video

Notice how Card like all the rest of the Repubicans that have been on the tube lately, will not answer direct questions. Campbell Brown is irritated. Not unlike Tom Brokaw earlier.