I Read The News Today, Oh Boy...

Lots of news today; let's get to it.

First, Dubya is giving a campaign speech press conference right now in Florida, live on CNN. He's mentioning how all the faith based charities are doing such a bang-up job of helping, and he's READING FROM A FREAKING SCRIPT!. He can't even speak extemporaneously about hurricanes! Anyway...

Ezra at Pandagon smacks down that smarmy prick Ralph Reed lying about the 9-11 commission Report on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show last night. Reed is one of the oiliest hypocrites around, he sounds smart but isn't really quite as cool as he thinks he is.


Lew Rockwell has this column from a soldier named Al Lorentz who's on active duty in Iraq, telling Why We Cannot Win.

Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.

First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

Kos has the follow-up; he's being brought up on charges by the Army:

The military chain of command is considering charging Al with violation of Article 134 for making a statement with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection toward the U.S. by any member of the Armed forces [...]

The military chain of command is also considering charging Al with violation of 1344.10, the conduct of partisan political activity, and violation of Standards of Conduct for unauthorized use of Government assets to create and email stories.

This one is laughable, as active duty members apparently constituted 3% of the delegation at the Republican National Convention only a few weeks ago. Do you think those military members will be accused of violating 1344.10?

Tell the truth, go to jail. Nice.

The American Prospect Online points out more Dubya hypocrisy: He's lying about health care coverage for the National Guard troops serving in Iraq:

During his recent speech at the National Guard Association’s annual convention in Las Vegas, President Bush touted his pride and steadfast support for his erstwhile brothers in arms.

(break)

All full-time military personnel are eligible for the military’s TRICARE health plan, as are reservists called up for active duty. After reservists are deactivated, however, they generally lose their TRICARE coverage following a short, transitional grace period. Having the option to buy into the military's the military’s TRICARE coverage would be attractive to many reservists and their families, as it offers comprehensive policies at very low cost.

In 2002, a General Accounting Office report found that as many as one-fifth of the nation’s 1.2 million part-time soldiers lacked health insurance. This startled many lawmakers into action, and, in May 2003, Senators Tom Daschle and Lindsay Graham successfully pushed for an amendment to the Senate’s version of the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill that would protect reservists from going uninsured by allowing them to buy into TRICARE when not on active duty.

Though the “Graham-Daschle amendment” had overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, the administration sought to scuttle the proposal as it moved to the House.

Guess we can afford transportation to Iraq, but not health care for the soldier's families.

Editor & Publisher tells us that the CIA is so upset about the direction Iraq is going that they're virtually at war with the White House:

Conditions in Iraq appear to be deteriorating so badly that CIA officials are now leaking to reporters left and right, signaling a new dynamic in press coverage of the war. Columnist Robert Novak noted this on Monday in a column titled, "Is CIA at War With Bush?"

(break)

"People at the CIA 'are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper,' said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials. 'There's no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments.'

Meanwhile, President Smiley Face keeps on spinning like the Energizer Bunny. Oh wait, the Energizer Bunny is actually useful. My bad.

Paul Krugman, in yesterday's NYTimes, really let's loose on the shallowness of the media.:

Let's face it: whatever happens in Thursday's debate, cable news will proclaimPresident Bush the winner. This will reflect the political bias so evident during the party conventions. It will also reflect the undoubted fact that Mr. Bush does a pretty good Clint Eastwood imitation.

Sadly, we will hear about:

• tans
• steadfastness
• body language
• hair

We probably won't hear about:

• failure in Iraq
• more than 1000 soldiers dead
• corporate welfare
• North Korea's nukes
• tax giveaways to millionaires
• Patriot Act abuses
• letting al Zarqawi get away

With this so called liberal media (SCLM), who needs Fair and Balanced?

Alterman has reader's questions to Dubya, both yesterday and today. Some samples:

"You have presided over two of the worst intelligence failures in history, your Sec of Defense failed to plan for the occupation of Iraq, your White House staff committed a federal offense in 'outing' a CIA agent, your budget team lied to the US Congress about the cost of your Medicare bill, why, Mr. President, has no one lost their job in your administration?"

"Mr. President, you've accused John Kerry of being on indecisive on issues. But you yourself have changed your opinion on issues including the establishment of a cabinet level homeland security department, an independent 9/11 commission, steel tariffs, and more. What's the difference between being indecisive, and changing your mind?"

"Mr. President, you have accused John Kerry of not supporting the troops because he did not vote in favor of the funding bill that contained funds for basic soldier gear such as body armor. My question is who sent them into battle without that equipment in the first place?"

Read the rest, add your own, either here or at Altercation.