Shorter Greg Sargent

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

"How dare David Petraeus argue that the surge in Iraq is working instead of parroting my preferred lines on the issue."

Complaints about media "incompetence" are especially rich. Of course, those who want to know how things are going in Iraq need only read our very own Jeff Emanuel in order to find out.

« We need more COIN in the Afghan realmComments (0) | A Clarifying MonthComments (19) »
Shorter Greg Sargent 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

I'm reading the post you link to, Pejman, and it reads like a piece of fantasy.

Since when, precisely, has General Petraeus said anything so far?

It hasn't happened, he hasn't said a word, and yet there are people who think he has. Has Petraeus actually said *anything* yet? Apparently these people think he has:

So who's to blame for the fact that General Petraeus' aggressive PR surge is showing signs of success in advance of the September showdown between the White House and Congress over Iraq?

In fact, what we have is Kevin Drum, Atrios and TalkingPointsMemo talking about what Petraeus has said even though he hasn't said *anything*.

And meanwhile the coverage in the WaPo the NYT and in the Hollywood anti-war industry has been going full-tilt against the war. But let's get back to Petraeus himself.

When did this happen? I must have missed it:

"Even though there's been no discernible political progress, minimal reconstruction progress, and apparently no genuine decrease in violence, he's managed to convince an awful lot of people that the first doesn't matter, the second is far more widespread than it really is, and the third is the opposite of reality."

When did General Petraeus manage to convince anyone of these things? When in the past month has General Petraeus said a SINGLE WORD that's been picked up here on RedState or anywhere else?

Do any of these people have references for the words that General Petraeus is supposed to have said? Or the influences he's supposed to have had?

It must be that they believe Petraeus is leaking information about his report to Republican operatives preemptively, and that's what's causing the bias in favor of the surge in the media. Except that the former hasn't happened and the latter doesn't exist.

So what kind of drugs are they taking?

Is how deranged the Left has become. Instead of just talking about things that actually happened in a counterfactual way and repeating it often enough, they've now gotten into the habit of *making up* things that never happened and repeating them until they seem true.

Pejman, when did you stop denying that you were in fact a rapist and a child molester?

That Kevin Drum, Atrios, and TalkingPointsMemo have all told me privately that General Petraeus has leaked information that would cause the mainstream media to believe that you are in fact an upstanding citizen who has never raped or molested anyone. But obviously they know the truth, and you have some serious explaining to do, bub.

What's really fantastic about what's going on right now is these people are driving themselves off a cliff in response to things they've *invented* out of whole cloth.

On one level, I would like to just let them keep driving. We really should let them go off the deep end, and that's why I'm going to say this, right now:

"Yes, Kevin Drum. Yes, TalkingPointsMemo. Yes, Atrios. You are correct. General Petraeus has in fact been sending me strategy emails and updates every single day for the past two months. I know every word in his forthcoming report, and I could forward it to you, but then I'd have to kill you. And even though Karl Rove "quit", he's really the person who knows my email address and is beaming General Petraeus' reports not just to my several accounts, but into my FILLINGS. I also have a microfiche that was distributed at the time Petraeus was charged with making the report telling all the Republican operatives how to be successful in getting the New York Times and the Washington Post to support the surge. You can see how successful that effort has been just by reading their websites. We've conquered them!

And soon, we will conquer you! Muahahahahahahahahahah."

Through these posts, at least some of the issue is a few pieces of paper that congresspeople might have read while they were in Iraq. Oh No! Imagine, the general who is leading the war printing up pieces of paper that try to tell the people who are skeptical from Washington that he might be winning!

Now I know that the people from Atrios and TPM think their congresspeople are stupid and that they should be in charge, but don't you think they should at least give their congresscritters the chance to talk about what they saw?

What is it with these guys? Why do they have such a vested interest in showing that the war is a failure?

It can't be overstated just how perfectly the media's performance on that Op ed dovetailed with the White House's propaganda push at that moment: At precisely the same time, multiple White House and Republican officials were publicly delivering precisely the same message about these "war critics" finding success in Iraq that the big news orgs were.

then how could he pull this off?


(Emphasis added)

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

and discovered no comments allowed on this particular gem.
Odd, as the poor soul seems to be complaining about one sided news coverage, naturally in the Republicans favor.
He must have a very tender hide, or else harbors a dark suspicion that he's nuts. Probably both.

I'm sure he thinks Dan Rather was on the GOP payroll.
Bring back lobotomies !

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service