Look, let’s call this what it is:
Saying that Glen Greenwald [1] is a drooling [2], lying [3], sock puppeting [4] idiot [5], is not a political statement. Provacative, perhaps, and arguably correct, but it’s not political.
And that goes for Greg Mitchell [6], too.
See, here’s the thing… the likes of Greenwald and Mitchell, can moralize all they want, and demand responses from the military in their moralization. But when they GET the straight truth, if they aren’t getting the desired genuflecting before the liberal press, and accepting their slanted premises as word, and confirming the left’s stunted worldview, Greenwald and Mitchell stokeup the presses, claiming that the mean old general was getting political on them, when in fact he’s speaking the straight, apolitical truth. It’s disingenuous as hell but it is a neat way to control the narrative, huh, guys? It’s obviously important to the political future of such as Greenwald to keep this narrative flowing in his favor, or he’d not expend all the trouble to knock down anything that might stand in it’s way… like noting [7] some holes [8] in his narrative. [9]
(Hmmmm… the words straight, apolitical, and truth… and Greenwald… in the same sentence… Oh, never mind)
And we’ve still not addressed this question of Greenwald’s claims about the mailnote being confirmed. It’s still an open question. Nor has he addressed the credibility issues brought up by his make believe friend, Rick Ellensburg.
Oops. Guess by Greenwald’s lights, I got a bit political with that last one, huh? (yeah, right)
As for Mitchell, I’ll let someone else have fun with that.
BBCT: Memeorandum [10]