Surge Derangement Syndrome Grips MSM and Liberals

P.J. Gladnick
August 10th, 2007 9:04 AM
Font Size

With the success of the surge in Iraq becoming more evident with each passing day, a new ailment has gripped the Mainstream Media and the liberals: Surge Derangement Sydrome (SDS). The earliest known case of SDS occurred on April 23 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded to a question by CNN's congressional correspondent Dana Bash about whether he would believe General David Petraeus if he reported that the "so-called surge" is working:

REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts.

Well, as we do look at the facts that the surge is working, the MSM and the liberals are showing more signs of severe SDS. Some of these SDS signs have been noted in the August 9 edition of Investor's Business Daily, 'Surge' Critics Perhaps Were Bit Premature:

Do Democratic opposition leaders keep blaming each other for voting for the Iraq War? Or are they now talking about expanding military operations to other countries?

Sen. Hillary Clinton once was damned for voting to authorize the war in Iraq. But her even-more-liberal rival Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., now expresses his own willingness to invade nuclear Islamic Pakistan.

...we have heard from the House's majority whip, Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C. He's worried that Gen. Petraeus' good news about the surge might be "a real problem for us" — "us" being anti-war Democrats. And at a congressional briefing, when Gen. Jack Keane reviewed the positive signs from the surge, Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., walked out on the testimony.

She complained that there was "only so much that you could take . . . after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to."

The SDS symptoms in the media have ranged from shock to feigned apathy, both of which examples were chronicled yesterday by NewsBusters Senior Editor Tim Graham. In the category of SDS shock is the stunned reaction on Wednesday of CNN American Morning anchor John Roberts when he heard Senator Dick Durbin state that there is military progress in Iraq:

But hold on. Let me back you up there. You said you did see military progress?

When Durbin confirmed that there was military progress with the caveat that there was little political improvement in Iraq, Roberts remained flustered:

I understand all of that. But Senator Durbin, everybody in the Democratic Party is saying that the surge has failed. Senator Casey, do you agree with your colleague that there are some signs of military progress here?

Unfortunately for Roberts, Senator Bob Casey was unable to ease his severe SDS with his confirmation that there was military progress in Iraq. In fact, Casey might have made Roberts' SDS even worse when he ridiculously suggested that now that the surge is working, it is time to change course from successful military policy in Iraq:

The problem here is that the President of the United States continues to insist on stay the course policy, no change in direction, no sense that the American people can determine that there's a light at the end of the tunnel. That's why I think there's a bipartisan agreement right now to change the course. I think the president should listen to the will of the American people.

In the feigned apathy category of SDS, we have the example of Matt Lauer. During his questioning of Senator John McCain on yesterday's Today Show, Lauer came up with this SDS gem:

There are some people who say, Senator, that the momentum, right now, in Congress is so strong to pull the troops out of Iraq that it doesn't matter what's in that report, in the middle of September from General Petraeus, or even in reports that follow that. Even if we start to change momentum in Iraq and start to see more success, the momentum in Congress is already so strong that it's unstoppable. How do you feel about that?

So now that the surge seems to be successful, Lauer is claiming that it doesn't really matter. His SDS is making him portray a successful surge as an obstacle to the liberal goal of leaving Iraq as quickly as possible. It is almost as if some commentator in 1944 stated that the successful landing in Normandy didn't matter. Of course, that didn't happen because no one suffered the equivalent of SDS in 1944.

What is the future prognosis for this severe ailment among the left? SDS will most likely continue to worsen until it reaches a fever pitch when General Petraeus makes his report to Congress on the progress of the surge in September. Shock, anger, and feigned apathy will be among its many symptoms as SDS takes its toll among the left.