« His Three-Year-Old Can Shoot That | Main | Your World in Charts: "It's The System, Stupid" Edition »

October 29, 2007

Covered in Glory

The whole exchange between Glenn Greenwald and Gen. Petraeus's spokesperson, Steve Boylan, is bizarre from the start, but takes a truly weird turn when Boylan begins denying that he actually wrote any of the e-mails. And nor is he concerned by the fact of other people writing e-mails from his e-mail, at his IP address, under his name, espousing his sentiments. Worse, he appears to by lying. As one IP expert concluded, "these two emails [the "fake" one and the real one] were written by the same person. Or, someone has hacked into the military infrastructure in an effort to discredit this one Colonel by sending cranky emails to bloggers. But one of the two, certainly."

I wonder if Boylan will get fired from this? And I wonder if he realizes how much attention he's drawn to Greenwald's main point: The politicization of military information?

October 29, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Boylan, not Boykin. May wish to correct up there.

Posted by: El Cid | Oct 29, 2007 1:41:50 PM

Yeah, this whole thing is just bizarre. I can't help but think that the original e-mail was dashed off while Boylan was drunk, and his subsequent "disavowal" was a seat-of-the-pants response to Glenn's posting of the content.

Should Glenn maybe consider taking Boylan up on the embed offer? I'm torn about it -- it would be great to see Glenn's take on the distorting nature of the embed process, but I can't help but think he might be in some danger (given the tone of Boylan's e-mails). Maybe that's paranoid.

Posted by: NCProsecutor | Oct 29, 2007 1:59:28 PM

The Evil Twin defense seems to be the best option for Boylan right now.

Posted by: Jamey | Oct 29, 2007 2:12:22 PM

I'd agree that the first post reads as a drunken error of judgement except that the other presumptively non drunken posts were obviously written in the exact same style, tone, and level of incoherent rage. The conclusion that I draw is that this guy is just as dumb and agressive and illiterate drunk as sober. Itself a sobering thought.

aimai

Posted by: aimai | Oct 29, 2007 2:21:59 PM

Many rightwing bloggers are also claiming that Greenwald somehow lied about the exchange, by publishing the full email on a clickable link and then excerpting only portions of it on his blog. Are they really that stupid or are they intentionally lying?

Posted by: JoshA | Oct 29, 2007 2:53:32 PM

Are they really that stupid or are they intentionally lying?

First people want to decide whether Boylan was drunk or stupid, and now you want us to decide whether right-wing bloggers are stupid or lying. It's all too hard. I'm gonna go for (E)All of the above.

Posted by: Stephen | Oct 29, 2007 2:55:23 PM

Fake email or not, that is some pretty amazingly unprofessional behaviour from someone who is a Colonel in our military.

Posted by: chowchowchow | Oct 29, 2007 3:00:09 PM

They Just don't make Full-Birds like they used to...

...forgetting his obvious lie...ignoring his insincere sarcasm...his language skills are below the eighth grade level...how was this guy able to become an officer much less an O-6? Is he really one rank from a star? Please tell this guy's a light Colonel?

There have always been suck-ups in the officers corp, but this guy seems to have only that one talent. Clearly, Boylan lacks the maturity, judgment and skill that is expected of a newly minted E-5.

A pathetic disgrace to the US Army uniform. This is the same guy that white phosphorus was not a chemical weapon and so was an appropriate weapon to use against unarmed civilians in Fallujah.

Posted by: S Brennan | Oct 29, 2007 4:09:19 PM

Are they really that stupid or are they intentionally lying?

There's not enough of a thought process going on to really say one way or another, and I mean that seriously. They pounce without taking time to think, and end up looking really really silly.

The Dan Rather/Power Line thing was, in a way, the worst thing that ever happened to the wingnutosphere. They now think of themselves as first-rate sleuths, modern-day Woodward and Bernsteins. They spend hours upon hours perfecting their "analysis" of some photo or story, convinced they're about to break the story that will land them in Time Magazine. At best, they uncover some minor discrepancy. Usually, they "uncover" what everyone already knew. It is a huge waste of time either way.

Posted by: Jason C. | Oct 29, 2007 4:12:48 PM

The Dan Rather/Power Line thing was, in a way, the worst thing that ever happened to the wingnutosphere. They now think of themselves as first-rate sleuths, modern-day Woodward and Bernsteins

Heh. I totally agree. And I'm not just saying because I am also a Jason C.

Posted by: JasonC | Oct 29, 2007 6:03:25 PM

I don't know what you're talking about. Greenwald should be ashamed of the way he sandbagged a man defending our country in Iraq by selectively editing the Col.'s letter.

Another win for the conservative blogosphere for sniffing out the America hating liberals.


Posted by: Blue Texan | Oct 29, 2007 8:33:39 PM

It is a terrifying commenton today's discourse that I cannot actually discern if BlueTexan's comment is sarcasm or not.

Posted by: jonrog1 | Oct 29, 2007 8:37:28 PM

Oh come on jonrog1. Did you visit my blog?

Posted by: Blue Texan | Oct 29, 2007 8:39:10 PM

I've felt for a long time that the Pentagon has become the armed wing of the Republican Party.

Posted by: bob h | Oct 30, 2007 7:39:33 AM

"This is the same guy that white phosphorus was not a chemical weapon and so was an appropriate weapon to use against unarmed civilians in Fallujah."

Really? Now, this explains a lot...
|-(

Posted by: Gray | Oct 30, 2007 8:37:06 AM

In his defense, I'm pretty sure he said it was an appropriate weapon to use *in the vicinity of* unarmed civilians in Fallujah. Col. Boylan never said anything about it being appropriate to attack unarmed civilians with anything.

Posted by: BruceR | Oct 30, 2007 9:41:01 AM

Us conservatives during the beauchamp affair were repeatedly berated by the left for questioning the

Integrity and authenticity of a soldier in Iraq’s claims. Now the left is doing the same to this general.

Please live by the standards you judge of others. If we can’t question Beauchamp, you can’t question
Boylan.

Posted by: Patton | Oct 31, 2007 5:42:45 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.