... to understand what he's saying.

"You are either too lazy to do the research ..."

"You are not a journalist nor do you have any journalistic ethical standards as we found out from the last time I engaged with you"

What he is actually saying is:

You did not talk to us and then print our word as gospel. You do not abide by the Golden Rule of real "journalists": Thou shalt not think for thyself, seek instead a high ranking source.

Furthermore, everyone knows that you're supposed to echo our talking points as facts from anonymous Officials.

I don't claim to be an expert or anything, but if someone can send fake e-mails from the PR agent of a general in the United States military that look authentic isn't that a pretty big deal for some fairly obvious reasons?

Say, for example, hypothetical identity theft Boylan starts emailing people saying Petraeus can't waits to start killing him some Iranians.

How could this possibly be something that isn't that big a deal?

May as well forward the exchange to a Congressional oversight committee. THere's no way in my mind that if Boylan's email is compomised that is not a matter of national security.

the more Col. Boylan writes, the more evident it becomes that he shares numerous viewpoints with the original e-mailer

I didn't say so in the first post since I think the point is transparent, but what are the odds that Col. Boylan would be the victim of an identify theft by someone who shares his politics and is intersted in following up on exhanges he had with Greenwald?

The other thing that appears more troubling is not that Boylan is behaving as a partisan so much as it is reality that is apparently being politicized. Boylan avoids the issue by pretending Salon and Glenn don't exist while simply making up a version of the truth to be consumed (presumably) by Limbaugh conservatives.

that reality revision (such as Boylan's) is the m.o. of the conservative movement. Witness Regnery's Politically Incorrect Guide series that indicates that movement conservatives consider being facts are not matters of empiricism but of political ideology.

Economics (myth of the family farm dissapering to the "death" tax), history (interning American citizens in concentration camps a good thing), science (global warming a socialst hoax) etc. Its the same. Reality is subjugated to ideology.

So of course we have some in the Malkin-sphere now believing that Glenn fabricated the e-mail. That fits the ideology. Reality prostrates itself for movement conservatives.

The most illegitimate argument against Paul is the attempt to tie him to the views of some of his extremist and hateful supporters.

Stormfronters support Ron Paul therefore Ron Paul is a white supremacist is a fallacy.

Ron Paul believes in New World Order conspiracy and panders to white supremacists and neo-confederates which is why Stormfronters and other extremacists/conspiracists endorse him is not.

Ron Paul is tied to the views of extremists who support him because they share a number of the same views. And not just superficial ties like opposing war in IRaq, but views that are conspiratorial and have a long history of circulating in right-wing extremist circles.

I'm sure someone has already said it by now, but search "Ron Paul" at Orcinus for a series of posts covering this topic.

Ron Paul had Christian Reconstructionist fascist Gary North on his Congressional staff at one point. That in itself should raise some serious flags.

It's Newspeak. And its the libertarian version of the conservative movement reverse racism meme.

That Survival Report letter reminds me of the philosemitic antisemites in 19th century Germany who believed Jews would be good Germans once they gave up their Jewish ideology.

"I'm just waiting to hear that some of his best friends are black."

A common response: Ron Paul named Walter Williams as a possible VP.

My response: And? Walter Williams is a true believer. He opposes "collectivism." He also guest hosts the Rush Limbaugh show (Limbaugh is a racist asshole and anyone guest hosting his program has no business being VP) and thinks that DDT is magic fairy dust that you can eat pounds of a day.

That was an allusion to the work of Daniel Goldhagen in Hitler's Willing Executioners. Not conspiracy theory.

The point was that the "philosemites" didn't consider themselves to be racists, either. But the end result of the policies they supported was not different from the out and out racists.

Which was the point of Paul's comment.

Sheesh.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html

This is, in fact, just a repackaging of a libertarian argument that multiculturalism is the "new racism" -- part of a larger right-wing attack on multiculturalism. This is, of course, sheer Newspeak: depicting a social milieu that simultaneously respects everyone's heritage -- that is to say, the antithesis of racism -- as racist is simply up-is-down, Bizarro Universe thinking.

Seconding the person who said that Paul has some seriously crazy fans.

I'd never even heard of David Icke before I found him while looking for information on Paul. He turned up on Google because he put an interview about NWO conspiracy that Paul did on his website.

I've only ever once come across a follower of David Icke and that was in a thread about Ron Paul where one was defending Paul. He thought criticism of Paul was in service of the alien Reptilian Jewish one world government plot.