Bear in mind that, whatever tensions may exist between the political and military, that the Pentagon and the White House work as a coordinated disinformation team. The party line is set by the Executive Branch misfeasors, and the military dances to the tune-- or else the music stops and whoever's not in step is without a chair.

So it wouldn't surprise me if Boylan and the brass are huddling, and after an interval of non-responsiveness will fire off a Big Lie like a dazzling flare to explain away this contretemps.

For instance, Boylan could, I suppose, admit to sending the e-mails, but claim that he had reason to think that Glenn was an impostor or hacker, and only responded to string Glenn along-- the way cop shows try to keep the villains talking so the tech team can trace the call. Or even claim that some IT investigator wrote them from Boylan's machine, etc. That would explain the apparent nonchalance of "Boylan" regarding the security concerns Glenn expressed.

Yeah, it's a reach, and sounds stupid. But there are abundant examples of political and military authorities concocting preposterous explanations at variance with known facts-- e.g. the rationalizations for the aggressive invasion of Iraq-- and presenting them with a straight face. The White House Press Secretary alone dispenses more truthless gibberish in a day than our resident wingnut trolls give in a month. And that's saying a lot!

So, unless there is an as-yet undiscovered rational explanation for Boylan's correspondence that unambiguously absolves Boylan and the military, I expect them to blow off the matter with some implausible cloud of squid ink that will satisfy the incurious masses and delight the wingnuts. (Took Frick and Frack long enough to show up here today, I notice.)

Otherwise, the military will have to admit that Boylan is a Bernie Kerik-class rogue, the highest-ranking Bad Apple yet. Or a Good Apple inhabited by one too many worms. And I believe that, like Colonel Cathcart of old, Petraeus would rather risk suborning disinformation and deceit than suffer a Black Eye.

More tantalizing circumstantial evidence which would need to be supported by expert testimony (IT analysis; text and style analysis) in the absence of authentication by the purported writer!

The other shoe has to drop sooner than later, I would think. Unless there is competent evidence that unambiguously exculpates Boylan and the military, which seems doubtful, Boylan either gets busted or the authorities launch a counteroffensive of disinformation. Smearing Glenn by claiming that he fabricated the entire story isn't out of the question, although the new information about other Boylan correspondence undercuts this possibility.

Speaking of shoes, all that's left in this ever-more-convoluted tale is for all of this to tie in to why Larry Craig was tapping out Morse Code messages in an airport restroom.

I'll risk seeming to merely suck up by encouraging Glenn to pursue this story and whatever else he wants to pursue in his blog.

Last night, after I switched off the PC, it occurred to me that Glenn attracts a number of back-seat drivers who either cavil about Glenn's choice of topic (including extent of pursuit of topic), or outright berate him for how he chooses to use his forum.

I prefer to leave the driving to Glenn, who manifestly seems to know what he's about. For instance, I don't think Glenn needs to be warned that he might be being set up, or that he's running headfirst into a trap, or a stone wall that will not permit this situation to be clearly resolved, much less resolved to our satisfaction. (I'm rooting for the e-mails to be unequivocally attributable to Boylan, and Boylan's generally unprofessional conduct scrutinized to Boylan's detriment.)

The wingnut blogosphere may "counterattack" with their usual scurrilous mendacity, but Glenn is not unfamiliar with this phenomenon, and as far as I can tell, is always circumspect and meticulous in his research and presentation. In conclusion, I don't see any reason to second-guess Glenn's choice of topic, and dispute that this is somehow wrong or irresponsible because he's somehow making it "too personal" or an "obsession" instead of turning to more productive discussions.

Let the man drive!

Mukasey's equivocation over whether waterboarding is torture, as others have already noted, is enough reason to reject him as a successor to Misfeasor Gonzalez.

But even before the hearings, it was reported that Sens. Schumer (who squired Mukasey around the Capitol) and Leahy had cut a deal with the WH to scale back investigations into suspect DOJ practices under Gonzalez in exchange for an "acceptable" AG nominee.

"Acceptable" obviously meant "someone who's not a well-known wingnut like Robert Bork or Ted Olson". Enter Mukasey.

I predicted that Mukasey would be confirmed in accordance with the above-cited quid pro quo. This would be preceded by the usual ruffles and flourishes, as we saw in the Alito and Roberts confirmation hearings. Democratic Senators profile, perform, and grandstand with "probing" questions to astonish and impress their dwindling fan base; the requisite number of Senators hem, haw, and harrumph, expressing "grave reservations" or "concerns" about certain questions.

Then the doubters finally pronounce themselves sufficiently satisfied that the nominee will be a suitable AG, and in he goes.

This contretemps over "waterboarding", as serious and substantial as it appears to be, is akin to a beauty pageant contestant stumbling on the runway during the fashion segment of the program. The crowd gasps, and for a split-second the contestant seems doomed. But the show goes on, and in this case our stumbler will not be denied the crown. Because the fix is in, and it would simply be too much trouble for both parties, who would rather just hustle this guy into office than go back to square one.

Principle has long since leached out of DC and the political elite; everything now is based on bipartisan conniving and expediency.