Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, and specific military regulations strictly limit a military active duty person's participation in partisan political activities.

Cannot - Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

Cannot - Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against of a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

Cannot - Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

There is a long list of other “cannots” for those in the active military.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics.htm

The reason we didn’t know the political viewpoints of General(s) Casey, Abizaid and Clark is because they weren’t ideologues. Petraeus is, and that’s exactly why he was chosen for the job.

The Bush administration has contempt for the “mainstream” military leaders and is replacing them with ideologues. That’s the same reason, as Sidney Blumenthal just pointed out yesterday, that the Bush administration hated the “mainstream" CIA:

"These guys don't like the mainstream CIA. In fact, they hate it," the CIA official explained. "They don't like information unless it fits what they want to hear. They hate the CIA because the CIA tells them what they don't want to hear. They want assessments that prove ideological points. They are looking for simplistic answers to complicated issues. They inhabit a make-believe world of moving up into perceived areas of expertise. It's the same guys; they all resurface when Republicans are back in power. It's the same group. It's a system. The similarities are amazing in all these wars we've been dragged into."

This “system” started at the top with Rumsfeld as his newly released “snowflake” memos reveal:

“In these memos, Rumsfeld comes off as defensive, self-centered, manipulative, deceitful, anti-democratic, and closed minded. He seems more concerned about selling policy to the public than actually getting it right.”

And that last line is a perfect description of Petraeus’ job (and thus Boylan’s). They are continuing the “system” put in place by Rumsfeld.

Their job is to sell “ideological points” with simplistic answers to complicated issues and to disparage any information that doesn’t fit what they want to hear. This job also includes demonizing the sources of that information and the media outlets (or bloggers) from whence it comes.

That is why The New Republic is being attacked, and it is why Col. Boylan is insulting Glenn Greenwald. In the Bush administration, it is their job.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/snowflakes-happen/

We are approaching the advent of a new law. Greenwald’s Law:

“As an online discussion without a new post by Glenn grows longer, the probability of the entire thread revolving about Garry Owen approaches one.”

What?

“It’s about me! This blog is about me! Look everybody Glenn’s blog is about me – Garry Owen – it’s all about me, and what I say, not Glenn. Me!”

Sigh.

“As for whether or not such an email, if real, would constitute a military attempt to control the media "when they step out of line," I would gently ask the noted First Amendment scholar Greenwald to note where it states that soldiers give up all their constitutional rights to free speech once they put on a uniform.

Is it only when they disagree with liberals?” ~ Bob Owens, Confederate Yankee

Confederate Yankee says he fails “to see how these private e-mails to bloggers were somehow inappropriate” -- it is, in his opinion, simply “free speech” being exercised by someone who just happens to be in a military uniform.

So this is the latest right-wing talking point: Yes, of course, the military is politicized, that is their right as American citizens.

Since Bob Owens is the one now leading the boycott against The New Republic, it’s good that he expressed his views so clearly.

Perhaps it’s time for journalists to put this question to those in the military and ask them if they agree with this point of view.

The responses will no doubt be “interesting.”

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/245164.php

I can't help but believe we're missing something. Anything else in these messages that Boylan might be running away from? ~thomas c

Maybe Thomas is on to something, I don’t know. Another alternative is that the politicization of the military has gone so far that someone like Boylan, who doesn’t appear too bright, didn’t see anything wrong with acting like Michelle Malkin while wearing a uniform.

Perhaps, after monitoring too many blogs, he concluded that taking a partisan position was just part of his job description, and the idea that this was somehow controversial or inappropriate just never occurred to him. After Glenn very effectively took him to task for that first embarrassing e-mail, someone may have reminded him of that.

“Doh!” And thus, he’s been trying to cover up for that first Homer Simpson moment ever since, with increasing ineffectiveness I might add.

The same article that John Cole wrote about was posted by an “anon” at the end of your last Boylan thread, saying: Bet it hurts worse to be in the blogs than being stabbed

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/30/boylan_response/permalink/c8fda8678902db76315e3f9c3b6aaddc.html

Huh? For gosh sakes, just who writes that?

I took a guess.

It’s looking more accurate all the time.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/30/boylan_response/permalink/bbacfd5ba7a466dcdf24ca4886b74b6c.html