I see the subject matter has brought out the "If you don't want to bomb Iran you're an anti-semite" crowd.

Gah.

(Glenn, did you realize when you started UT that you would be getting so far into humor? In a Roald Dahl/Vonnegut kind of way, of course.)

Now that Boylan is unambiguously denying that he either wrote or sent the long email that started this, he is in quite a small box. As several of us have suggested, his (and the military's) only way out of it at this point is to find a scapegoat among his aides. This scapegoat will be found to have used Boylan's computer and/or email account to send the diatribe.

In the normal world, that would be the scenario. But we're dealing in Bizarro World. So the Col. will deny sending the e-mail and the Right Wing Noise Machine will pick that up and start saying the Glenn or one of his "ilk" made up the letter to discredit Boylan....who was too smart for ol' "Gleen", so there, ha ha, you're a poopy-head AND a terrorist-sucking-libtard.

This, in the Malkin comments;

I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a stunt document to equate, or at least “muddy” the authenticity of the Beauchamp transcripts. In essence, a phony talking point for the nutroots to run with.

Be still my hilarious heart.

Boylan is claiming in an e-mail to someone else that he did NOT write the original e-mail to you?

Then, like, who did?

And he is, like, interested in finding out who's, like, totally sending spoof e-mails out under his name?

Am I, like, missing something?

..are now admitting that Glenn DID publish the whole Boylan e-mail but that, since it was in a LINK, it wasn't fair, so IN ESSENCE, he didn't REALLY publish the whole thing. After all, some people might be too LAZY to click the link...

I'm not making this up.

Yes, there's some stupidity involved (in some cases, vast amounts ...). But I also think there's a defense mechanism involved, which serves to protect the individual (and the group to which he or she belongs) from reality and truth. If you make enough noise, point to distractions, jump up and down, fling monkey poo, etc., etc., no one -- including those committing the stupidity -- will have to face the truth. There's a world view that must be protected at all costs, else the whole structure of beliefs these people hold will crumble.

Which is why people can still claim there were WMDs in Iraq (spirited to Syria before the war); Saddam had ties to al Qaeda; Iran has directly threatened the U.S.; we'll all wear burkas unless we torture Them, etc., ad nauseum.

I think it's clear Boylan's opinion of you is not the highest, and he clearly isn't anxious to share a great deal with you about his more private concerns.

It's possible to fake an IP, and fake it to match the others. In the light most favorable to his answers to you, Boylan seems to me a natural target the kind of hacking that could account for a fake email reaching you.

Translation: He would never write such a horrible e-mail, but if he did you deserved to get it.

Sort of like the "we don't torture! but those ragheads should be tortured and if we do torture them they deserve it" argument.

Col. Boylan sounds like one creepy dude. Astonishing that he is in such a position of power. (Well, maybe not.)

Remember the America before 9/11?

Our heads were up our asses.

What puzzles me more, though, "Tiberius" is why you haven't done anything to rectify that in the interim.

Cheers,

-- Arne Langsetmo

What puzzles me more, though, "Tiberius" is why you haven't done anything to rectalfy that in the interim.

There, fixed that for ya.

...address? Maybe we can get him back, at least for a day or so, to get a REAL roundhouse going with LWM, Kitt, and Ay** (sorry, forgot the spelling). That should be real profitable.

At what point does boiling blood become fatal?

* The new administration thought the terrorism threat warranted all tools be used

Scooter, numerous Bush Admin. staffers have pointed out (mostly in books) that the administration was not at all interested in terrorism before 9/11 happened. So your point is unlikely.

Your other point -- Clinton did it, too. Good one. That makes every law broken by Bush all better. Is that your argument?

Your other point, that you've brought up a hundred times, is still totally ridiculous. "We don't know what they've been doing, so HOW CAN YOU SAY IT WAS WRONG?!!!!! Neener neener."

I have to say, tho, that you'd have made a very good German.

Why are the Dems (as well as the Repubs) supporting these unlawful acts? Because they don't really care. I think the bottom line is that whatever civics lessons these men and women had in K-12 have been long forgotten. Most of them have no conscious principles, most of them don't really believe in anything anymore (if they ever did), most of them would probably be hard pressed to name the Bill of Rights and are woefully deficient in understanding the Constitution, let alone the foundational documents and ideas of the U.S. (and Western democracy). In short, they are pretty much pygmies. So it is not surprising, given a "difficult" position (Soft on Terror!), the fact that their constituents probably won't abandon them entirely (will many Dem voters switch and vote Repub? no), plus the lovely money coming to them from the various lobbies, that they prefer to keep their heads down and vote with the herd.

WT -- I agree with you on nablz. Is Mona sure that a spoofer hasn't taken over the screen name? This guy is just too preposterous.