GG wrote:

From Baghdad, he has been actively monitoring anti-war writers and liberal blogs and, with some regularity, contacts them out of the blue and aggressively criticizes them and what they have written (exactly like the "fake" emailer did to me).

Wouldn't it be something if that was 80% of Boylan's job description. The single "task and duty" this man is expected to perform daily? That'd give new meaning to his title of Public Affairs Officer. The emails you posted at UT are interesting. The man is (full stop) Over.His.Head. Further evidence that (as someone said earlier), that Col. Boylan is out of his weight class.

Someone over at FDL offered this trenchant analysis. If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that squeals, is the one you hit. Boylan is clearly squealing. And, now having given away his position, your aim is becoming increasingly sharper, Glenn. Almost (but not quite) makes me feel sorry for Boylan.

[And, No. I'm not routinely in favor of throwing rocks at dogs. But, I have had occasion to 'warn off' a pack of dogs harassing a momma cow as she tried to protect a clutch of calves. In those circumstances rock throwing skills are very useful.]

I've no doubt that Boylan defines (or, has had defined for him) his job, in part, as challenging 'leftist media.' I could well imagine that he has cover (of a sorts) for badgering Glenn and others. The thing that puzzles me, apparently like you, is why he chose this most recent email to Glenn on Sunday to double back over the top of himself.

Is it possible...? Could Boylan's email - which Glenn wrote about on Sunday - be a form of bait? Boylan assumed Glenn would print it, and then Boylan would deny having sent it. The purpose of which would be to establish a 'platform' by which he (Boylan) could begin a chain of denials reaching back to his email of months ago?

Critical fault: this theory defies Occam's Razor.

... why State has agreed to enfold Balckwater and other military contractors under the military's umbrella.

All the better to spin their exploits among the Iraqi civilians, my dear.

Is there some subtle reason that you keep referring to Col. Boylan as Col. Boykin? It's been suggested that there are some sililarities between them, but they aren't the same person. Col. Boylan's recent email behavior is what's under the microscope here... but, is there some additional parallel to Boykin you're trying to draw? I'm confused.

Lions, Tigers, and Bears, AhHa!

Ghosts, Goblins, and Spooks of all Stripes, Ah-Boo!

And, Rug Rats, Ankle Biters, and Curtain Climbers, A-Hoy Me Mate!

Tis the Hallows and Mischief is A-Foot in the World.

But, only if it's one of those really exotic ones that looks like a Dr. Suess character!

I'll go whistle [my way] past the graveyard right behind shooter, hoping to evade Teh Darth Vader of America's darkest hour.

In my fantasy world, Col. Boylan is sweating. He's wracking his brain to see if there is any way he can claim those emails never came from his computer. He's praying that the story dies before he has to answer to anyone that matters for it. May his dreams be haunted by the specter of what he may have done to his career and his retirement. I hope he fears a colorfully annotated page in Wikipedia devoted to the very issue of his emails. It would be fitting. It would be just.

I'm not sure why you assume that there are no liberals in the military. It is not a monolithic group. But anyway...

re: all volunteer military

One of the most articulate and compelling voices I've found on this subject is Andrew Bacevich. He is a retired military Army officer who served in Vietnam, holds a PhD in history, taught (most recently) at Boston College, has written for the Boston Globe and Washington Post in addition to having published a number of books. In a fairly recent piece he did not have gentle words for General Petraeus (Sycophant Savior published in the American Conservative http://tinyurl.com/ys93ww ).

ANDREW J. BACEVICH

Boston Globe

The failure of an all-volunteer military

By Andrew J. Bacevich | January 21, 2007

http://tinyurl.com/34vaz6

"WAR IS the great auditor of institutions," the British historian Corelli Barnett has observed. In Iraq, the United States has undergone such an audit and been found wanting. The defects of basic US national security institutions stand exposed. Failure to correct those defects will only invite more Iraqs -- unnecessary wars that once begun prove unwinnable.

With all due respect, I'm not sure Michael Gordon is the likely to respond. He's been noted to have written a number of pieces for the NY Times that seem to ignore a few inconvenient Iraq facts. Like many in the mainstream he's been noted to be a good stenographer for the Bush administration on circumstances related to Iraq.