If GG really wanted to turn this around he should alert the military that someone is either:

1) Using an open SMTP relay within the military network to forge outgoing emails.

2) Using Col. Boylan's computer without authorization.

Both of the above scenarios are criminal. It might be an effective method for bringing more attention to the bizarre letters from Col. Boylan.

Good for Col. Boylan !!

I am sure the military is fed up with the vast left wing NUT CASES who lie and twist the truth to make their anti-war case !!

HEROES USUALLY CAN'T TOLERATE COWARDS !!

Boylan was eloquent in telling Greenwald what an unprofessional lazy lawyer he really is !!

Greenwald you are a COWARD !!

I can't believe you would publish Boylan's email address and IP information.

Then again what can we expect from an ego driven COWARD !!

Peter Boothe says:

someone has hacked into the military infrastructure

Someone with legitimate access to the outgoing mail server could have sent the messages and "spoofed" Col. Boylan's email address in the From header without much sophisicated knowledge whatsoever - without anything as strenuous as "hacking".

A commenter on this topic at Eschaton (GWPDA, yclept Irate Scholar, 10.28.07 4:35pm) has posted a link re Col. Boylan.

It's a "fake but accurate" debate!

The point is the military is being politicized and conducting IO operations in America and on the American electorate.

As Bebop might say, "No spoofin need."

Arrogant, authoritarian minds eventually make fools of themselves because they are on a fools errand. Truth of character is extremely hard to hide.

Whatever the truth about emailgate, GG has once again exposed fraudulent behavior and so-called public servants who only serve themselves. GG is so prolific at finding targets not only because he is intelligent and has learned through gaining his law degree and experience in life to use reason, logic and facts so effectively, but also because the other side cares about the ends and means and could care less about the truth.

I would like to know whether or not Glenn replied to the bizarre, unsolicited email when he first contacted Col. Boylan, or if he initiated a new email thread.

Examining the Message-IDs, I'd guess that he initiated a new thread rather than replying to the original bizarre, unsolicited message.

Now, on the other hand, if Glenn did reply to the bizarre, unsolicited message, there is a problem, because it does not show up in the chain of Message-IDs following the References: section of the long header/raw source.

Glenn, can you let us know what you did? Did you reply to the original, oddball message, or initiate a new exchange?

Again, no, it's really not remotely plausible that CENTCOM has open relays ("public machines").

Your scenario requires that someone hacked into one of these servers, and faked the headers perfectly, apparently just to send Glenn a nasty message, emulating Boylan's style fairly accurately. It's an outlandishly unlikely scenario.

The IP addresses and mail headers do not prove anything. All we have a a relay from a mail server INTZEXEVSIZN02 to a mail server INTZEXEVSIZN01 (both on .mil's private network) to an internet gateway 02exbhizn02.iraq.centcom.mil [214.13.200.111].

The mail server/relay INTZEXEVSIZN02 is accessible by many people, I say this because you can search for it, and find it, e.g, here:

http://lists.army.mil/pipermail/mnfi_newsletter/2007-June.txt

http://lists.army.mil/pipermail/mnfi_newsletter/2007-January.txt

i.e., INTZEXEVSIZN02 is **not** Col Boylan's personal machine.

Anyone within the centcom.mil domain could have done this spoof.

Secondly, why don't we see any further [internal to .mil forwarding] headers behind INTZEXEVSIZN02?

My surmise is that the internal headers are stripped to avoid revealing internal network information - I think, btw, that that is good security practice.

That takes us back to the first and most important point -- the U.S. military, which has an obligation to conduct itself apolitically and professionally, appears in many cases to be doing exactly the opposite.

The Propaganda of the Word

by Patrick Lang

Thu Dec 1st, 2005 at 09:39:19 PM EST

by Patrick Lang (

There are Public Information Officers (PIOs) and then there are propagandists. The two are not the same.

PIOs have the job of releasing what is thought to be the truth to media outlets. The information is often laden with the values, point of view and hopes of the releasing headquarters but it is, nevertheless, not a deliberate attempt to deceive. Those who have seen Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece "Full Metal Jacket" have seen this in action. (Yes. Yes. I know. This is not really the Marine Corps) In the film the "Joker's" boss, a bureau chief for "Stars and Stripes" tells Joker to write more positive stories because the troops "need it." This is stupid but not propaganda. (In fact, the troops don't need or believe any of that crap)

Propaganda is different. It involves the dissemination of information not intended to inform, but rather to influence. It comes in three varieties:

White. This is propaganda which is clearly identified as to source. The Voice of America, Sawa Radio, Al-Hurra TV. These are White propaganda outlets. Harmless, if often inept.

Grey. Propaganda not clearly identified as to source. A wire service, TV station or publishing house which does not identify its ownership.

Black. Propaganda which seeks to deceive as to source, In "normal" (non-wartime) times this is by law the domain of the CIA. In wartime it is equally the realm of the military (to the chagrin of the CIA). Propaganda directed against foreign audiences has not been thought "out of bounds" in the USA since the end of WW2. It is a fundamental principal of such action under American law that it should not be directed at the American electorate.

We must ask if this principle has been adhered to, not by the CIA, but rather by political enthusiasts and "cultists" within the "information operations" and "psychological warfare" area of military activities.

Beginning with the trauma that followed our defeat in Vietnam, there arose in the US Army a "movement" which sought an answer for the question of why our long and painful struggle had led to nothing but masses of refugees seeking refuge from the prospect of communist government. Various strange studies were funded for several years seeking answers which would not be too personally painful...

In the end the Army rejected all this and returned to its usual preoccupation, but the tendency survived in the persons of several officers who have risen to high rank. Some have been high officials in the counter-terrorism and homeland defense fields. Some are now major media figures and others officials of the Department of Defense, but outside the "mainstream" of the Army. None are in the intelligence business.

As a result of the continued existence of this"tendency," the Bush Administration has been influenced in the direction of manipulation of public opinion here and abroad as an instrument of warfare.

We are now beginning to witness the results of such foolishness.

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&requesttimeout=500&folder=2053&paper=2550

More from Col. Lang here.

IO in the US? Legitimate or not?

(...)

Overseas propaganda in support of a military campaign or political goal is a legitimate activity. Domestic propaganda conducted by the US Armed forces to keep the American people "on board" is not.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/12/io_in_the_us_le.html

They don't make colonels like they used to.