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.

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

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".

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 !!

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.

Constitution? Rule of Law? Anyone?

I know, I know, this Boylan thing came out of the blue, who could have thought, and it sure has got people's juices flowing, but in the end, does it matter?

We know the military has been subjected to the ministrations of Political Cadres throughout the Bush regime, and the Officer Corps (as testified to by some veterans in this very thread) has become essentially an armed wing of the Bushevik/Republican Party. This is a very dangerous development, no doubt about it. Bad enough to have eager-to-kill private mercenary forces poised to return home ("everybody says" Blackwater will have to leave Iraq...), ready for domestic reassignment. It's not in the common interest to have regular military -- whom Boylan represents, political officer or no -- be so thoroughly politicized that they see their first loyalties to their superiors and the Person of Bush. Constitution? Who cares? It's just a Goddamned piece of paper.

Boylan appeared to be acting in his capacity as Political Cadre for God-General Petraeus, who serves his Priest-King Bush, and he was lashing out at a mouthy civilian who got under his skin and continues to. The accusations Glenn illuminated about the military's conscious and continuous serving of wingnut media and bloggers, in specific cases and overall, is too obvious to mention (which is why nothing is generally said about it. You're just supposed to accept it. You're either "anti-war" or "pro-troop." And naturally, the military favors "pro-troop." What's to fuss over?)

But nothing is being done --- by those who can do anything -- to stem the politization of the military, and people who speak out about it are condemned and denounced by the supposedly hyper-partisan Democrats in office who might be able to do something about it if they put their minds to it, but they will not, because they have so many more important things to do, as they are more than happy to let you know.

And Chris Dodd was on Meet the Press today, providing him perhaps his most influential platform yet for spreading his Constitution Preservation gospel.

Which has been such a focus...

Until now.

I hold zero expertise in IT matters, headers, routing & etc. But these two things I do know:

(1) The author of today's Boylan email knew for a FACT that Boylan neither gave, nor had Glenn requested, permission to publish Boylan's older email exchanges with Glenn. (An issue Glenn did not address in his publication of the older emails.)

(2) Boylan's astonishing lack of interest in who was using his email addy and using a CENTCOM account to speak for him is most telling. If the colonel did not author today's email than there is either or both of a profound security breach or someone is sending nasty emails under the colonel's name. He ought to be distressed as well as livid, unless, of course, he knows he actually wrote the supposedly fake email at issue.

So, how long have you served in Iraq? Have you served in the military at all?

Or are you just another chickenhawk loudmouth like Rush Limbaugh?

. . . like the "no" was to the question "Can you confirm . . . etc."

Either way, what a dick. Also, what a loon. And the Democrats are of course too visionless and weak to make the politicization of the military a real issue. Frankly, I'm starting to tire of this "top-ranking military leaders and spokespersons are American Hero Warriors who represent the very best of what we are as a nation" shtick. I must have slept through that meeting where we got together and decided that the military junta would be running things from now on.

Glenn, any "respectable, ethical journalist" would have let this email matter drop five updates ago. That's why I no longer get my news from "respectable journalists." I don't trust those types!

PS, to the rest of the Glenn-o-sphere: I caught that new(-ish) Bill Maher show, Real Time, this weekend, and I was surprised at how good it was. Politically Incorrect always bored me (Pam Anderson, Camille Paglia and the guy from King of Queens rapping about the environment: who gives a fuck?), but this new show is compelling. It can barely be called a "comedy" news show; Maher's interview with Kay Bailey Hutchinson was one of the best I've seen with her, and the discussion between Maher, Andrew Sullivan (whom I can't help but like), and Wes Clark was filled with passion and the non-ironic kind of seriousness. I don't mean to waste thread-space with TV recommendations, but as someone who rarely watches television, I thought this tip was worth passing on.

Not the same Boylan. The colonel in this investigation appears to be Air Force and was a full colonel since at least 1994. The Col Boylan that GG is corresponding with was a Lt. Col. up until 2005 or 2006.