You may be right. I think the colonel is a sick puppy who works for an even sicker puppy and both are diseased by the Repug thugs who run our country. Boylan and Petraeus have put their egos and careers on the line and are too scared to act calmly and professionally. Neither should any longer be allowed to command men and women in Iraq who are giving their bodies and lives for our country. And we should never forget, the continuation of suffering and death for the Iraqi people.

I have compiled a number of older examples of Boylan's syntax at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/28/115954/86.

Boylan is now caught between the rock and the hard place. If he files an incident report that his IP address was hacked, there will be an investigation and he will be caught. If he doesn't file a report, he is caught.

If al Qaeda had hacked into the Army's intranet in Iraq, would they really waste their time sending goofy emails to Glenn? Really?

Good point. You're thinking the French?

Diffidently, would you agree with my (civilian layman's) assessment that Boylan's sentence "Interesting email." translates into "Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I am concerned and am looking into it," and that therefore his "brusque" response about how his subsequent actions "don't concern you" is, from Boylan's standpoint, entirely fitting and proper (given Greenwald's persistent follow-up question, which Boylan probably viewed as intrusive and inappropriate)?

I feel certain that he has a lot of people trying to help him get out of this serious emailgate

If only.... For the moment, I'm enjoying the heck out of the mental visuals and accompanying audio your speculation has triggered.

GG could take his article and this thread to a true journalist and after more investigation and questions posed to all the commanders up the chain of command, that journalist would have a fine story that I am sure members of congress DoD, the WH and American people would definitely read.

A most excellent idea. I hope Glenn would consider it. This story is definitely newsworthy enough.

Unless Col. Boylan has really lost his mind, and I feel certain that he has a lot of people trying to help him get out of this serious emailgate, GG will get no more emails or communication from anyone in the military in Iraq.

GG could take his article and this thread to a true journalist and after more investigation and questions posed to all the commanders up the chain of command, that journalist would have a fine story that I am sure members of congress DoD, the WH and American people would definitely read.

It's easy to "spoof" an email address, sure.

It is extremely difficult to fake the path that an email has taken. Note that the email goes directly from CENTCOM's servers to Salon's. Unless one of those servers was compromised, the path is legitimate, and it was sent from Boylan's computer, or at least a computer on the same local network.

So either it's an extremely elaborate and difficult hoax job, or Boylan or one of his coworkers sent it. Apply Occam's razor.

This keeps coming up, there is no point to searching out the 10.x addresses on any public web site.

10.x addresses always exist solely as internal IP addresses to organizations. Most large companies will use them. That's why the class A 10.x.x.x block of IP addresses is reserved and not routable on the public internet.

For non-network savy types, when you mail something to a company, and address it like:

3rd Floor

12 main st,

Anytown, NY

11122

The "3rd Floor" is the equivalent of any 10.x IP address. Lots of buildings have 3rd floors. You don't go into a phone book and search on "3rd floor" to find out who owns the address.

That's used by the building's internal mail room to route your mail once it gets past the front door from the US postal service.

Glenn is right; of course he is right. The same man wrote all of the e-mails. Boylan has a penchant for what I call the language fo the bureaucrat, which includes using phrases to emphasize his own importance; he has some real problems with comma usage, evident in all three missives I looked at; he has problems referring to antecedents correctly; and he is lazy about using passive constructions, just to name a few attributes of his writing. I could go on and on. There are some slight formal differences in the last e-mail, and these result from the fact that he clearly wrote it in a snit and was no longer concerned with the patina of professionalism.

I look forward to reading Boylan's non-denial denial when (if) he answers Glenn's last query.

Boylan pays to you given how incompetent, dishonest, and talentless he considers you! In fact, his email is a testament to your effectiveness -- otherwise why waste the energy? Col. Boylan's ill-considered email is also bringing more attention to the issues you and others have raised about politicization of the current military. I skimmed over the previous week's commentary about this, but I sure know all about it now. So- good on you Mr. Greenwald, and thanks! Col. Boylan. (PS- I'm not sure Col. Boylan would have thought up the excuse that his email wasn't "his" if he hadn't been asked. He never denied any of the other ridiculous emails were his. )

Most important, Glenn and his readers are waiting to determine the legitimacy of these e-mails before coming to any concrete conclusions. In contrast, the wingnuts started out stating “as a fact” that Scott Thomas (Beauchamp) did not even exist. They were positive.

That’s a big difference.

-- _zack_

Wait a minute. I disagree with your comparison. I'm nothing like the wingut crazies, but I'm damned sure that Boylan not only sent the emails but that he is now lying about it. I have stated that already. If proven wrong - which won't happen - I will make a statement of correction.