Well, Glenn, one possibility that hasn't been ruled out is that someone used his computer while he was away.

I once worked for a company with high security, and the rule was, if you walk away from your computer, you lock it (start up the screensaver that will demand a password to continue). They even encouraged pranksterism, where if you find someone's computer unlocked in their cubicle while they are gone, you get on and send out an email to a wide audience, saying something obviously ridiculous, from the poor sap who left their computer unlocked. Everyone soon learns to get into the habit.

There's no way to tell the difference between the real person sending such an email, and an in-person imposter, other than the content of the email, because the only difference is the different fingers on the same keyboard on the same computer connected to the same network in the same way.

(Like my opinion is so valuable...)

After some consideration and reading some of the other commentary about Boylan (including the material John Cole assembled) I've come to the following conclusion:

1) Boylan wrote all the emails.

2) When he wrote the original morning email ("I do enjoy reading your diatribes as they provide comic relief here in Iraq") it literally never occurred to him that Greenwald would post it. (Since, as Greenwald points out, everyone involved with the Bush administration is used to the "Tim Russert" rules, in which reporters are not allowed to report on their conversations without being given express permission.)

3) When he saw the post and received the public reply from Greenwald, Boylan freaked. He took the impulsive step of denying it. (SOP.)

4) When Greenwald pursued the point, and indicated the clear logic that showed that he understood the basics of email tracing (which, apparently, Boylan did not take into consideration), he got huffy and then got silent and hinted at security issues ("not your concern.") Again, SOP.

I can't decide if Boylan: a) thinks Greenwald is too stupid to look at the email headers (and encourage readers to help); or b) is himself too stupid to think in terms of email headers.

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

How dare you question a military IP address in a time of war on dissent!

That was the Major impersonating me, just now.

Boylan did not deny it was written and sent by him. He said "no" to the question about if he could "confirm" it. He now had thought better of this matter. When Glenn asked about whether he had "anything to do" with the email, he did not reply. Nor will he. The whole tone here testifies to the fact that Glenn is being successful in getting to these guys.

You said: "It is apparent Boylan is making claims that Petraeus does not want to associate himself with."

Maybe. However, there could be another explanation. Boylan could be putting out exaggerated info with a wink and a nod from higher-ups. Petraeus could prefer to be more pristine and want deniability if confronted with any accusations of manipulating the "evidence."

If Boylan is a bit of a hothead and exaggerates for political effect, it could be working to the advantage of people (who on earth could they be?) who are determined to strike Iran.

...since, at the beginning of the e-mail (posted in full at your website), he says he intended to post it as a response to one of your earlier posts.

So be it.

Just above, an interesting post by thomas c described Boylan's apparent tendency to exaggerate. This is just to add some detail and a couple of links.

According to the BBC, a "US army statement" described the incident (where Boylan was attacked in Korea in 2002) as follows:

He was able to twist away, but sustained a minor cut to his left side where the knife grazed him

According to the NY Times, Boylan described the incident as follows:

I had been stabbed

A truthful person doesn't describe a "minor cut" as being "stabbed." In itself this isn't huge, but it tends to add to the picture of Boylan as a grandiose ass who is used to twisting the truth and getting away with it. Note that the NYT published his "stabbing" story without bothering to notice that this was somewhat at odds with the way the US army described the incident (as reported by BBC three weeks prior).

The earlier post by thomas c:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/28/boylan/permalink/906bf7867a16e8f7815bbebd8b5aa107.html

The BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2578655.stm

The NYT article:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E5DC133EF93BA35752C0A9659C8B63

Hey, I used to work at a company that had the same policy. TW?

The topic says it all.

Although Col. Boylan and Gen. Petraeus are trying to make the following AP story all about al-Qaeda and if we defeat al-Qaeda success is on the way, I think it could lead to an unraveling of the join with the former enemies plan. And the claim that al-Qaeda is also on the run in Baghdad is just more ingenuous ignoring of the real picture in Iraq. All of this “wonderful” military “success” against the all everywhere al-Qaeda will without a doubt convince the Shi’a controlled Iraqi government to just declare unity with all benchmarks soon to be met.

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer Sun Oct 28, 7:04 PM ET

BAGHDAD - Gunmen in Baghdad snatched 10 Sunni and Shiite tribal sheiks from their cars Sunday as they were heading home to Diyala province after talks with the government on fighting al-Qaida, and at least one was later found shot to death.

The bold daylight kidnapping came as the top U.S. commander in Iraq said the threat from the terror network has been "significantly reduced" in the capital.

A new general assumed control of the region north of Baghdad, acknowledging that violence remains high but expressing confidence that the military has al-Qaida on the run there as well.

The two cars carrying the sheiks — seven Sunnis and three Shiites — were ambushed in Baghdad's predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Shaab at about 3:30 p.m., police officials said.

The sheiks were returning to Diyala province after attending a meeting with the Shiite-dominated government's adviser for tribal affairs to discuss coordinating efforts against al-Qaida in Iraq, police and a relative said.

Police found the bullet-riddled body of one of the Sunni sheiks, Mishaan Hilan, about 50 yards away from where the ambush took place, an officer said, adding that the victim was identified after his cell phone was found on him.

A relative of one of the abducted Shiite sheiks blamed Sunni extremists and said the attackers picked a Shiite neighborhood to "create strife between Shiite and Sunni tribes that have united against al-Qaida in the area."

But, Jassim Zeidan al-Anbaqi said, "this will not happen."

The well-planned attack was the latest to target anti-al-Qaida tribal leaders and other officials in an apparent bid to intimidate them from joining the U.S.-sponsored grass roots strategy that the military says has contributed to a recent drop in violence.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Sunday that the threat from al-Qaida in several former strongholds in Baghdad has been "significantly reduced" but the group remains "a very dangerous and very lethal enemy."

He singled out success in what had been some of the most volatile Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad, including Ghazaliyah, Amariyah, Azamiyah and Dora.

"Having said that ... al-Qaida remains a very dangerous and very lethal enemy of Iraq," he said. "We must maintain contact with them and not allow them to establish sanctuaries or re-establish sanctuaries in places where they were before."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq