"@ Gary

Fuck you, LMW

I don't recall addressing you. You don't like my posts? Don't read 'em.

-- Garry Owen

When you post the kind of crap you do here, you aren't necessarily addressing anyone in particular, just intentionally offending us all. In this case by trying to bait Mr. Greenwald. I tried to warn Squiggles (~~~~) or the Poster Formerly Known As Real Name about his similar behavior before he got banned. In any case, keep it up and maybe you can get to change your name, too. Then again, perhaps you and Boylan would do better to refrain from posting while intoxicated.

-- L.W.M"

You are in no position whatsoever to judge someone's writing as crap. Your posts are crap.

I have no way of knowing if Tilde Man, or Squiggles as you call him, was formerly known as Real Name, but I know the reason that Real Name is no longer posting here. He called for the assassination of certain media figures by name, including Chris Matthews and he also said that he was thinking about fire-bombing Reagan International Airport. It was those two posts that go him banned. You can't do that.

"Mr. Greenwald"? How old are you, LMW? Glenn Greenwald is no baby. He doesn't need you to try to protect him. He can and does frequently answer for himself. Who the fuck do you think you are? His savior? What are you trying to do, ingratiate yourself to him and think maybe he'll throw you a crumb one of these days? What a sycophantic hack you are.

Mind your own fucking business, you fucking jerk.

By the end of the letter, I was almost expecting him to blurt out "you want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" He plays the part of the gruff, pompous, less-than-bright middle-aged colonel so well, he should get an Oscar. Maybe Fred Thompson could present it to him.

Assuming the worst, why worry about it much?

Our Military is being run by people with the mind-set of eighth-graders. If you don't think that is a reason for concern then I'd like to remind you that the same people also control our Nuclear arsenal. Can you say "Boys with Toys"? I knew you could!

GG,

I am consistently amazed at how many fools actually traipse out into the middle of your web and convulse into spasmodic gyrations, only to find themselves completely ensnared by their own false sense of safety and self-righteousness.

Nice snag on the prevalence of right-wing/military speak. Looks like just another nail in the coffin of corrupted media and the chronic lack of any brakes on further conflagration of this middle east mess.

So, I'm waiting: What are "the Clinton's" "crimes?"

Forcing the republicans to waste so much money and not find anything other than a stained dress...

My wife hates Bill Clinton. Less than before. She would spout and sputter about how he 'got a blow job' in the White House. But, did that effect the government of the United States? I'd say. 'Well, no but... He embarrassed America.' I think that the embarrassment was from the rest of the planet looking back at the hypocrisy of those leveling the charges and the gusto and glee that they were taken up.

Now, who's really getting screwed, OPENLY now? 'Oh, I see your point. But it doesn't make what he did right.' But it was between him, Hillary and Monica. What's happening now is effecting EVERYONE across the planet...

Bush's 'record' has helped squelch the anti-Clinton foaming at the mouth. I figure at least he had fun in the White House, before it turned into the Black House...

Boylan started the Iraq War as a LTCOL Battalion CO. He is also a Jesus nut. So, it can be of little surprise that he is a totally politicized right-wing nut, too. A great mistake was made when the Army did not punish LTGEN Boykin, now a full General, for his stupid remarks delivered in uniform from a church pulpit: "Our God is greater than their God." The Army is now full of these nutcases.

I was cringing as I read the Boylan email. Yes, at the hostility and defensiveness. But also at the bad grammar and usage. This man is a spokesperson? I think GG's comparison of style of this email and previous communiques from July is strong evidence that they are written by the same person.

We are all aware that Boylan's former gig was as the chief PR flack at Ft. Leavenworth? Apparently Petraeus took him with him to Iraq - a team. So sweet.

As well, of course, as the LtCol's previous censure as the result of waste, fraud and abuse concerning a contract between Lockheed-Martin and Norway?

I think it's clear Boylan's opinion of you is not the highest, and he clearly isn't anxious to share a great deal with you about his more private concerns.

It's possible to fake an IP, and fake it to match the others. In the light most favorable to his answers to you, Boylan seems to me a natural target the kind of hacking that could account for a fake email reaching you.

Translation: He would never write such a horrible e-mail, but if he did you deserved to get it.

Sort of like the "we don't torture! but those ragheads should be tortured and if we do torture them they deserve it" argument.

Col. Boylan sounds like one creepy dude. Astonishing that he is in such a position of power. (Well, maybe not.)

it is unprofessional. In 22 years in the Army I cannot recall anyone...much less a Colonel carrying on a diatribe like this.

He doesn't have any concrete info, but relies on attacking the messenger. I hope I never meet him in the O'Club.

Glenn, I'm keenly disappointed in your handling on this situation. Given a chance to use the techniques you complain about, at a much lower level, you failed completely. I submit that the proper way to respond would have been to emulate the techniques of the right, e.g.:

1. Treat the message as bona fide and immediately begin attacking Col. Boylan's fitness to serve in the military, much less hold his current position. By asking him to verify that he sent it, you permitted him to deny it by not responding. Would the right have extended you the same courtesy-- even if the message came from a suspicious e-mail address (e.g., Greenwald@salon-site.com)?

2. When Boylan claimed the message was falsified, publicly challenge him to prove that he had not sent it. By accepting that responsibility, rather than placing it on him, you've permitted him to say "The message is false, Greenwald's analysis is incompetent, and it illustrates the weak level of proof he accepts, due to his bias."

I understand the difficulty of proving a negative. Has the right let it keep them from demanding it of (say) Scott Beauchamp?

3. Immediately treated his initial non-denial as acceptance of authorship and endorsement of his sentiments. He had a chance to disavow the message's sentiments and did not. By the standards of proof used in current discourse, this qualifies as a smoking gun.

4. Use the details of his response to indict him of unfitness to serve on new grounds. In the course of his duties, Col. Boylan must regularly see sensitive, if not classified information.

If, as he says, he has been the recent victim of identity theft, does this not demonstrate that he has been deficient at protecting his personal information? Should a person who demonstrates that he is incapable of keeping secrets continue to hold his job?

Even the most jejune explanation-- Boylan stepped away from his computer and someone else sat down and composed the message-- is a shocking breach of security. Could not al-Qaeda operatives used his machine with more damaging consequences?

Or, if he claims the message is a spoof, does that not show a shocking lack of confidence in military IT infrastructure? Should a person capable of such disrespect towards our troops be permitted to continue serving?

I don't think progressives need to adopt the most heinous extremes (such as publishing the data he claims was stolen, to 'prove' how poorly he protected it). But using a bit of guerilla theater to prove a point hardly seems beyond the pale.

At the very least, you ought to do a follow-up to point out the difference in level of discourse between progressives and the right.