Col. Steven A. Boylan, US Army = a blackout alcoholic. Or, at least kookoo.

I thought you were supposed to be hunting birds released specifically for your pleasure in a shooting gallery-type situation in which you pretend to actually be a true hunter.

Hey! Watch where you point that thing!

These hacks lie about everything, including whether they sent e-mails that are easily traced. It's their way of life.

They must be projecting their own mendacity and incompetence onto the rest of us, including you, Glenn.

Dear Glenn,

So the good Col. Boylan is angered because emails he sent to you about a war he is helping to run in the name of hundreds and hundreds of billions of US Public dollars are not kept off the record.

Those emails are public property- those boys and girls dying and killing human life in Iraq are doing so in our name and in the supreme name of US privately-owned corporate interests and their political lobbies.

None of that- not even Dick Cheney's calibre preference or outtakes from iterviews given to Drudge can ever be imagined as private or off-the-record disclosure.

The bad guys do not win by reading you, Glenn or Drudge or knowing the sneaky details of the private club which is committed to pursue this historic farce. The officers's stars and bars and the NCOs' stripes and even ex-Baghdad Mayor Paul Bremmer's old, never- ever -again -to- be -worn boots are US property.

Hey, all you kids over there in Iraq, listen up! You are all employees of US. None of your operation is off the record!

Please tell them again, Glenn.

Glenn:

I'm a little confused: from your first update, in which the bizzah begins, you state that you "forwarded" the email, like so:

"Col. Boylan - Could you just confirm that this email [email forwarded] is authentic, written by and sent from you?"

Why wouldn't you simply reply to the email rant you received?

Thanks

Probably to make sure he was communicating with the colonel and not responding to some spoofer.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network

There is a table about half way though the entry, first line. Anything 10. is private, meaning that it doesn't directly connect to the public internet. Perhaps a reader who is connected to the the CENTCOM internal network in Iraq could do "nslookup 10.70.20.11" at a command prompt to verify the address resolves to INTZEXEBHIZN01.iraq.centcom.mil, though there is not a guarantee that one would be able to resolve that address from any given computer.

. . . Or at least, not all that verbiage about authentication. Glenn is not doing himself or his readers a favor by over-investigating the origins of that e-mail, he's doing Col. Boylan a favor. It seems pretty obvious that the e-mail is authentically from Boylan, so why dignify him with so many acres of ersatz doubt? This non-issue could and should have been wrapped up in two sentences, max.

Is anybody bothered by the fact that an idiot like this is a close aide to the general who's supposed to be running things in Iraq?

So, now our top military brass are nothing but political flacks trying to make lemonade out of the sourest lemons. Lovely. Thank you, Colonel Boylan, for reducing this military brat's deep respect for the U.S. Army down to virtually zero. And to think that this country was once worth fighting for...

It is so good to know that we can read articles written by writers such as yourself, Mr. Greenwald. Truthful reporting is like a breath of fresh air even though it all seems so dire nowadays.

You are greatly appreciated.

I laughed at this more than I do some cable based comedians.

Great sendup.

_____________________________________________________

Serai wrote:

O_o

Hhhhokay. So.

Glenn emails Steve to ask if he can interview Dave.

Steve: WTF, moonbat? No way.

Glenn: So you only talk to wingnuts?

Steve: We talk to OMG REEL reporters, not n00bs like you.

Glenn: Whatever, dude. FAIL.

---

Six months later, Steve emails Glenn.

Glenn:

OMG YOU SUXXOR! You're SO not a lawyer or you'd know WE DON'T GOTTA TALK TO YOU. Know why? Cuz you're a PUSSY. You don't know shit and your journalism sucks and you ain't got the BALLS to come over here cuz we'll KICK YOUR ASS. Whiny librul!!

No love,

Steve

Glenn: Uh, whatever. What do you guys think?

Forum: AHHAHAHA FAIL!!! Dude's drunk. Dude's stupid. Dude's a typical wingnut!

Forum: Check it out. Maybe it's fake.

Glenn: OK.

---

Glenn: Hey, Steve, did you send this? *copies*

Steve: No.

Glenn: Well, someone did. Aren't you worried?

Steve: It wasn't me.

Steve: And I know it wasn't me because somebody already OMG HACKED into my identity and, like, tried to rent under my name and stuff.

Steve: But they totally don't know who they're dealing with, so yeah, whatever. I'll deal with it. And it's none of your business how, kthx.

Steve: And I'm not talking to you anymore. *flounces out*

Glenn: Okkkay...

Wow. I mean, WOW.

To see the kind of grade-school shenanigans that are common coin on Harry Potter boards employed by a Colonel of the U.S. Army is just...*sigh* Well, it's just too beautiful to behold. Methinks I may go blind from the glory.

I mean, it's been fun in a bitter, Carlinesque to watch the Bush administration slowly eviscerating itself, and I'd laugh a hell of a lot more if we weren't all caught in their backwash. But this...this is a little bit of heaven.

Shooter242, you never answered my question from days ago, wherein I asked you what "crimes" "the Clintons" had committed.

Your answer was that I should simply Google "Clinton crimes" and see "how many hits I get," which is of course ridiculous since by the same logic I could Google "UFO sightings" and emerge as a believer in alien visitors.

So you find the current topic boring as well? Glad to hear it.
About the Clinton crimes. Do you want allegations, demonstrated evidence, or convictions? For instance Bill was impeached but not convicted. On the other hand there is no question Hillary took $100,000 in manipulated futures trading as a "gift". Most people would call that a bribe.

To compliment your Geneva convention assertion, Clinton attacked two countries without UN approval timed to distract from personal problems. People accuse Bush of an illegal war for going in without UN approval, does the same hold for Clinton?

You can call it semantic BS if you like, but the law is all about technicality. My original reply was based on whether allegations counted and apparently you don't like that. So what's your criteria for inclusion?