> the law is all about technicality

Another Pepperdine grad!

Glenn,

No matter how many thinly veiled disparagements this guy makes about your man-bits, don't take the bait and go into Iraq. Once there, your safety would depend on these guys.

Finally, a straightforward answer. Thank you for providing one.

So "the Clintons' crimes" amount to the accusation of perjury in the Lewinsky affair and a campaign contribution. The perjury is debatable, but you can have it. The $100,000 is also debatable but I'll give you that one too: a politician accepts "tainted money" in the expectation that he/she acts in the interests of the donor Characterizing this as "a bribe" and therefore as "a crime" would mean distinguishing this in some way from every other campaign contribution or personal donation to a candidate in implicit or explicit exchange for a favor. The "Clinton invades to distract from his personal problem" assumes facts not in evidence; namely that you know why he did what he did, which you don't. All in all it doesn't amount to much; certainly nothing to warrant your sweeping condemnation of "the Clinton's crimes" (especially given that neither was ever convicted of anything.) I heard what you said about accusations vs. convictions, but simply contending "Clinton invaded another country for purely personal reasons because I say so" isn't the same as saying "we are holding American citizens prisoner without due process; they cannot appeal because they are denied legal standing" or "we are illegally wiretapping, but we urge the Congress to change the law in order to retroactively accomodate us."

n/m

I must admit I find it shocking that a colonel in the United States Army, or anyone ostensibly involved in public relations, could write such snark to a member of the public.

Glenn, you may be a lawyer, but I rely on your journalism every week to bring me insightful and useful information.

Glad to see you have the oposition spooked and sending this type of letter.

Keep it up, you have my full support.

This screed makes one wonder just what the colonel thinks about the Army JAG.

It sounds like a drunk who was caught, and was embarrassed about it later. If he performs reasonably well in his job (whatever that is), he won't be fired, so everyone has to cover up his little problem.

that a high-ranking military officer would behave so unprofessionally. Glenn's original point about the politicization of the military is basically completely proven merely be reading what Colonel Boylan said.

I would hope that Colonel Boylan receives a full dressing down from a superior officer and that he, in the future, endeavors to abide by his oath. Hopefully, he will also begin to provide honest and accurate information to the full range of America's journalists.

"WELL!" As the late great Jack Benny was so fond of expostulating, Gen. BETRAY-us seems to have a PSEUDO Boil-ON(Boylan)that is FESTERING away and pelting the estimable Glenn Greenwald with CALUMNY and LIES. Gee, it sounds like a right-wing-nut blogger using Boil-ON's name and HARASSING Glenn for REPORTING the TRUTH and the FACTS. As the late, great Jack Webb said, "Just the facts, maam, just the facts." Why, how can such things HAPPEN in this day and age, HOW can such things be? When one of the SPOKES on the EXCREABLE WAGON-WHEEL of repugnicant-repub fudge-pachyderms is involved, I'M NOT SURPRISED AT ALL!!!!!

I think the "no" response from COL Boylan to your inquiry about whether or not he sent the original e-mail simply means something to the effect of one of these responses:

"No, I did not intend for you to have permission to publish my e-mail of this AM." or

"No, I have no intention of admitting anything to you, you liberal scum-bag." or

"No comment."

For conspiracy theorists, though, there is always the possibility that your entire e-mail exchange has been with someone who has hi-jacked COL Boylan's IP address.

Perhaps the reason that neither COL Boylan nor anyone else in the Public Affairs area has identified who is leaking documents to right-wing bloggers is that all the leaks are coming from an official IP address whose originator denies ever leaking anything. And since the Public Affairs complement in Iraq appears to be helpless to figure out when, if, or by whom an IP address is being hi-jacked, they just can't get to the bottom of this serious breach of security ....

One can't have a real discussion if you're going to quibble about whether Bill on video tape lied or not. Worse is trying to equate the Tyson bribery with a campaign contribution or donation. Those are accomplished by checks given openly to a candidate. That $100k wasn't open, wasn't a donation, and wasn't given to a candidate. It was an attempt to hide cash in pocket.

So "the Clintons' crimes" amount to ...

Please, those were just examples. How about the ....
* Juanita Broderick rape charge
* Kathleen Willey fondling charge
* Gennifer Flowers tapes
* 900 FBI files accumulated for an enemies list
* Had head of Travel Office charged by FBI to install friends in that position
* Squelched Barrett report re: IRS intimidation
* Rose law firm billing records hidden
* Hillary's bundlers.....

And that doesn't include the legal albeit sleazy stuff, like selling the Lincoln Bedroom and Hillary's brother taking money for recommending pardons. My original assertion was that the Clinton's crimes, improprieties, or whatever, was for personal gain while Bush (right or wrong)was acting on behalf of the country. It's inarguable

There are too many coincidences present in the match-up case for the original mail not be authentic. Not only are the odd microsoft-generated extensions the same, but the same spam filter (spamassassin) was used, and this from the same IP, and this through the same routing procedure (and path)... the only feasible denial explanation the Colonel can have is that someone somehow hacked into his (IP-attributed) computer using a VNC or remote desktop protocol - or was sitting at his very keyboard - but the language factor rules that out.

His original mail, and his ensuing (non-)denials, smack of the smug no-brainer self-assured of the support of the "right crowd" (his definition) he thinks he is a lasting part of. Let's hear from him again in a few years - or not.