Col. Boylan is not competitive in this weight class.

... to understand what he's saying.

"You are either too lazy to do the research ..."

"You are not a journalist nor do you have any journalistic ethical standards as we found out from the last time I engaged with you"

What he is actually saying is:

You did not talk to us and then print our word as gospel. You do not abide by the Golden Rule of real "journalists": Thou shalt not think for thyself, seek instead a high ranking source.

Furthermore, everyone knows that you're supposed to echo our talking points as facts from anonymous Officials.

it seems like he's offering you a trip to Iraq.

-- Scientician

That's not an offer. It's a dare. Glenn doesn't need an "offer" from the likes of Boylan. It's a dare. A dare with the thought in mind that he, Boylan, will attempt to have a bunch of trained monkeys act like the defensive line of the Raiders if Glenn pursues speaking engagements with anyone in a position to speak to our track record and our future plans in Iraq.

One night on the 9th green, I got screamed at bad at Fort McClellan. It was a Saturday, a lazed eve night. For sneaking out there on a golf green with a WAC. WOW!

Before that, at Fort Bragg, on a Sunday morn stroll, I was yelled at because (I'm sure he was a Col Hanger Over) my brass buckle, and shoes were scuffed. The grid/gig line, where the shined Brassy brand pink rub-gonk was supposed to give a sheen to the cheap belt buckle,...O, Mine was ruffled.

My zipper, buckle, and crooked shit-gig didnt pass some scotched, red-faced, blustering Officers approval...

In the army you'd say, "With all due respect, sir..."

That did not mean you were respectful to a bloody creep like Col. Boylan's ilk. The opposite. NO Respect, ever. Never. Never.

I am reminded of the Anonymoose cartoon: The cute Moose always did an "about face" and then lifted his sorry arse into the air to do a (no salute) TOOT.

Stinky war jerk offs.

I wonder if the General (or his staff) consider that they are putting down an insurrection in Iraq or in the U.S.? What will happen when these political extremists come home?

Or maybe the shrinking violets of the party were wrong, and MoveOn was right, to call the man that name that sent shudders through Washington and ragegasms through the right wing.

My first thought is that Glenn did not publish the email address of this guy from the earlier correspondence, so if it is a hoax, that raises the interesting question of how the hoaxer got ahold of this guy's email?

Unless the email address is predictable for anyone familiar with military email systems.

The email header will contain clues as to its origin, including IP addresses that should be traceable to DoD servers (likely in Iraq).

there are IP address to location web sites which can tell you approximately where an IP is, and sometimes who owns it.

... I agree with previous posters who suggest that this letter may well be a hoax.

Glenn, is there any way of verifying more fully that it is really from Col. Boylan?

While I am well aware that the military has a definite 'slant to starboard', this letter is so unprofessional in its nastiness that I can't imagine any self-respecting PR hack actually staining his reputation by sending it.

Perhaps Colonel Boyer is not familiar with how the colored words mean you can click on them to jump to the evidence used to support your statements. Glenn has an annoying (to his critics) habit of actually supporting his statements with links to the facts that underly them. It's a habit I would strongly encourage the right-wing blogosphere to adopt.

In that light, and in order to make sure we're standing on the firmest possible ground to criticize, I note that the link Glenn provided to support Steve Schmidt's involvement with the U.S. military in Iraq references an interview between Hugh Hewlett and Mike Allen who related Steve Schmidt's involvement, but that isn't exactly proof that he was there and instructed or directed their publicity efforts. It's certainly enough to warrant a few calls to confirm though.

Colonel Boylan's macho posturing to "dare" Glenn to come over to Iraq with the "real men" is so obvious a childish taunt that its unprofessional for either a military officer or someone acting in a PR or liaison position between the senior U.S. commander in Iraq and the public. For that matter, I don't think it would be safe for Glenn to visit even with the direct support of the U.S. military primarily because they haven't made it safe to leave the Green Zone and visit a non-cherry-picked Baghdad neighborhood.

are you sure this isn't from a freeper?

It's from the same email address as the prior emails I received from him and has all the same adornments. Obviously, my first thought upon reading it was that it had to be fake - but it's clear, at least from everything I can see, that it is authentic.

-- GlennGreenwald

As John Cole and his readers have discovered, it is possible to be a U.S. soldier in Iraq as well as the Bolivian Cultural Attache. (snark warning)

Beauchamp’s Unit- More Shoddy Journamalism and the Citizen Journalist Response!

(...)

One of our readers has pointed out that the soldier “allegedly” quoted here, Victor Alarcon, may in fact not be a soldier at all, but in reality may be the Bolivian Cultural Attache...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8930

The issues of accuracy, context, and proper characterization is something that perhaps you could do a little research and would assume you are aware of as a trained lawyer.

That's just a mess. How did this guy get a position that requires the ability to communicate? And how does he not have someone checking his letters for this kind of error? One of my first jobs included doing just that for a VP of AT&T. The higher up you get, the more people you normally have doing that. Usually just to prevent exactly this kind of embarassing letter.

we went with the real talent, Alan Colmes

By "real talent" they meant someone who will say whatever they want him to say and then plead that he's a "liberal".