Letters to the Editor

Abject stupidity defined The right-wing blogosphere never ceases to surpass its prior humiliations, even when you're convinced it can't. Glenn Greenwald [2007-10-29]

• Howie is already doing it

  Howie is already on the case, and he's typically craven in spinning the issue to Boylan's benefit. Here's a question posed to Howie in a Washington Post chat from this morning and Howie response:

  New York: What is your comment on the unbelievable e-mail exchange between Col. Boylan, Gen. Petraeus' chief spokesman, and Glenn Greenwald at Salon? Boylan sent him a rather weird e-mail, then denied sending it, even though it comes from the same IP address and official military e-mail account Boylan uses. Isn't this a big story -- either Col. Boylan is lying about having sent it, or someone is easily able to hack into our military's e-mail and send fake e-mails in the name of high-ranking officers! And what's your opinion of whether a journalist like Greenwald can or should publish e-mails between him and a government official without the official's permission? Boylan complained about that.

  washingtonpost.com: A bizarre, unsolicited e-mail from Gen. Petraeus' spokesman (Salon, Oct. 28)

  Howard Kurtz: It's a very strange tale. I'm not sure what to make of it. I think Boylan's complaint had more to do with the publication of what he contends is a fake e-mail sent by someone else. These days, government officials know that if they send an e-mail to a reporter or commentator it's going to be used, unless specifically marked as an off-the-record communication.

  But of course Boylan claimed no such thing. He objected to Glenn publishing an e-mail exchange to which Boylan conceded he was party. Howie misleadingly conflated Boylan's two separate e-mails to Glenn to create an entirely fictitious narrative. While Boylan may have insinuated that the most recent e-mail was not bona fide, his objection to publication related to a prior e-mail that Boylan admits he sent to Glenn.

  This is par for the course for Howie the Shill. Quite simply, there is no reasonable interpretation of Boylan's e-mails to Glenn that would permit Howie to claim that Boylan's objection was to the publication of a bogus e-mail. However, Washington Post readers unfamiliar with Howie's history of flimflammery would be left with an impression distinctly contrary to the facts.

  Glenn, please call out Howie on this one. Please point out that Boylan never claimed that the particular e-mail message publication of which he objected to was the same message Boylan now insinuates was not genuine. Boylan objected to publication of a message he has not disavowed, and is attempting to disavow a second, separate e-mail message.

  -- thomas c
  [Read thomas c's other letters]
  Permalink Flag Monday, October 29, 2007 11:39 AM
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel