RMP, you wrote:

Thanks. I think you're right. But my comments on PAOs is still valid considering his last sentence.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, which was simply that there aren't many promotion opportunities available for a PAO who's already an O-6. In any case, Boylan has clearly risen to the level of his incompetance.

Oh, and please don't confuse me with the Hornetdriver, or whatever his handle is. I don't fly jets. I flew Blackhawks in the Army, hence the HawkDriver handle. And I'm not some right wing nutjob. I'm just a recently retired officer who's tired of watching right wing bullshit go unchallenged.

"Since I always assume the best of people, I cannot see how Col. Boylan is a liar, he is a distinguished military man, who is all about honesty. According to William of Occam and Albert Einstein this leads to the conclusion:

d) is the correct answer."

Your naive assumption means you are not employing Occam's Razor, simply citing it in order to justify your subjective feelings on the matter and give yourself a veneer of objectivity.

The simplest explanation is that Boylan did write the email in question and is simply refusing to acknowledge it because it could cause him trouble.

If an underling wrote this for him he would say so, since that provides him with an easy, if slightly embarrassing, out. His tone is consistent with someone who would have no problem blaming someone else for his mistakes; that is, in his correspondence he comes across as an arrogant Bush Leaguer.

I guess you noticed the satirical tone of my post?! And you noticed my mentioning of einstein, who cleared up William of Occam's original version on how to decide which of several competing theories should be chose. einstein advised to make a theory as simple as possible [i]but not simpler[/i].

Now, as to Col. Boylan and his probable wrongdoings, I can either give him the benefit of the doubt - which I think is prudent and typically leads to a much more condemning conclusion - or I can use my prejudices and judge on their basis. In all my life I found it to be more satisfying to leave out ones prejudices, find a satisfying conclusion, and reassess the prejudices - throwing them overboard if necessary [not in this case, granted].

Is Col. Boylan, as you express, a Bush-hack? I have no idea, I actually do not care much about the presumed psychology of him. does he see himself as a partisan, a hard-core Bushite? I don't know. I can, OTOH, draw conclusions from his actions [incl. writings etc.].