After reading your letters I can only come to the conclusion that if you are not actually Boylan then perhaps you are his significant other or a concerned family member.

Does you boss know that you think Boylan should be spared while the real killers and torturers should be targeted?

Yeah, we are supposed to think that you are one of us all concerned about killings and torture.

How you think that is working, pal?

"Don't look at me, look at THEM! They made me do it and they are ever so much worse than I."

No one in the Army gets less respect from line soldiers than a PR flack desk jockey colonel, and Boylan knows it. He's just trying to make himself feel like a big shot, when the fact is, he's as useless as tits on a boar.

This stuff is alarming, but in fact less so than the detention or killing of journalists in Iraq (and Afghanistan) by the US military, which has been going on for four years. If Glenn had been in Baghdad, he would undoubtedly have met a worse fate than just intimidation.

All military forces try to influence the way their actions are depicted, but there is no parallel in democratic countries to the identification of the US military with one particular political party. Even in the most militarized democratic country in the world, Israel, that is a line that has not been crossed.

As a non-American, I didn't notice the identification of the military with the Republican party until the 2000 election. The unprecedented way in which journalists were forced either to embed with the army or face artificially increased danger during the Iraq war already made clear that public relations in favor of the Republicans was trumping the need for the American people to get nonpartisan information. Many, many journalists who worked for mainstream media or, worse, for Al Jazeera, have been jailed or killed.

This politicization may or may not affect the military itself. It in any case affects, even determines, the interface between the military and the civilian world, as the different treatment given to left- and rightwing bloggers suggests. But it may be wondered if there is not something even worse than bias and misinformation going on. Since the appointment of General Petraeus, it appears that the military's objective has not been to succeed in Iraq, but to obtain statistics which would comfort the Republicans. Such as by literally buying a short-term decrease in violence from Anbar insurgents, even when it is known that the money will be used to buy weapons with which to resist the central government.

If this is so, this would mean that the primary objective of the military leadership is now to procure advantage for the Republican Party. That is extraordinary and very dangerous.

Military spokesman should be cool and professional with all journalists. Even communist journalists were treated well by Nato militaries during the Cold War. It is astounding that an obvious political hack like Colonel Boylan, whose name I first came across two years ago in connection with the detention of independent journalists, should still be in function.

These past 4 posts serve a much larger point about politicizing our military, and entity that should remain untouched with politics, let alone the outright liars and dirty politicians in this Administration.

Aaaand... there is also the important matter of attempting to intimidate the press, and the bloggers who are trying to inform the public. This is just one more thread of that other "politicization" that Glenn writes about so frequently. The one that has kept our media in thrall to the current occupant's maladministration.

I must admit that I, too, am obsessed. Mostly with the absurd notion that we actually have a presidential candidate running on restoring the Constitution. [Go, Dodd!!!] Who would ever have thought that possible... or even necessary? (Quite some time ago, though, I realized that restoring the Constitution was the most important item on my list of things I wanted to hear the candidates discuss.) From where I sit, just about everything that Glenn writes has some relation to that very hot topic. With which I admit I am obsessed.

I cannot believe there's a debate about whether this story is a distraction. This is an official spokesperson for the military. It's a fucking outrage. They cannot lie to or attempt to intimidate the free press with winking invitations to come see the war zone yourself, etc. followed by cute e-mails denying or pseudo-denying the whole thing.

They also should be very concerned about messages being sent out from the spokesperson's apparent e-mail address if indeed the spokesperson did not send it. Can you imagine if this was a private corporation with the thought that false communications were being sent? The reaction would be a crisis-mode, swift and extensive communication plan to reestablish security, recontact all parties that e-mails may have been sent falsely, etc.

US military officers pledge themselves to the Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties of the office and bear true faith in their allegiance. This pledge must be above staying on message, getting the story out the right way ("the military is getting better at this") or party/political persuasion. It must be. If you're mad at a journalist suck it up and do your job soldier.

His first e-mail reminded me of the one H. Clinton got from the official in the Pentagon when she inquired about the plans for contingencies and withdrawing from the war theater, etc. Gates was rational enough to step in and defer to the civilian Senator and reaffirm the military's pecking order in the Republic. This clown needs to be dragged through this to the end and then either resign or face discharge.

Glenn, don't let him apologize to you off the record.

a copy of the original in Boylan's "Sent Items" folder...

Perhaps I mis-understood Zack's comment, but doesn't the significance of this incident transcend Col. Boylan (or politicization of the military), and speak instead to the larger issue of actively discouraging and suppressing dissent amongst journalists and others?

This has long ago ceased being about supporting/hurting troops or supporting/hurting terrorists (and other evil-doers) or "winning"/"losing" in Iraq. Suppression of dissent, torture, surveillance, etc., is ultimately intended to control the domestic audience and has nothing to do with external threats.

All of this activity sends a message intended for domestic consumption - get with the program or else.