In fairness to Colonel Boylan, as an officer in the United States Military he DID swear an oath to protect the Republican Party from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
As such, he is merely doing his job, albeit somewhat poorly.
Self-documenting politicization?
Neat!
For the sake of completeness, Glenn, you should probably post the header information from that e-mail along with the body, just to ensure that it is likely to be confirmed as a real e-mail from Colonel Boylan (ie, that it originated from .mil IP space) and foreclose the possibility that it may be a hoax. Of course, even if its origin is demonstrated to be .mil space, it is still possible that another military person forged Colonel Boylan's name to the e-mail -- but should Boylan make such a claim once he sobers up, that would open up a whole other kettle of fish, with implications the good Colonel would not care to face, I think.
TomBetz--
"sobers up"
Yeah, that crossed my mind as well. This is a remarkable documentation of really surprising ineffectiveness in a high profile job.
I wanted to be sure to read it in full, because one can never be sure that excerpts are reliable, especially when the material contains personal attacks. But in full the document is even more embarrassing, petty, small-minded and poorly written. And it even includes stuff you could pull right off a freeper page, as with the references to the left wing media.
Remarkable.
"As for working in secret with only certain media is laughable. The wide swatch of media engagements is by far the most diverse it could be."
Swatch is a watch. Swath is the word he was looking for. But far be it for me to let grammar, spelling and syntax ruin his snark.
"I am not sending this as anyone's spokesperson, just a straight military Public Affairs Officer..."
There ya go. But we didn't ask.
Well, I had to read the whole thing for myself because the excerpts were so badly written that I thought maybe Glenn had cut and pasted and missed out some key grammer. What level of education is required for a US army Colonel? the grammer and the logic of this piece would disgrace my third grader, and I don't mean that captiously. He's in such a tearing hurry to be rude to Glenn, and so impressed with himself, that he is barely coherent.
I'm afraid this is all too likely to be real. As Glenn points out in his essay on the topic this level of incoherence and bad writing is too idiosyncratic to be copied. Its not like he always capitalizes the word "Home" or just writes run on sentences. He drops words that are necessary for his run ons to make sense.
The most surprising thing though is the level of childish rage he displays. Is this how a colonel in the US army really thinks and behaves? Is this what gets promoted in the US army? Maybe I was naieve but, man, I thought we had better and smarter people in uniform than that.
aimai
"grammer"
This kind of mistake needs to be designated some kind of law.
Yes, this letter is remarkably poorly written. It's interesting that it is so bad, and so embarrassing, that people are actually concerned that it's a hoax.
It's good to see that I am not the only person concerned about the sloppiness of the writing in that e-mail. It's freepy, if I may confabulate a term.
If it's genuine, and I really hope it isn't, then things are far worse than I thought...
When I first saw the word swatch, I too thought it was misused, then looked it up and found:
swatch |swä ch |
noun
a sample, esp. of fabric.
• a collection of such samples, esp. in the form of a book.
• a patch or area of a material or surface : the sunset had filled the sky with swatches of deep orange.
ORIGIN early 16th cent.(originally Scots and northern English, denoting the counterfoil of a tally, and later a tally fixed to a piece of cloth before dyeing): of unknown origin.
Woops! And I was sure I was right. Hate it when that happens.
Man... I joined the army in 1978 and work for DoD now. There are SO MANY creeps like this ignoramus in the field grade ranks of our military these days. He obviously considers himself a zampolit, a Repugnican commissar, correcting those who dare to question the great Republican propaganda machine...
Man, I miss the OLD American Century, when we still had rule of law, habeas corpus, and the military was by law and tradition apolitical.
Glenn he called you out for what you are. Are you going to Iraq or will you continue your cowardly lying from the comfort and safety of your home?
Almost 30 years after starting my work in and with the military, I have to agree with the post by "Retired Military Patriot" on page 7 of the comments on your salon blog.
Make a federal case of this, literally. Send it to your Congressional representatives, as well as all the folks mentioned in his letter. Having served in and with the military, I assure you that NOTHING gives them bigger headaches than Congressional investigations - or even the hint of one.
Keep up the great work, Glenn. I wish the O-4 and up grades of the military weren't packed with this sort of authoritarian, anti-democratic creep, but they *are* in the majority.
If Glenn were to take up "Boylan" on his invitation to Iraq, it would certainly be courageous.
While it's not likely that an accident would occur to a blogger like Glenn while under the protective wing of the US Army PR Office, I would suggest that the odds are greater than zero.
Not a risk worth taking, in my book.
The colonel's message makes one thing quite clear: He has a difficult time writing in the English language.
What tortured prose.
Yes,Basketball season is approching.
A Military Pundit Man!? Anything is possible...
I've studied network security and implemented security measures for communication protocols, including the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol used for sending email. Fake emails are easily prevented at this point in time.
Based on the evidence available, there are three possibilities:
1) The US Army computer network in Iraq has been compromised from the outside. The Army's network security is virtually non-existent.
2) The Army computer network was compromised from within Central Command offices. The Army and/or the spokesman failed to take the basic security precautions necessary to prevent unauthorized communications attributable to the highest ranking commander in Iraq. While it is an obvious or blatant lapse of security, this is more believable then the first possibility. Either the actual sender will be easily found or network security is non-existent.
3) Col. Steven Boylan, the personal spokesman for Gen. Petraeus, is a moron and lying.
I know which one I suspect. But whichever one it turns out to be, this incident seems to explain perfectly why the US is losing in Iraq. That is: wishful thinking (#1), poor planning (#2), and dishonesty (#3).
Greenwald has no balls
That was a truly elegant smack down of a miserable liar. Well done Colonel.
Whether this letter is actually from the colonel or not, it would be a good idea if you went to Iraq, Glenn. I've been there many times, and am going to Fallujah in a couple of weeks. It's not (necessarily) as dangerous as it appears unless you want to seek out the real hot spots on purpose. Diyala Province is nparticularly nasty, but the Red Zone is not an even shade of crimson.
Getting there as an embed is easy. Shoot me an email and I'll hook you up with the right people. I doubt Salon would be even remotely annoyed if you said you wanted to go there.
Cheers.
Sorry for the typo. "nparticularly" should just be "particularly."
So this is what the echo chamber sounds like, you Lefties really should get out more often. What a bunch of suck-ups you have here Mr Greenwald.
Funny how none of the criticisms deal with the actual issue. Greenwald's a fabricator of the highest degree.
So yeah, pick apart the grammar and the spelling.It's the lawyerly thing to do. Kind of like asking what one's definition of is is.
so no one has asked the big question:
Glenn: are you going to man up and take the bird up on his challenge, or just sit back here in the rear with the beer & the gear, and talk boocoo smack?
i've got $20 to Soldiers Angels that says you come up with some lame reason why you can't leave Ft. Living Room.
post your itinerary, or post your receipt. i double dog dare ya, either way.
redc1c4: "i've got $20 to Soldiers Angels that says you come up with some lame reason why you can't leave Ft. Living Room."
Don't be obnoxious. Journalists who write about Iraq should be sincerely encouraged to go to Iraq. It's a great career and credibility builder, but it's not something that should be done on a dare by partisan hecklers.
Okay Gary, what is the issue?
I thought the issue was whether or not the email was authentic, in which case it seems lousy grammar and spelling might indicate it was a fake.
The only actual issues "Boylan" seems to make don't have anything to do with things Glenn actually said in his post. It seems the author of this email really has a problem with English comprehension.
But maybe I'm missing something, care to help me out?
Nice try at a phony story.
Typical.
Totally pawned, and NOT ONE commenter/puppet-nut-holder has even TRIED to counter the Colonels remarks, other than to whine about what they themselves have done, while typing in anger, and it's: "Oooh! He's a fraud cuz he spelled something wrong!"
...Glenn and his puppets...Freakin bunch of losers.
---
Based on the evidence available, there are three possibilities:
1) The US Army computer network in Iraq has been compromised from the outside. The Army's network security is virtually non-existent.
2) The Army computer network was compromised from within Central Command offices. The Army and/or the spokesman failed to take the basic security precautions necessary to prevent unauthorized communications attributable to the highest ranking commander in Iraq. While it is an obvious or blatant lapse of security, this is more believable then the first possibility. Either the actual sender will be easily found or network security is non-existent.
3) Col. Steven Boylan, the personal spokesman for Gen. Petraeus, is a moron and lying.
---
You forgot the fourth, covered-up possibility: That the system was compromisd by Decepticons searching for the glasses-map of Witwicky that leads to the Allspark.
Hastily typed-out grammar, vocabulary and spelling aside, do Colonel Boylan's remarks actually carry any weight? Because that is what counts here, isn't it?
Are you freaking serious?
This is about your injured ego, Greenwald, and nothing else. There is nothing there that warrants such hysteria.
Because you don't agree with his remarks, it's unethical for him to opine? Seriously? Or is it because you found errors in his writing style (in an email, not an official document, no less--the horror!)?
You have outdone yourself in shamelessness. Congratulations.
GET A LIFE.
sock puppet said what?
articulate or not, the colonel pwned you, glenn. your response is hysterical.
you should take Totten's offer and attempt to acquire some credibility on this issue of Iraq.
The first thing that strikes me about Boylan's message is that he spends an awful lot of time simply attacking Greenwald personally. Remarkable that someone in his position would resort to that tactic. I wonger what Petraeus thinks of this.
Then, Boylan's comment that ",,,you published our email conversation without asking, without permission--just another case in point to illustrate your lack of standards and ethics." Really?! And then he sent you another email message? Is he trying to get on the Jon Stewart Show or something?!
How many times did Boylan use the statement "you are not a journalist?" That is not a rhetorical question.
I'm looking forward to reading Greenwald's responses to Boylan's substantive points. Shouldn't take you too long to do that. I'll be checking back in shortly.
He's ridiculously patronizing. I've been trained in public affairs at the Department of Defense Information School, but unlike Boylan, I entered the field as an enlisted person, as a journalist, and in a shakier time for the military. That is, 1982.
We were told not to lie to the public or reporters.
We were also told not to talk down to people.
A Colonel, and yet so . . . juvenile.
If Mr. Greenwald makes a trip to Iraq he will wind up like Col. Westhusing (i.e. dead).
For the freeper trolls asking for a response, you must have not bothered to read the original post:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/gre...ylan/
index.html
some dude named steveo: If Mr. Greenwald makes a trip to Iraq he will wind up like Col. Westhusing (i.e. dead).
Frankly, you're an idiot. I've been there four times and am going back in two weeks. Not only have I not been injured let alone killed, I have not even seen any violence anywhere near me.
You watch way too much TV.
"Not only have I not been injured let alone killed, I have not even seen any violence anywhere near me." - MICHAEL J. TOTTEN
Ah, I must be an idiot, for such unassailable logic is beyond the limits of my feeble mind to refute... (fyi: I am being sarcastic)
Your statement precisely illustrates the problem with embedded reporters -- you only "see" what they want you to "see." If you want to find the truth, then leave your embedded status behind and go out and find the real story.
"you only "see" what they want you to "see."
That isn't true. I can go wherever I want to go in Iraq.
On my last trip the Army suggested I go to Mushadah. (Aside from that they took me where I told them to take me.)
It was strange. Mushadah was by far the worst place I have ever been to in Iraq. Nowhere are the soldiers as pessmistic as they are in this place. Why the Army wanted me to see THAT, I have no idea. But it certainly wasn't because they wanted to send me on a happy tour.
Michael Totten's reports have been written with honesty, clarity, and a allegiance to the truth which are principles that should be the cornerstone of "journalism". I am not saying that because I agree with your conclusions or I can only approve of what corresponds with my own political views or because of anything other then the fact that I have read your work and seen a fundamentally sincere approach to getting your head around the situation and explaining it to the rest of us. I appreciate that, incidentally.
That makes it all the harder to understand why you would taint your own profession and lower the high standards that you have for yourself by calling this inveterate liar, drama-queen and sleaze-ball a "journalist". If it is to show "professional courtesy", try doing it with a professional.
Please take care of yourself when you go back Mr. Totten and thanks for your reporting. Come back safe.
Colonel Boylan is employing the 'go offense when you're on the defense' mode. It's an attack dog mentality. Why be introspective and address issues when you can smash the questioner?
Never forget public affairs offices are not interested in truth, but in pushing their agenda, convincing you they are right even when they're not.
I wonder if Colonel Boylan was one of the geniuses who fabricated the Jessica Lynch rescue or oversaw the coverup of Corporal Tillman's death.
And it has amazed me after reading again and again 90 plus percent of the attacks on U.S. servicemen are by Sunni insurgents, not Shiites, we've begun to focus all this effort on linking Iran to terrorism against U.S. military.
We've now jumped into bed with the Sunnis and that's the biggest reason U.S. military deaths are down.
Meanwhile the Sunnis have taken advantage of their ceasefire with us and through their proxy (AQI and don't think they don't have a working relationship) Shiites are again being targeted, 30 INP killed yesterday, another 20 headless bodies found yesterday, and two days ago twin suicide attacks, all aimed at Shiites.
I guess we didn't like the democracy the Iraqis elected so we're now doing our best to undermine it and replace it with a bunch of Baathists, the very regime we took out.
Go figure. As for Boylan, just another right wing nut job.
After some 30 years of A.D., I can pretty much tell from the writing who wrote something:
The general or his aide
A commander or a subordinate officer
etc.
Much as I would like to tar Boylan with the brush here --- I can't. This isn't from anyone who would make O-6 in my Army. Sentences are ended with prepositions. Tautology and talk around is the oder of exposition. Noone in Public Affairs or PsyOps/PsyWar would write anything at all that didn't look and sound like it just came off a copy editor's desk.
Nah --- the fat SOB drank too much, passed out on the sofa and his drinking buddy jumped on the PC to pen the letter. There are probably so many errors of military: discipline, security, protocol and behavior that all who know the real answer are stuffed full with a security briefing and concommitant posting to either McMurdo Sound or Thule for the duration.
Commenting by HaloScan
