Col. Boylan Goes Off The Reservation

Jump to Comments

Regular readers might recognize this, from Sept. 3rd’s “Meet The New Baghdad Bob“:

I checked the infostream [internet] for actual quotes from Boylan and found only one prior citation swarm in 2007: An April quote about how Iraqi protests were not bad, but were, instead, a vindication of how mass demonstrations showed that democracy was working. Then nothing until August and the extraordinary step of the Chief Spokesman for the Iraq theater sending an email to a Right-Wing blogger [to Confederate Yankee 'confirming' Pvt. Beauchamp's "recant"ing and then, the letter to Kevin Drum:]

Political Animal
Kevin Drum
September 2, 2007

PETRAEUS AND THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS….Yesterday I received an email from Col. Steven Boylan, the Public Affairs Officer for Gen. David Petraeus, highlighting some disagreements with my Saturday post titled “General Petraeus’s PR Blitzkrieg.” His full email is below the fold …

Kevin,

I would agree that the open sources are a good check, however, many times those sources are not complete, out of context and fail to provide the proper or full characterization of the events they are describing.

I will clip the areas that are in error and provide you comment. (sic)

HERE if you want to read the whole quote. But odd that Information Czar of Iraq would take the time to write a blog at a local Washington D.C. magazine. Surely Kevin Drum had contacted Col. Steven Boylan with a courtesy copy, etc.?

According to Mr. Drum, “He contacted me out of the blue a few hours after I wrote the post. My email address is on the blog site, so I assume that’s where he got it.”

And, from the update to my “A Convenient Leak for Dan Quayle’s Brain“:

UPDATE 2 — 9:44 AM PDT: And call me Cassandra, Part MCXVI … Glenn Greenwald in Salon has (finally) noticed that the military and the Rightie Blogosmear™ and Right Wing media are getting extremely chummy.

This just happens to be the thesis of this blog entry, and of several that I’ve written over the past four months. But now that the SALON blogger has noticed, it must be real, right?

Of COURSE. Read Greenwald here:

Thursday October 25, 2007 08:34 EST
The growing link between the U.S. military and right-wing media and blogs

Well, today, Col. Boylan contacted SALON blogger Glenn Greenwald:

SALON.com
Sunday October 28, 2007 07:18 EST
A bizarre, unsolicited email from Gen. Petraeus’ spokesman

[Greenwald excerpts the letter]:

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.

I do enjoy reading your diatribes as they provide comic relief here in Iraq. The amount of pure fiction is incredible. Since a great deal of this post is just opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinions, I will not address those even though they are shall we say — based on few if any facts. That does surprise me with your training as a lawyer, but we will leave those jokes to another day. . . .

You are either too lazy to do the research on the topics to gain the facts, or you are providing purposeful misinformation — much like a propagandist. . . .

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a little actual research on your part would have shown that [Cheney P.R. aide Steve Schmidt] is actually not here, but that would contradict your conspiracy theory. . . . .

I am curious as to when you think the media relations or operations changed here in Iraq. I in fact do know exactly the day and time that it changed and want to see if you are even in the same ballpark as reality. . . .

For the third matter concerning the Beauchamp investigation and the documents that were leaked — it is very unfortunate that they were — but the documents are not secret or classified.* So, there is your third major error in fact. Good thing you are not a journalist. . . .

[* Gee, that's funny, it might be TECHNICALLY correct, but it is a lie, nonetheless:

The Washington Post: A military official, who asked not to be identified because the probe is confidential, said no charges were filed against Beauchamp. Instead, the official said, the matter is being handled administratively, with Beauchamp punished by having his cellphone and laptop confiscated for an undetermined period.

And

The New York Times: We are not going into the details of the investigation,” Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer in Baghdad, wrote in an e-mail message. “The allegations are false, his platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made.”

and, a little further down:

Yesterday, The New Republic posted another note on its Web site saying its editors had spoken to Major Lamb and asked whether Private Beauchamp had indeed signed a statement admitting to fabrications. “He told us, ‘I have no knowledge of that.’ He added, ‘If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.’ When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, ‘We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.’ “

Back to Col. Boylan’s excerpted letter:]

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. But you might not think it that way since we chose not to do an interview with you. 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.

As we quickly found out, you published our email conversation without asking, without permission — just another case in point to illustrate your lack of standards and ethics. You may recall that a 30-minute interview was conducted with the program that you claim to be a contributor. So instead of doing the interview with you, we went with the real talent, Alan Colmes. . . .

I invite you to come see for yourself and go anywhere in Iraq you want, go see what our forces are doing, go see what the other coalition forces are doing, go hang out with the reporters outside the International Zone since that is where they live and work and see for yourself what ground truth is so that you can be better informed. But that would take something you probably don’t have.

Steve

Steven A. Boylan

Colonel, US Army

Public Affairs Officer

But even more bizarrely, Boylan, while not actually DENYING that he wrote said letter, responds to Greenwald’s request for confirmation that he authored the letter by claiming that he was A VICTIM OF IDENTITY THEFT.

Now, this is getting weird: how an “identity thief” could forge the proper dot mil headers and email address in the URL is unexplained. One would imagine that no special knowledge of Boylan’s “personal identity” would be necessary to forge the email in question — THAT would be a hacking issue — and even such lowly bloggers as I have Boylan’s email address (which I obtained by secret means a couple months ago).

The “identity theft” dodge is too weirdly a Sherlock Holmes moment: an excuse that is too glib, which falls apart like shoddy when confronted with the cleansing rains. Listen:

GG to Col. Boylan:

Col. Boylan - Could you just confirm that this email [email forwarded] is authentic, written by and sent from you? Thanks -

Glenn Greenwald

Col. Boylan to GG:

Glenn, Interesting email and no. Why do you ask?

Steven

GG to Col. Boylan:

Only because it comes from your email address, is written in your name, and bears all of the same distinguishing features as the last emails you sent to me: steven.boylan@iraq.centcom.mil

Did you really not notice that?

Col. Boylan to GG:

Well, since they were on the web, not surprising. If you do a search on the web, you will also see that I have been a victim of identity theft of late in Vermont and at least two other places trying to rent property and that person identified themselves as me and thankfully the State Police were able to get in touch with me about it while I am sitting here in Baghdad.

GG to Col. Boylan:

Well isn’t it of great concern to you that someone is able to send out emails using your military email address? Do you plan to look into that? And you labelled the email I recieved “interesting.” What does that mean? Do you agree with its content, have any comments about it?

I’ll post more as I receive it.

Rent? What the HELL does that have to do with centcom email? Seriously. Is that a lame dodge, or what? (*I’ll be glad to be educated in “or what?”) It is merely suspicious, it is not definitive.

But I have been voicing my suspicions here for two months, and you know what?

None of them have been rationally and logically eliminated. Quite the opposite in fact.

Boylan is EXTREMELY touchy about any suggestion of collusion between the Rightie Blogosmear™ and his office. But the evidence all says that there was and IS collusion.

And it is in that OJ Simpson “fleeing the scene” denial that we can INDUCTIVELY begin to nail down our suspicions. Not enough evidence for a court of law, certainly, but with EQUAL certainty, MORE than enough evidence for the court of public opinion.

See yesterday’s “Quayle’s Brain Updates - Friday & Saturday“

Please take a moment to appreciate what my suspicions imply.

1. That General Petraeus (and NOT Col. Boylan as a “rogue” PAO) is actively attempting to manipulate domestic press via the blogosphere.
2. There seems little doubt, if that is true, that General Petraeus is NOT a rogue general, but that this comes directly from the White House (who were concerned enough, you might recall, that they WROTE Petraeus’ congressional testimony back in September, coincidentally, right as Boylan was emailing Kevin Drum about his “bad” surge statistical comparison.)
3. And that means that Scott Thomas Beauchamp is actually the FIRST Graeme Frost, and that both were, almost irrefutably, smeared at the direct order of the White House, using the Rightie Blogosmear™ as their catspaw.

As you examine the dominoes, the pattern becomes increasingly apparent.

And THAT is what Glenn Greenwald isn’t quite getting to.

Courage.

UPDATE 11:11 PM PDT: The Rightie Blogosmear™ response is and will continue to be predictable: First, slime Glenn Greenwald. Attack him personally, attack him as a “lawyer,” and attack him for … I don’t know … having zits, I guess. Which is, from a logical point of view, idiotic. The weak link, that they OUGHT to be hitting, is whether or not Boylan actually wrote the post in question*, and were they sure as to his credibility, they’d be hitting THAT, of course.

[* What remains irrefutable is the weird, cranky response to the request for confirmation, which is unprofessional as hell, like the post-in-question itself. But, as I said, not admissable in a court of law, perhaps, but surely admissable in the court of public opinion. And utterly in line with previous behavior.]

And ain’t it strange that ALL of the Rightie Slime Merchants use the term “sockpuppet” almost obsessively. That sure proves their “independence.” Yessirree. Of course, the term isn’t actually applicable to GG, but sure as hell is to Col. Boylan, but never mind. Logic isn’t the issue here. And so, instead of attacking the weak link, they play “let’s throw feces,” the National Sport of Rush Nation.

Logic might have, for once, given them a slight edge. Because then the whole argument goes off into Beauchamp-hyper-parsing-land. You know, like whether a Bradley Armored Vehicle could run over a dog. That kind of moronic twaddle: It’s like a clinch in boxing. It just stops the shots to the face. Gives the fighters a breather.

The fact that they AREN’T is telling: liars know liars, evidently. Jules Crittendon — scumbag par excellence — inadventently manages to truthfully damn and slam himself in attempting to slur Glenn Greenwald: Although his ad hominem is embarrassingly lame — even by Rightie standards — when you go to save his post, it says:

Jules Crittenden » Lacking Even the Ethics of a Journalist!

Which is almost aphoristic in its plain, homespun truthfulness.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized