Col. Boylan succumbs to GGDS
By Libby
Glenn is having a totally bizarre email exchange with the spokesmouth for our sainted Petraeus. The Colonel's email displays some significant lack of manners and it's unclear whether Boylan is denying sending it or not. There's been much speculation about whether Boylan denies sending the missives or whether someone is spoofing the address, but either way it's an astounding breach of either security or protocol. I don't think they're supposed to be this rude.
He was much more respectful when he "engaged us" at Newshoggers but still he arrived to complain that his remarks were taken out of context and then his interview was responsive to our questions, but still evasive. He didn't tell us we hadn't already heard through the official press releases. He failed to address the explicit points. I'm not surprised he declined to engage us further. I think he was unused to being challenged, having spent all his time "engaging" with adoring sycophants in Hawkslandia.
Anyway, I've pondered this for a few hours. It's hard to tell for sure. All neocons sound the same to me but I think Boylan wrote, or least dictated all the emails. Despite the difference in temperment between the Newshoggers experience and Glenn's treatment, the language has the same cadence and I think Boylan lost his cool because it was Glenn he was writing to. Glenn nailed him on the linky love fest with Weekly Standard and Boylan just got insensibly pissed off.
I've been watching this develop for a while and I've noticed a growing number of Fringetopians jumping on the boxcar of Greenwald loathing. I think what we're seeing here is the beginning of new incomprehensible fixation. I do believe Glenn has joined the ranks of Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, Soros and of course the Clintons, as a new derangement syndrome -- GGDS.
[cross-posted to The Reaction]
Glenn is having a totally bizarre email exchange with the spokesmouth for our sainted Petraeus. The Colonel's email displays some significant lack of manners and it's unclear whether Boylan is denying sending it or not. There's been much speculation about whether Boylan denies sending the missives or whether someone is spoofing the address, but either way it's an astounding breach of either security or protocol. I don't think they're supposed to be this rude.
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.
He was much more respectful when he "engaged us" at Newshoggers but still he arrived to complain that his remarks were taken out of context and then his interview was responsive to our questions, but still evasive. He didn't tell us we hadn't already heard through the official press releases. He failed to address the explicit points. I'm not surprised he declined to engage us further. I think he was unused to being challenged, having spent all his time "engaging" with adoring sycophants in Hawkslandia.
Anyway, I've pondered this for a few hours. It's hard to tell for sure. All neocons sound the same to me but I think Boylan wrote, or least dictated all the emails. Despite the difference in temperment between the Newshoggers experience and Glenn's treatment, the language has the same cadence and I think Boylan lost his cool because it was Glenn he was writing to. Glenn nailed him on the linky love fest with Weekly Standard and Boylan just got insensibly pissed off.
I've been watching this develop for a while and I've noticed a growing number of Fringetopians jumping on the boxcar of Greenwald loathing. I think what we're seeing here is the beginning of new incomprehensible fixation. I do believe Glenn has joined the ranks of Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, Soros and of course the Clintons, as a new derangement syndrome -- GGDS.
[cross-posted to The Reaction]
Labels: bloggers, Bush Administration, military, politics, spin
posted by Libby Spencer at 9:02 PM
6 Comments:
This isn't the first time Boylan did an unsolicited cranky emailing to a prominent "opposition" blogger."
In September, he emailed Kevin Drum at Political Animal, after Drum pointed out that casualty numbers for "the Surge" were higher month-by-month in 2007 than pre-Surge 2006.
Oh I had forgotten that but now that you mention it, I do recall that happening.
I don't think these guys have figured out that a mere contact from the 'big brass' doesn't impress and won't placate us or end our questions.
It is Boylan writing. His non-denial "denials" are crystal clear.
Which leads to a really scary thought.
What is going to happen when a thoroughly politicized U.S. military is being led by, say, a President Hillary Clinton?
Do you think they'll stop leaking "news" to Drudge and Faux Noise? It is not hard to envision them leaking news that advances their own agenda, as opposed to the civilian leaderships' agenda.
From there, it is a small step to "relieving" the civilian leadership of their authority.
Such is what George Bush has wrought.
GOP presidential candidates are supposed to be partisans. So are Democratic presidential candidates.
Presidents are not.
Presidents should server for the common good, not for the good of their own political party. Bush has politicized every branch of government.
Branches of civilan government being co-opted by the GOP hierarchy is one thing. Branches of the military being similarly co-opted is another thing entirely.
And it is an entirely scary thing, too.
All too true MW. I'm just as scared of overreach by either party although it's unlikely the Dems would be quite as crazy but once you lose your basic rights, no politician will willingly give them back.
Good thought, MP. I have been reluctant to bring it up, since it would have seemed like a non-sequitur, but the politicization of the army was a serious concern of the "Founding Fathers," which is why the army was always structured with a "Regular Army" and a series of state militias, the basis of the 2nd Amendment and which we now call "National Guard."
During the Revolutionary War, some battles were fought entirely by militias who had been gathered for that battle and returned to their homes afterwards, and some were fought by regular "Continentals."
And, we've seen too many countries in which the politics of the Army translated into a military coup.
But the lesson was deeply impressed early in the USA: that even the armed forces needed "checks and balances" and Bush has screwed THAT one up, too.
The "militias" have been used in a way never intended, and, while they have been treated like second class citizens, not much has been written about it, since the first reports. (A bullet that hits a guardsman and a bullet that hits an RA grunt are treated entirely differently, and the wounded follow different medical paths, quite literally.)
And, we've never relied exclusively on a professional army (abetted with contract mercenaries, of course) before.
NOT EVEN REMOTELY.
Politicizing our military has grave potential consequences, just as politicizing the judiciary and the Department of Justice have.
What do they have in common? None have ever been seen before in our constitutional republic.
Is there really any doubt that this is being driven BY the White House? Or, that this is their way of intimidating the news media AND the blogosphere?
No doubts here Ed.
Post a Comment
<< Home