Gen. Petraeus' spokesman attacks Glenn Greenwald
By John Amato Sunday Oct 28, 2007 2:02pm
This is insane. Whenever you confront authoritarian, conservative hacks---they always lash out because they can't stand anyone questioning their "authority!" The military and the Bush administration have been using the right wing blogs and their radio/TV pundits to funnel their propaganda for a long time now and the TNR saga is just another example of it. Check out this exchange between Public Affairs Officer Col. Boylan and Glenn Greenwald.
The subject line of the email -- which I am publishing in full, unedited form here -- is "The growing link between the U.S. military and right-wing media and blogs," which is the title of the post I wrote earlier this week regarding the politicization of the Army in Iraq, as evidenced by its constant coordination with, and leaking to, the likes of Matt Drudge, The Weekly Standard, and the most extremist right-wing blogs -- in the TNR/Beauchamp case and also more generally....read on
The military leadership in this instance is acting very---biased---as Cole points out.
Compare the almost matter-of-fact responses that right-wing PR bots like the Confederate Yankee get, and the taunting and juvenile tone Boylan uses when addressing Greenwald...
I've been writing a lot about the propaganda the military has been using to try unsuccessfully to promote the Iraq war to the American people. We need to thank Dan Froomkin bunches for his fine work also...And then there's the fine documentary called: "War Made Easy," that spells it out for us too....
Login or Register to post comments.
Fristofascism
When you get rid of the efficient all you left is the fning.
This is the latest and most outrageous example of how the WH has tried to politicize EVERY element of executive power, from the Justice Department to the FDA and on and on. They want the entire apparatus of professionals in government to answer to the political purposes of the administration and the Republican Party.
It just seems to be an easier fit for the military, for whatever reason. They do make love to this employment, as I think Hamlet said.
We're fighting for your freedom of speech, so shut up!
I think for this sort of thing you should use the word athoritaa instead of authority. It allows one to envisage the "cartman" attitude these pleebs use.
The right side does not like facts. It is as simple as that. Greenwald is a true patriot who deserves our full attention. As is stands, Boylan never has indicated if he, in fact, wrote the emails. And as Greenwald says, if Boylan had his email account hacked, Boylan doesn't seem to be bothered by it at all. Understand: If your email was hacked and someone was using it to spread lies and propoganda, would you care? Of course you would. How about if an Army Colonel had his hacked. As an American, wouldn't you want the Colonel to care a little bit about the breach of security? of course you would...
I enjoy the "Colonel Boylan never sent that and anyway he was right!" line of schizophrenic reasoning employed by the knuckle-draggers. Oh how long will it be until they start breaking the shop windows...
Gen. Betraus' Propaganda Minister sounds like a pissy 15-year-old. I guess they really have lowered the standards for entrance into the military.
Rather than attack Greenwald, the Colonel should ensure Greenwald is invited to the currently-only-GOP-supporter-blogger conferences.
Granted an interview with Alan Colmes. That fair? Alan must have asked some real hard questions and really got to the meat of things and all the true facts. Just like Hannity.
Fuck Petraeus. That toadying sycophant has no credibiity. He's flushed his honor down the toilet in the manner of a true Quisling.
Notice how the colonel invites anyone who disagrees to "come to Iraq" and see how they create their nifty charts and stats. That allows him to 1) intimidate any reporter who would fall for that trick; 2) imply you're a coward if you don't go; and 3) pretend only he can explain his methods and only then in Iraq.
That makes him a piss poor communicator if I do say so myself.
Well of course the Colonel wants him to visit Iraq, so he cant detain him indefinitely , like Bilail Hussein mentioned in the Greenwald article.
Excellent reference to Norman Solomon"s "War Made Easy" which shows film clips going back to LBJ to the present day, pointing out how presidents will use the same lies and reasons in order to persuade Congress and the people why this country, as in the novel 1984, should be in a perpetual state of war with nary a protest from the mainstream media concerning the actions of the executive branch.
More recent Boylan:
Albatross @ 7:
I love the term you use for Petraeus' tax funded goons...."knucle draggers".
lol.
Seems like the impotent, bedwetting Neocons are so desperately worried about their unwinnable, civil war that they are screaming to anyone, blind and ignorant enough who will listen to their lies.
Glenn really gets into the IP address field........
I heard someone say something today which I think is a clear expression of the major political problem we have today, I plan to use it in the future:
THE REPUBLICANS OWN THE MEDIA
This is a simple way to explain the constant propaganda we experience on the radio, TV and newspapers.
Glenn Greenwald has nothing to worry about, Gen. Betrayus hasn't managed to hit Osama Ben Laden yet.
And dead-eye dick would probably "accidentally" hit Betrayus.
Um, at this point, what difference does the war of words make? It's not like this war can get any LESS popular.
Support for the war is at about 30%. 30% of Americans believe in alien abduction and Christ's imminent return. 30% of this country probably believes that relativity is "just a theory."
So, let 'em squawk. Let 'em complain and bitch and whine and moan and threaten and cajole all they want about how we exercise our rights. We'll just keep exercising them and saying, "hey, this is what you're fighting in Iraq to preserve: my right to call you a lying, warmongering, propaganda spewing, green-soaked, catepillar-torturing bastard if I want to. Oh, and fuck you. If you don't like it...stop DYING for it."
What's at play here is that politicians are still falling for this crap.
We can no longer delude ourselves that anyone is acting here on any kind of principle except the exercise of power for the sake of the exercise of power. The only leverage we have is that that exercise is still technically tied to our votes, thanks to our a quaint tradition of holding elections.
So, withhold. Withhold withhold withhold support from ANY candidate who doesn't give you what you want, even if her opponent will take more from you,
This far, no farther, and to hell with the cluck cluck clucking of the bobblehead chorus.
Enough.
Time to go back to the sixties mantra - Question Authority"
Limp-Dick Blimpaugh @ 17:
And they've learned that escalation is the only route to (their version of) success. So "Iran" is referenced in at least every other sentence.
Did anyone consider the reason that Bushco. wants all the military out of the country, fighting wars, is soo that they can declare martial law and use Blackwater as their own private enforcers? I'd like to think that there is a large percentage of the military that would rise up against this Goverment if they pushed into an outright Dictatorship but they won't do much good oversea's.
Giuliani/Petraeus ticket- Tough and Tougher.
Reading the exchange between the general and Greenwald made me realize just how important the internet and political blogs have become. It's exciting to see people take on power in a way that the mainstream media won't.
Every day I become more convinced that we are ruled by the genuinely insane and/or evil. I had a conversation with a woman in her 80's and she said for the last 2 or 3 years, it reminds her of when she lived in Germany in the 1930's. Albatross is right, public harassment of undesirables is next.
Glenn does a great job of gathering up rope and handing it to Boylan. It would make for great comedy if the core subject wasn't so horrifying.
dennis @ 24:
More lie Dumb and Dumber.
That s/b like, but lie works too.
donna @ 21:
And playing protest songs on the radio, and printing pictures of returning coffins in the newspapers and magazines, and scrolling the names of the dead on TV, and having live coverage of GI's in action, and having massive demonstrations in public places....
I'm starting to wonder if that really happened...
did it?
ysbaddaden @ 28:
Or Lose and Loser.
That was one piss poor attempt at propaganda there.
These guys aren't too on it, but having served myself I can say with knowledge none of those career guys ever was too on top of it to start with.
US Commander's In Iraq Possible Target Of Courts Martial, Criminal Inquiry [59 M.J. 718]
The Colonel's letter has several phrases which do not appear diplomatic. The language appears what might be included in an Article 15 punishment letter, or an administrative letter of admonishment, hardly something worthy of a potential General. Let's review the language, and consider whether the tone and tenor do or do not detract or add to the Colonel's public standing. In so many words, we're asking whether the letter does or does not reflect credit upon the United States, the Army, or the Colonel. This standard is important when reviewing officer promotion potential, possibility for awards, suitability for command assignments, and whether they are or are not eligible for decorations.
We begin the analysis with a simple review of the Colonel's standard of conduct, which is in the UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 133, conduct nbecoming an officer. As we conduct the review, note closely that Colonel Boylan represents himself as the "Commander's spokesman" and he is the official voice for a Lt. General, a four-star General, a Senate-confirmed position. This is a high profiled position, something Boylan knew or should know would demand scrutiny. Curiously "Boylan was treated for a stab wound and bruises at the 121 General Hospital on Yongsan" raising the question whetyher Boylan is suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Let's review select clauses.
A. Note this phrase which is vague, and implies that a "lawyer's duty" is higher than OSD. This is incorrect. "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. Colonel Boylan does not appear to have legal training; and does not appear qualified to make this statement; nor is he in a position of in writing libeling another attorney. The letter from Boylan tends to diminish public confidence that Greenwald is capable as an attorney; but the letter provides not specifics. This is not a compelling argument.
B. "reading your diatribes" -- This implies legal counsel is making public, written statements without coherence expected of an attorney. The Boylan letter provides not support for this assertion.
C. "as they provide comic relief here in Iraq." Contrary to the Commander in Chief's assertions to the contrary, we're asked to believe that people in Iraq are very serious. Boyland's remarks undermine this contention.
D. This statement does not provide any examples: The amount of pure fiction is incredible. Lack of evidence, combined with this level of accusations materially undermines public confidence in the judgment of the Commander and his aide; and materially undermines public support of the judgment of commanders in conducting their affairs.
E. This sentence suggests wordiness, which is not at the standard expected of an officer in the US Army: "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.
F. This is an inappropriate comment by a military officer to a civilian and does not advance prestige in the US Army, nor does it support the Army's public relations campaign as "Army Strong," but does the opposite: Implies the Army commanders are weak, insecure, and easily ruffled. "That does surprise me with your training as a lawyer, but we will leave those jokes to another day. . . .
G. This statement is an either-or-logical flaw, suggesting the Colonel has a very narrow view of what is acceptable: 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. . . . based on this statement alone it is appropriate for the Army CID to review reports of abuse against Boylan; and determine whether unfavorable battle-field conditions are suppressed with outbursts.
G. A simple correction -- this long into the letter -- would have been helpful. The Colonel failed to do that: "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. . . . . A more appropriate, professional response would have succinctly made this correction and invited Greenwald to get first hand information and offer accurate information. The Colonel did not offer this option, tending to diminish confidence the Colonel can diplomatically handle sensitive public relations issues. We judge this downgrades his promotion potential as a Flag Officer.
H. The following comment does not appear credible, in that the letter is abusive, and not interested in dialog. Again, disingenuous statements by the Commander's public affairs officer tends to put the US mission in an unfavorable light,and raises reasonable questions about the competence and professionalism of the Senior Officer Corps in the United States Army: "I am curious as to when you think the media relations or operations changed here in Iraq.
I. The following comment appears to have not been well though or crafted, suggesting the Colonel is responding to other command/OSD pressure: "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. . . . The use of elipses suggests the Colonel has limited communication skills. recommend CID review whether written orders are not consistent with adjudicated punishments; or whether post-action reports are not reconciled with original success criteria.
J. This statement is one for the Courts Martial to review: "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. . . . " Why did the Colonel confirm the existnece of a report which CID has not been apparently given full access; and there remain uncorroborated problems raised during the courts martial investigation?
K. Again, the public record does not report this denial, raising questions of impeachment for the General's aide: "As for working in secret with only certain media is laughable."
L. We judge the following, if admitted, would impeach the colonel: "The wide swatch of media engagements is by far the most diverse it could be." The record does not support this conclusion.
M. The following is a personal attack, and does not reflect well on the US mission in Iraq; nor does it reflect great credit upon the United States Army: "But you might not think it that way since we chose not to do an interview with you.
N. Curiously, while the Commander's aide accuses a civilian of "not complying" with "standards", the Colonel appears to have ignored Article 133: "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. At no time did the Colonel ever cite any supporting material to justify his assertion; nor has he pointed to any language or credentials which the object of his attack should or should not meet. These amount to unsubstantiated assertions. Conversely, Article 133 requirements are clear, to which the Colonel appears to have ignored.
N. This comment appears to be similar to things Boylan might say during an admonishment of one of his subordinates, yet we find no record that Boylan was ever assigned to the JAG officer; nor that Boylan was assigned as a legal monitor: "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. Rather, the written comment tends to leave a reasonable reader with the unfair impression that th elegal community is not fairly overseeing lawyers. We do not dispute this, as evidenced by the JAG's inability to enter the GTMO facility to ensure detainees were properly treated.
O. This phrase, you will note, follows a long list of personal attacks, which does nothing to resolve the issue. Again, this clause tends to raise reasonable questions in the mind of a passive observer whether there is a larger command and control and scheduling problem within the US Command office in Iraq: "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. . . . " We have no record that the US Commanders in Iraq provided any reasonable accommodation.
P. The following does not appear credible, and does little to address the Article 133 issues which Boylan raised: "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
- - - - - - - END OF LETTER - - - - - -
Observations
We enter into evidence the above note for purposes of adjudicating Article 133 charges against Colonel Boylan. You'll note the letter was signed, and issued from an official army e-mail address, connected to an IP, and now publicly available.
Conclusion: The letter appears to be an inappropriate use of government resources to issue an inappropriate admonishment to a civilian. The Colonel appears to have crossed the line. It is appropriate for the military command to open an Article 133 investigation into the Colonel for purposes of reviewing his suitability in his assignment, determine whether he should or should not be court martialed, and whether he should or should not be retained by the service.
It is hoped this review might occur within the week. Please forward any adverse information to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee; and if criminal information is gleaned, please forward to the Joint Staff, CID, and appropriate law enforcement officials in Iraq.
Disclaimer: The above is not an official position of the US Army or Department of Defense; nor does it accuse the Commanders in Iraq of committing any crime. Rather, we leave it to the Senate and House Committees to review the information for purposes of recommending Article 15 proceedings; and where appropriate administrative separation for Colonel Boylan.
Judge Advocate General Inquiry
The following are merely a few case citations JAG officers assigned to the Joint Staff may wish to review in re Boyland's alleged violations of the UCMJ in re Article 133.
1. See: [ 36 M.J. 645 ] Has Boylan disobeyed a General Order prohibiting Article 133 misconduct; or documenting anything which would bring discredit upon the United States or the United States Army?
2. Also, see [ 2 C.M.R. 96 ]: Based on the above general comments, is the US Command in Iraq making sweeping statements about issues, but not relying on facts, fact finding, or appropriate discovery? Boyland comments do not suggest that fact finding and discipline are high under the US Command in Iraq.
3. Finally, see [ 59 M.J. 584 ] for issues of Boyland's intent in writing this letter: Was it his intent to solve a problem; maintain command control; or was his objective to dissuade public commentary on military standards of conduct?
An Average Joe @ 30:
Those who can remember the 60's weren't really there.
It used to be illegal to use war propaganda within the US ... was it not?
How times have changed...
we went with the real talent, Alan Colmes. . . .
Do we need more proof that FOX is State Sponored TV, and that hacks like Colmes and Juan Williams are the tools of the Government to present fabricated debate?
Umm . . . I think the Col. got drunk, sent a pissy e-mail to Greenwald, and now he's denying it.
He's hoping it'll blow over. And he's probably right.
If after more than 4 years in the same shithole you need a "surge" to keep sectarian violence under the illusion of being somewhat under control , what kind of a cogent argument could possibly be made to make it seem like the continued loss of life is worthwhile or even acceptable ?
None ............Which is why professional bullshitters are always called upon by the useless GOP.
They can't seem to grasp the concept that not everyone is as foolish and gullible as their 24% mouth-breathing , knuckle-dragging constituency sheep are......
This is amazing. The fact that this type of email exchange occurs after the "Betray Us" uproar is very enlightening. Once again, the we see that the conservative chest-pounding about ideals and patriotism is just that and the facts show that hackery is their true skill.
Speaking of assumed identities: It would be HI-larious if Jeff Gannon actually posted this comment on my blog: http://someofnothing.blogspot.com/2007/10/is-jeff-gannon-now-working-at-.... You'd think he'd go back to Guckert now. Newly blogging so I'm curious...do people often go around pretending to be infamous people in their comments?
Coach K @ 37:
Conduct unbecoming an officer: Why are "drunk" officers accessing electronic communication equipment; and how many officers are, while druink, sending official messages?
dennis @ 24:
Douche and douchebag
BTW
Are they your parents ?
Col. Boylan has been drinking to much grain alcohol and rainwater. He can no longer sit back and allow Liberal infiltration, Liberal indoctrination, Liberal subversion and the international Liberal conspiracy to sap and impurify all of his precious bodily fluids.
Those of us old enough to remember the constant bullshit from the services during Nam are not surprised. There goes the militarys' determination learn from the mistakes of that generation. Boylan is a right-wing tool and is vindicating moveon.org. They spoke truth, he as Petraeus spokesman is a liar.
My advice? Buy a couple of guns and lots of ammo, you never know when you may need to defend the constitution of this great country right here......
MCMetal @ 38:
Are you suggesting that the GOP is using military personnel to directly confront civilians? That would amount to an unlawful use of government resources for partisan objectives, which is not lawful, and contrary to the standards of conduct prohibiting military personnel from involving themselves in political issues.
Looks like OSD has another issue: How many GOP-OSD exchanges have there been to put allegedly illegal pressure on civilians to dissuade them from exercising their 1st Amendment rights? if proven true, this would be a serious breach of decorum, illegal, and would amount to an unlawful policy for an unlawful purpose. We have "no time for impeachment" but plenty of time to spend keeping people quiet about the Article 133 allegations. Hardly inspiring for Congress: Does it have time to exercise oversight of these UCMJ issues; or is the weather unfavorable? The Colonel's letter clearly shows there is a discipline-leadership-judgment problem within the "Strong" Army.
dennis @ 24:
Thanks for the laugh, Dennis.
Are you suggesting that the GOP is using military personnel to directly confront civilians? That would amount to an unlawful use of government resources for partisan objectives, which is not lawful, and contrary to the standards of conduct prohibiting military personnel from involving themselves in political issues.
Like anyone in this administration cares about the law. (or the country)
dan @ 47:
The concern has not been addressed, suggesting there is no evidence to close this investigation.
Wondering @ 45:
This horseshit administration has proven , repeatedly , that there is no level they would not stoop to in consolidating their perceived "right" in garnishing power ; they have all the conscience and possess the trustworthiness of a rattlesnake ...........
UCMJ @ 40:
Yeah, I'm not saying drunkenness JUSTIFIES douchebaggery -- I just think it's funny. You don't want to pick a fight with Greenwald just because you're feeling all warm and tough. He'll use logic and whatnot!
As far as drunken officers constituting a scandal, well, I think there are literally hundreds of investigations in Iraq that should occur before this angle gets pursued. Partisan hackery has no place in a republic's military. Neither does, say, torture.
Booze has its place in wartime, though. If I had to wake up every morning and find ways to justify this epic mess in Iraq, I'd probably be hitting the bottle too.
JasonS @ 20:
With exchanges such as the one between Greenwald and Boylan, there may be a push to punish those looking to follow their legal obligations and become an informant when individuals in an administration are doing wrong. This congress may allow a "laxing" of the 1st Amendment for purposes of National Security. Who's security? Certainly not America's, just those that are abusing the system that put them in power.
The current theory seems to be that if a General says it, then it must be true. Then there's this from the Situation Room Aug. 29, 2007:
During this entire interview video was being shown of the Iranians being arrested at the hotel contradicting everything General Bergner said. In fact, General Bergner's account of the arrest and release on the Iranian businessmen was almost completely wrong. Wolf didn't challenge Bergner's version even though he was looking at the same video. Col. Boylan defends Bergner, but the facts speak for themselves. After this example of Gen Bergner's work, wouldn't it be prudent to double check all of his work?
Coach K @ 37:
That's why they should say no to hooch, but hell yeah to weed.
BaScOmBe @ 21:
Article 133 Allegations Againg Boylan Appear To Have Been Met
Take a look at this Article 133:
Boylan appears to have violated this standard:
Also, this example appears to have been met, warranting an Article 15 review to assess alleged Article 133 violations:
The letter was unfair, indecent, and lacked civility expected of an officer, especially a Lt. General's public affairs officer. Notably, the officer is a Colonel, signed the letter, and knew or should have known the letter -- once sent -- would be the subject of public discussion, scrutiny, and examination. However, given the high profile status of the officer, and the sensitivity of the issues which the Command AUthority expects of this high profile position, this alleged breach of Article 133 warrants an upward revision in the sentence imposed on Boylan, if charged.
Conclusion: It's appropriate for the Secretary of the Army to review Boyland's letter in light of Article 133. Given his high visibility, we recommend the OSD Gates personally provide a written explanation to his personal review of the matter to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee no later than Wednesday, 31 Oct 2007. There appears to be a reasonable basis to put the General's aide under review for immediate dishonorable discharge, conduct unbecoming, unfavorable review, downgrade in last rank of service to Lt. Col. Officer [Boyland] is free to resign in lie of Courts Martial, pending CID review, no other adverse information.
Flamethrower @ 12:
And who would pay for this trip?
Not all of us travel on the taxpayer's nickel.
UCMJ @ 55:
Game, Set and Match!
Greenwald smoked Boylan even after Boylan pantsed himself.
Rusty Shackleford @ 31:
Or LIAR and LIAR
Coach K @ 50:
The problem is when a military officer attempts to act as a "boss" for a civilian. This isn't about Greenwald, nor about the legal community: It is about civilian control of the Military. Boyland appears to have a hard time understanding that principle. He does not appear fit to be representing the Army or any Senior Officer. His conduct brings discredit upon himself, the United States, and the United States Army.
Civilians are not subject to military oversight. Military officers are subject to military law; but when that fails, they can be subject to civilian law. Boyland does not appear to have any legal defense for his alleged reckless misconduct in the public arena. This is a civilian debate, one which military officers -- activity duty officers -- shall not enter. Ever.
truthfinder @ 58:
Same diff, both are annoying Jim Carrey vehicles.
Wow! Col. Steven A. "Boil on his Ass" sounds like a typical full-of-shit, spinner wingnut..and decorated!
My dad was a Lt. Col in the air force, he's full of shit all the time. But I love him.
"The problem is when a military officer attempts to act as a “boss” for a civilian. This isn’t about Greenwald, nor about the legal community: It is about civilian control of the Military."
Yup, I agree.
But also: I think the specifics of this incident are pretty funny. I love that this Col. is trying to deny sending this e-mail. He's so used to lying about Iraq, he thinks he can lie about this too.
For those of you so inclined, you are free to discuss your specific concerns with Boyland's letter here; if you have other information about Boyland, or know of others who have information related to Boyland, you are encouraged to provide C&L with that information, and provide copies to this phone number, the DoD Hotline. Rather than sending e-mail, you are encouraged to send a fax.
Disclaimer: This is not an official policy or statement of the Department of Defense nor the DoD Inspector General.
Coach K @ 62:
The problem is when the IP address for the e-mail matches his office.
1. Why is Boyland's computer not secure?
2. What evidence is there that official memoranda has been sent using non-secure communications?
3. Where are the entry-exit logs for his office?
4. Why are these entry-exit logs for Boyland's office immediately available?
The question turns on whether Boyland, in denying he sent this, is making a false statement to an investigator with CID. That would be a subsequent offense under the UCMJ.
donna @ 21:
That bumper sticker got me pull over two or three times back in 1968. I didn't get any kind ticket but I think the message was, if you want to question authority, authority wants to question you. It's still a good idea, but keep the bumper sticker in the glove compartment.
Carmikl @ 65:
And hide your stash.
UCMJ @ 33:
not to worry! nothing will come of it.
UCMJ @33 and @55:
That was excellent!
A Prima Facie case for disciplinary action was laid out very succinctly and in a professional manner by you, how can this case be made to the command?
Other Boyland Memo Appers To Match "Denied" Letter: Recurring Problem Warranting OSD/Army Secy Attention Attention
Boylan is a graduate of a senior officer school. Yet, his writing style suggests he has not surmounted several challenged junior company grade officers are expected to surmount. Boyland is not a company grand officer, but a senior Field Grade officer, one step below a Flag Officer.
Boyland Word Analysis
We compare for C&L readers the words in another letter Boyland provided. Bluntly, one error is for Boyland to deny sending the letter. However, if you compare the letter sent to Greenwald, to another letter sent to FAS, you'll find some similarities in word use, style, format, and judgment.
Specifically, if he's denying sending the letter, note the strange similarity to this one: Note the similar words and personalization of the commentary using "you".
Format: Boyland's comments in the FAS comment -- common problem appearing in letter to Greenwald
1. "and in fact" -- Wordiness
2. "where you no doubt" -- Personalizing
3. "If you understand " -- implying others have "lesser" knowledge; while ignoring issue that officer is not understanding something. Mentioning "insight" and "mental ability"; suggesting someone is lacking.
4. "then you know that our " -- Implying someone else would "have to have" some sort of insight, despite previous assertions that they are "wrong". This is a double-bind; intended to put the reader in a "no win" situation: Wrong either way. This is a classic interrogation tactic which American law enforcement and military interrogators use. Notice how Boyland is attempting to manipulate impressions, the reader's conclusions, yet the evidence is not compelling: Just accusations without anything of substance.
5. "I believe your article is a bit disingenuous in its coverage and not completely up front with your readership" -- this is classic Boylan, where he asserts someone else is "not doing" something; or "not meeting" a standard. Why not depersonalize it to lower tension: "The article".
6. "Why don't you" -- Unsolicited advice: Boyland fails to heed his standard before applying it to others. Hypocrisy, shifting attention. Undiplomatic. Unprofessional. Preferable to use "perhaps you may wish to . . ."
Symes @ 68:
You're welcome. Perhaps the DoD Hotline would like to receive a fax from you and your many friends around the globe.
As long as the administration has the 28% of alien-abducted and probed Rapture Lovers, and a few sycophant liars like Betrayus, we will never be able to overcome the MSM's information blackout on the truth of this country thru conventional methods. We need to impeach this administration before Nov. 2008 or else the next President will feel there is no limit to there power as well. Pelosi stands in the way of impeachment so she must go. It can be done suring session and should be done.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/remove-the-obstacles-of-impea...
UCMJ @ 69:
Sean Hannity may have written all of these emails for him.
As a side note, and fact that Boylan is in the PA area: Can the Army and CNN comment on why Boylan (above) apparently was "in good" with CNN to get quoted for a political election?
MAJOR STEVEN BOYLAN, U.S. ARMY: This is the first time on a national-level election that I feel that my single vote really, really matters.
CNN: Aired November 17, 2000 - 4:00 p.m. ET M
Did Boylan, as a DoD PA person, have a GOP-connection with CNN to ensure he was quoted?
Did CNN err in not disclosing that Boylan was part of the Army Public Affairs office?
I met Boylan briefly in Korea a few years ago. He was an LTC and PAO for 8th Army. He was a yes man then and time has not changed anything.
If you're wondering about Boylan's involvement with "investigations" check the disclosure of the Italian-shooting incident. That's when the PDF file was scanned, and someone figured out the information was still there, despite efforts to redact the i nformation. Boylan was "strategic effects director" for MNF in Iraq.
Relevance to Greenwald E-mail: Boylan would know that all information was closely scrutinized.
KURTZ!
I don't know how long it's going to take for people to see...
Howard Kurtz uses a double standard - he devoted multiple segments to that bogus Betray Us flap and no time to far more dangerous things right wing blogs have done.
Look at how little time he devoted to Glenn Beck's egregious comment that the people in Malibu deserved less sympathy because they hate America.
Don't expect Kurtz or anyone else on TV to practice anything but a Double Standard on this issue as well.
As confirmation of the stab wound at Yongsan, According to this, Boylan hails from Astoria, NY; note the incident mentions the Yongsan incident in Korea, where he was assigned to the 8th Army.
Relevance to Greenwald E-mail: Something happened in Korea to Boylan involving a knife. Is there something going on in his head that needs some medical attention?
Well, look at this: Astoria is right across the river from downtown Manhattan.
Check:
A. CNN quote in 2000
B. Knife incident in Korea
C. E-mail to FAS
D. E-mail to Greenwald
E. Astoria near Manhattan
Theory: Is there a connection between [a] the tragic events of 6 years ago; [b] the knife incident in Korea; and [c] the comments from him in these e-mails? It appears the officer is taking things personally, getting emotionally involved, and is lashing out -- not just at "the enemy" -- but American civilians. This is a very bad habit. As confirmation, you can explore the reports of former US military personnel returning from Iraq, being assigned to law enforcement, and then engaging in abusive investigations/stops/detentions of American civilians.
Has Boylan been evaluated for PTSD in re his knife incident; and how is his response to the AUMF factoring into his response to Greenwald? The tone and tenor of the e-mail is curiously similar to that of Yoo, Gonzalez, Bybee, Addington, and others involved with the DOJ issues, RNC e-mail deletions. Considering his connection with the CNN and 2000 election comment, I'm concerned that his behavior in the e-mail is something which needs more than a public commentary, but a larger review.
It appears US government personnel are lashing out at civilians, not because civilians "deserve it" but because the US military is not capable of prevailing; nor is there sufficient command leadership to ensure discipline. The conduct appears to exist not just in DoD personnel, but also DoJ, and DHS and broader JTTF-law enforcement. In their world, to do "the right thing," they appear to feel entitled to abuse others, regardless the standards applicable to them: This is a recurring problem we've seen at Abu Ghrabi, Guantanamo, Eastern Europe, and the FISA violations.
Implications of Boylan and letter to E-mail, in light of the above "issues" in re his background; and the larger pattern of abuses:
A. Boylan and the E-mail to Greenwald
Has Congress been infected with this sense of entitlement; and to what extent has this "thinking" affected Congressional leadership to "take impeachment off the table."
B. Boylan and the Knife Wound
What e-mails have the military public affairs personnel, DoJ staff, and others in the Executive branch sent to Members of Congress to dissuade oversight of personnel issues warranting investigation, prosecution, and impeachment?
C. Boylan and the Excuses in re Astoria and Manhattan
How many e-mails have US government officials provided to Members of Congress -- without clear disclosure that they are messages from the Executive Branch -- to dissuade Members of Congress from impeaching the President?
D. Boylan and CNN in 2000
How many Executive Branch employees have sent letters and faxes to Members of Congress to "raise their concern" -- as was done in the 2000 election to shut down the vote count -- to dissuade Congressional attention on laws of war violations in Iraq?
Col. Boylan's a hale bopp cultist ready to don the nikes for David Petraeus
test
(failed to post link to mercer university, where steve boylan is an alumni
http://www2.mercer.edu/News/Articles/2005/050912iraq.htm
well there ya go...
carry on, must have been a user error
Steve Boylan,
I read with interest the following: "Whenever you confront authoritarian, conservative hacks—they always lash out because they can’t stand anyone questioning their “authority!” .
You are in the profession of arms. You are governed by the UCMJ. Tragically, the nation was attacked six years ago, and you continued to serve. There is a concern that your e-mails are less than professional. These raise issues of Article 133. You have the opportunity to review your conduct, and self-admit yourself to have yourself evaluated. This does not imply you have a problem, only that you may need some assistance.
The profession of arms is a noble calling. You well know living just up the road from Washington DC in Astoria, that New York has been central to this nation's history. After the events of 2001, we saw the national leadership gather in New York to remind the world that we are a nation who is united, connected with our foundations, and will prevail.
Sadly, this President has not met his legal obligations. You and others in the profession of arms have suffered. Yo have endured personal hardships. Many of your close friends have suffered physical harm and paid the ultimate price. On the table is the professional standards of your profession: The Profession of Arms. Civilian control is not a nice thing to talk about -- it is a requirement.
The concern on the table is simple: Whether you e-mail is an isolated problem, or something that is a larger problem. The issue is not you. The issue is leadership. The issue is fact. the issue is our nation's foundation: The rule of law.
While serving in Iraq where you are minute by minute under threat of imminent death, you are understandably frustrated. However, you are a leader of men under the rule of law; you are not a leader of men by force of men. The UCMJ is there to guide you; but the laws of war are not silent on military-civil relations. Your job, as you well know, is to lead, act as the General's eyes and ears, and maintain confidence in the Commander, the Army Mission, and the United States.
You have served your country for many years. You are almost a Flag officer. Few officers enjoy this respect that you have earned. Today, the question is whether we need to review your conduct: Not as a military officer, but as a military professional. The record is clear: You have served well abroad, you have suffered personal harm, and you have seen untold destruction. All this is linked with something that you find very important: Your home.
The American public's home is best protected when the profession of arms is under the rule of law. You know this. Your oath of office is not to anything but the Constitution. Our leadership after Sept 2001 dedicated the nation to protect this document. Going forward, the job of the public is to oversee whether this Congress and President and military professional are doing what they should. Their "standards" are non-existent: We the People are the source of all power, even combat power which you wield. You are in Iraq under the law. Whether you are or are not lawfully doing your mission is a secondary issue.
We the People -- not the President, nor the events of Sept 2001 -- are the guiding mandate for your commander. We the People -- through this Congress -- have appointed and nominated hour commander to do Our Will. The issue before us with respect to the letter you are alleged to have sent raises the question of the profession of arms: Is the profession of arms responsive to oversight; is the profession of arms accountable to the laws and rules the Congress -- through the UCMJ -- have crafted; and does the profession of arms put the rule of law before the rule of man.
The conclusion We the People are having a hard time digesting, but are slowly understanding: The profession of arms, in principle, understands that the nation is a nation of laws; in practice, the military appears to have put itself above the law. We've seen prisoner abuse in defiance of Geneva; and FISA violations in contravention with the 4th Amendment. Your profession has a duty to uphold not the President's claim to power; but the power of We the People to defend the Constitution. You are either with the enemies of the Constitution; or you are with the defenders. There is no middle ground.
We the People are in a position to make adverse inferences. Where the government -- in this case, the Congress, US military, president, and legal personnel in side DoJ-OVP-WH-GOP -- defy their oath, and conduct themselves in contravention to the rule of law, there is only one reasonable conclusion: 5 USC 3331 issues need to be adjudicated.
We are a nation of laws. You are in the profession which upholds this nation's legal system through one important treaty: The Geneva Conventions. Your job is not to win wars; it is to prevail and defeat the enemy, both foreign and domestic. One is combat without constraint; the other is leadership strained by justice. On the table is the core issue at your e-mails: Who do We the People trust to adjudicate whether someone is or is not a domestic or foreign enemy. Evidence is required; accusations are meaningless.
Your e-mail is not filled with evidence. Your conduct falls below that expected of an officer. The issue for We the People is whether we can trust the DoD IG, CID, and your commanders to do what is lawfully permitted; while still prevailing over all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Today, the public has seen you exercise your military leadership on non-military personnel. This is not appropriate. Your are in the profession of arms, not the profession of admonishment.
If you would like to discuss these issue, then I would encourage you to immediately review your oath of office, consider a PTSD evaluation, then review the events since Sept 2001. You are not the only one attempting to the do the right thing. In the adversarial system of justice, where lawyers are required to maintain professionalism, they are constrained; equally, the profession of arms constrains you to also act in a professional matter. At. All. Times.
We might take your e-mail to an attorney as a one-off. However, the record before us suggests this is not isolated. Yet, you are in the profession of arms, in a combat zone, and facing conditions many could only imagine. That was your free choice. You are not there because anyone is making you: You chose to take the oath, and do your duty. Duty is more than a word: It is the requirement you meet your legal obligations, regardless who or what you face. Yes, things do happen; and there are consequences.
Because of your conduct, personnel around the globe have well discussed your career. They have contacted your leadership. Members of Congress know. And questions are being raised. Before us is an allegation that you have engaged in conduct less than what is expected of an officer of your experience, education, leadership potential, and service to country. On the table is the issue of civilian control of the military; and values which Americans hold dear: The right to discuss. You have the right to respond; but not the right to bring discredit upon your commander, the Army, or the United States.
We the People sent you to Iraq, rightly or wrongly, to do your job. Your job does not include oversight of the legal profession. Your job includes the narrow issue of oversight of the profession of arms within the Iraq combat theater. Until you are reassigned. You are reminded of your legal obligation to stay out of political-domestic affairs. Your job is to stay in your lane; and the lawyers will stay out of your lane.
However, by ignoring the law, your alleged co-conspirators in Iraq have crossed the wrong lines. We the People did not delegate to you the power to abuse civilians. You have only one power: The power to fully assert your oath. Nothing more. That power can be revoked. Article 133 is the means by which we the People delegate to commanders the power to punish people in the military who refuse to assent to professional standards of conduct expected of Senior Field Grade Officers.
Going forward, your continued professional service to the Nation is to be commended. However, that service is conditioned upon your remediation. You shall seek assistance to ensure you are professional. At. All. Times. When interacting with civilians -- regardless your respect or contempt for them -- you shall show deference to the rule of law. You are in Iraq, in part, to provide stability so the Iraqis can choose their way. Americans have chosen the rule of law; and they choose to compel military professionals to remain silent on political issues. One political issue which you have no control is whether your commanders are or are not relieved; and whether you are or are not promoted to the rank of General. That is an exclusive power delegated to the Senate: Civilians.
We the People will have the chance to review your record. The public is best served when you remain professional. We the People are not required to meet any standard -- unless we choose. When you show you can stay in your lane, and meet your standards, we might have a discussion about what might be done to learn more. Until then, you are reminded to learn all you can about your profession, the Constitution, and the responsibilities you have within your lane. When you become an expert on that -- as demonstrated by professional, respectful, and tactful letters to civilians to inspire them to support you -- we might discuss travel arrangements for you to learn more about conditions in the United States legal profession. After than, we might review your invitation to review "your lane" which you would -- by then -- have had the time to review and become an expert.
It is not appropriate for you to claim you are an officer, yet not act as a professional officer. Nor is it appropriate for you -- as a military professional -- to compel others to meet arbitrary standards, while you refuse or are not inclined to show -- by example -- you meet the standards you attempt to impose on civilians. We the People do not work for you. You as a military professional work for us. For now.
You have demonstrated over the years great potential. You interacted with many people. You are in a confusing situation. You are in a combat zone. You are on the brink of life and death. For that, your service should be commended. However, your many years of service should not be clouded by an isolated incident. The question is whether you wish to remain subservient to We the People and the rule of law based on civility; or whether that rule of law must be imposed on you through the Judge Advocate General. It is, under the law, a requirement to which you understand, took an oath, and have a responsibility to meet. At. All. Times.
The world has had the chance to review your record. You are in the profession of arms. You also have the chance to demonstrate your professionalism. Should you fail, We the People are prepared to litigate Article 133 proceedings against you for alleged breach of your standards of conduct under the UCMJ. The choice is yours; but the rule of law is the instrument by We the People shall ensure power is not abused; and the Constitution is defended. On the table is the choice: Are you with We the People; or are you with the enemies of America. Professionals know the answer; Military professionals are rarely given the chance to make a second choice.
http://armed-services.senate.gov/members.htm
I called Carl Levins office on this guy & will bring it to the attentention of Sen. Jim Webb in the morning.
This guy needs to resign his commision & get a job w/ Ollie North.
Senate FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
DEMOCRATS
Carl Levin (Michigan)
Chairman
Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts)
Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia)
Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut)
Jack Reed (Rhode Island)
Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii)
Bill Nelson (Florida)
E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska)
Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
Mark L. Pryor (Arkansas)
Jim Webb (Virginia)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
REPUBLICANS
John McCain (Arizona)
Ranking Member
John W. Warner (Virginia)
James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Susan M. Collins (Maine)
Saxby Chambliss (Georgia)
Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina)
Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina)
John Cornyn (Texas)
John Thune (South Dakota)
Mel Martinez (Florida)
Bob Corker (Tennessee)
for congress: http://armedservices.house.gov/
I seldom hear the words "patriotism" and "military service" paired together anymore. For many, it is an economic decision - ie. six-figure signing bonuses or an opportunity for a future career as a private contractor.
STOP THE PRESSES!
The reactions from the trog-o-sphere are beginning to surface- and they ain't smart:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8948
Next thing ya know they'll be accusing Greenwald of fanning the flames of war. In 1870, along the French/German border, that is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ems_Dispatch
Of course that's accusin' & fannin'.
Goddamned typos!
UCMJ @ 69:
His syntax is not pitch-perfect either. He uses "as" as a word of reason when it is a word of time. I don't recall the exact phrase but he should have used "because." He also used the "everyone/their" pairing, which is incorrect.
the astoria references are a little bit off ,
Pompano Beach florida, a pi kappa phi, aviation are the age of development.
aint web stalking fun?? Oh yeah its called on line research...
Pretty solid proof that Petraeus is a political hack, and that MoveOn was correct not only in his "misrepresentations", but also in labeling him a hack.
You can find his current army e-mail by googling [ "Pompano Beach High" steven.boylan ]
Right Wing bloggers is one thing but WE TAXPAYERS provide this dickhead's salary
I say we fire him for sending personal e-mails on company time
He's was/is with Alpha Alpha Chapter of Pi Kappa Phi at Mercer.
Ener this into evidence: It appears the denial e-mail matches the IP number for the original e-mail Greenwald received. A Ph.D did an analysis, and the results are here.
Please forward this to Army CID, the House/Senate Armed Services Committee, DoD IG, and OSD for their review. Secretary Gates needs to be asked about this problem. Patreaus comment on this? It appears, based on the public record, that the Colonel's public denial is not supported by the data; and would raise subsequent Article 133 issues, possible alleged perjury and obstruction of justice in re CID and Army JAG.
FYI: Kos has some discussion on the IP numbers, with comments back from Iraq Public Affairs office: here and here.
Do a check through Judiciary Committee of all the "deleted" RNC e-mails: Look for the following code: [ INTZEXEBHIZN01 ] in the header information. It's not well known, but could be visible in contractor e-mails, and other DoD-related e-mails sent into CENTCOM then to the subcontactors.
You can get a list of all the contactors on contact for Centcom -- for purposes of doing an e-mail review/subpoena -- by asking for budget documents filed with Congress called "Descriptive Summaries".
Also, ask GCHQ in UK to review this code, and forward any information they have to the US House/Senate Committees. Focus on any e-mails that the WH-DoJ-OVP-WH Counsel-GOP says are "not available". Note: Colonel -then-major in 2000 was interviewed by CNN; is there some sort of RNC connection and e-mails which have been deleted?
Take a look at this. Google this [ INTZEXEBHIZN01 OR INTZEXEVSIZN02 OR INTZEXEVSIZN03 OR INTZEXEVSIZN04 ].
Notice the Mass maling out of CENTCOM PA in June. The codes match. Either
A. The Colonel is lying; or
B. There's a "security issue" which the COlonel simply says, "Intersting" not, "Huh....?" This is not adding up.
Other evidence: Look at the classified access keys for that building/room; find out who was in there when this message was sent. Any video, security, or keying inforation to access that office, computer?
Typical right wing douche. Note the direction of the indignation:
not the prospect of of being hacked (and worry about the integrity of their own intel),
not the prospect of being set up for a PR disaster (which would seem, with the other possibility mentioned, a more urgent priority)
but panicky discomfort over the thuggery being made public.
Upon the third possibility being realized, and the baldly apparent relaity that Boylan's email was authentic, and he's STILL a fucking douchebag, the SOP to kick up dirt to cover his tracks and lie emphatically that the email was fake is totally predictable.
Douchebaggery: it's what they DO.
.
Is any one actually certain that this Public Affairs Officer Col. Boylan isn't a 14 year old? He writes like it.
And I can highly reccomend War Made Easy! Great film!!
The right-wing asshole that is on the left closest is the one involved in fkng with Cindy Sheehan and the Dixie Chicks.
I know all the right-wingers in that picture are scumbags.
Login or Register to post comments.