Chris Muir of DaybyDay—one of the best online cartoon series going—is raising funds, and could certainly use your support.

Like most bloggers, Chris is not a full-time cartoonist, and DaybyDay takes up a tremendous amount of time to write, well, day by day.

Drop on over and toss him a couple of bucks, will you?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Blogger and soldier Andrew Olmsted, who often posted as G-Kar at Obsidian Wings, was killed in combat yesterday in Iraq. As far as you know, he was killed defending a village composed solely of innocent women and children from hundreds of insurgents.

Knowing the risks he took as a soldier, he composed a moving, reflective final post to be published in the event of his death.

In Major Olmstead's last paragraph he expressed doubts in an afterlife. I sincerely hope he finds himself today in Heaven, pleasantly surprised.

His writing is archived at http://www.andrewolmsted.com/

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:23 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

I think we've found the poster child for Jonah Goldberg's new book.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:33 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

John Hawkins has posted the The 6th Annual Right Wing News Conservative Blog Awards as voted upon by 45 of my fellow bloggers, and Confederate Yankee finished 3rd ahead of Newsbusters (4) and Michael J. Totten (4), and behind Michael Yon (2) and Michelle Malkin (1) in the category of "Best Original Reporting By A Blog."

I'm honored to be included in this list and more than a little surprised to find myself in such esteemed company. I'd like to thank my fellow bloggers and blog readers for their support over the course of the year.

I'm humbled.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:37 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hi Bob - congrats... No one has earned it more than you my friend...

Posted by: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton at December 17, 2007 01:09 PM (ytltE)

2 Your efforts here, CY, have been ground-breaking, independent, reliable and fair. Umm, well, except for the Ron Paul blimp story below -- the pic looks airbrushed and from 2001. Anyway, you deserved it. Congrats.

Posted by: Dusty at December 17, 2007 02:00 PM (GJLeQ)

3 Good job!

Posted by: Grey Fox at December 17, 2007 03:54 PM (E9jLN)

4 You deserve every bit of it, Bob. Now go have a steak to celebrate.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 17, 2007 07:57 PM (4tS0i)

5 congratulations, and good company! I really respect Totten and Yon for their on-scene reporting. You, on the other hand, have made life a living hell for our lying domestic "enemies". Great work! :-)

Posted by: Frank G at December 17, 2007 08:23 PM (Ydps9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've seen over the past several days that Glenn Greenwald is focusing his attention to delving over emails attributed to Col. Steven Boylan, a U.S. Army officer currently serving as the public affairs officer to General David Petraeus [full disclosure: IÂ’ve used Col. Boylan as a source several times, due in no small part to the fact that he is a Public Affairs Officer] .

And who am I to mind bloggers paying attention to words that our soldiers wrote? Frankly, I think that's just grand.

This particular story started when someone purporting to be Boylan sent Greenwald a scathing unsolicited email several days ago, which Greenwald dutifully published, along with follow-up conversations between Greenwald and Boylan, where Boylan claims that he did not send the original email and that he wasn't all that worried about the imposter.

After numerous updates to that page, Greenwald wrote about it again here, here, and again today, here.

Greenwald is notably convinced of several things:

• That the email header information indicates that that the original email did, in fact, originate from Boylan or someone with the ability to fake that information convincingly;
• that the military needs Greenwald's email to track down whoever sent the original email;
• that this exchange, however it began, is indicative of a military attempt to control the media "when they step out of line;"
• that somehow, this is all the Bush Administration's fault.

I will readily agree with Greenwald on the first point, that the email header seems to indicate this came from the same computer as other emailÂ’s attributed to Col. Boylan. Whether that IP address in question belongs to an email server used by hundreds of troops, is Boylan's personal computer, or is entirely spoofed, I have no idea.

I am quite certain, however, that the military needs no help at all from Greenwald in tracking this email down internally. If a rag-tag group of bloggers can track a bunch of Greenwald-approving blog comments under various names back to Greenwald's own IP address, then I'm rather certain that that the Army's own IT guys can muddle through in determining whether or not an email originated from their own server, without his technical wizardry. If the disputed email is indeed authentic, it would be recorded on the Army email server's log files, which they obviously have, which could track it back to the computer in question, which they could then traced to the user ID of who was logged-on to that computer at the time.

As for whether or not such an email, if real, would constitute a military attempt to control the media "when they step out of line," I would gently ask the noted First Amendment scholar Greenwald to note where it states that soldiers give up all their constitutional rights to free speech once they put on a uniform.

Is it only when they disagree with liberals?

I ask because while the questionable email that started this particular conflagration was no doubt scathing, and emails apparently from Col.Boylan to other bloggers also disputed some of their content and fact-finding efforts, I fail to see how these private emails to bloggers were somehow inappropriate, unless Greenwald thinks that he and his compatriots should be able to attack the military—even to the point of fabrication—without any response.

Greenwald has a long and mercilessly well-documented history of being unable to take criticism. Somehow, I think that has as much to do with his focus on this topic than any real concern over a military email server may have been compromised.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:57 PM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Well said. He is making himself look like a bigger idiot than he usually does.

Posted by: Pam at October 31, 2007 04:47 PM (UWHnN)

2 Hey Glenn -- help me out here: You've said recently: The overt politicization of our military in Iraq -- working closely and in secret only with Drudge, The Weekly Standard and right-wing blogs -- seems at least as important as the monumental issue of what Franklin Foer knew and when he knew it. Now Glenn, I'm sure some here might take that as a bit of sarcasm, but alas, we know better. We also know that your latest monumental issue is quite dear to you personally. Whether or not you were pantsed by a sockpuppet or a real PAO (insert irony alert) must weigh heavily on your mind. (Being pantsed is already in evidence) Could we please ask you to put aside your work on today's monumental issue and set your sights back to the Beauchamp/TNR affair? So many would thank you for putting your investigative talents to use there. Perhaps you might ask Franklin Foer if he in fact aware of Scott Beauchamp's real IP address. After all, whether or not Beauchamp actually sent these articles to Foer has yet to be proven - it might have been a sock. Your reknown mastery of IP addresses should quickly help us determine who said what and when. Please give this some thought. Heckofajob Greenie.

Posted by: Justacanuck at October 31, 2007 05:08 PM (hgxwr)

3 I would gently ask the noted First Amendment scholar Greenwald to note where it states that soldiers give up all their constitutional rights to free speech once they put on a uniform. And I’ll gently reply, Bob, that there are quite a few “free speech” activities that someone wearing a uniform cannot engage in and are prohibited by law from doing. Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, and specific military regulations strictly limit a military active duty person's participation in partisan political activities. Cannot - Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. Cannot - Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against of a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. Cannot - Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. There is a long list of other “cannots” that you might want to familiarize yourself with. http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics.htm

Posted by: Steve at October 31, 2007 06:20 PM (MN8Pv)

4 Oh, I am well aware of at least some of those--especially as it relates to speaking at political events, which has gotten soldiers in trouble recently--I've just seen no evidence that Boylan or other PAOs have done anything approaching that, protests from the Naomi Wolf/Glenn Greenwald wing of the Democrat Party duly noted.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 31, 2007 06:27 PM (HcgFD)

5 John, If you read Salon closely, you'll note that they said essentially the same thing I did: the header information were able to narrow it down to a couple of computers on the military network. They never indicated that they were able to see beyond a mail server, which is what I speculated these computers may be even before I read their article.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 31, 2007 06:50 PM (HcgFD)

6 Steve - You need to remember that Bush isn't running in 2008 and that the Iraq War was approved by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress. Correcting misinformation is not a political activity even if Greenwald believes it to be so. The e-mail in question wasn't supporting or questioning individual candidates or parties. Where do you see the offending violations?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 31, 2007 07:09 PM (0pZel)

7 Bob - Another point to add. Greenwald has also concluded that the Army is doing nothing to investigate the e-mail matter or its IT security because they have not informed HIM of what they are doing in those regards. The clowns.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 31, 2007 07:11 PM (0pZel)

8 It all boils down to whether the Army's network assigns IP addresses dynamically or statically, and if statically, how often they are renewed, and whether or not they are assigned new addresses at renewal time. Basically, a dynamic IP address changes every time a computer logs on. A static IP address is "leased" for a certain period of time (90 days is pretty standard in the non-military world, not sure what it would be in the military). The network administrator (a/k/a the "Alpha Geek") can also set most networks to renew the same address every time, or force a new address each time it is renewed... for ease of administration, most civilian net admins choose to renew with the same address... Alpha Geeks are notoriously lazy. Therefore, without that information being released by the Army (and for their own computer security, I would expect that they will never release details like those), all Greenwald and his ilk can do whine.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 31, 2007 07:37 PM (ysloH)

9 So Socky McSockpuppet's rag has yet another post up on this silly affair. Greenie's bunkmate Farhad Manjoo has posted a rambling bunch of quotes and links seeking to portray Boylan as passionate about his job. Who knew? Amongst all that waste of electrons can be found this huge steaming pile: But neither Michelle nor Steven Boylan had anything to do with a curious e-mail recently sent to an elderly Vermont man. Late in September, the Brattleboro Reformer, a newspaper in southern Vermont, reported that police had uncovered an effort to defraud 81-year-old Fred Humphrey, who was looking to rent out his vacation cabin in nearby Guilford. Someone claiming to be Lt. Col. Steve Boylan (Boylan was promoted to colonel from lieutenant colonel) had inquired, in a series of e-mails, about renting the cabin as a surprise present for his godson in England. The e-mailer even sent Humphrey a check for $3,000, $2,500 over the asking price, asking that the difference be remitted to an address in New York. Police contacted Boylan in Iraq and determined that he wasn't the fellow behind the rental request. The $3,000 check, unsurprisingly, turned out to be bogus. Salon attempted to acquire the fake Boylan e-mails from Humphrey in order to examine their headers, but Humphrey did not return our calls. The company through which Humphrey rents his cottage would not provide Salon with the e-mails without Humphrey's consent. In the Reformer's report, however, Humphrey describes the fake Boylan's letters as "worded in rather stilted language" and missing key words. "It didn't seem like someone who had risen to the rank of lieutenant colonel would write like that," Humphrey said. The disputed e-mail messages to Greenwald -- as well as all of the blog posts bearing Boylan's name on the Web -- are not at all stilted. Indeed, they all share a strident tone, oozing confidence. It's now quite apparent the brilliant researchers at Salon have never even thought to ask their very own IT department to explain the mysteries of IP addresses, mail servers and spam to them. If they had in fact bothered to get out from behind their keyboards to ask a few questions, they might have a working hypothesis of who might be behind Boylan's e-mail. And if any of the crack Salon researchers had actually talked to someone in IT, this brilliant report by Farhad Manjoo would not have included the breathless 291 words I've quoted above. If Farhad or SockyGreenPuppet had bothered to ask one of their IT geeks - any geek who knows anything at all about e-mail, they wouldn't be wasting their impressive investigative skills trying to obtain an e-mail sent to an 81 year old. Instead, we now know that Farhad and/or his researchers are incompetent and perhaps by the time I post this, someone will have already clued him in on what a 419 scam is. What's next Greenie & Farhad? Will you next be insinuating that Boylan is possibly behind the next penile enlargement/Cheap Viagr@/stock pump'n'dump e-mail that comes with his name attached? You guys have proven beyond a doubt that professional asshattery can be a paying job.

Posted by: Justacanuck at October 31, 2007 09:58 PM (hgxwr)

10 Justacanuck, I suspect that Farhad thinks that computers still use tubes.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 31, 2007 10:16 PM (ysloH)

11 C-C-G, To reduce power consumption and space requirements I believe they use nuvistors. 6CW4s. A tasty little number almost as small as a CK722.

Posted by: M. Simon at November 01, 2007 05:47 AM (eeb3t)

12 Mr. Socketty Sock Puppets hatred for the military makes the code pinkies look downright patriotic in comparison.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 01, 2007 08:31 AM (Lgw9b)

13 Simon, and the internet (invented by Algore, don't forget) is made up of lots of pipes, too?

Posted by: C-C-G at November 01, 2007 08:41 AM (ysloH)

14 Okay, so if it wasn't Boylan then it was someone else within the Army's network. Either that, or a hacker broke into the military's computers to forge intemperate e-mails under Boylan's signature. Come on, none of that passes the smell test and you know it. I find the "hacker" explanation you postulate highly unlikely. If someone was able to penetrate this email server, I think they would have somethig more useful to do than mimic a PAO, such as stealing data. I've little doubt that the author is indeed someone within the military network. As a result, I'm rather confident that an investigation is underway, somehow muddling through without Glenn's superfluous email or advice.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 01, 2007 08:50 AM (0BhZ5)

15 Hmmmmm. 1. It's possible to spoof email headers. What the email headers are is a section of the email that lists the servers in turn that received the email and then sent it on. There is no perfect guarantee that the email in question actually traversed the servers in this list and it's very possible that someone simply edited the email headers to include US Army or DOD email servers when in fact the email didn't originate from any of those. Remember folks. Email headers are just text appended to the body of the email. It's nothing more complex than that. And anybody with any experience in SMTP or TCP/IP programming can spoof email headers. 2. It's possible that a US Army or DOD email server, or any workstation or computer authorized to access one, was compromised to send this email. Why they would do so and then send a fake email to Socky McSockpuppet is frankly beyond me but it's possible. 3. Socky McSockpuppet is making all this up. He got an email or two from Lt. Col. Boylan and then edited the body of the email to make it far more advantageous for himself. The US Army or DOD email servers will have the the transmission of the email logged on it's servers and may, or may not, have the email in question stored in a backup log somewhere. They probably do as it's SOP for large organizations to have complete copies of all emails sent or received but you never know. I really doubt this but Socky McSockpuppet has done some questionable things in the past to get attention so that's always a possibility.

Posted by: memomachine at November 01, 2007 09:40 AM (3pvQO)

16 It's highly likely that Greenwald is telling the truth and that Boylan is lying. John, the problem with Greenwald on this one is not his facts (which is a nice change of pace), but his conclusions, which are quite stupid, the most blatant of which is that somehow the Army needs him to sort this out. What is it that you think Boylan's lie is? If he did write the original email and send it under his own name, why would he then say he didn't? Do you suppose he thought an egotistical hack like Gleen(s) wouldn't mention it?

Posted by: Pablo at November 01, 2007 10:16 AM (yTndK)

17 To answer your question, yes, I did contact Boylan, and he told me the same thing as he told Greenwald: the initial email wasn't from him. Take that claim for whatever you think it is worth. I never implied a hacker explanation, in the main post or the comments. A hacker would hack into the system, use Boylan's account, and send the email. I never stated or implied that occurred. In fact, I postulated that I thought the only way someone outside of the military could have sent this is if the message was spoofed--sent by someone not at all on the military's network, but able to fake the headers convincingly. This leaves us with two possiblities: either Boylan sent the original email, or someone at his base logged-on to his account and sent the email. I agree that, looking at the what we have for evidence, that it is most likely that Col. Boylan sent the original message and then disavowed it for reasons unknown. I'm puzzled as to why he would disavow the message. It was not political in nature, though certainly scathing. Of course, I'm puzzled as to why anyone would care enough about Greenwald to initiate a conversation with him in the first place. I'm sure we'll know which is correct soon enough. If Boylan sent it I wold imagine it would be easy to prove and I imagine he will be reassigned rather quickly, probably within a week. You can easily tell if that occurs becuase someone else would step into his role, which is not an unnoticable one. If however, someone else used his ID (the only other internal option I see), they may be able to prove or diprove that theory quickly as well. At his level, Boylan spends a lot of time in meetings. If the message was sent at a time he could be verified to be in a meeting with other officers or even off base, that would clear him rather quickly.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 01, 2007 10:25 AM (EPsu8)

18 John - Why don't you point out the innaccuracies and exaggerations in the e-mail that Boylan allegedly sent rather than just making a bald statement? Greenwald did a piss poor job of refuting it in his original response and has repeatedly mangled the facts of the Beauchamp matter. Lying, exaggeration and exaggeration are par for the course for Greenwald. Why don't you point out where you feel they exist in the offending e-mail that has Greenwald still hyperventilating?

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 11:15 AM (0pZel)

19 I wouldn't piss off Greenwald - he can field an army of millions of sock puppets with the stroke of a key.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 01, 2007 11:58 AM (XDffs)

20 That kid is an amateur who's just starting out in life, but you and others have put him through the meat grinder. False. We put the magazine TNR through the ringer and continue to do so due to their lying and covering-up lies. The story is no longer about Beauchamp, and has not been for months. Boylan is experienced and senior, and there is every indication that he is a liar. CY, this is an integrity test. Not just for Boylan, but for you. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Re-read CY's post. He very clearly stated in his original post, and in several follow-up comments to you, that he believes either Boylan wrote the email or that someone within the Army at his location wrote the email. He further stated that he believes that the Army is investigating and we will find out soon which is true. As to Boylan lying, the only lie would be if he indeed wrote the email that he disclaimed. The email itself contained no lies. And, despite your assertions otherwise, the email itslef did not violate any laws or Army regulations for him to have sent it. However, I do agree that if he sent it, the tone of it was not an appropriate email from a senior Army official, particularly a PAO. But, there is an enormous difference between feeling the tone was unprofessional and claiming Boylan did something illegal - which is what you are trying to imply. You also state that It's an open question as to whether the Army will investigate the matter to begin with, much less reveal the truth. Having been in the Army and conducted and/or advised investigating officers, I can tell you that the Army is much quicker to investigate iteslf and/or its people than any Democrat ever has been in regards to a liberal. Almost any claim of misconduct will be investigated ad naseum, regardless of how meritless the accusations are. So, have no fear, this will be investigated. In any case, you appear sane enough to notice that, if a liberal tells you the sun rises in the East, he's being truthful. We agree on what's really at issue here, which is that Boylan likely sent the e-mail. It's an open question as to whether the Army will investigate the matter to begin with, much less reveal the truth. This is amusing coming from the side of the aisle that still defends TNR, "fake but accurate" Dan Rathers, and numerous other obvious falsehoods. He is sworn to serve the United States, which includes all of us. As a PIO, it's part of his job to be reasoned, reasonable, accessible, articulate, and truthful. The tone of his e-mails is unacceptable. If he worked for a private company, he'd be fired for the tone of his comments. I'm glad you find the tone of his email unnacceptable. Would that leftist considered the tone of their "arguments" the same way and actually engaged in reasoned debate rather than "Bush Lied" or calling everyone a racist/bigot/homophobe/sexist, etc., etc., when they disagree with a policy. It is a very one-way street with leftists. They want to be treated with kid gloves but have no limits on their own vicious rhetoric. While I think the tone of his email (if Boylan did send it) was unprofessional, it does not bother me that much - and it is up to his superior officers to decide whether it is acceptable or not. Its too bad that the left is focusing on the "tone" of the email and not the fact that his comments in the email were correct with regards to Greenwald.

Posted by: Great Banana at November 01, 2007 12:03 PM (IDPbq)

21 bravo John! this "but Clinton did it too" defense has always sounded desperate.

Posted by: dan of steele at November 01, 2007 02:11 PM (zJwn0)

22 John - The gasbaggery about your family surely must be interesting to someone somewhere, but it doesn't get back to the issues you raised earlier - inaccuracies and exaggerations in the e-mail allegedly sent by Boylan. You raised the point. Please be specific in providing examples of the conduct you describe. Also you mention lying. Apart from the issue of the provenance of the e-mail, are there other lies that you have noted. Please be specific. Liberals are noted for that vagueness. Please be an exception.

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 02:42 PM (fObAs)

23 Ah yes, the old "the facts as I see them are..." conjecture argument. Who can argue with this logic? ...Your mother taught you well.

Posted by: everydayjoe at November 01, 2007 04:14 PM (/c1gr)

24 John - With the values that you claim your parents imparted on you and lessons learned in a long and storied business career, it would seem that you would be above flinging accusations about someone's character without having the willingness to back up your accusations or defend your position. That is exactly the cowardly behavior you have exhibited today. I doubt your father would be very proud or that the company you served as spokeperson for would have allowed you to get away with such behavior. He lied because I say he lied or he exaggerated and is innaccurate because I say so just don't cut it in the corporate world. Surely with your wealth of experience you can see that. I played in the same arena as you for a number of years and would have been cut off at the ankles had I tried the same bit of jackassery you have today on this thread. You made assertions. Back them up with specifics. I will grant you that provenance of the e-mail cannot be proved one way or the other at this point. I want to hear about innaccuracies and exaggerations, words for which you seem to have created strange definitions in the case of Beauchamp. Creating incidents out of whole cloth and passing them off as truth count for innaccuracy and exaggeration in your parlance for Beauchamp. I wonder how you define the words in the case of Boylan or the author of e-mail?

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 06:02 PM (0pZel)

25 It's not about whether he is correcting GG - Because of his position as PAO (now compromised) one could argue that Boylan is in violation of Article 133 (Or the person that sent/forged it) Article 133—Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman Text. “Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Elements. (1) That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and (2) That, under the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. Explanation. (1) Gentleman. As used in this article, “gentleman” includes both male and female commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen. (2) Nature of offense. Conduct violative of this article is action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer’s character as a gentleman, or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the person’s standing as an officer. There are certain moral attributes common to the ideal officer and the perfect gentleman, a lack of which is indicated by acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, indecorum, lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty. Not everyone is or can be expected to meet unrealistically high moral standards, but there is a limit of tolerance based on customs of the service and military necessity below which the personal standards of an officer, cadet, or midshipman cannot fall without seriously compromising the person’s standing as an officer, cadet, or midshipman or the person’s character as a gentleman. This article prohibits conduct by a commissioned officer, cadet or midshipman which, taking all the circumstances into consideration, is thus compromising. This article includes acts made punishable by any other article, provided these acts amount to conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Thus, a commissioned officer who steals property violates both this article and Article 121. Whenever the offense charged is the same as a specific offense set forth in this Manual, the elements of proof are the same as those set forth in the paragraph which treats that specific offense, with the additional requirement that the act or omission constitutes conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. (3) Examples of offenses. Instances of violation of this article include knowingly making a false official statement; dishonorable failure to pay a debt; cheating on an exam; opening and reading a letter of another without authority;

Posted by: Jim at November 01, 2007 06:26 PM (TZikN)

26 Just one point. It is not necessarily required to hack into the military email server in order to spoof an email header. Therefore, for all we know, it could have been our commenter John here who sent the email allegedly from Boylan. Something worth considering, no?

Posted by: C-C-G at November 01, 2007 07:17 PM (PGjzz)

27 Hello everyone, if we are to rightly call TNR to task for their defending of a story that is clearly a lie then we should be open to the same criticism if we defend someone who is clearly lying. There is no hacker, there is enough evidence that we can see Beachamp was a liar and Boylan is a liar. Beauchamp was a low in the military where as Boylan has a much higher rank and is a Public Affairs Officer. Defending Boylan when the evidence is clear is no more admirable then defending TNR, the reasoning some are reaching for on this blog is the same as TNR. Let's face it is a liar and should be drummed out of the military for his behaviour.

Posted by: RealityCheck at November 01, 2007 07:53 PM (j2vGP)

28 John, if I sound less than convinced of your analysis, it's only because I find it refreshingly unburdened by the weight of evidence. I happen to be a certified computer technician and have been since the days of the original 80386 machines. I know how easily one can spoof email headers, so I am not convinced that the emails came from Boylan simply because of the headers. You only accept the evidence because you have a pre-existing bias against the military which you cannot move past. I pity you for that.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 01, 2007 08:11 PM (PGjzz)

29 Boylan lied about the e-mail. I have been as succinct as I can be about that. On that point even CY agrees. Two things really tick me off. One of those is someone putting words in my mouth. The other one is someone what take a position of absolutes before all the evidence is in. I never said he lied about the email. I said it was most likely. I try not to pass judgment until the facts are in, and all we know for certain is that either the email was spoofed by someone highly competent, or more likely than not, it came from a pair of Army email servers in Iraq. You don't seem to grasp that while it is most likely that Boylan sent the email, that dozens or hundreds of others send email through those same email servers, which in turn are fed by an unknown number of desktop and laptop computers. We don't yet have enough information to know where it originated. But we do have a bit of data that could be nothing, or proof that someone other than Boylan sent the email message. I'm still working that. Perhaps you and the other Nifongs of this world should hold judgment until all the facts are in.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 01, 2007 08:24 PM (HcgFD)

30 CY, you don't understand. The Great Greenwald has declared Boylan guilty. Evidence, proof, data, all that is irrelevant to the determination of The Great Greenwald. Just like what happened when The Great Rather declared that the Texas Air National Guard memo was accurate, no?

Posted by: C-C-G at November 01, 2007 08:44 PM (PGjzz)

31 John - Your act is pathetic. The reflex patellar reaction of the left when someone says something negative about one of their Saints, Greenwald in this case, is to attack, regardless of the merits of the position. Your appeals to principled behavior should start with Greenwald and your friends, who all like to stick together, to use your turn of phrase, rather than the Army. Let's go back to earlier today: You Say - "Boylan is a public affairs officer, and a fairly senior officer in the military. He is sworn to serve the United States, which includes all of us. As a PIO, it's part of his job to be reasoned, reasonable, accessible, articulate, and truthful." That's your job description for him. When his integrity is directly impugned by dishonest bloggers such as Greenwald who have a track record of blatantly disregarding facts, misusing quotes and communicating with you as if they were bill collectors, does he not have a duty, as you point out in the job description, to correct the facts. You Say - "The tone of his e-mails is unacceptable. If he worked for a private company, he'd be fired for the tone of his comments." The tone was hilarious and deserved based on the tone of Greenwald's e-mails to him and Greenwald's blog postings about the politicization of the military. Boylan doesn't work for a private company. He works for the U.S. Army. Address any issues you have related to Glenn's wounded ego and hurt pride to his boss. You Say - "If (as seems likely) he has lied about this Greenwald incident, he not only failed at his PIO job but he's put a stain on the Army. I notice that you've been aggressive in the case of a young private who wrote an article that contained some inaccuracies and exaggerations." Greenwald put a stain on the entire senior leadership of the Army because of his BDS. Because the Army is trying to succeed in Iraq and he views it as Bush's war, he incorrectly views anyone talking about positive developments or avoiding potential negative developments as politicizing the war effort. That is an inherent danger when you become a hopeless idealogue such as Greenwald. Some innaccuracies and exaggerations you mention related to Beauchamp are really fabricating entire incidents from scratch and claiming they happened as described. Those are not the typical dictionary definitions of inaccuracies and exaggerations. You Say - "That kid is an amateur who's just starting out in life, but you and others have put him through the meat grinder." No one here except TNR has had any access to Beauchamp so your claim is a little hard to fathom. TNR didn't even acknowledge any contact with Beauchamp until more than a month after the fact. The Army dealt with Beauchamp through its own investigation. The right's interest, in my opinion since I cannot speak for others, is to have another dishonest liberal publication correct its smearing of the troops. You Say - "Boylan is experienced and senior, and there is every indication that he is a liar. CY, this is an integrity test. Not just for Boylan, but for you." Your fatuous statements here contradict the beginning of your comment from which this was extracted. Your moralizing is pretty hollow when all you are really annoyed about is one of your icons getting his nose bloodied. You still haven't addressed the issue whether there was anything incorrect about the content of the e-mail, only the tone. Too bad. Good Day, Sir!

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 10:08 PM (0pZel)

32 Heh... nice sign-off, Daley. Kinda reminiscent of one I've seen somewhere... but I honestly invite you to continue to use it.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 01, 2007 10:21 PM (PGjzz)

33 One of my favorite Greenwald quotes, culled from a comment he made one his own blog, 12/2/06 - essentially he'll do anything to take down the administration and not everyone is entitled to respect and civility - it explains a lot: There are some people who treat our conflicts with the Bush administration and their followers as just a matter of basic, friendly political and policy differences - along the lines of "what should the rate of capital gains tax be?" or "what type of laws can best encourage employers to provide more benefits to their employees" - and therefore, we treat people who support the administration with respect and civility and simply have nice, clean discussions to sort out our differences among well-intentioned people. That isn't how I see that, and nobody should come to this blog expecting that. I don't think I've done anything to lead anyone to expect otherwise. I see the Bush movement and its various component parts as a plague and a threat, as anything but well-intentioned. My goal, politically speaking, is to do what I can to undermine it and the institutions that have both supported and enabled it.

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 10:33 PM (0pZel)

34 Very good find, Daley. Of course, since the members of the Armed Forces vote overwhelmingly Republican, Greenwald is therefore determined to undermine the very people who defend the freedom of speech he uses so freely. Therefore, whenever Greenwald gets his hands on something that he thinks he can use as a bludgeon against the Armed Forces, he uses it to excess, having ridden the wave of his pre-existing bias straight to a conclusion without any thought being necessary. Now that he's found that he has stepped in the substance that he tried to smear Boylan with, he's spinning furiously to avoid having to admit that he was wrong, and rank-and-file lefties like John here are doing the same, for the same reason. That is, unless John is another of Glenn "Sock Puppet" Greenwald's sock puppets.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 01, 2007 10:43 PM (PGjzz)

35 John - Thanks for opinions John. At least you recognize some of the flaws of the left. I don't need somebody to write talking points for me to tell me what to believe. I don't fantasize about our constitution having been shredded by the evil Bush empire, wars for oil, wars for Halliburton, 9/11 being an inside job or many of the other strange conspiracy theories that seem to infect the left. I don't wake up filled with anger and rage the way many on the left admit they do every day. I wonder how dishonest people like yourself can look at themselves in the mirror, though. Good Day, Sir!

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 01, 2007 11:47 PM (0pZel)

36 John, you speak of True Believers, and that is appropriate, for you are one. You are clearly bent on dismissing all exculpatory evidence in favor of accepting, on faith, the word of The Great Greenwald. When you've studied computers as long as I have (my first PC was a Commodore Vic-20), perhaps you will comprehend why email headers are not accepted as evidence in any court of law that I am aware of. They're just too easily faked. I direct your attention to this article from Carnegie Mellon University, if you don't believe me. You may also wish to view this article which details specifically how to spoof an email header. But, of course, you being the True Believer that you are in The Great Greenwald, you will accept none of this purely non-partisan evidence in favor of your partisan True Believer conclusion. Good day, Sir. I said, Good Day!

Posted by: C-C-G at November 02, 2007 08:12 AM (PGjzz)

37 John, Your comments are a farce. You potray yourself as a tough, hard, brilliant worker who moved up the corporate ladder by his own sweat. You claim to be the only independent minded, clear thinker around. Yet, your comments are identical to any admitted leftist who comes here. You continue to defend TNR and Beauchamp, but want Boylan's head on a platter w/o even the courtesy of an investigation. Who do you think you are fooling? I was in the miltary, put myself through college and lawschool, went back into the military, and since then have worked my way up in my profession. My family was not rich, my parents were not political. I started out in life as a very, very liberal person, and over time (through experience and education) became more conservative). so, how does your bio make you somehow smarter or more able to think independently than mine? You may believe you are independent minded and weigh everything and make a logical decision, but your positions end up parroting the knee-jerk reactions of the left - why is that? Just because we disagree, does not mean that I have not thought through things and come to my own opinion, so constantly attacking people and claiming we are nothing but "bush-bots" - while you don't say it, you imply it - is hardly a new or persuasive argument. You have not made a logical or persausive argument here - you have merely called yourself smart and independent and called us dumb and followers, and think that somehow proves your point. You call the internet a wasteland and think that makes you smarter than everyone else here. Instead of relying on your belief that you are smarter and more independent than others, or that those you disagree with (conservativesj) are incapable of independent or logical thought, how about you try and make an argument? Why is it that leftists (which, despite your assertions, you conform to all the stereotypes) must always a) deny they are leftists and b) personnally attack the people they are debating with rather than debating a point? I think most people here have stated that Boylan probably wrote the email, but we will wait for the Army investigation and see what they do. Moreover, I think the consensous veiw on this site is that if Boylan wrote the email - the email itself was not a problem (i.e., not illegal or against army regs in any way - even if the tone was unprofessional), lying about sending the email may be a problem for Boylan. You have simply asserted that sending the email in the first instance is wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet, you have no credible arguments for why this is so aside from your own assertion. Point to a law or army regulation that Boylan violated. Next you argue that we should all be calling for Boylan's discipline, w/o even allowing an investigation to occur (while at the same time basically defending the lying of TNR and Beauchamp). That seems premature to me. you also state that Boylan told a direct, unambiguous lie. It's obvious. That's not acceptable. I'm not naive. I know that people play games, and I know that there are ambiguities and tough situations that can be read in more than one way. This wasn't one of them. Boylan lied, and liars have no business serving as colonels in the Army, and they certainly have no business dealing with journalists. If you honestly believed lying was such a huge sin, you would have a hard time ever voting for a liberal (and certainly could never support either Clinton). Moreover, why can't we hold journalists to the same standard of never lying? As to your assertion that admitting Boylan lied will somehow "destory our worldview", that is insane tripe. If Boylan lied, he lied. He will have to deal with whatever consequences the Army imposes - which I will be fine with. It will not affect my conservative world view one bit. You see, I happen to know that people are fallible, and that the messenger is not the messege. So, for instance, if a republican officeholder who votes against gay marriage gets outed as gay, I realize that such an event does not have any bearing on whether or not I believe allowing gay marriage is a good policy. It is leftists (liberal, progressive, whatever you want to call it) who believe that the personal is policy. Leftists seem to believe that because people don't live up to standards at all times, there should be no standards. That because people fail to act morally at all times, there should be no absolute morals. that is foolish in my opinion. We don't have standards and morals out of the belief that everyone lives up to them always, but out of belief that everyone should attempt to live up to them always, and that there should be consequences for not living up to them. Leftists see failures to achieve a standard or moral and say, scrap the whole system. Thus, whether Boylan is proven a liar or not is of no consequence to my world view. I have come to my world view through education, experience, reading, thinking and analyzing. I constantly alter my "world view" based on new facts and new arguments. Just because I don't alter my worldview in ways to suit you does not mean that I don't think rationally about such things, as you imply in every one of your comments. I don't, however, alter my worldview simply b/c some person has failed to live up to a standard somewhere in the world. If anything, such things tend to strengthen my worldview, as I realize that such failures demonstrate the need for such standards - otherwise there would be chaos. So, if you really are interested in a reasoned debate, drop your talking points about how you are so smart and independent and how we are so dumb and nothing more than bush-bots and try to make a reasoned argument based on facts, rather than assertions. then we can argue in good faith and try to persuade each other of the merits of our positions. Otherwise, you are simply blowing smoke . . .

Posted by: Great Banana at November 02, 2007 08:37 AM (JFj6P)

38 Great Banana, just one word: AMEN!

Posted by: C-C-G at November 02, 2007 08:50 AM (PGjzz)

39 C-C-G, The form of arguing used by the left, and being used here by John - is slowly driving me insane. I just don't understand how people can be so vested in an opinion when they are wholly unable to defend said opinion with a rational argument based on facts. I have come to realize that there truly seems to be a left/right difference in thinking (call it brain structure, brain chemistry, whatever). People on the left truly seem to believe that if they can demonstrate that the person making the argument is somehow deficient, then the argument is deficient. No matter how many times we point out that those are two separate things, they always go for the attack on the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. Which is why I believe for the left, personal is policy. Conservatives have always argued that people on the left make decisions with emotion rather than with logic. I am beginning to believe that more and more. I don't even think they purposefully do it, I think they honestly believe that attacking the person making the argument is the same thing as attacking the argument. I also think this explains why the left often seems much more passionate about their politics, and much more willing to engage in things like demonstrations and marches - their policy preferences are based on emotion, which is much more motivating to act than simply basing policy preferences on some form of rational argument. Which explains why conservatives and liberals are wholly unable to have good faith arguments. We are basically communicating in two different langauges. And, I am not trying to make a value judgment in this diatribe, there is a place for emotional decision making and a place for rational decision making in this world. I am simply coming to believe that there is a real cognative disconnect between liberals and conservatives and true communication is almost impossible.

Posted by: Great Banana at November 02, 2007 09:08 AM (JFj6P)

40 Hmmm. @ John Boylan told a direct, unambiguous lie. It's obvious. That's not acceptable. I'm not naive. Prove it. That's the problem you've got *and* we have. Nobody actually has any proof of any specific thing. And until somebody actually offers up some proof or other documentation, there really isn't anything that anybody can do about it. I.e. it's all just speculation. So if you're going to call Lt. Col. Boylan a liar then YOU need to provide absolute and unambiguous proof of it. And quite frankly I don't think you can because it's simply not available.

Posted by: memomachine at November 02, 2007 01:26 PM (3pvQO)

41 Hmmmm. The things people need to understand are pretty basic. 1. All communications using the internet use ASCII. This is because early on the only computers that communicated on the internet used ASCII. 2. All communications using the internet use TEXT. This is because the programs that initially were developed to use the internet were designed to be used from a command line, on a text only terminal using telnet. 3. The web browser you are using to read this communicated using TEXT. Plain text. The reason is that, again, the internet was built primarily on text based software, it's easier to debug and track and in a pinch you can use telnet to accomplish anything as long as you've got the knowledge and are willing to suffer doing so.

Posted by: memomachine at November 02, 2007 02:02 PM (3pvQO)

42 Hmmm. An example: http://www.xoc.net/works/tips/telnet.asp If you follow the directions exactly you'll see: GET / HTTP/1.1 host: www.microsoft.com HTTP/1.1 302 Found Cache-Control: private Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Location: /en/us/default.aspx Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.0 X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727 P3P: CP="ALL IND DSP COR ADM CONo CUR CUSo IVAo IVDo PSA PSD TAI TELo OUR SAMo C NT COM INT NAV ONL PHY PRE PUR UNI" X-Powered-By: ASP.NET Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:04:57 GMT Content-Length: 136 <html><head><title>Object moved</title></head><body> <h2>Object moved to <a href="/en/us/default.aspx">here</a>.</h2> </body></html> ---- As you can see. It's all text.

Posted by: memomachine at November 02, 2007 02:06 PM (3pvQO)

43 Hmmm. @ Great Banana I am simply coming to believe that there is a real cognative disconnect between liberals and conservatives and true communication is almost impossible. *shrug* I've said for years now that: Liberals think conservatives are evil, Conservatives think liberals are crazy. Strange. But true.

Posted by: memomachine at November 02, 2007 02:08 PM (3pvQO)

44 Banana, it is true that lefties do not use logic, for one simple reason. If they examined the position of the modern left logically, they'd be forced into conservatism. How else do lefties justify opposing a war that has liberated millions of people from a brutal dictator, while loudly proclaiming their concern for human rights? It only makes sense if you don't let logic within 100 miles of it. Therefore, lefties cannot, truly cannot use logic, so they resort to the only other kind of arguing they know, which they learned on the elementary school playground and have never forgotten.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 02, 2007 06:53 PM (PGjzz)

45 This leaves us with two possiblities: either Boylan sent the original email, or someone at his base logged-on to his account and sent the email. There is actually a third possibility. GG has received mail from Boylan in the past, so he has an example of what servers are used. Using the prior message as a template, the current message could have been created out of whole cloth. Good Day.

Posted by: Loren at November 05, 2007 02:54 PM (sIRhH)

46 Indeed, Loren... and given Mr. Greenwald's known sock-puppeting activities, it doesn't seem that big a stretch for him to do so, does it?

Posted by: C-C-G at November 05, 2007 08:06 PM (PGjzz)

47 Greenwald vehemently denies any involvement, direct or indirect in manufacture of the disputed e-mail. While ny bias runs toward doubting the person formerly caught out in similar mischief, however, a person who frets a lot about being treated with the proper dignity a person of his caliber deserves, it does occur to me that Greenwald is not the only person who could have a grudge against Greenwald or Boylan, or might indulge a misguided attempt to gain sympathy or express the views of either. For example a disgruntled Beau"champion" , or a mischievous Cabana boy who feels Boylan has used his friend rather ill, has staged the drama. Anyone who has received email from Boylan could spoof his header information. if skilled enough. Some might have access to insert a spook straight onto the Salon servers. The original email was innocuous enough, neither was it entirely unsolicited, in that it was a response to Greenwald public statements. The author purported to be speaking in his capacity as a private person, not in official capacity. It had a critical and "woodshed lecture" tone, but the worst insult it contained was a comparison of Glenn to the talents of Alan Colmes. So, I don't know why Boylan wouldn't own it. Friends of Glenn suggest Boylan wrote it in a fit of vodka-thirty and regrets it, and/or enjoys toying with the likes of Greenwald. But I tend to take Boylan at his word. He didn't write it, and his emails to Glenn, while taciturn, are consistent with someone who wonders if the mail bears hallmarks of a fake...as others have faked being him in the past.. ( "Interesting email, why do you ask"...etc) Glenn is unsatisfied by this response, but seems clueless as to how impertinent his follow-up questions actually were, decribing himself as "civil" and "proffesional". I see little attempt at evasion by or failure of Boylan to adequately explain anything, as nothing more was owed but a denial of authorship.

Posted by: SarahW at November 06, 2007 09:49 AM (wF/xI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Michael Yon has his latest dispatch posted, blasting the current state of media affairs: Resistance is futile: You will be (mis)informed.

He begins:

No thinking person would look at last year’s weather reports to judge whether it will rain today, yet we do something similar with Iraq news. The situation in Iraq has drastically changed, but the inertia of bad news leaves many convinced that the mission has failed beyond recovery, that all Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, or are waiting for us to leave so they can crush their neighbors. This view allows our soldiers two possible roles: either “victim caught in the crossfire” or “referee between warring parties.” Neither, rightly, is tolerable to the American or British public.

He does, however, have in mind a solution:

Clearly, a majority of Americans believe the current set of outdated fallacies passed around mainstream media like watered down drinks at happy hour. Why wouldn't they? The cloned copy they get comes from the same sources that list the specials at the local grocery store, and the hours and locations of polling places for town elections. These same news sources print obituaries and birth announcements, give play-by-play for local high school sports, and chronicle all the painful details of the latest celebrity to fall from grace.

To illustrate the absurdity to which this conceit of the collective has grown, I'm tempted to borrow from the boy in the fairy tale, only this time pointing to and shouting at the doomsday-sayers parading by: "Hey, they arenÂ’t wearing any clothes. . . . " Except in this case, I realize I am not a lone voice. Furthermore, with the help of other clear-eyed individuals, I may actually be in a unique position to do something to remedy this, if the experience I had with the AP response to my challenge to investigate and report on the disturbing gravesites in the Al Hamira village is any guide.

Although I can't answer to the cause of the problem, I humbly offer permission to media outlets to republish excerpts of the dispatch or the dispatch in its entirety, including my photographs from the story (if used as they are in the dispatch) at no cost during the month of July 2007. I only ask that the site receive proper attribution and that any publication taking me up on the offer email the website with the details.

That offer was dying on the vine until Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee took the Associated Press to task for their bungled reportage of a different mass graves news story, using my dispatch as a comparison. Although it took a little back and forth, and some additional pressure from all the other bloggers who started tracking on the topic, the AP finally dispatched a reporter to the scene. The resulting article was picked up by at least one other major media outlet, reaching thousands more people. This got me to thinking: what if I made a similar offer on a more permanent basis to a large media syndication, say, the National Newspaper Association?

And so Yon is going to syndicate his text and images, for free to get real, frontline stories of the war to the American people, doing the job that Americans the Manhattan and Washington, DC-based professional media won't do.

But it will take your help to make sure that your local paper newspapers take advantage of the offer.

Those readers can first check to see if their local paper is a member of the NNA . Because only NNA members will be able to

" . . . print excerpts of Michael Yon's dispatches, including up to two of his photographs from each dispatch. Online excerpts may use up to 8 paragraphs, use 1-3 photos, and then link back to the full dispatch on his site saying 'To continue reading, click here.'"

If their local paper is a member of NNA, readers can contact the editor, urging their participation. [If Bob Owens' experience is a reliable indicator, this might take several, uh, prompts.] By encouraging their local daily or weekly newspapers to reprint these dispatches in their print editions, more people without internet access can begin to see a more accurate reflection of the progress I have observed and chronicled in dispatches like "Achievements of the Heart," "7 Rules: 1 Oath," "The Hands of God," and "Three Marks on the Horizon."

In addition to making his work available to your local papers through the NAA, Yon is rebuilding his web site, and having it translated into a total of 17 languages, so that though people in nations where English isn't their primary language can get information from a source a bit less biased than Reuters, AP, AFP, or their state-run media.

None of this, of course, comes without a price. Click on over, and see what you can do to help fight the media war.

We can gripe about how poor and deceptive the media coverage in Iraq is, or we can do something about it. The choice is yours.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:19 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 843 words, total size 6 kb.

Naomi Wolf has her latest pre-packaged "Bush is going to overthrow the Constitution and install himself as dictator with the help of Blackwater" stem-winder posted on the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington's menagerie of Who's Who in the DSM IV.

Wolf, true American patriot that she is, is criss-crossing these United States in a desperate bid to roll back the forces of Halliburton and the Illuminati, no doubt speaking with the same great oratory and care with the facts that we've come to expect from the Empress of Earth Tones.

She has all the answers to save this great nation from the plague of Bush, and writes with a truthfulness and accuracy that we haven't seen in over seven years... which can be your's for just $11.16 (You save $2.79).

Clearly, freedom comes with a price, but it wasn't until now that I realized it also comes with FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.

"But wait, there's more!"

But what if she's wrong? What if--God forbid--she's profiteering from fears of overthrown liberty that may never be?

And therein lies the question, and well-deserved suspicion.

Is Naomi Wolf truly convinced that we have a grave constitutional crisis on our hands, that America about to succumb to dictatorial forces, and that only a book tour can save us? Or is Wolf cynically using the fears of the paranoid fringe to make a profit, filling her own coffers as a digital revivalist charlatan, ministering to those with more money than sense?

We could find out rather easily, I should think.

If Wolf truly believes what she writes, then she must believe that George W. Bush (the head of the American Nazi party she constantly alludes to, but never specifically names) will attempt to overthrow the country and establish himself a Hitleresque dictatorial figure by January 20, 2009, the day the next President of the United States is sworn into office (it would be kind of hard to do it after a new President is installed, after all).

If Wolf is sincere, she and others like her will no doubt be rounded up and shipped off to internment camps run by Michelle Malkin shortly after that date, soon to be fired in massive ovens run by a cigar-chomping Rush Limbaugh. No money she has saved, and none of her earthly possessions will mean a thing to her as her ashes waft in the breeze.

BUT...

What if Wolf is just peddling fear for profit? Shouldn't she be held accountable?

And so a modest challenge that an honest Wolf can easily meet.

If Wolf is honest and sincere about what she writes and the overwhelming majority of the United States continues to ignore her as a kook as they do now, then she'll be too dead to enjoy the money she's made selling her book to the lunatic convergence of Ron Paul supporters, truthers, and Indymedia conspiracy theorists.

"Now how much would you pay?"

But if she's merely been profiteering from fear, as I suspect she has been, then it only seems fair she should pay a price for her deception. Being the magnanimous person that I am and a capitalist, I won't ask her to return a dime to the suckers she's conned.

They, you see, need to be taught a lesson, too.

No, I propose a simple, cost-free solution: a promise from Wolf that if her fear-mongering goes for naught and the next President is sworn into office on January 20, 2009 without a coup d'état, that she will never write again in her current paranoia-outlet-of-choice, The Huffington Post.

The terms should be simple to enforce: if Wolf is right, Arianna Huffington will be rediscovering her conservative roots and swinging The Huffington Post to the right of David Horowitz's FrontPage Mag and will no longer in need of Wolf's services, and if Wolf is wrong and President Bush and his imaginary brownshirts shuffle off to Crawford, then the beautiful Ms. Huffington will still be mistress of her own quite successful domain, if a bit editorially top-heavy on end-of-the-republic-as-we-know-it conspiracy theorists, and needing to cut weight.

It's a simple challenge, really: Naomi Wolf should put her soapbox where her mouth is.

Somehow, though, I doubt she's up to even that mild challenge.

It might cut into her chances to market her next book, How President ________ Is Carving Up America's Soul With a Ginsu Knife.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:10 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 740 words, total size 5 kb.

Collegescholarship.org has a $10,000 scholarship for bloggers that are also full-time students. There are 20 finalists, and for whatever odd reason, they've decided to let voters decide who should win.

Frankly, I don't know 19 of them and they may very well be nice people, but the 20th I do know, and I think that he deserves your vote. His name is Matthew Burden, but you'd probably more familiar with him if I simply called him Blackfive.

So, like, go vote.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:35 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

The nomination process for the 2007 Weblog Awards is now open in 49 categories until October 15.

Go on over and nominate your favorites after reading the nomination FAQ.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Desperate to salvage a defeat in Iraq before progress becomes too obvious for the professional media to contain, some leftists have decided on last ditch effort via direct action.

Due to the projected shortage in wait staff, those of you in college towns should plan to "dine in" on October 17.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:48 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Is this attack on one liberal journalism professor by another liberal journalism professor in a left-coast liberal newspaper missing anything?

Off the top of my head, I'd say there is an almost purposeful lack of the important contributions to original reporting from center-right blogs.

Oh, I'm sure that there is a market for those who care about an over-priced chocolatier's deceptive marketing practices, but I'm quite convinced that Rathergate, the CBS/Sixty Minutes scandal that saw Mary Mapes and Dan Rather discredited while trying to run a pre-election hit piece on President Bush using fake documents, was far more important. Driving that scandal were "buckhead" on Free Republic, Powerline with their "The Sixty-First Minute" and Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs, who showed that forged documents were created on the only version of Microsoft Word running in 1973. Rosen, instead of giving credit to the conservative bloggers that blew this story wide open, instead links to a non-blog web site.

Rather disingenuous, if you ask me.

Charles Johnson was also a lead blogger in the "fauxtography" scandals emanating from last summer's Israeli-Hezbollah war, catching Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj photoshopping a picture of combat. Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report discovered another Hajj photograph where the photographer cloned elements and duplicated them. Reuters subsequently pulled more than 900 photos as a result. Literally dozens of other photos were scoured by conservative bloggers and shown to be staged and/or staged managed by HezbollahÂ’s media minders.

This raft of stories also doesn't make it on Rosen's radar, which seems to only scan left.

Ed Morrissey's coverage of "Adscam" revealed corruption that was credited as a key factor in sending the Liberal Party of Canada down to defeat in national elections.

There is also the current, on-going meltdown with Scott Beauchamp and The New Republic, exposed and led by center-right bloggers beginning with Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard.

I've also had a busy couple of months myself, debunking a pair of wire service reported massacres that never occurred, revealing the hidden experts behind a ethically-bankrupt magazine's rigged investigation, embarrassing the world's oldest wire service into changing their photo attribution policies, and conclusively debunking a poorly-research Associated Press group report that sought to blame law enforcement ammunition shortages on current overseas conflicts.

One might think that most readers would find these right-generated stories marginally more interesting than an open-source software lawsuit details and chocolate exaggerations, but then, perhaps that is my bias.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:18 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 4 kb.

I think that the phrase borrowed from commenter at Riehl Word View quite accurately reflects a growing "conventional wisdom" among a peculiar group of bloggers that military and conservative bloggers attempted to claim that "Scott Thomas" didn't actually exist.

"Scott Thomas," of course, was the pseudonym chosen by U.S. Army PV-2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp when he posted a series of three dispatches in the magazine The New Republic.

The most recent post, "Shock Troops," (subscription required) became the focus of Michael Goldfarb on July 18 because of some very strong claims of various kinds of abuse alleged by "Scott Thomas" of himself and other soldiers. These claims are now the subject of investigations by the U.S. Army (real) and the magazine that carried the claims, The New Republic (which critics have dismissed as an attempt at face-saving and job-keeping by the editors, and little more).

Soon afterward, Beauchamp's previous post, "Dead of Night" came under scrutiny, and two claims he made there were conclusively debunked.

Military bloggers began zeroing in on the identity of "Scott Thomas" within days— Marine turned documentary filmmaker JD Johannes had his unit narrowed to the 1-18 Infantry by the following Saturday—forcing Thomas into a position where he felt the need to reveal himself days later.

On the afternoon Beauchamp came forward on July 26, severel prominent bloggers began to compose a narrative every bit as fictional as that of Beauchamp himself, and apparently, for equally dishonorable reasons.

On that afternoon in The Washington Monthly, Kevin Drum seems to have manufactured the controversy:

Conservative sites went crazy. Thomas didn't really exist. His stories were made up. The left hates the troops. Etc. etc.

At Sadly No!, Gavin M. claimed:

1) WingNet accuses soldier/journalist of being an impostor.

2) WingNet proven wrong.

At alicubog:

ATTENTION COMRADES! Previous meme "Scott Thomas does not exist" is no longer operative. Please to substitute "Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a bad man" or "Scott Thomas Beauchamp is Oliver Stone" or "Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a semiotic construct" or "We'll get Scott Thomas Beauchamp fired" or whatever damn thing you can think of.

By the next day, Americablog had latched onto this creative fiction as well:

Of course, the right wing blogosphere went nuts, accusing TNR of fabricating a soldier and lying about his experiences. There were repeated attempts to prove that Scott Thomas was a fake.

Even yesterday, at Mercury Rising yesterday, a blogger wrote:

Of course, once they found out about it, all of the Usual Suspects in the conservative’s mighty Wurlitzer - Malkin, Powerline, the whole schmear - set out to prove that “Scott Thomas” didn’t exist and that this was all just liberal lies to smear the armed forces and turn the country against the war. They went berzerk proving to themselves through “semiotic analysis” and other such crapola that this whole thing was just made-up liberal media lies.

And so it is that "this whole thing"—the claim that conservative bloggers said Thomas didn’t exist or wasn’t a soldier—comes squarely back onto the shoulders of liberal bloggers who created the meme themselves.

When pressed to provide a specific quote from any conservative blog stating that Scott Thomas didnÂ’t really exist, was fabricated, or was an imposter, these and other liberal bloggers have utterly failed to do so.

Why they failed should now be obvious: they made up these claims themselves.

Update: A bit dog barks. Gavin M. at Sadly No! (cited above for claiming "WingNet accuses soldier/journalist of being an impostor") tries to support liberal bloggers' charges that conservative bloggers said Beauchamp didnÂ’t exist, was fabricated, or was an impostor.

How does he mount his brilliant defense?

He cites devastating examples, such as Bryan at Hot Air using scare quotes around the word soldier... Twice. He also highlights a truism observed by Bryan in that post that anyone in the military would be able to tell the difference between a fellow soldier's uniform and that of a civilian contractor.

A great defense mounted so far, but wait, there's more!

Gavin M. blasts Charles at LGF for using the phrase, "purported to be written by a soldier." Charles used the "P" word to describe someone hiding behind a pseudonym? Why, that's the exact same thing as directly calling him an impostor, isn't it folks?

And yet Gavin presumably has a day job that doesn't involve balloon animals.

But hang on, he has more evidence... Ace of Spades also used the damning scare quotes... twice. Gavin's a regular Perry Mason, isn't he?

And the killing blow... before Beauchamp came out, Michelle Malkin, vile, prevaricating Malkin, addressed the liberal blogosphere's greatest unknown soldier as--and watch out for the scare quotes--as "alleged."

Purported and alleged, two bread-and-butter words in any journalist's quiver for when the facts are hazy in the least, have--according to Gavin--become the same as calling him an impostor. Using scare quotes in the same manner is morphed by Gavin into a declarative emphatically stating that he doesn't exist.

That's his case. Really.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:06 PM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 838 words, total size 8 kb.

Christiana Hendrix, wife of Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury, died this weekend in a motorcycle accident. Mike, you and your family have my sincere condolences and prayers in this most tragic of times.

1 I lift up my eyes to the hills—

where does my help come from?

2 My help comes from the LORD,
the Maker of heaven and earth.

3 He will not let your foot slip—
he who watches over you will not slumber;

4 indeed, he who watches over Israel
will neither slumber nor sleep.

5 The LORD watches over you—
the LORD is your shade at your right hand;

6 the sun will not harm you by day,
nor the moon by night.

7 The LORD will keep you from all harm—
he will watch over your life;

8 the LORD will watch over your coming and going
both now and forevermore.

--Psalm 121: 1-8.

As Glenn notes, "Words are completely inadequate in these situations, but they're also essential."

Please stop by and offer your condolences for the loss Mike and Christiana's family is experiencing, and if you are a religious person, consider offering up a prayer for those who remain behind.

Update: Jeff Goldstein's grandmother passed away today as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

There exists a well-known parable spoken by Jesus in the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, that uses the example of foolish builders who build houses on the sand, only to watch those houses wash away in the flood because it had weak foundations.

Writing today at The Moderate Voice, Jeb Koogler builds his house upon the sand of noted sockpuppet Glenn Greenwald, questioning the role of al Qaeda in Iraq:

About two weeks, Glenn Greenwald wrote a widely-cited post that questioned the oft-stated notion of a strong al-Qaeda role in the Iraqi insurgency.

That the Bush administration, and specifically its military commanders, decided to begin using the term “Al Qaeda” to designate “anyone and everyeone we fight against or kill in Iraq” is obvious. All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as “Al Qaeda.”

Greenwald goes on to point out that such statements are misleading, given that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that al-QaedaÂ’s role in Iraq is quite small. Indeed, most studies have found that, rather than a large presence of foreign al-Qaeda fighters, the Iraqi insurgency is largely made up of disaffected Sunnis, Saddam loyalists, and ex-Baathists.

The problem with building his post upon Greenwald's theory is that Greenwald's claim is demonstrably false; a simple review of the MNF-I web site's press releases, feature stories, and daily stories shows conclusively that the military only cites al Qaeda as an actor in a clear minority of cases, typically less than a third of the time, even as surge operations are heavily targeting al Qaeda cells as part of Operation Phantom Thunder.

Perhaps in the future, Koogler should base his posts on a more solid factual foundation and go directly to the source (MNF-I) instead of repeating the already discredited claims of a known partisan dissembler such as Greenwald.

The only think more dangerous than building one's house upon a foundation of sand is building that same house on a foundation of sockpuppets.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:16 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 3 kb.

Drudge is alarmed over a picture on Rosie O'Donnell's blog that apparently shows her daughter in some sort of military fatigues, festooned with a a bandoleer of small caliber ammunition.

Presumably, this is some sort of anti-war protest on the part of O'Donnell, but she seems unable to write anything more coherent than the headline, "A picture says a thousands posts."

Considering her storied track record of being unable to write complete sentences or even complete words (the Big Ro seems to think the blogosphere charges by the letter, like some demented form of text messaging), I suppose this could be considered at least a grammatical improvement.

But what, precisely, is the message is she trying to send?

Based upon the reaction of her readers, it seems to be either "I'm willing to pimp my child for a cheap political stunt," or, "I'm so nutty, even my own demented fans are disturbed over how I'd use my child."

Whatever her point, few seem to understand it, and I wonder if that cluelessness extends to O'Donnell herself.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:21 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Undaunted by the facts, Glenn Greenwald attempts to shore up his demonstrably false claim that, "...the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as 'Al Qaeda.'" with an update to his already debunked post:

Posts from other bloggers who previously noticed this same trend demonstrate how calculated it is and pinpoint its obvious genesis. At Kos, BarbInMD noted back in May that Bush's rhetoric on Iraq had palpably shifted, as he began declaring that "Al-Qaida is public enemy No. 1 in Iraq." The same day, she noted that Bush "mentioned Al-Qaida no less than 27 times" in his Iraq speech. As always, a theme travels unmolested from Bush's mouth into the unexamined premises of our newspapers' front pages.

Separately, Ghillie notes in comments that the very politically cognizant Gen. Petraeus has been quite noticeably emphasizing "the battle against Al Qaeda" in interviews for months. And yesterday, ProfMarcus analyzed the top Reuters article concerning American action in Iraq -- headline: "Al Qaeda fight to death in Iraq bastion: U.S" -- and noted that "al qaeda is mentioned 13 times in a 614 word story" and that "reading the article, you would think that al qaeda is not only everywhere in iraq but is also behind all the insurgent activity that's going on."

Interestingly, in addition to the one quoted above, there is another long article in the Post today, this one by the reliable Thomas Ricks, which extensively analyzes the objectives and shortcomings in our current military strategy. Ricks himself strategy never once mentions Al Qaeda.

Finally, the lead story of the NYT today -- in its first two paragraphs -- quotes Gen. Odierno as claiming that the 2004 battle of Falluja was aimed at capturing "top Qaeda leaders in the city." But Michael Gordon himself, back in 2004, published a lengthy and detailed article about the Falluja situation and never once mentioned or even alluded to "Al Qaeda," writing only about the Iraqi Sunni insurgents in that city who were hostile to our occupation (h/t John Manning). The propagandistic transformation of "insurgents" into "Al Qaeda," then, applies not only to our current predicament but also to past battles as well, as a tool of rank revisionism (hence, it is now officially "The Glorious 2004 Battle against Al-Qaeda in Falluja").

You'll note that Greenwald's supporting "evidence" for his comes in the form of links to liberal blogs, letters to Salon.com, selected articles from the Washington Post, and the New York Times, and yet, he completely fails to address the fact that Multi-National Corps-Iraq's own press releases debunk his claims on a daily basis.

Sadly, like a dog returning to re-ingest its own vomit, Greenwald cannot get enough of his own rotting bile. Greenwald continues to insist that there is a conspiracy by the government, the world media, and the U.S. military to turn all enemy forces in Iraq into al Qaeda, and stands by his claim that:

...every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as "Al Qaeda."

Again, this daft claim is hardly supported by the facts, and is easily refuted by the military's own primary means of information dissemination about the War in Iraq, the MNF-I PAO press release system.

Today, Monday, June 25, MNF-I has 13 listed press releases. Of those, one is a duplicate post, while the remaining 12 press releases break down enemy activity in Iraq for the day as follows:

• four releases discussing Sunni insurgent activity;
• one release discussing Shia militia "Secret Cells;"
• four where a specific group enemy group is not named;
• ...and only two where Al Qaeda is mentioned.

Far from making the enemy "almost exclusively" al Qaeda, MNF-I PAO's releases for the day link less than 17% of their stories to al Qaeda activity.

Greenwald ignores the key source that would prove or disprove his "all of our enemy's are being labelled al Qaeda" meme, which are the archives of press releases, of press briefings, Pentagon briefings, daily news, and feature stories from the U.S. military, which make it clear that al Qaeda is not the only extremist group being fought by Coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq.

Instead, he bumbles forward, doggedly bucking reality, insisting upon some grand conspiracy being orchestrated by the White House, international news services, the American press, and the United States military to repaint all extremist activity in Iraq as being orchestrated by al Qaeda.

As the links above clearly show, Multi-National Corps-Iraq is failing to uphold their end of this alleged conspiracy by consistently citing other extremists groups in their daily press releases and news stories.

Whoever is in charge of this grand conspiracy (perhaps the Freemasons? Maybe the Illuminati? Yale's secretive Skull & Bones Society? Boy Scout Troop 111 in Arlington, Virginia?) should also castigate the media, as they are failing to insist that everything in Iraq is "all al Qaeda, all the time," including this story in the Boston Globe where a suicide bomber targeting Sunni tribal sheiks aligned against al Qaeda was the perfect opportunity to flog this claim, if such a conspiracy was indeed "on." Sadly, the media is failing to uphold their end of the bargain.

Glenn Greenwald seems doggedly intent on descending into his own brand of "trutherism" regarding a grand government, media and military conspiracy to re-brand the Iraq War.

In doing so, he may finally get the notoriety he so desperately craves, if not for the reasons he'd hoped.

Update: I hardly find it surprising that the empty heads at Editor & Publisher lap up Greenwald's bile, with nary a thought to whether or not it's true.

Considering that E&P editor Greg Mitchell has his own track record of manufacturing news and indeed, wrote a post advocating that the media should attempt to undermine the Presidency, I'm not exactly shocked they'd grasp at any straw they could to support their nakedly partisan political objectives.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:36 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1003 words, total size 8 kb.

Glenn Wilson McEllensburg has suddenly become a terrorism expert, and can't wait to get a conspiracy off his chest:

Josh Marshall publishes an e-mail from a reader who identifies what is one of the most astonishing instances of mindless, pro-government "reporting" yet:

It's a curious thing that, over the past 10 - 12 days, the news from Iraq refers to the combatants there as "al-Qaida" fighters. When did that happen?

Until a few days ago, the combatants in Iraq were "insurgents" or they were referred to as "Sunni" or "Shia'a" fighters in the Iraq Civil War. Suddenly, without evidence, without proof, without any semblance of fact, the US military command is referring to these combatants as "al-Qaida".

Welcome to the latest in Iraq propaganda.

That the Bush administration, and specifically its military commanders, decided to begin using the term "Al Qaeda" to designate "anyone and everyeone we fight against or kill in Iraq" is obvious. All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as "Al Qaeda."

Actually, that isn't obvious, Glenn. What is obvious is your own industrial-strength ignorance, which apparently seems to be quite contagious among the more irrational actors of the far left.

The reason that we've been reading more over the past few days about attacks directed against al Qaeda—more than Sunni insurgents, more than Shia militiamen—is that elements of al Qaeda have been specifically targeted by U.S. and Iraqi forces in Operation Arrowhead Ripper in Diyala Province, in Operation Commando Eagle southwest of Baghdad, Operation Marne Torch southeast of Baghdad, and in other operations throughout the country.

If Glen Greenwald or Josh Marshall weren't above a Sullivaneque "floating of a theory" by a conspiracy-minded reader (to excuse their own inherent distrust of our military, of course), they might have bothered to recognize, or God forbid, research a few key facts.

The first of those facts is that we are in offensive operations surrounding and targeting al Qaeda cells specifically, often with information provided by their former allies in the Sunni insurgency.

Second, the military is consistently releasing stories about contacts with both Sunni insurgents and Shia militiamen, and our military is calling them such as they contact them.

Let's got back "10-12 days" and see what Multi-National Force-Iraq has been saying in their press releases. According to Greenwald, the enemy the military talks about is "almost exclusively now" al Qaeda.

And yet, when we go back 12 days to Monday, June 11, we find that in MNF-I's three combat-related press releases, only one addresses al Qaeda. The following day, U.S. forces raided an insurgent weapons cache, came under attack from an insurgent VBIED, and engaged "enemy fire" coming from a mosque, without ever specifying who that was.

On Wednesday, June 13, MNF-I published 17 press releases. Of those a Grand total of four mentioned al Qaeda. Five others mentioned Sunni insurgents, five more couldn't specify the attacker, and one wrote about Iranian-affiliated Shia militias.

I invite Greenwald, Marshall, and others who seem to like this meme to do their own digging through MNF-I's archive of press releases, where they'll find more days very similar to this.

As the offensive operations cited above--part of an overall operation called Phantom Thunder--are specifically targeting al Qaeda cells, we will be reading about those terrorists that our soldiers are directly targeting. But as accounts from Saturday show that we are still encountering Shia militias and Sunni insurgents even today, the theory being aired by Greenwald and his conspiracy-minded followers is shown—with only passing research—to be complete and utter bunk.

Update: Undaunted by the facts, Greenwald attempts to shore up his flimsy argument by citing other liberal conspiracy theorists and letters to Salon.com, forcing yet another debunking of his claims.

Reality. He should check into it sometime.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:11 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 656 words, total size 5 kb.

The six-month contract I was hired into in 2005 is finally closing at the end of this month after three extensions, and a few folks have suggested that I should investigate attempting to find a new media journalism gig, either here in the Raleigh area, or one from which I could telecommute.

I know via Sitemeter that a few media outfits check in on this site on occasion, so I'm wondering...

Any takers?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:01 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

At Daily Kos, "BarbinMD" went to bat this afternoon for an embattled Harry Reid:

Since its inception a few short months ago, Politico, the online soul-mate to the Drudge Report, has gotten into the habit of creating news stories through innuendo, omission, outright error, and now today, out of thin air.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "incompetent" during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported.

Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said several sources familiar with the interview.

Of course the reason this comment was never reported is quite simple: the bloggers on the call don't remember this quote. I, along with mcjoan and Kagro X, participated in that conference call and none of us heard Reid say it. And of the four other bloggers who were there, Joe and John from AMERICAblog and Jonathon Singer, have no recollection of it.

Please make note: according to this Kos frontpager, she and two other prominent Daily Kos bloggers never heard Harry Reid call General Pace "incompetent," and of the other four bloggers on the call, the two representing Americablog, and one from MyDD, didn't recall anything, either. "Ain't nobody heard nothin,'" as it were, from six of the seven highly respected liberal bloggers on the conference call with the Democrat Senate Majority Leader. But don't question their integrity.

The last man standing, Bob Geiger, recalled things a bit differently, but still attempted a fanboy's "I don't think that word means what you think it means" defense of Reid:

Here's exactly what Reid said:

"I guess the president, uh, he's gotten rid of Pace because he could not get him confirmed here in the SenateÂ… Pace is also a yes-man for the president and I told him to his face, I laid it out to him last time he came to see me, I told him what an incompetent man I thought he was."

So, did Reid utter the word "incompetent" in the same sentence with General Pace's name on the conference call? Yes, he did.

Geiger then went on to make a pathetic attempt to wrangle Reid's mangled syntax into an attack on President Bush instead of Pace.

The seven liberal bloggers on the conference call with Harry Reid either suffered from a convenient form of group amnesia, or from the inability to honestly parse the English language, but perhaps what was important from their perspective is that they rallied together for Harry with strongly-worded claims of "I can't recall," and "I don't remember," and "It depends on what the definition of the word 'is,' is."

But sometimes irony and justice come hand in hand, and Harry Reid soon did to these radical anti-war bloggers what they are collectively trying to do to the American military and the Iraqi people: he cut and ran:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed Thursday that he told liberal bloggers last week that he thinks outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace is "incompetent."

Reid also disparaged Army Gen. David Petraeus, head of Multinational Forces in Iraq.

But Reid, whose comments to bloggers first appeared in The Politico, also told reporters: "I think we should just drop it."

For the Selective Memory-Based Community, Reid's betrayal must have been awful.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:49 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 4 kb.

Many of us have heard the term "spearchucker" used as a racial slur against African-Americans, so when I saw via Memeorandum that Fox News anchor Brit Hume used the term, my immediate reaction was to cringe.

The context:

Hume: …he had a mixed record in the Senate and he's a man who always seems somewhat frustrated and bored by the Senate...I particularly remember an investigation that occurred after the Clinton/Dole campaign. We were new here at FOX news and we carried a lot of the hearings live. It was in the campaign finance alleged irregularities with monies supposedly seeping into the American political campaign of Bill Clinton from Chinese sources and so on—it was pretty juicy stuff it looked like a very big deal.

Fred Thompson was the chairman of the Investigating committee and it went absolutely nowhere. he was effectively buffaloed in that investigation by none other than John Glenn—who was a wonderful man, but not somebody normally you would think capable of being a real partisan..ahh…ahh.. spearchucker, who could, who could undo an investigation. So it didn't go very well and I think Fred Thompson has acknowledged since then that it wasn't his finest hour...

But how could Crooks and Liars get all indignant considering the comment was directed at this guy?

To put it mildly, it seems a stretch, but any chance to slur a conservative--especially one on the hated "Faux News" network--on even the flimsiest of grounds is a good one, isn't it?

John Amato, after making the weak case that Hume (an older white guy) was being a racist for calling Glenn (an even older white guy) a spearchucker, then goes on to provide the word Hume was must likely looking for all along, a spear-carrier. That Hume was fumbling for the right term was obvious in the transcript that Amato provided (my bold this time):

...he was effectively buffaloed in that investigation by none other than John Glenn—who was a wonderful man, but not somebody normally you would think capable of being a real partisan ..ahh..ahh.. spearchucker, who could, who could undo an investigation.

Hume fumbled, and produced an embaressing slip, but a purposeful slur? I don't think so.

What should be embarassing...but obviously won't be... is Amato's probable little "white lie" about why he wrote this entry to begin with.

I had to watch it a few times for it to sink in. I looked up "spearchucker," on Dictionary.com, but they didn't recognize it so I wonder how he will explain this one away?

Really, John? You had to look up the term to know it was offensive?

If you didn't know it was offensive, then why did you key in on it in the first place, instead of letting it waft by as the one of the dozens of idiomatic expressions one hears in an average week that most normal people never bother to look up?

No, I suspect that Mr. Amato was well aware of what that slur meant all along, and that he was well aware of what it meant long before Brit Hume spoke it on Fox News.

What is far more likely is that Mr. Amato, as a representative of the politically correct progressive blogosphere, instead decided to play dumb and act as if he had to look it up. Why?

Hume made a mistake, and grabbed the wrong term.

John Amato, on the other hand, acted as if he didn't know what "spearchucker" meant, when clearly he knew it was a slur all along, or he wouldn't have keyed in on it.

Here's another word for John Amato to look up: "honest."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:01 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 629 words, total size 4 kb.