October 29, 2007

Is the Glenn Rick Ellensberg Greenwald Email a Hack?

Bits Blog, who has some know-how, has some posts exploring the possibility that Greenwald and some of his most trusted confidants may be trying to send hack emails to GG for him to get all OUTRAGED over, while trying to pin it on the US Military as "the Generals attacking Glenn Greenwald."

I. Dealing with a Half Deck
II. Greenwald again...
III. Greenwald...err...Ellensburg, again.
IV. Greenwald, yet again...and again...

Jules Crittenden notes Greenwald's UPDATE MCMLXVII, noting Glenn Rick Ellensburg Greenwald is full wingnut spin cycle and advanced tizzy.

So now, we're dealing with the possibilities that (strap on your tinfoil): A) Greenwald has been hoisted by a few pranksters in the military into thinking he was really getting flak from a spokesman for Gen Petraeus when he was really getting pwned by some hucksters in the military or elsewhere, B) Greenwald and perhaps a few of his closest confidants/himself sent some hacked emails to him, dressed up as military emails, so that he could play the poor widdle victim of the rightwing military hate machine (a Greenwaldian rope-a-dope-sockpuppet-passion-play), or C) some other innocuous derring-do involving hacked email headers and addys designed to make Gleeeen look like either a jackass or a victim of some totalitarian attack.

All this because he was shown to be a preening fool on the Beauchamp affair, accusing the military of covering up information, silencing Beauchamp, accusing them of leaking documents "in collusion" with teh REICHWINGBLOGCONSPIRACY, which when shown to be pattently false, damaged his oh-so-untarnished 'credibility.'

Stay tuned for the thrilling concluzzzzzzzz....zzzzzz.....zzzzz.....

UPDATE MCMXXIIV:

So I have a thought. "Bob" in the comments, a seemingly agreeable yet disagreeable fellow, is rather passionate about defending Greenwald - "a good investigative blogger" - in this instance, to the point of posting windy, Greenwald-esque rejoinders. Read and decide if the sockpuppet king returneth:

We all have our political persuasions, Good Lt., but the point is that it’s simply improper for the top spokesman of the top General in Iraq to be playing politics like this. Whether you or Petraeus or Boylan agree with Greenwald or not, Greenwald is a responsible citizen and a good investigative blogger who was asking fair questions of Gen. Petraeus’ office about why they seemed to be showing favoritism towards conservative bloggers and reporters.

It’s not Greenwald himself that’s the issue. Greenwald is unlikely to have been seriously miffed by Boylan’s insults. In fact, Boylan handed Greenwald a huge gift on a silver platter by giving him this story and essentially nailing his own ass to the floor with his IP address, then looking stupid trying to deny what he had so obviously done. Even his inept denials essentially proved that he wrote the original email. Boylan totally made Greenwald’s day and proved Greenwald’s main thesis, all in one swell foop, as they say.

Aside from the insults and invective, do you mean to suggest that it’s a good thing for our military to start identifying with one particular political party, and taking sides with only those politicians/reporters/bloggers who give them good press? Is it a proper demonstration of professionalism and respect for our democratic society for high-level military officers acting in their official duties to fire off abusive messages to citizen reporters who ask them tough questions?

Our military is not the army of some backwater banana republic. If the official spokesman of our commanding General in Iraq can’t handle himself with more dignity and self-discipline than this, he should be reassigned to duties more in line with his abilities.

What all of you seem to be missing is that Greenwald's entire point was that the military command is playing politics. Boylan's disrespectful and unprofessional email to Greenwald came out of the blue, and only after earlier attempts by Greenwald to interview Gen. Petraeus that were carried out seriously and professionally on his part. Greenwald was never abusive towards Boylan.

After Boylan's email, in subsequent email exchanges, Boylan then refused to confirm if he was the real author of the disrespectful email, making bizarre claims about identity theft in Vermont. Was that a "yes" or a "no?" Boylan has still not given Greenwald or his readers a straight answer.

Whether you agree with Greenwald or not, doesn't it seem like Boylan's email was highly unprofessional and reflected badly on his boss, Gen. Petraeus? And does't it seem dishonorable for him to write an abusive email and refuse to fess up about it later?