More selective editing from the Progressives

One of the things I landed on, hard, in my post about the great Rush Limbaugh smear was the fact that Media Matters, in order to smear Rush, did some very selective editing so as to destroy entirely the context in which his “phony soldier” comment arose. It seems that another “respected” member of the MSM has been caught engaging in the same tactics — although there is a caveat about this, because it’s unclear whether the source material is itself a fake.

Anyway, here’s the story. In connection with the Scott Thomas Beauchamp affair (that’s the one where TNR’s roving Iraq correspondent told some patently fake stories and TNR is sticking to them), Glenn Greenwald (of sock puppet fame), claims to have received an unsolicited letter from Col. Steven A. Boylan, the Public Affairs Officer and personal spokesman for Gen. David G. Petraeus. Greenwald reprints the letter with lots of ellipses, ends by throwing in his own opinion about the redacted letter:

Everyone can decide for themselves if that sounds more like an apolitical, professional military officer or an overwrought right-wing blogger throwing around all sorts of angry, politically charged invective. Whatever else is true, it is rather odd that this was the sort of rhetoric Col. Boylan chose to invoke in service of his apparent goal of proving that there is nothing politicized about the U.S. military in Iraq.

What’s interesting is all the stuff behind the periodic ellipses in Greenwald’s repost of the alleged letter. The Dread Pundit Bluto received, from Greenwald himself, a copy of the entire email that Boylan purportedly sent (and Boylan has not confirmed whether he did, in fact, send the email). Bluto reprints the entire email, bolding all the bits Greenwald left out — bits that give context to what Boylan allegedly said. Here’s are just the first few paragraphs of the entire letter, with the parts that Greenwald redacted highlighted in bold:

Glenn,

I had hoped to post this in response to your article, but apparently it is closed already.

I am not sending this as anyone’s spokesperson, just a straight military Public Affairs Officer, with about 27 months overall time in Iraq who is concerned with accuracy, context and characterization of information and has worked with media of all types since joining the career field in 1991. The issues of accuracy, context, and proper characterization is something that perhaps you could do a little research and would assume you are aware of as a trained lawyer.

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

You do have one fact in your post — then Brigadier General Bergner did work at the National Security Council on matters concerning Iraq. Not surprising as he had returned from a year plus deployment to Iraq as the Multi-National Division – North Assistant Division Commander. It would seem reasonable that someone with Iraq experience would work issues at the NSC that was familiar with and had experience in Iraq. All else after that portion in your post about Major General Bergner is just your wishful thinking to support your flawed theory.

So, right off the bat, we learn why Greenwald received the unsolicited letter, we learn that Boylan is not writing in his professional capacity, and we learn that he has just a few factual quibbles with Greenwald’s view of events. You should definitely head over to Bluto’s place to see the rest, and to get a sense of just how much Greenwald changed the meaning of the original text with his selective redactions.

As I noted in my Rush post, the tactic that Greenwald and Media Matters use is the “reporting” equivalent of those movie advertisements that say “Johnny Critic of ABS news said ‘It’s amazing….'” And then, of course, when you track down the whole Johnny Critic review, you discover he actually said “It’s amazing that anybody would pay money to see this piece of garbage.”

I’ve said it before and before, and I’ll say it again and again: if you read anything in the MSM, double and triple check the facts supporting the reporter’s or pundit’s conclusions. They often do not play fair.

UPDATE: I seem to have gotten linked at Salon, and I’ve had a few people take issue with the fact that Greenwald included a link to the original letter at another website. I don’t care.

The bone I’m picking is with the fact that he created a straw man against which to argue when he selectively edited the original letter and used that selectively edited text as his target. Once Greenwald did that, he created a strong disincentive for readers to trot over to the link and read the whole thing. His readers trust that Greenwald, in his redaction, nevertheless preserved the original text’s meaning — which he did not.

So my beef is with a stylistic approach to argument, not with the argument itself. There are three reasons that lead people to edit their opponent’s statements to suit their own argument, rather than arguing against what their opponent said in the first place: carelessness (my most common sin), intellectual puniness (and I won’t accuse Greenwald of that), or an agenda (which Greenwald openly displays and which Media Matters displayed when it went after Rush).

So, Greenwald had an agenda, and he pursued it. That’s fine, but he used a smarmy lawyer’s tactic to do it, and that’s not fine. He deserves to be called on that tactic.

UPDATE II: Check out Best of the Web, and scroll down for the discussion on 101 Ways to Abuse a Quote, which is another example of the point I’m making. Incidentally, it gives a name to the use of ellipses that I describe above: dowdification.

UPDATE III: Lorie Byrd has chimed in with her always interesting take on the ellipses issue:

The Greenwald post linked above is a good example of how those on the left have argued the issues surrounding the war in Iraq by omitting relevant facts. The media has done the same in much of their reporting. The way Greenwald omitted the section citing the errors Boylan noted from his post trying to paint the email as bizarre is the same way those on the left have debated the war in Iraq. They often link to a report, but then will cherry pick certain portions, while ignoring any favorable ones. In some cases, positive reports are not mentioned at all, but are omitted entirely. It is no wonder so many Americans still believe there has been no progress made in Iraq.

As with me, her beef isn’t with the underlying factual argument, it’s with the way Greenwald selectively editing his opponent’s writing to create a factual straw man he could then attack.

UPDATE IV:  I had the misfortune to get linked at a site called Balloon Juice, which has a large readership, so I can anticipate a big dose of snarky, ill-informed comments coming in.  Just FYI, after Balloon Juice castigated me for being unfamiliar with the purpose behind ellipses, I wrote this response (and yes, my response is snarky too, but I’m tired of being challenged for things I didn’t write or accused of being ill-informed about things I know quite well):

Sweetheart, I know all about using ellipses when writing to reduce the amount of text or tighten an argument. As a lawyer, I use it all the time to remove extraneous, or irrelevant material. I actually get that bit.

My problem was, and continues to be, that Greenwald removed substantive material to create a straw man against which he could argue. That’s a stylistic approach that interests me irrespective of the merits of Greenwald’s factual assertions (something I quite carefully and explicitly did not touch upon). I simply found dishonest the way in which Greenwald castigated Boylan’s writing after having edited it down to something that it did not start out to be.

So, if anyone is doing the la-la-la, hide the facts approach to writing, you’d better check in with Mr. Greenwald. All I did was point out the elephant in his intellectual living room. I didn’t put it there.

71 Responses

  1. GG posted a link to the entire e-mail. He didn’t attempt to hide anything at all. And he responded to Boylan’s “claims.” Did you read GG’s post at all?

  2. Two things: one, is that I was uninterested in whether he posted the whole email. I was interested only in the way in which he used ellipses to change the meaning. Most people aren’t going to go to the whole email, since they’ll see Greenwald’s long quotation and rely on that. You don’t assume that someone challenging correspondence will leave out the meat and respond only to the bones.

    As for Greenwald’s response, I can say as a lawyer, that it’s typical lawyer stuff, which again, deals with the bones and not the meat. I’m unimpressed, and have a deep disrespect for lawyers who can only argue against text after they’ve modified it to suit their purposes.

  3. […] piling on: The Jawa Report, Bookworm Room, The Dread Pundit Bluto, Wake Up Americans. Sphere: Related […]

  4. Great post! Way to get Greenwald?

    Except Greenwald published the entire email in his original post. Something that would’ve been helpful to know before you started accusing him of “selective editing.”

  5. One more example of the rightwing implosion. Pretend there’s a scandal on the left, every time some rightwing blowhole makes an ass of himself. The party of Eisenhower is now the party of Malkin and Limbaugh. Good luck in ’08!

  6. Blue Texas: read what I wrote. I don’t care that he included the whole text on another page. What I care is that he created a straw man by selectively editing the whole text and than arguing against the straw man. I was less interested in content than in style, and I’ll continue to attack stylistic deceits like this forever.

  7. Your contention is that he tried to hide the true purpose of his email from his readers through “selective editing”.

    But the entire email was available to anyone that read the column, and linked to IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH. It took exactly one click to find the full text. Absolutely nothing was hidden.

    So basically, “Bluto” published something that was made available by Greenwald himself. Wow – what a detective.

  8. Dear Bookworm,

    You quote part of Greenwald’s message, not all of it, to complain that it is unfair for Greenwald to print part of Boylan’s message, not all of it.

    Pot, meet kettle.

  9. So basically, “Bluto” published something that was made available by Greenwald himself. Wow – what a detective.

    Since when do Greenwald’s readers follow links? If they had a habit of doing so, then the real question is why do they put up with Greenwald’s rather consistent dishonesty in how describes the linked material?

  10. “And then, of course, when you track down the whole Johnny Critic review,”
    “The Dread Pundit Bluto received, from Greenwald himself, a copy of the entire email that Boylan purportedly sent”

    Who is the liar here?

  11. the real question is why do they put up with Greenwald’s rather consistent dishonesty in how describes the linked material?

    Ah. Examples? Links?

    If it is truly “rather consistent”, you should have no problem providing several of them, yes?

  12. I spotted Greenwald’s column yesterday, read his excerpts and also the full email in his clearly marked link.

    There’s a good reason he supplied the full text. It supports the contentions pointed out in the excerpts and Greenwald’s accompanying narrative. Your comparison to misleading movie quotes is way off base. I couldn’t disagree with you more.

    So, what do you make of Boylan’s email? I’m guessing the kid got rip-roaring drunk on Saturday night. Can’t say’s I blame him, and it’s the only reasonable explanation for sending that gibberish in the first place.

  13. Wow… The stupidity never ends… guess what – we know you don’t care that he posted the whole Email. If you cared then you would realize that your whole premise is baseless. And BTW… the elipses are common form when SHOWING that you have excerpted something. Why on earth would he post the whole mail if he was trying to hide something. Boy with Rocket Scientists like this on the right, It’s no wonder the republican party is collapsing. You guys can’t argue your way out of a paper bag.

  14. I was going to pile on about the Greenwald post, but apparently others have already done so, and very ably, too.

    So, instead I’m just wondering… is the name of your blog, “Bookworm Room,” meant to be ironic? (Reading comprehension and all… since the link to the full-text email really did support the excerpts. )

  15. Aren’t you guys really wearing out the Dan Rather ploy? When Rove fed faked memos to CBS that distracted everyone’s attention from the undisputably true information about Bush’s failure to fulfill his National Guard obligations, it worked. But since then it’s ALL you’ve used, over and over and over and over and over. And you’re getting sloppier and sloppier. Before the Army coerced Beauchamp into shutting up, TNR already found independent corroboration for all his anecdotes. Yesterday, the name of the game was claiming Boylan’s e-mail was faked, although the address checked out accurately, and now today it’s “quotes out of context.” I read both those quotes and the full text, which of course was very easy to find by clicking the link Greenwald provided at the top of his column. The full text didn’t change my impression of the contents or tone of his adolescent rant one iota.

  16. so now that you have been thouroughly spanked on this…show me one single example of media matters taking any thing out of context that changes the meaning?

  17. Ah. Examples? Links?

    If it is truly “rather consistent”, you should have no problem providing several of them, yes?

    Links galore.

  18. Aren’t you guys really wearing out the Dan Rather ploy? When Rove fed faked memos to CBS that distracted everyone’s attention from the undisputably true information about Bush’s failure to fulfill his National Guard obligations, it worked. But since then it’s ALL you’ve used, over and over and over and over and over. And you’re getting sloppier and sloppier. Before the Army coerced Beauchamp into shutting up, TNR already found independent corroboration for all his anecdotes. Yesterday, the name of the game was claiming Boylan’s e-mail was faked, although the address checked out accurately, and now today it’s “quotes out of context.” I read both those quotes and the full text, which of course was very easy to find by clicking the link Greenwald provided at the top of his column. The full text didn’t change my impression of the contents or tone of his adolescent rant one iota.

    I think this comment says it all for the “reality-based” crowd.

  19. “Two things: one, is that I was uninterested in whether he posted the whole email. ‘

    What BS. The charge that he mislead his readers by only pubishing selected excerpts is central to your claim. The fact is, that a link to the full unedited email was present in the very first paragraph of his first post on the subject.. You are making a complete fool of yourself here.

    “[I] have a deep disrespect for lawyers who can only argue against text after they’ve modified it to suit their purposes.”

    Which is precisely what YOU have done.

    To wit:
    “we learn that he has just a few factual quibbles with Greenwald’s view of events. ”

    when the text actually says ” The amount of pure fiction is incredible.”

    “The bone I’m picking is with the fact that he created a straw man against which to argue when he selectively edited the original letter and used that selectively edited text as his target. Once Greenwald did that, he created a strong disincentive for readers to trot over to the link and read the whole thing. ”

    This is just such mindless ridiculousness. EVERY single blog post, and every single news account that reports something that someone said uses excerpts that picked out and examined. How could it be otherwise? If you write an article about the State of the Union address, do you include the entire text in the body of your story? No, you focus on the things you find newsworthy and comment on them. Then, if you are careful and ethical, like Greenwald, you give your readers a link to the full text so they can do the analysis themselves and see if they agree with you.

    So, why haven’t you posted Greenwald’s complete post here? Are you “creating a dinincentive” for your readers to check out his actual words? Are you expecting that your readers will trust your opinion on the matter

    This is just such a dishonest hit job, it is beyond belief.

  20. It’s pointed out that you have your facts wrong and your reply is “I don’t care.”

    That makes GG’s case that neocons don’t care about facts but just make it up as they go along.

    Did you ever think of admitting that you’re just plain wrong?

  21. if neocons admitted they were wrong then the staff of the weakly standard, faux news, and the white house would all have to resign in shame. better to just invade iran.

  22. Huh. Stupidity *IS* contagious. Looky at that.

    Do you guys realize that the whole world is LAUGHING at you?

    bwhahaha!

  23. […] Bookworm Room:   More selective editing from the Progressives […]

  24. I don’t care that he included the whole text on another page.

    You are a deeply silly person. Please keep it up — this is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.

  25. If GG is not telling the truth why isn’t Malkin or the MSM cheching it out ?

  26. Is this really the caliber of Salon’s readers? Ick.

  27. Welcome to Bookworm’s world, ladies and gentlemen. Bookworm is vying for a spot in the Reich Wing pundacracy, so your labor to engage her on this issue works to her advantage and advances her cause among those who she is trying to impress … And the best of luck to her, on that; now that she self-identifies as a neocon, rather than just a con.

    Luv ya, Bookie — Greg

  28. The Greg is back.

    And he still can’t spell, write a sentence, or make sense.

  29. Reducing a longer text to simply quote the passages relevant to one’s argument is called: writing. Indicating that orginal text has been removed is done by the use of ellpses (plural for ellipsis). High school english, here, sparky. Glen’s post was 1) open and honest 2) well sourced 3) persuasive. The fact that no one claims ownership of the original letter should be an indication to you how unprofessional and childish the letter is to most every reader who has had high school English.
    Nevertheless, you lie about Greewald hiding the original, then proudly admit you “don’t care” you lied, and then continue to misinterpret Greenwald’s argument. You are maliciously ignorant.
    The only defense of that churlish letter is that the ascribed official disowns it and therefore it may not be authentic — as Greenwald is willing to concede.

  30. […] thought I was done, but idiocy is on the march. At the Bookworm blog, this update after ranting that Greenwald was somehow deceiving people by publishing not only the […]

  31. But the entire email was available to anyone that read the column, and linked to IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH. It took exactly one click to find the full text. Absolutely nothing was hidden.

    Shorter Bookworm: It’s not fair to expect me to click on the hyperlink! Too much work! Waaaaaaah!

  32. BookW, do you really truly expect your standard for not citing the entirety of statements, quotations, reports, analyses etc. to hold up for a new york second when applied to the Bush Admin or the wide wide world of wingnuttia commentary? You truly want to paint yourself into that corner? Here’s a little test: skim your latest work by Coulter and see how much “total context” in included in her straw argumens. Same with an O’reilly column. We know it’s tough out there in 24%istan but your post is the equivalent of being so out of water that you throw the squirt gun.

  33. Absolutely! Sure, ok, maybe Boylan’s email was kind of arrogant. But Greenwald deserved it, didn’t he?

  34. What I care is that he created a straw man by selectively editing the whole text and than arguing against the straw man.

    Which is exactly what the good Bookworm is doing to Greenwald.

    Another dishonest hack.

    And by the way, the “phony soldiers” slur by Limbaugh was never taken out of context — it was Rush who did the phony edit job on his own remarks to spin a false context. And Media Matters linked the entire interview video and transcript so that anyone could double check the context of the remark.. Rush hid the fact that he made the edit and did not provide the entire context — just his misleading excerpts which truly did create a false meaning a la your movie review example.

    Just more dishonest hackery by the Bookworm.

  35. […] More selective editing from the Progressives One of the things I landed on, hard, in my post about the great Rush Limbaugh smear was the fact that Media Matters, in […] […]

  36. #
    Bookworm, on October 29th, 2007 at 11:44 am Said:

    Blue Texas: read what I wrote. I don’t care that he included the whole text on another page. What I care is that he created a straw man by selectively editing the whole text and than arguing against the straw man. I was less interested in content than in style, and I’ll continue to attack stylistic deceits like this forever.

    They are more accurately called propaganda techniques rather than stylistic deceits, in my view.

  37. zhombre, on October 29th, 2007 at 4:52 pm Said:

    The Greg is back.

    g got rejuved from his normal rest in the coffin, Z.

    As I’ve remarked, g has a notable cycle of attacking prey and then going back to the lair to rest and digest.

  38. As you can see from some of the comments, Book, it does not truly matter where G posted the entire email or not. After all, with so many people willing to take Green’s side of things, why would posting the full email even matter concerning his propaganda effectiveness?

  39. Y — LOL! The next Full Moon is Nov 24. I bet he’s back by then.

  40. Bookie,

    As they say in Naval Aviation, a letter of reprimand beats getting no mail at all. 🙂

    Market Share is Market Share and readership is readership. Relax and enjoy the increased hits.

    SInce I read John Cole, Greenwald and you- I have no comment to offer. Except saying this fascinating to watch-kind of like seeing a car accident occur right before your eyes. Shall I dial 911?

  41. Skippy is right, BookW — you’ve hit the medium time. When Malkin H/T’s you it will be time for a Pajamas Media logo, and the tip jar should start jingling. Of course the Wingnut Welfare Gravy Train is losing a few cars these days. Still, an invite to The Victory Caucus Picnic and free tickets to Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week are better than the usual Cheetos and Dew. Sweetheart.

  42. Remember what I said about parasites, Book, since it is still very applicable.

    Individuals do not matter since if they are fuel to begin with, why matter if the host is one individual as opposed to another? Thus your blog is not an individual to them, Book, not in the sense that we mean when we say individual.

    The charge that he mislead his readers by only pubishing selected excerpts is central to your claim. The fact is, that a link to the full unedited email was present in the very first paragraph of his first post on the subject.. You are making a complete fool of yourself here.

    Useful idiots are never really taught the exisgencies of propaganda techniques, since they were never designed to be of long term use to really require such knowledge. It never does help to have the help realize the contempt to which their masters hold them. Could reduce their efficiency, usefullness, and other metrics. Can’t have that, now can we.

    It is quite true that green never intended to mislead his readers with that post, since his readers were mislead to begin. Can you truly attempt to do something that you know has already been done? Perhaps, but it would be quite a waste of time and effort.

  43. They often link to a report, but then will cherry pick certain portions, while ignoring any favorable ones. In some cases, positive reports are not mentioned at all, but are omitted entirely. It is no wonder so many Americans still believe there has been no progress made in Iraq.

    In some respects, Book, this is not entirely voluntarily or even noticeable. With doublethink, you can actually run these situations automatically without even noticing that you are doing so. It is a unique emulation software overlay for the human condition, really. Self-deception is one thing, everyone has it, but doublethink is a unique software development for the human hardware analog (denial and flight).

    They literally do not know what the heck you are talking about when you note the discrepancy, because no discrepancy can exist after doublethink has been exercised. If the mind doesn’t accept its (discrepancy’s) existence, then how can it exist for the person thatt the mind is from?

  44. What is most interesting about this thread is that, despite all of the posts refuting Bookworm’s claim of “selective editing through elipses”, within two days the exact same claim will be repeated as though all of the cited facts never existed (and be picked up by Conservative blogs and broadcasters everywhere).

    But then, facts never did get int he way ofConservative ideology.

  45. […] remind you of someone else too?  I just can’t think of who.  And yes, I did read all blog posts involved although I refuse to post each one in its entirety for obvious reasons (like, you […]

  46. Of course you don’t care. You’res tupid and dishonest.

    If you truly are a lawyer, you are ripping off anyone who pays you to read and process information.

  47. My problem with your piece is that you refer to Salon as MSM.
    Try reading Salon and compare it to what you get in the MSM. Salon is pretty far to the left of the lazy and incompetent MSM, which the wingnuts pretty much tug around by the tits. Congratulations on that, but it’s not healthy.

  48. PWNED!!!!!!1111111

  49. “…we learn that Boylan is not writing in his professional capacity…”

    Bookworm is lying. Boylan clearly states that he is writing as a “military Public Affairs Officer, with about 27 months overall time in Iraq”.

    Bookworm is siding with Bluto, who is a proven liar. It is not surprising that Bookworm would also choose to lie.

  50. I’m tired of being challenged for things I didn’t write or accused of being ill-informed about things I know quite well

    Shoe’s on the other foot, then.

    Whoops, sorry, that was snarky. When an article title like “More selective editing from the Progressives” isn’t snarky at all, of course.

  51. John Cole isn’t worth the 6 seconds it would take to kick his candy ass.

  52. Phil. Steve wrote: “within two days the exact same claim will be repeated as though all of the cited facts never existed (and be picked up by Conservative blogs and broadcasters everywhere).”

    Steve, Critiques of Bookworm’s ignorance don’t exist. She couldn’t care less what you say, as you can see from her response to the commentary she’s sparked:

    Bookworm, on October 29th, 2007 at 10:38 pm Said:

    In answer to your question, Tap, the real vitriol is pouring in at my Glenn Greenwald post — so much so that I’m not even reading the comments. As of now, I have no idea what the comments are saying over there. It’s my little Wild West area. I’m sure they’ll calm down soon and then I can go back to being the peaceful forum for intellectual discussion that I usually like to be.
    (posted in the comment section of her thread entitled “Should we be worried” [or something like that].)

  53. Um, I’ll join the chorus of those saying WTF. WTF? Glenn Greenwald published and drew attention to the full text of the email from Boyland/not-Boyland. Moreover, including the statements removed from the “front page” reporting on the email does nothing to detrat from his argument. But, in the spirit of your post, allow me to remind you of your mission in life, which comes from Orwell:

    “A Party member…is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party. The discontents produced by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned outwards and dissipated by such devices as the Two Minutes Hate, and the speculations which might possibly induce a sceptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance by his early acquired inner discipline…called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”

    In short, your material is running really thin.

  54. I am always amazed at the lefts inability to see the forest for the trees. The simple fact is citing a source in ones diatribe does not allow you to distort its meaning or tone, as a whole, by selective quoting. If he had done the same thing in a published academic paper it would end his career. Sadly, journalism as a profession has degraded to the point were this is standard fair.

  55. Regardless of the idiocy of the claims our host offers here (and they are staggeringly stupid) — how is “selective editing” any different than “editing”? If you ever engaged in the latter, you might understand the extra-delicious stupidity of the former.

  56. Jay is another example of why you don’t teach propaganda skills to the cannon fodder.

  57. The simple fact is citing a source in ones diatribe does not allow you to distort its meaning or tone, as a whole, by selective quoting.

    OK champ, what WAS the tone of Boylen’s email then given the context?

    Sadly, journalism as a profession has degraded to the point were this is standard fair.

    Sadly, grammar in this country has degraded to the point where media critics can’t use “fare” correctly.

  58. Someone points out that you’re wrong, and the best you can do is say that you don’t care? As a lawyer, I am not impressed.

  59. Book would be a far worse person and a far worse lawyer if she gave a care to what goons and thugs thought of her.

  60. shorter: People who challenge our queen = goons and thugs.

    Q. Why are conservatives so afraid of the marketplace of ideas?

    A. All those years at the wingnut welfare trough.

  61. shorter: People who challenge our queen = goons and thugs.

    I think the term Greenwald prefers is “gay”.

  62. […] to all the wingnuts for not posting the entire news story. Since I do not want to be accused of HIDING THE GREATER TRUTHS, SELECTIVE EDITING AND MISLEADING MY REMAINING RIGHT-WING READERSHIP, I will remind you stupid bastards that the entire story can be found by clicking the hyperlink […]

  63. Aren’t any of you concerned about how easy it is for someone to hack into a high ranking military official’s email account and send out emails under his identity? If Boylan really did not send the email as he claims, then isn’t this a national security crisis? Seems as though Glenn Greenwald’s commentary on the matter is rather immaterial to this larger issue, isn’t it?

  64. The real question is why isn’t an able bodied person as yourself in Iraq?

    Huh?

    Go. Now. Please.

  65. Actually I’m parapalegic, you asshole.

  66. Why should I go to Iraq?

  67. Re: “Why should I go to Iraq?”

    So that George W. Bush can run out the clock to January 2009 while maintaining his ego.

  68. Re: “Aren’t any of you concerned about how easy it is for someone to hack into a high ranking military official’s email account and send out emails under his identity? If Boylan really did not send the email as he claims, then isn’t this a national security crisis? Seems as though Glenn Greenwald’s commentary on the matter is rather immaterial to this larger issue, isn’t it?”

    Glen will be getting waterboarded in Guantanamo by nightfall!

  69. Just wanted to pass on this e-mail from a friend who once served with Colonel Boylan:

    “… poster child for ‘staff superpuke.'”

    And I would remind you that it’s unpatriotic to question our soldiers in the field (as opposed to, say, PR flacks with lots of brass on their sholuders more interested in politics than actually getting the job done in Iraq).

  70. Yikes this definitely takes me back, needed some more pictures maybe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: