Yes.

Citizens: Can mock or not mock generals, as they choose. Not a unique feature of the left blogosphere, either.

Generals: should not mock civilians or civilian journalists while serving in office. Even in an unofficial capacity.

That’s my stance. That’s what being a public official entails.

As individual citizens, soldiers have a right to participate in this process. As an institution, the military does not.

At what point does Col. Boylan stop being an individual soldier and start being an institution? Wouldn’t a personal email not intended for public consumption remain in the realm of individual activity? If I personally email double-g, would I have to automatically assume I’m speaking for the institution I work for?

Yeah, right, so when serving US generals mock and insult political commentators, it’s a good thing for the Republic. Glad to see you’re on board.

It appears you are fine with generals getting mocked, but you have issues with “generals” mocking those who attack them.

Yeah, right, so when Soros funded attack group Move-on mock and insult serving US generals, it’s a good thing for the Republic.

I think is what you meant to say.

Rick Ellensburg need never have published the e-mail as Keith points out.

Next, Col. Boyland was not acting in an official capacity. Something which was pointed out in the first paragraph of the e-mail.

Also, given what I point out above it isn’t just a matter of opinion we disagree with. Greenwald used arguments which are demonstrably false to impugn Col. Boylan, Joe Klein and General Petraeus’s honesty. They were demonstrably false even then, but now the whole world knows the claims were false. That requires a retraction. He wasn’t just skeptical, he baldly asserted we were being lied to. That may not be vicious to you, but it is the very definition of a smear.

Yeah, right, so when serving US generals mock and insult political commentators, it’s a good thing for the Republic.

And should we even bring up the fact that Col. Boylan wasn’t publicaly mocking or insulting him. It was Greenwald who took up the mantle of victim and publicaly aired this.

Thats right Dave. Although “viscious smears and propaganda” is simply your hyperbole for positions you disagree with. THe military’s mission is defined by their superiors – the American people. The American people debate what the mission should be, work through the political process to enact the policy that they want, and then the military gets its orders.

As individual citizens, soldiers have a right to participate in this process. As an institution, the military does not. Its job is to enact the policy decided by the people, not to make it.

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.

Even if this is a parody, it just has “reality-based community” written all over it, doesn’t it?

Hell yes it is. Far too long that’s been a one-way street. Our military isn’t allowed to defend itself from vicious smears and propaganda intended to undermine support for their mission?

Right, ridiculous. I mean, The new Republic says they’ve been waiting for Beauchamp’s affdavits for weeks

You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. TNR claimed the Army was preventing Beauchamp from talking (which we now know was not true) and demanded the Army release them (which they know full well the Army cannot legally do; this is a rhetorical trick to rally support from the gullible such as yourself). Then, when the documents are leaked, they complain about that.

Yeah, right, so when serving US generals mock and insult political commentators, it’s a good thing for the Republic. Glad to see you’re on board.

First of all Col. Boylan is not a General. Second, the post is not about him. He may be a disgraceful person for all I know, or allowed himself to lose his cool in this particular inceident, or it may not have been him. If you read the post I make it clear I am speaking about Greenwald, not defending the Col.

Right, ridiculous. I mean, The new Republic says they’ve been waiting for Beauchamp’s affdavits for weeks, and somehow they were leaked to Drudge before TNR could see them, but those accusations are… ridiculous. I mean, everything TNR says is a lie. We just know that.

I never said everything they say is a lie, and it is a pretty good magazine. Read it regularly. It is a lie that they were being kept from them. Bob Owens addresses that if you go over to our around the web section and search out the link. It is at the top at the moment. They are being released under an FOIA request, which they blew. Nobody has stonewalled them but Beauchamp who could have given them to TNR quite a while ago. It is also a lie that the army was keeping him from talking to them. There is more dishonesty, but no, not everything they say is a lie.

right… so, even skipping the whole debate about what TNR did or did not check… when one leftist anywhere fails to obey a principle suggested by Greenwald, … Greenwald becomes a hypocrite. Yeah. Makes perfect sense.

No, but when you go to the mat defending someone who has done just what you claim is so awful, including defending that same publication in that very post, well pardon me for pointing out the obvious. As for TNR’s “alleged” lack of fact checking ahead of time, despite claims to have done so they have provided no proof that they have done any such thing. Not one iota. Insider leaks (from now canned employees) is that they just accepted the stories. Those people may be lying, but TNR could just supply the evidence and allow us to judge whether it was a legitimate effort.

I actually think Greenwald is too critical of anonymous qupting of government officials, but… should I bury you in links from, oh, Instapundit or other right-wing websites savaging journalists for quoting unnamed government sources?

He made the comment, not me.

How about those unnamed government sources in the WaPo quoting the US mil’s “front-of-the-head, back-of-the-head” mythology?

Which was never fact checked. When others did the story was shown to be untrue, though I am not sure they represented the officials statements accurately anyway.

Christ. Here we have the spectacle of a libertarian savaging someone for being skeptical of the government.

He wasn’t skeptical, which might have been appropriate. he was accusing and claiming it was a bunch of hooey, when in fact anybody who had taken the time to inform themselves on the issue would never have said the things he says. Three day lull indeed. Skepticism implies checking into things, doubting unsubstantiated claims. It does not mean denying things and calling people liars and propagandists on things which can be checked out. It means approaching things with an open mind, not searching for anything you can to prove it wrong. We all do that last bit at times, but when it gets to the point where something as large and important as Anbar can just be dismissed we get into the realm of truther like weirdness, John Birchers and Alex Jones. All the more can it not be called skepticism when while waiting to feel more comfortable the information is true one smears those who believe it. At minimum a huge apology is in order for claiming all the things Petraeus and others were saying about Anbar and other things were lies.

But what shall we do with everyone who was wildly wrong about the invasion and the meaning of every trend between 2003 and 2006 – like you?

Now I am open to some criticism on this, but not that. Some might fault me for not making statements that were falsifiable, or could be said to be wrong. For always saying things which keep one from pinning error on me. I don’t agree with that criticism, I think that is the nature of these endeavors, strong claims of certainty are foolish. However, I would like you to come up with something where I have been wrong on the war in Iraq. Search the archives.

Anyway, my beef isn’t that he was wrong, or uninformed, but that he was wrong and uninformed (and still is) about things and used those incorrect views to smear other people. He has refused to admit he was wrong and they were correct and uses his errors as justifications to this day for continuing to attack their character. Error is embarrassing when you claim with such certainty the things he has, it is a disgrace when you use them and continue to do so to smear others.

‘Accuratish’ would be more accurate. And you’ve seemed to confuse ‘prolix’ for ‘forceful’.

Greenwald’s posts are a marvel of self-negation. If you bother to read them.

Reality: Confounding the Reality-Based since, well, forever.

As always, the very idea of granting anonymity to government sources to do nothing other than repeat pro-government claims is both manipulative and moronic on its face.

I don’t know if I posted the idea, but I recall, at least thinking this is what the administration should do.

If you want something public declare it a secret. Of course, if it is moronic to use this method to get the truth out, what does that say about the people being manipulated this way…

including the ridiculous charge that the military has been keeping the information from The New Republic,

Right, ridiculous. I mean, The new Republic says they’ve been waiting for Beauchamp’s affdavits for weeks, and somehow they were leaked to Drudge before TNR could see them, but those accusations are… ridiculous. I mean, everything TNR says is a lie. We just know that.

Good thing we have brave men like Franklin Foer at The New Republic who would never print stories by an anonymous source without fact checking it extensively.

right… so, even skipping the whole debate about what TNR did or did not check… when one leftist anywhere fails to obey a principle suggested by Greenwald, … Greenwald becomes a hypocrite. Yeah. Makes perfect sense.

I actually think Greenwald is too critical of anonymous qupting of government officials, but… should I bury you in links from, oh, Instapundit or other right-wing websites savaging journalists for quoting unnamed government sources? How about those unnamed government sources in the WaPo quoting the US mil’s “front-of-the-head, back-of-the-head” mythology?

So, you think it’s fine when media quotes anonymous sources? You disagree with Greenwald on this matter? Can I get a quote here?

discussion of Anbar in May

Christ. Here we have the spectacle of a libertarian savaging someone for being skeptical of the government. Seriously, congradulations. There’s been a sustained fall in violence in Anbar. And Some Leftists Didn’t Think It Was Real At First!! Terrible of them. Who could ever doubt a government’s claim of military progress? I mean, they always tell the truth!

There were a lot of good reasons to be skeptical of the surge, including serious problems with Petraeus’ data that you couldn’t explain anymore than I could at the time. I guess the closest thing to a point here is that you think Greenwald’s skepticism of the surge discredits his judgment. But what shall we do with everyone who was wildly wrong about the invasion and the meaning of every trend between 2003 and 2006 – like you?

Glenn Greenwald is a disgrace, and whatever the failings of Col. Boylan I cannot but help share his disdain.

The guy’s good at making enemies – because he’s forceful and accurate. He’s right about Boylan, he’s right about the tag-teaming between the military and the right blogosphere, and he’s right about the authoritarian streak that runs through every fake crisis it tries to cook up.

I mean, yeah, it’s clear you loathe the guy. I suppose this sort of thing will do for preaching to the choir, but for anyone not drinking the kool-aid it won’t make any converts.

Better than Jules Crittenden, though. At least it has links, quotes, and, underneath the snark, in a few places, arguments against GG that involve logic. You treat GG with more procedural respect and fairness than, oh, TNR.

–