The Great Sock Puppet is hunting IP’s- We have been noticed by the Greenwald fan club!
Posted by Lance on 29 Oct 2007 at 5:07 am | Tagged as: Military Matters, Notes on the war, Glenn Greenwald's Carnival of Fisking, Lance's Page, Foreign affairs, Domestic Politics
I was over at Patterico’s this evening and what do I see?
I swear I’m not making this up:
If you are well-versed in analyzing IP addresses, email headers and the like, please email me ([email protected]).
If you don’t get the irony, you must not have read this.
Of course for those who chuckle over the paranoid conspiracy theorists misadventures with donning the cloth there are other delicious ironies:
Most convincingly (to me), Col. Boylan has, as I noticed during my prior email exchange with him, a — how shall we say? — idiosyncratic grammatical style that is quite recognizable though difficult to replicate, and the e-mail I received this morning — from start to finish — is written in exactly that style.
Well, good day sir!
Oh well. I have no idea whether Col. Boylan sent the e-mail which has the dishonest hack’s knitting in a wad, but this was pretty amusing as well:
On a different note, John Cole highlights the key point here that should not be lost. Independent of the authenticity of the first email, Col. Boylan’s subsequent emails to me were snide, hostile and nonresponsive (”What I am doing about it does not concern you”). Whatever else one might think about the views I have expressed, I don’t think anyone can say I was anything but professional and civil in all of my interactions with him, yet his responses today were roughly the same as the ones encountered by The New Republic: arrogant and obstructionist stonewalling (Franklin Foer noted “a months-long pattern by which the Army has leaked information and misinformation to conservative bloggers while failing to help us with simple requests for documents”).
Let us ignore the dishonest characterization of the entire Beauchamp matter which has been part and parcel of everything the fraying foot garment has written on the matter, including the ridiculous charge that the military has been keeping the information from The New Republic, and concentrate on he and John Cole’s characterization of Greenwald’s manner. I find this frankly amazing. This very post is a long diatribe (after many others) accusing Col. Boyland and his commander, General Petraeus, of being nothing more than liars and propagandists. Please, none of you familiar with the ravings of the most well known piece of talking footwear should fall over at this irony, because he has the goods. General Petraeus was invited to speak and give the key elements of his presentation on Fox News! Yes, he did. He did it without all kinds of questions along the lines of “why are you lying to us general?” As the argyle clad one says, Pravda would be proud. Of course, now that it turns out all the ravings of the sock people were wrong, and General Petraeus right, we might suggest that not only is allowing someone to make their case directly and without editing to the people of our country a perfectly legitimate use of the airways, they might have been showing editorial judgment of a more reasoned nature than our friends who grovel at Greenwald’s …uh, foot?
However, I digress, my point is that nothing in the post or the posts addressing the activities of General Petraeus and his aides has been in any way civil. But John Cole and he are offended that he is less than pleasant in his responses and unleashed snideness! Which as you see has great import, in fact it highlights the key point! Let me reproduce another of these vicious body blows of snideness:
Interesting email and no. Why do you ask?
Shudder. I can see why the sock with eyes is so shattered. He accuses the man and his office of fraud, lying and all manner of dishonesty and Col. Boylan responds with such overkill.
I am interested in this issue. What I am doing about it does not concern you. Interesting is what I find it.
Whether I agree with what the email says or not is not an issue I wish to discuss with you, as I decided after our last exchange that I would not take the time or efforts to engage with you.
Is there a reason why you posted this?
I suspect with snideness like that we should have the man court martialed.
The sad thing is that people still turn to this man and parrot his arguments on the subject of our Generals and the veracity of their statements despite his poor track record. For an example of that I give you this golden oldie for your reading pleasure, the head lemming of the sock puppet herds discussion of Anbar in May. Now realize that at the time the improvements in Anbar had been being covered by many (Yes, we would include ourselves in that many) for quite awhile. Reading this piece however one would think it was some brand new turn of events selectively leaked to the gullible Joe Klein from the masters of propaganda that Petraues and his goons are:
Q. If you’re a Bush administration official and you want to create a prominent headline in Time Magazine proclaiming what great improvement there is in Iraq, what do you do?
A. Have someone with a shiny military uniform go and flatter Joe Klein by whispering “secrets” in his ear all while demanding anonymity, and then he’ll dutifully run to the pages of Time and mindlessly repeat what he’s been told as though he has discovered some great journalistic scoop, which is how Time will treat it.
What was this disinformation masquerading as a scoop? Why, the Anbar awakening! Guess what, it was a fraud! Or, at least that is what we find out from reading a man who has obviously been closely following what was happening in Iraq. Oh and get this choice little gem:
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.
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. Heh, well I guess it just depends on the message, even if in this case Joe Klein had some evidence to corroborate the claims being made about Anbar and the troubles al Qaida in Iraq was having. So how does our sock with eyes characterize what was happening in Anbar? It is a
…short-term and isolated lull in violence…
And we should not be
Pointing to three-day lapses in violence in a single place as proof that things are improving is so transparently irrational that, particularly at this point, it merits as much response as the desperate claim that anyone who opposes the war “wants the U.S. to lose.”
So irrational. Three days?I guess we are to assume ignoring a trend that was at the time actually at minimum an eight month is the height of rationality, and now that it has been an improving trend in Anbar for over a year now it is probably even more irrational. In his defense, despite opining with great certainty that Iraq
has inexorably descended into total chaos and violence. (ed. a bit of hyperbole, even then)
he has shown repeatedly, even when things were getting worse, that he has little knowledge of what is actually happening. I am sure he was pretty much unaware, or had totally dismissed out of hand, and therefore out of mind, any reports to the contrary. Three days, eight months, who cares to count when all outcomes are known in advance?
Of course we get to hear from him how evil out of touch men such as Glenn Reynolds are for bringing in the views of men who are actually in Iraq:
Glenn Reynolds defends Joe Klein and “responds” to my post by (a) accusing me of rooting for the U.S. to lose and (b) re-printing an e-mail he received from Michael Yon who claims that, in Anbar, “the guns are mostly quiet now” and the Infantry Task Force with which he is embedded “hardly have fired their weapons.” Yon claims that things are so peachy in Anbar that the meetings of the Task Force are “more administrative than combat oriented.”
I think I detect a bit of snideness there. Can we cherish another little bit of irony? First of all Glenn, a bit of clarification. Mr. Reynolds says you wish for Bush to lose, I think Mr. Reynolds thinks you view the rest of us losing along the way as mere collateral damage. You know, more rubble less trouble?
I don’t know if it is just me, but given the sock puppets attitude and unwillingness to admit any progress in Iraq to this very day that the charge that he wants us to lose is true, whatever his motivation. Someone who wants us to win, but believes our course is foolish would welcome and acknowledge that things have changed. He might even praise General Petraeus and our troops for accomplishing much even though you still feel the invasion was a mistake. One might say that Iraq hasn’t in fact continued sliding into total chaos and violence. One could do that even as one still feels the cost is too high to incur given the possibility of reversals. What you wouldn’t do is savage the men bringing the good news unless you felt it wasn’t good news, and that good news had to not only be claimed as inadequate to change your mind, but actually denied and its bearers portrayed as liars and charlatans. That may just be me however because my understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of society at my local clothing bin is a bit weak.
Glenn Greenwald is a disgrace, and whatever the failings of Col. Boylan I cannot but help share his disdain.
And Mr. Rick Ellensburg or Wilson, or Greenwald or whoever you wish to go by, when I say you are dishonest, paranoid and a propagandist, I mean it in the most civil and professional way.
See Also: Jules Crittenden, Weasel Zippers, The Van Der Galien Gazette, Blue Crab Boulevard and Bithead (who looks into the e-mail controversy.)
Oh, and please visit our Glenn Greenwald Carnival of Fisking.
Update: Eric Scheie looks into the whole premise of the Sock Puppet’s Right-wing blogger/military collusion. On a related note I also refer your to McQ’s post on the military’s bloggers roundtables.
Ouch! I have been smacked by the mini puppet Mona. This despite the fact she has said she would never stop by again, and given the haphazard slap it is certainly possible she didn’t read the post. It seems she is upset because some have taken Greenwald to task for eliminating salient points of the e-mail from his post. Her response is that he linked to the e-mail in its entirety, which while it doesn’t answer the critique (which is about the editing he did, not whether someone who bothered to read the whole thing could find what he deleted.) Anyway, why that criticism has anything to do with my post I have no idea, but it is nice to know we are now “wingnut morons” for not being guilty of the supposed sin addressed of not noticing the link, or not comprehending it. Of course we are not only “wingnut morons, ” we are now keepers of the neo-con faith! Why she has us there. Did you hear that everybody, I AM A NEO-CON! Good thing we have such people as she and her master to supply us with a rational, non-vacuous form of debate what with insightful, nuanced uses of the word NEO-CON and Wingnut Moron. We wouldn’t want to trivialize our oh so hoity toity selves with anything less than such dignified forms of argumentation:
This apparently went unread, unnoticed and/or uncomprehended by the insightful keepers of the neocon faith, who used this non-misrepresentation of anything by Greenwald as another excuse to spew vacuous venom at him.
As you see, in the careful and precise world of sock puppets and their sycophants, it is the height of non-vacuousness to claim someone uses as an excuse something which was never mentioned.
That is called “Reality Based.” Heh, well I am appropriately chastised now for having not claimed something and used this lack of a claim to spew vacuous venom. Believe me, mini-me and her overlord know the meaning of venom, though it is always professional and civil venom. Though we might mention that this little passage is in fact a misrepresentation of me, though it is certainly not done vacuously.
I will accept the vacuous (but fun!) part as an essential truth of parts of the post, but he didn’t misrepresent anything? Well, I would like to see a substantive argument as to how he didn’t misrepresent what I have claimed he did, or any of the non-vacuous parts of the post, especially the way the sock puppet army squares his smears based on supposed lies (not that he ever had a smidgen of proof that they were lies, not that there wasn’t copious evidence of the claims he disputed being true) which have turned out to be true. That non-vacuous topic has yet to be addressed, and certainly the blatant error of the claims the sock puppet made (and mini me as well) on this particular point have never elicited any apology to those so smeared.
Of course, I have it on good authority from a certain person within the sock puppet camp that despite the brilliance of the talking sock, he is wholly unable to admit error. If I ever track that source down (ahem) I might ask them about this trait and shouldn’t he be called on it on at least the reputation of Joe Klein and Petraeus on the issue of Anbar’s turnaround? From there we might work on a few other smears, but one must start somewhere. When one has such an awful disability it is best to take it one step at a time.
More piling on: The Jawa Report, Bookworm Room, The Dread Pundit Bluto, Wake Up Americans.
12 Responses to “The Great Sock Puppet is hunting IP’s- We have been noticed by the Greenwald fan club!”
Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed
I’m gob-smacked - gob-smacked I say! - that Glenn Green(s)wald can stop looking in his blogging mirror long enough to recognize somebody else’s writing style.
–
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.
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.
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…
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
He made the comment, not me.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, right, so when serving US generals mock and insult political commentators, it’s a good thing for the Republic.
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.
Interestingly enough, Bookworm Room is taking a lot of heat from Greenwald followers in his comment section. There’s a lot of nonsense being bandied about, but this comment takes the cake by far IMHO:
Even if this is a parody, it just has “reality-based community” written all over it, doesn’t it?
“Our military isn’t allowed to defend itself from vicious smears and propaganda intended to undermine support for their mission?”
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.
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.
Joe,
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.
I think is what you meant to say.
It appears you are fine with generals getting mocked, but you have issues with “generals” mocking those who attack them.