Posted by D. Cupples | Last week, Salon's Glenn Greenwald wrote about links between military public-relations officers and war-friendly media outlets (e.g., selective interviews and info leaks). This morning, Greenwald received an email from the address of Army Col. Steven Boylan (Gen. David Petraeus' spokesperson), which is as personal an attack as you'd expect from a wife who'd just caught her husband canoodling with her sister.
The email writer moves from "refuting" points that Greenwald had not argued to stating (among other things) that: Greenwald lacks journalistic ethics, he didn't do good research, and he has no talent compared to Alan Colmes (Fox's bumbling, token "liberal")....
Later, Boylan refused to confirm that he'd sent the email. Brilliant response -- except that the email reportedly came from this address: steven.boylan@iraq.centcom.mil. It's the same address from which Greenwald had received other emails from Boylan. That and after Greenwald hit the reply button to this morning's nasty-gram, his email reached Boylan and Boylan responded.
During this morning's exchange, Boylan implied that his Internet identity had been stolen by someone in Vermont. I see the comic potential here, yet serious issues are emerging....
If Greenwald had called Boylan's momma ugly, I could understand Boylan's reaction. But Greenwald didn't. Greenwald merely exercised his First-Amendment right to question and criticize a federal- government entity that his tax dollars fund.
Boylan is a public servant. Is it appropriate for him to personally attack any citizen for criticizing military policies? I know, White House spokespeople do it all the time these days -- which is most unprofessional -- but the Army is supposed to be apolitical. Greenwald's comment:
"I would think Col. Boylan would have more important matters to attend to than writing me emails about how Alan Colmes is the "real talent" and how I lack the balls to go visit him in Iraq -- beginning with finding out who has been working secretly with right-wing outlets in the Beauchamp and Bilal Hussein matters, if he does not already know. The linchpin of a republic under civilian rule -- as well as faith in the armed services by a cross-section of Americans -- is an apolitical military. Like all other branches of the government intended to be apolitical, this linchpin is eroding under this administration, and that ought to be of far greater concern to Boylan and Petraeus than hurling petty insults."
If Boylan did write the email, did he have General Petraeus' blessing? If so, why is the military devoting taxpayer-funded resources to spinning reality?
Memeorandum: has other bloggers' reactions: Hullabaloo, Corrente and Mercury Rising
.
Related BN-Politics' Posts:
* Limbaugh's Speech Rights More Worthy of Protection?
* Blackwater Hearing: Odd Comments & Poor Media Coverage
* Govt. Contractors: Driving up War's Costs?
* Oversight Hearing: Rice Evasive, Republicans Don't Want Probe
Comments