Greenwald pointed out this fuckery after many efforts to speak with a fellow named Beauchamp, who had written an anonymous report about what he had seen on patrols in Iraq.Initially Malkin and others said that this wasn’t a “real soldier”. Evidence was provided that indeed he was, by a major media source in Iraq.

Then someone in the military blew his anomnimity.

[Presumably by accessing his internet account…wait…that would require going through thousands of accounts to identify him, wouldn’t it. Nawww! They wouldn’t do THAT to the troops!]

Then they issued select aspects of his unit, and sicced the dogs on him for leaking “classified information” (as if a patrol weeks old would have been secret). Then they denied that he actually had gone on those patrols and that his accounts were full of lies (which makes the whole “He was releasing secrets” argument fall apart…secrets about events that didn’t happen?)

Then they claimed, using “an uncited source in the military” that statements from his fellow members on that patrol were taken (Hey! What about Beauchamp never going on patrol?) and they totally contradicted his report.

Well, Greenwald was slightly upset with being unable to get “on the record” statements from the military. He constantly hit the wall with Col. Boylan, who appears to be the “point man” on this issue for the media. So Greenwald made the veiled and nuanced statement that someone close to the issue was providing the right-wing hit machine with private personnel material to attack Beauchamp.

That shit apparently hit the target like a piece of chimp scat aimed at the zookeeper. Boylan flipped out. He sent off Greenwald a nasty letter asserting that the material wasn’t “classified” and, anyways, that suggesting that he had something to do with it was “unfounded”. Hmm!

Greenwald then started publishing and commenting on the emails that he got from Col. Boylan, which led to Boylan telling him that the email was personal and that he didn’t want it published. Greenwald said he doesn’t deal with “anonymous sources” particularly when the terms weren’t agreed to in advance. Hmm! Boylan seems to write emails to the media that he intends to be “not for publication” or at least, “under his name”. Interesting…the exact “modus operandi” the right-wing bloggers were obtaining info. And Boylan assumed that Greenwald would do this.

That’s when Boylan started writing the invective…and then denying that he had. Greenwald had cornered him in a series of dissembling statements that suggested it was Boylan himself who was feeding Malkin, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and others with this personal information.

Boylan then denies that he was the one that was actually writing these emails! Despite the fact that the internet machine protocol and routing numbers were completely congruent with Boylans! And that the formatting within the emails sent, and the style were the same. And that whomever wrote the later email was completely aware of the contents of the EARLIER emails.

Yet Boylan suggests that he has been a victim…a VICTIM…of IDENTITY THEFT. Well, not to put hat in CAPS…in fact, he seems to be completely non-plusse about the fact that someone has hacked into the Defense Departments Military Communication system, into his personal account and read secure “private” emails and sent others out on his own computer. He doesn’t seem very concerned that a “mole” has infiltrated his Department and started communicating in an unprofessional manner with the public. And he also seems unconcerned that this person may have communicated “information” (possibly false) to the “citizen journalists” out there, under the authority of his office.

Either that or Greenwald has his macademias nailed to a cactus!

VG – no wories – it was a joke! (a good one)

when perrinochio stops lying for a week, then I’ll worry about whether the sheep-fuckinig Constitution-raping bastards were spawned te same hatch day.

Valley Girl @ 260

Okay everyone. Further research shows that the joke about sheep breeding with aliens has been around a long time, and that the details as to birthdays has been discredited.

Apologies. I usually do at least a minimal amount of research before I post links.

Apparently I got carried away with the idea of “sheep breeding with aliens”. Just seemed to explain so much that I didn’t look more closely as to the details.

I thought it was clear that Russert was looking for soundbites he could use against Clinton on MTP. Very clear. And the reason I love Hillary is that she didn’t give him the opportunity. She was debating the other dem candidates as well as Russert…and won!

Excellent read, and Hill WAS very strong.

Yeah, Russert just pisses me off. I can…not…stand watching and listening to that phony, narcissistic blow-hard.

Hmmm. @ 327

Bush. Rove. Gonzales. DeLay. Cornyn. Enron. ClearCom. Discriminatory sodomy laws. Heaven forfend we should dump on Texas.

Barbara Jordan. Ann Richards. Molly Ivins. Jim Hightower. Ralph Yarborough. Townes Van Zandt. Bob Wills. Willie Nelson. Delbert McClinton. T-Bone Walker.

Approximately a push, I’d say.

Good point.

TexBetsy @ 303

nooses in Texas

4 workers fired after hanging nooses in Houston

from HoustonChronicle

By DALE LEZON

Four contract workers were banned from FMC Technologies after they hung nooses at one of the firm’s Houston facilities, the company announced Tuesday.

The three men and one woman also were fired from their jobs with the contractors for FMC, an oil-field services equipment manufacturer, said Maryann Seaman, FMC spokeswoman.

“FMC has zero tolerance for workplace harassment,” Seaman said.

Seaman said about a month ago an employee notified company officials that he had seen a noose hanging in the FMC’s Gears Road facility.

Three workers were banned from FMC after they were discovered to have been involved in placing the noose, she said.

Last week, another noose was seen hanging in the same facility, Seaman said, and another person was banned from the firm because she was involved in placing that noose.

Seaman said the company is investigating the cases. So far, she added, the firm has has not contacted law enforcement authorities, but it will do what is ever necessary once its investigation is complete.

I’d be interested in knowing how this became public knowledge, and made it into the paper, without Mr Law being contacted. You can be sure the company didn’t notify the paper — I wonder if one of the fired workers did?

Or if possibly someone is making this stuff up for financial gain?