(Update 2X)God, What WingNut Morons, Part 3,437
By Mona
[See above post.]
The right-o–phere thinks they’ve caught Glenn Greenweald in this horrible lie and misrepresentation vis-a-vis the bizarre and unprofessional email he received — and then posted about — yesterday from General David Petraues’ spokesman, Colonel Steven Boylan.
The parts that Greenwald chose not to publish tend to contradict his characterization of the email as “bizarre” and “unsolicited”.
Except, of course, these illiterate hordes would know that Greenwald DID publish the entire Boylan email, had they bothered to read the first three lines of his post:
I received this morning an unsolicited email from Col. Steven A. Boylan, the Public Affairs Officer and personal spokesman for Gen. David G. Petraeus (see UPDATE III below)…..which I am publishing in full, unedited form here
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.
I am going live with my theory, the only thing I can come up with for the rampant asshattery and thorough idiocy we have witnessed lately from the right-wing blogosphere:
They are now working in concert to say as many stupid things as possible so that we are unable to document and mock them all.
And Ezra Klein ponders whether Col. Boylan realizes that his spiteful and snide email to Greenwald may hold certain consequences, and only reinforces Greenwald’s original point:
I wonder if Boylan will get fired from this? And I wonder if he realizes how much attention he’s drawn to Greenwald’s main point: The politicization of military information?
And I wonder whether the wingnut idiots who have continued to draw so much attention to the issue — due to an apparently pervasive lack of reading comprehension skills vis-a-vis Greenwald’s post yesterday — realize they are not helping Boylan by keeping a spotlight on his disgraceful and unprofessional commentary?
*****
Update II:
In response to neolibertarian Lance at A Second Hand Conjecture — linked above in the word “excuse” — and to set the record straight, I never claimed I wouldn’t read that blog evermore; I said I would not comment. ASHC was included at memeorandum (as evidenced by my link to memorandum) under the stupid Bluto post supposedly “taking down” Greenwald. Lance includes Bluto in his approving listing of blog commentary on the Boylan/Greenwald email. I read what Lance had to say. None of it merited a substantive response.
.
Lance writes really quite well; unfortunately he is intellectually captive to Michael Ledeen and the likeminded. Hence the analytical deficiencies in many of his posts.
Comment by Davebo —
October 29, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Seriously Mona, we’re talking about World War IV here!
Who has time to read?
Comment by Joe Strummer —
October 29, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
I have to say, I’d have a lot more patience to wade through this squabble if Greenwald could write clearly and concisely. Unfortunately, he gives new meaning to the word verbiage, so I end up not reading him.
Comment by Karen —
October 29, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Mona, only the nerds like us read all the way to the end. The Kewl Kids stop when they want to.
Seriously, though, don’t the 24% ever get tired of having to lie?
Comment by Keith_Indy —
October 29, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Missing in all this is why did Greenwald decide to make a public issue of being mocked??
If Boylan did send such an email, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to bring that up with Boylan’s command, so that real action, if appropriate could be taken?
Comment by Mona —
October 29, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
.
He has a huge readership so obviously these issues don’t deter lots of people, but I agree he is verbose and repetitive. I entirely disagree, however, that his writing lacks clarity.
In any event, you need only read the first two sentences of his Boylan post from yesterday to see that he published the entirety of Boylan’s email for anyone to read for themselves, and that therefore those claiming otherwise are incontrovertibly mistaken. It really is a simple, slam dunk case.
Comment by Kevin Hayden —
October 29, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
I’m still waiting for the IAEA to be sent in to confirm my intelligence which indicates all wingnuts are really 13 year old boys who haven’t learned how to masturbate yet.
Comment by Mona —
October 29, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
I assure you, Greenwald lost no sleep about Boylan’s unprofessional rant about him. But it has news value when the public relations representative for Gen. David Petraeus sends out such screeds to citizen blogger the military (parts of it) doesn’t like, and to whom they will generally deny interviews (but will rush to Hugh Hewitt).
Boylan’s email reinforces Greenwald’s original point, namely, the extreme politicization of the military that Bush has placed in command in Iraq.
Comment by Joe Strummer —
October 29, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Yeah I sort of see that Greenwald has lots of readers. Of course some people aren’t deterred from reading LittleGreenFootballs or Instapundit, which is NOT to say that Greenwald is the same as those sites, but just to say that a large readership doesn’t necessarily much on its own.
Comment by Thom —
October 29, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Yeah, Keith, that’s just a strange question. Greenwald wrote a post about the politicization of the military, a subject you’d agree is noteworthy, and a short time later gets what can only be described as an overtly political email from a colonel and spokesperson for the army.
What you take from this is to wonder “why did Greenwald decide to make a public issue of being mocked??”
With an extra question mark, even? Oy.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
October 29, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
I find Greenwald to be be very clear and very repetitive; I can’t help but figure the repetition is due to a desire to make sure that folks get it (whatever it may be). I really can’t blame him. So much of this stuff seems so obvious, but the message just doesn’t seem to be getting through. You certainly may find it’s not the most effective technique; it works for me.
Comment by Monte Davis —
October 29, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Kevin @ #6: should be “who haven’t learned to masturbate IN PRIVATE yet.”
Comment by Davebo —
October 29, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Don’t worry about the good Colonel.
Should this cause the loss of his career (which it really shouldn’t) he can always report from Bob Owen’s basement.
It’s practically the same job.
Comment by Gary Farber —
October 29, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
He would need to make a choice between the two, and not do both, why?
Why would he not want to make it public?
Comment by Underpants Gnome —
October 29, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
They are now working in concert to say as many stupid things as possible so that we are unable to document and mock them all.
Anyone notice them all afroth (Is that a word? It fits) over a $500 donation to the Ron Paul campaign from Don Black?
According to the waterboarding-is-okay-and-pre-emptive-war-is-just-dreamy crowd, Ron Paul is ZOMG! TEH NAZI!
Comment by socratic_me —
October 29, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Because, Gary, everyone knows that if you just reported this quietly to his superiors he would be quickly and effectively reprimanded and no one would ever have to be embarassed by public discussion of the matter. Obviously we have a multitude of examples of the high levels of accountability we can expect from all branches of the government.
Or something like that.
Comment by Sophie O'Hanlon —
October 29, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Greenwald writes clearly to ensure the least amount of misunderstanding. He writes repetitively to ensure that those who choose to skim get the point.
Comment by roger —
October 29, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Greenwald is an erratic writer, who sometimes is too much the lawyer, covering all bases of his argument. When he is at his best, though, he is very good. There’s a nice thrust in his writing – as though he were putting a wooden stake with as much force as possible through the heart of a vampire. You have to do that a lot, nowadays.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
October 29, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
“i>I agree he is verbose and repetitive.”
I’ve always assumed that was because of his training as a lawyer. As Strunk and White said in their book. Elements Of Style, legal documents tend to be redundant and repetitive because they are trying to erase any possibility of mis-reading or misinterpretation. But with non-legal documents most writers simply assume a certain minimal amount of goodwill on the part of the reader.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
October 30, 2007 @ 4:42 am
Lawrence: But demonstrably, Glenn is right to assume a readership that includes people who are both hostile and indifferent at best to details.
Joe: You might try skimming. Glenn writes well-structured paragraphs. Read the first and last sentences of each, and all of his opening and closing paragraphs, and you will get the major points.
Comment by bago —
October 30, 2007 @ 5:59 am
A lawyer has to be redundant because he has to cover all of his bases in ways accessible to all kinds of people.
I can tell my browser fifteen different ways to save a file. As a programmer of a browser I have to lay out to the computer all fifteen ways and leave them open for access by whatever users might want to save a file.
A writer of a legal brief has to write an argument in several different ways so that the argument is accessible and properly understood.
It’s a fundamental language complexity.
Comment by Barry —
October 30, 2007 @ 7:51 am
Comment by Karen —
“Seriously, though, don’t the 24% ever get tired of having to lie? ”
What’s this ‘tired’ business? I’d bet that they’re feeling rather liberated from the ‘old media’ reality stuff.
Comment by Barry —
October 30, 2007 @ 8:17 am
BTW, Stephen Bainbridge drops all pretense, painting this as an attack on Our Brave Boyz in Uniform. He also no longer has comments, which I’d have also dropped at that point.