« "Nuts!" | Main | Rangel's Tax Plan a Return to Carternomics? »

Errors of Omission

I only have a minute to comment on the following right now, so if any other Wizbang bloggers want to jump in on this one, please do.

Bluto has posted the full text of the email Glenn Greenwald received from Colonel Steven A. Boylan, Public Affairs Officer for General Petraeus, with the portions that Greenwald omitted from his post characterizing the email as "bizarre" highlighted. Interesting is what Greenwald chose to include in the post, and what he chose to omit. In his original post describing the email as bizarre, Greenwald said:

Everyone can decide for themselves if that sounds more like an apolitical, professional military officer or an overwrought right-wing blogger throwing around all sorts of angry, politically charged invective. Whatever else is true, it is rather odd that this was the sort of rhetoric Col. Boylan chose to invoke in service of his apparent goal of proving that there is nothing politicized about the U.S. military in Iraq.
Go read the email at Bluto's site and then decide for yourself whether Colonel Boylan sounds like someone putting forth a particular political ideology or someone who is angry at a lazy guy who doesn't do his homework and misrepresents everything the Colonel and others in Iraq are doing. Sounds like the latter to me. Reading the portions of the email that Greenwald chose to post and the ones he chose to omit convinces me that Colonel Boylan had good reason to feel that way, too.

Update: The difference between the version of the full email posted at Bluto's site and the full version Greenwald links to (which Bluto pointed out in his post) is that Bluto highlighted the portions which were edited out of Greenwald's post calling the email "bizarre." I updated the post above (in italics) to make that clear.

Update II: The Greenwald post linked above is a good example of how those on the left have argued the issues surrounding the war in Iraq by omitting relevant facts. The media has done the same in much of their reporting. The way Greenwald omitted the section citing the errors Boylan noted from his post trying to paint the email as bizarre is the same way those on the left have debated the war in Iraq. They often link to a report, but then will cherry pick certain portions, while ignoring any favorable ones. In some cases, positive reports are not mentioned at all, but are omitted entirely. It is no wonder so many Americans still believe there has been no progress made in Iraq.

Update III: Okay, one last try. For those who still don't get it, I will try one more time using Joe Citizen's comment as a jump off point:

So Lorie, please explain.

Why did you sink to Greenwaldian levels of blog discourse by only reproducing one selected quote from Glenn's article?

Because that was the part of his post that I was addressing -- the claim that Col. Boylan's email was "politically charged" and "bizarre." If he had included some of the excerpts that Bluto highlighted (he would not have even had to include all of them) it would be evident to the reader that Boylan's frustration was with the bad reporting on Iraq, including the specific errors he cited that Greenwald had committed.


This is such an incredibly phony arguement. Please tell me how many blog posts, or news stories, starting with your own, completely reproduce the full text of anything that they then comment on? If you write a story about
a NYT article, do you reproduce the full article in the body of your text?

No, but I don't intentionally exclude all the parts that would reveal the point I was arguing to be invalid.

If you write about the SOTU address, do you include the whole thing?

It isn't necessary to include the entire thing, but it is necessary in order to mount a valid and honest argument to not omit any parts relevant to the argument.

Or do you select those parts that you find of interest, and provide a link to the
rest?

It is fine to post excerpts in order to make an argument, as long as you don't omit parts to completely distort the resulting post and mislead the reader. I think that when Greenwald excluded the part where Boylan pointed out the errors Greenwald had made the result was to distort the source of Boylan's frustration, which was not that he was not reporting from a particular political point of view, but that he was getting stuff flatout wrong. That is why I said it is "interesting" to see which parts Greenwald left out.

What a dishonest and ridiculous post this is...

Read my post again. Read it without the updates. Here is the post in it's entirety for those who need help,

I only have a minute to comment on the following right now, so if any other Wizbang bloggers want to jump in on this one, please do.

Bluto has posted the full text of the email Glenn Greenwald received from Colonel Steven A. Boylan, Public Affairs Officer for General Petraeus. Interesting is what Greenwald chose to include in the post, and what he chose to omit. In his original post Greenwald said:

"Everyone can decide for themselves if that sounds more like an apolitical, professional military officer or an overwrought right-wing blogger throwing around all sorts of angry, politically charged invective. Whatever else is true, it is rather odd that this was the sort of rhetoric Col. Boylan chose to invoke in service of his apparent goal of proving that there is nothing politicized about the U.S. military in Iraq."

Go read the email at Bluto's site and then decide for yourself whether Colonel Boylan sounds like someone putting forth a particular political ideology or someone who is angry at a lazy guy who doesn't do his homework and misrepresents everything the Colonel and others in Iraq are doing. Sounds like the latter to me. Reading the portions of the email that Greenwald chose to post and the ones he chose to omit convinces me that Colonel Boylan had good reason to feel that way, too.

Now go back and read Bluto's post -- because it highlights those portions that were excluded from Greenwald's argument that Boylan's email was "politically charged" and "bizarre" and "unsolicited." I think it is incredibly interesting to see which portions Greenwald excluded and a good example of what we see from the left everyday in the debate over the war in Iraq.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/25138.

Comments (57)

Socky and lying, go togethe... (Below threshold)
gmax Author Profile Page:

Socky and lying, go together like stink and cowdung. The guy has no cred at all, except perhaps with his Brazilian cabana boys.

First off all, Greenwald po... (Below threshold)
jp2:

First off all, Greenwald posted the entire email - It's linked in the 2nd sentence of the post! How else do you think "Bluto" got the email?

Secondly - if you actually read the Greenwald article - didn't Boylan deny that he sent the email? Don't you think that is a major point worth mentioning? Talk about errors of omission...

Providing a link and postin... (Below threshold)
engineer:

Providing a link and posting only portions that you want to take out of context are two quite different animals. Many people will never click the link, rather they will rely on the 'integrity' of the author.

Greenwald, himself wasn't exactly sure that Boylan denied that he wrote it. And, was the update written before or after Lori wrote her post?

Um, Greenwald posted the en... (Below threshold)
General Kaos:

Um, Greenwald posted the entire unedited email. Are you guys assholes?

Get real engineer. It is v... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Get real engineer. It is very common to select portions of text for posting and link to the full text if you want more information, and I read the updates this morning, so Lorie knew.

There was a bit of a kerfuf... (Below threshold)
thanks lorie:

There was a bit of a kerfuffle when you came over to wizbang. A lot of people thought you were dimwitted. Others didn't think you were ideologically pure enough.

I am glad this post of yours puts those doubts to rest.

Are you guys assholes?</... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Are you guys assholes?

Well, I can only answer for myself, but yes, I am.
However, that doesn't change that Glenn(s) are a sock-puppetry masters.

I do have to stick up for Glenn(s), (t)he(y) did post the entire email, the posted excerpts were called excerpts.
Glenn(s) say, "...which I am publishing in full here" with a link to the full text.
In the part (t)he(y) quote, (t)he(y) say
I'll let multiple passages from Boylan's email to me this morning speak for itself:

So yes, Glenn(s) are being totally funny about getting upset about some possible sock-puppetry, (t)he(y) are also being disingenuous about the email being rude as if (t)he(y) had not had any previous experience with this particular colonel.
But..... Glenn(s) did note that (t)he(y) were only posting selective passages.

Instead of bashing Glenn(s) and the cabana boy sock-puppet (s) for being the douche he is (they are), we should be congratulating him (them) on actually for once being honest about a quotation.

Fooled again by the ingenio... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Fooled again by the ingenious treachery of ellipses and hyperlinks! What tools of devilry will the left come up with next?!?

Does being this dumb make your head hurt?

Glenn exposed yet again! ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Glenn exposed yet again! I LOVE IT!!

The stupidity of right-wing... (Below threshold)

The stupidity of right-wingers apparently is boundless. Congratulations, Lorie. Heckuva job!

My point was that the post ... (Below threshold)

My point was that the post making the case that Boylan's email was bizarre and politically motivated, etc. omitted major portions of the email and when you looked at those omitted portions (which is easier to do from Bluto's full version than Greenwald's because Bluto highlighted the omitted sections) the email did not sound "bizarre" at all, but rather sounded like someone sick of seeing reporting on Iraq that omitted major portions of the story of the war.

As for "thanks lorie" I don't know what the "kerfuffle" or "doubts" were about me and since you didn't even have the guts to put a real email address on your comment, for all I know you could be one of Greenwald's many sock puppets. I guess we will never know.

"He did so post the entire ... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

"He did so post the entire letter! Nyah!"

Wow, watch the libtards pounce on... nothing. Guess they need SOMETHING to cling to following failure after miserable failure.

"My point was that the post... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"My point was that the post making the case that Boylan's email..."

Are you going to address the fact that Boylan himself says that it's not his email? Or just forget about it? Huge omission.

Reading the portions of ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Reading the portions of the email that Greenwald chose to post and the ones he chose to omit convinces me that Colonel Boylan had good reason to feel that way, too.

But he chose to post the entire email, didn't he Lorie? Surely it's not the case that you didn't realize that until after your posted this, because you didn't bother to read the post that you were criticizing, but relied upon a rather dense fellow blogger, taking his assertion that Greenwald "chose not to publish" parts of the email at face value. Or perhaps, you just don't know how hyperlinks work.

And you surely aren't backpedaling now that you realize you should have read a few words of what you were writing about and taken a moment to click a couple of links. I know that's hard with a busy schedule though. Probably better just to bloviate and move on. If backed into a corner, pull out something about sock puppets! You never have to be right if you can call up the Chewbacc--er, sock puppet diversion.

LGF rips Glenn(s) a new one... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

LGF rips Glenn(s) a new one his cabana boys are going to find unappealing.

Greenwald, for some reason,... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Greenwald, for some reason, has decided to respond:

"Abject stupidity defined"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

That about says it all. This is pretty low Lorie, even for your standards.

Two questions:1) W... (Below threshold)
KickAss:

Two questions:

1) Would anyone in the right-wing blogosphere ever admit they were wrong about attacking someone (say Glenn Greenwald) for something he didn't do? I am amazed at the bullshit back peddling (e.g. claiming that Glenn's explicit statements about only printing excerpts and his linking to the full version IS NO BETTER than what the first idiot on the right who blogged on this claimed -- that Glenn was passing off excerpts as the entire doc).

2) You don't see how the Colonel's letter was political? You can't see that? At all? Try this: imagine that a Hillary Clinton military official was telling Fox News to fuck off (Fox takes things out of context all the time and backs up their claims with documentation far less than Glenn Greenwald). Wouldn't that be troubling to you?

I assume neither of my questions compute, as logical consistency is clearly a tool of the Left. Sadly, the approach you take -- smear without facts and never apologize -- is infecting everything and is the wave of the future. In this respect, Hillary Clinton is more like you than me, and I'm a big fat liberal. Thanks for raising the bar. The future is your creation, so enjoy it and all the wonders it looks like it will bring.

Um, Greenwald post... (Below threshold)
Maggie:
Um, Greenwald posted the entire unedited email. Are you guys assholes?

Well think about it. Without them we'd all, includiing you, would be in deep macaca.

I assume neither of my q... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

I assume neither of my questions compute, as logical consistency is clearly a tool of the Left.
I haven't met the lefty you're talking about (the one who calls himself "Logical Consistency". Where does he blog?), but if he's as big a tool as you, then he's surely a big tool.

Oh, good one Veeshir. So c... (Below threshold)
KickAss:

Oh, good one Veeshir. So can you admit that this blog and the idiot to which Lorie linked got it wrong? It's a test. Are you capable of doing that? Keep in mind that right-wing blogs take shit out of context all the time with no links, unlike Glenn, who is always careful to link to anything he critiques. So can you do it? Is this blog in the wrong, or do you apply different standards to the Left than you do the Right? And if you do, then that would tend to back up my claim.

Ummm, Lorie didn't get it w... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Ummm, Lorie didn't get it wrong, she said that he selectively quoted it in the linked piece to try to help make his point. Yes, he linked the entire document, but in his post he picked out some pieces that helped his point while avoiding parts that didn't.
Keep in mind that right-wing blogs take shit out of context all the time with no links,
Like that sentence? Or did you have some links to some examples that were edited out?
Is this blog in the wrong, or do you apply different standards to the Left than you do the Right?
Some of the commenters were surely wrong, but I hold both sides to the same standards.
Actually, that's a lie, I hold the right to much higher standards. One, because I hold myself to higher standards. Two, because the left has such low standards it would be impossible to hold them to the same standard.

I'm curious,
The way I read this post is:
"Glenn(s) linked to the entire email but his post selectively quoted the email to try to make a point that the entire email would not have allowed him to make."
Bluto's linked post reads like this
"Glenn(s) selectively quoted the email to try to make a point that the entire email would not have allowed him to make."

Which of those two statements is untrue? If you think both of them, then quote to prove me wrong, if neither of them, where is there a mention saying that he didn't link to the entire email in either post?



"The way Greenwald omitted ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"The way Greenwald omitted the section citing the errors Boylan noted from his post trying to paint the email as bizarre..."

The email was bizarre, and again, it was not from Boylan. (According to Boylan)

So Lorie, please explain.</... (Below threshold)
JoeCitizen:

So Lorie, please explain.

Why did you sink to Greenwaldian levels of blog discourse by only reproducing one selected quote from Glenn's article?

This is such an incredibly phony arguement. Please tell me how many blog posts, or news stories, starting with your own, completely reproduce the full text of anything that they then comment on? If you write a story about a NYT article, do you reproduce the full article in the body of your text? If you write about the SOTU address, do you include the whole thing? Or do you select those parts that you find of interest, and provide a link to the rest?

What a dishonest and ridiculous post this is...

Glenn Greenwald is busy che... (Below threshold)

Glenn Greenwald is busy checking Memeorandum and characterizes me as excited. To be exact, here is the quote:

"Lorie Byrd at Wizbang excitedly announces: 'Bluto has posted the full text of the email Glenn Greenwald received from Colonel Steven A. Boylan' (something I did myself yesterday) and then says: 'Interesting is what Greenwald chose to post from the email, and what he chose to omit.'"

I do think it is interesting to note which excerpts he chose to include in his post saying Boylan's email was "bizarre" but I was not excited by it or anything else Glenn Greenwald has ever written -- and that includes anything written by his various identities. Which reminds me of one of the funniest blog posts I have ever read in my life.

What an excellent opportunity to link to it.

...logical consistency i... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

...logical consistency is clearly a tool of the Left.

heh...

ha ha...

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

HA HA HA HA HA.... stop!.... HA HA HA HA HA!... quit it!... Oh my...

phew!...

...

...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Man, that was good, thanks for that...

I know someone else who's a "tool of the left".

In his original post des... (Below threshold)
mantis:

In his original post describing the email as bizarre, Greenwald said:

Everyone can decide for themselves if that sounds more like an apolitical, professional military officer or an overwrought right-wing blogger throwing around all sorts of angry, politically charged invective. Whatever else is true, it is rather odd that this was the sort of rhetoric Col. Boylan chose to invoke in service of his apparent goal of proving that there is nothing politicized about the U.S. military in Iraq.

The Byrd post pasted above is a good example of how those on the right have argued the issues surrounding the war in Iraq by omitting relevant facts. The media has done the same in much of their reporting. The way Byrd omitted most of the Greenwald post trying to paint the post as dishonest is the same way those on the right have debated the war in Iraq. They often link to a report, but then will cherry pick certain portions, while ignoring any favorable ones. In some cases, negative reports are not mentioned at all, but are omitted entirely. It is no wonder so many Americans still believe there has been nothing but progress made in Iraq.

I can assume, in light of all this, that Lorie Byrd will never again write a post based on a linked article/email/blog post without including the entire text without omission, regardless of what portions she chooses to write about.

-----------------

Also note that neither Byrd nor Bluto have pointed to anything in the Boylan email that contradicts anything Greenwald (sockpuppet!!!) wrote about it. The only factual "error" that Boylan even pointed to was that Steve Schmidt is not currently on staff with the military in Iraq, and Greenwald wrote that he was when in fact he just did a consulting job! Imagine the gall it takes to say someone works somewhere when they no longer do. Will the mendacity never end?

Lorie, you could be honest like Rusty and admit it:

To be honest, I never read your original post. This might shock you Glenn, but I don't read anything you write. Ever.

Good for him. At least we know he's willing to write about things he hasn't even read, but that certainly doesn't make him less credible than an evil sockpuppet.

Sockpuppet!!!!!!

Okay, one last try. For th... (Below threshold)

Okay, one last try. For those who still don't get it, I will try one more time using Joe Citizen's comment as a jump off point:

So Lorie, please explain.

Why did you sink to Greenwaldian levels of blog discourse by only reproducing one selected quote from Glenn's article?

Because that was the part of his post that I was addressing -- the claim that Col. Boylan's email was "politically charged" and "bizarre." If he had included some of the excerpts that Bluto highlighted (he would not have even had to include all of them) it would be evident to the reader that Boylan's frustration was with the bad reporting on Iraq, including the specific errors he cited that Greenwald had committed.


This is such an incredibly phony arguement. Please tell me how many blog posts, or news stories, starting with your own, completely reproduce the full text of anything that they then comment on? If you write a story about
a NYT article, do you reproduce the full article in the body of your text?

No, but I don't intentionally exclude all the parts that would reveal the point I was arguing to be invalid.

If you write about the SOTU address, do you include the whole thing?

It isn't necessary to include the entire thing, but it is necessary in order to mount a valid and honest argument to not omit any parts relevant to the argument.

Or do you select those parts that you find of interest, and provide a link to the
rest?

It is fine to post excerpts in order to make an argument, as long as you don't omit parts to completely distort the resulting post and mislead the reader. I think that when Greenwald excluded the part where Boylan pointed out the errors Greenwald had made the result was to distort the source of Boylan's frustration, which was not that he was not reporting from a particular political point of view, but that he was getting stuff flatout wrong. That is why I said it is "interesting" to see which parts Greenwald left out.

What a dishonest and ridiculous post this is...

Read my post again. Read it without the updates in italics. Here is the post in it's entirety for those who need help,

I only have a minute to comment on the following right now, so if any other Wizbang bloggers want to jump in on this one, please do.

Bluto has posted the full text of the email Glenn Greenwald received from Colonel Steven A. Boylan, Public Affairs Officer for General Petraeus. Interesting is what Greenwald chose to include in the post, and what he chose to omit. In his original post Greenwald said:

"Everyone can decide for themselves if that sounds more like an apolitical, professional military officer or an overwrought right-wing blogger throwing around all sorts of angry, politically charged invective. Whatever else is true, it is rather odd that this was the sort of rhetoric Col. Boylan chose to invoke in service of his apparent goal of proving that there is nothing politicized about the U.S. military in Iraq."

Go read the email at Bluto's site and then decide for yourself whether Colonel Boylan sounds like someone putting forth a particular political ideology or someone who is angry at a lazy guy who doesn't do his homework and misrepresents everything the Colonel and others in Iraq are doing. Sounds like the latter to me. Reading the portions of the email that Greenwald chose to post and the ones he chose to omit convinces me that Colonel Boylan had good reason to feel that way, too.

Now go back and read Bluto's post -- since it shows which portions were excluded from Greenwald's argument that Boylan's email was "politically charged" and "bizarre" and "unsolicited." I think it is incredibly interesting to see which portions Greenwald excluded and a good example of what we see from the left everyday in the debate over the war in Iraq.

KickAss:1) Wou... (Below threshold)
marc:

KickAss:

1) Would anyone in the right-wing blogosphere ever admit they were wrong about attacking someone (say Glenn Greenwald) for something he didn't do?

Sure with one qualifier, it will happen shortly after murtha apologies to the Haditha Marines that have been cleared of charges.

After Kerry implied U.S. soldiers were dumber than dirt.

After the Huff & Puff blog apologizes for its existence.

After Durbin apologizes for invoking the nazi card.

After Reid apologizes for his "2 million dollar letter." (along with the other 40 signatories)

etc...

'til then screw greenwald and ALL his sockpuppet incarnations.

Because that was the par... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Because that was the part of his post that I was addressing

Imagine that...

No, but I don't intentionally exclude all the parts that would reveal the point I was arguing to be invalid.

Tell us which excluded parts of Boylan's email reveal Greenwald's point to be invalid. You keep saying it does but don't explain where or how. Of course we know why you can't explain how, because you took Bluto's word for it and assumed that Greenwald didn't provide the full unedited email and make very clear that he was excerpting portions of it, and that "crime" was enough to convict in your eyes, without even bothering to read the original post.

I think that when Greenwald excluded the part where Boylan pointed out the errors Greenwald had made the result was to distort the source of Boylan's frustration, which was not that he was not reporting from a particular political point of view, but that he was getting stuff flatout wrong.

Other than the part about how Schmidt went there to do a contract job, and is not technically on staff in Iraq (which Greenwald responded to), what errors did Boylan point out?

Now go back and read Bluto's post -- since it shows which portions were excluded from Greenwald's argument that Boylan's email was "politically charged" and "bizarre" and "unsolicited."

Did reading those parts make it any less politically charged, bizarre, or unsolicited? I can maybe see the argument that it's not bizarre, but from a public relations standpoint, which is Boylan's job, it is rather bizarre to write a personal insulting email, unsolicited, to a critic. It's a huge mistake, PR-wise, for a multitude of reasons. It is bizarre in that it's unusual in its stupidity.

"..Greenwald excluded the p... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"..Greenwald excluded the part where Boylan pointed out the errors Greenwald had made.."

Lorie, Greenwald goes into great details the accusations made by the Col. That was one of the points of his column. Again this shows that you did not read Greenwald's article.

You and bluto are taking a pounding.

Baghdad barney:<em... (Below threshold)
marc:

Baghdad barney:

You and bluto are taking a pounding

OK barn... I'll defer to THE expert on being in receipt of "poundings."

As an aside, I find it just a bit hilarious how many have come running to greenwald defense. I just wonder where they were the many times he's been caught with more socks around his head than Fruit of the Loom produces each year.

The man is a complete fraud yet when the slightest hint of him being correct comes to light it unleashes his sycophants in Pavlovian fashion.

And Barney, being the ignor... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

And Barney, being the ignoramus he is, fails to understand that Greenwald's point is invalid if taken in context of the full email. Greenwald has therefore lied by ommission.

I find this omission to be ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

I find this omission to be especially interesting:

"The claims about Steve Schmidt being out here on the staff in Iraq are just flat wrong. Pray tell, where do you think he is and how long have you fantasized that he has been here? Based on our records of who is in Iraq, I am really sorry to disappoint you, but he just isn't here."

A specific example of Greenwald providing misinformation, followed by the text he chose to include:

"You are either too lazy to do the research on the topics to gain the facts, or you are providing purposeful misinformation -- much like a propagandist."

Taken in its full context, you can see why Boylan was annoyed. Taken out of context without details, Greenwald could almost get away with his insinuations.

"Taken in its full context,... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Taken in its full context, you can see why Boylan was annoyed."

Why should he be annoyed? He didn't write the email, right?

The ridiculous part is payi... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

The ridiculous part is paying any attention to Greenwald at all - he's long since discredited himself and taking anything he wrote seriously is ludicrous. He's proven himself dishonest.

If Greenwald copied the weather report onto his blog, I'd still double check with the weather service.

jp2-"Why should... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

jp2-

"Why should he be annoyed? He didn't write the email, right?

Allow me to correct myself and reiterate:

Boylan or anyone else who sent an e-mail to Greenwald would be annoyed at the way he took selective portions of the text to try to make a political point that never existed. Greenwald has taken things out of context before and put words in people's mouths to prove his own point.

An example would be the video of Fred Thompson's response to Michael Moore healthcare debate challenge. Greenwald misquoted Thompson saying that he told Moore to check into a mental institution. He's pulled this crap before and will again, regardless of the authenticity of the source. He's a snake in the grass, which is the real point.

Medusa: Well you can argue ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Medusa: Well you can argue that Greenwald is a "snake in the grass" if you want, but it's obvious that Boylan is lying - and lying rather poorly. It's shameful, really. And you rush to defend him. That's what I don't get.

And I think if you provide total context (which GG did, read his 2nd sentence) it's not really taking things out of context, but that's another argument altogether.

Do you really believe that he didn't send that email?

Greenward was the guy who m... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Greenward was the guy who made the argument that liberals were silent about AlQ 's torture and atrocities because they expected AlQ to commit such atrocities. Greenward is a disgrace. The fact that liberals continue to defend people like Greenward tell us who they are: the left has to lie to justify their sew*ge.

Sun rises in east, sets in ... (Below threshold)
Bill M:

Sun rises in east, sets in west.

Pope is Catholic.

Greenwald lies.

Dog bites man.

Nothing new about this!

Read the Colonel's e-mail at Bluto's. Dang, what a put down of ole socky. I especially like the last sentence. That's gonna leave a mark.

"Do you really believe t... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Do you really believe that he didn't send that email?"

Again, it doesn't matter. As to whether or not Greenwald originally posted the whole e-mail is in question at the moment. He has a lot of updates that might suggest some editing.

Opposition would also suggest that Bluto was lying about how Greenwald published it. If the e-mail was shown in its entirety on Glenn's blog, Lorie would never have sited Bluto as a source for the subject of this post. Another interesting thing to note is Greenwald denies the accuracy of the imformation Bluto says he orginally omitted. Who's lying here?

jp2 - havving a problems ke... (Below threshold)
marc:

jp2 - havving a problems keeping your statements straight? First you say "Why should he be annoyed? He didn't write the email, right?"

Then you say "Medusa: Well you can argue that Greenwald is a "snake in the grass" if you want, but it's obvious that Boylan is lying "

Lying about what, you claim he didn't send the email. Or do you claim he did and is lying about it?

Regardless, LaMedusa has it about right, no matter who authored the email they should be upset by how it was presented by greenwald.

On another note.... just how does one go about sending greenwald an email? He has about 10 different personas he uses on the net to confuse, obfuscate and outright LIE you can never be sure who your addressing.

Dear Lorie,Your ap... (Below threshold)

Dear Lorie,

Your application to write for The New Republic has been accepted based on the strength of your article, "Errors of Omission". You meet all of our strict criteria for reporting, namely:

a) writing based on information from dubious sources
b) failing to fact check, before or after publishing a story
c) ability to make nonsensical arguments to obfuscate your obvious mistakes

Congratulations, and welcome to the team.

Sincerely,
Martin Peretz, Franklin Foer, and Scott Thomas Beauchamp

"Lying about what, you clai... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Lying about what, you claim he didn't send the email. Or do you claim he did and is lying about it?"

It's called sarcasm. Of course he sent the email. And yes, it matters. Boyland is clearly lying. If you wish to defend him, great. But that's not a slight point. It matters.

"It matters."<... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"It matters."

Then would it also matter if Greenwald was lying about the accuracy of the content?

I just wonder where they... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I just wonder where they were the many times he's been caught.... yet when the slightest hint of him being correct comes to light it unleashes his sycophants in Pavlovian fashion.

So you're complaining about the people who were not there to defend Greenwald when he was wrong, but who are there to defend him when he's right. This is objectionable to you?

We all know the Bushies don't consider "being right" as appropriate criteria for choosing to defend someone, but you're not supposed to admit it so openly!

"Then would it also matter ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Then would it also matter if Greenwald was lying about the accuracy of the content?"

How can quoting someones own words and providing a full transcript be construed in any way as "lying?" This is where you are missing the logic train. If this does not make sense to you then I'm afraid a discussion of anything is irrelevant.

Greenwald exposed again and... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Greenwald exposed again and again and again.......

LOVE IT LOVE IT LOVE IT

I have read many of the com... (Below threshold)

I have read many of the comments above and have to wonder which post some of you read. I have been accused of doing and saying things that just aren't in that post. Read it again guys -- my original post without updates. What,exactly, was it in that post that got so many of you so (to use Greenwald(s)' word) excited? What, exactly, in that post was so "low"?

Many are mad that I pointed to Bluto's version of the email for people to look at for the omitted portions. The point of the post was to have readers see which portions were left out of Greenwald's argument that the email was "politically charged" and to see that if you read the portions left out you would probably conclude the writer was more likely ticked at crappy reporting than motivated by a political agenda. (But I said all that in the original post.) In Bluto's post you can see the omitted portions highlighted. If you refer to Greenwald's version of the email you have to toggle back and forth from screen to screen and do a compare and contrast to see which parts he decided to omit from his argument. Is that what upset so many people? It is much easier for people to see what was omitted in Bluto's version. Evidently many here would prefer readers not see that.

As for the name calling and nastiness and the utterly ridiculous, I thought I was used to that from the left, but I am constantly amazed at the level of vitriol that is present in that swamp known as the left wing blogosphere.

Thanks for the laugh of the week though to the person who would not use a real email address, but who said the following:

"There was a bit of a kerfuffle when you came over to wizbang. A lot of people thought you were dimwitted. Others didn't think you were ideologically pure enough."

What? Ideologically pure enough? For Wizbang? What could possibly make you think Kevin cracks an ideological whip here? Do you really think those at Wizbang march in lockstep? Uh, have you EVER read one Jay Tea's posts on gay marriage? Have you heard of Wizbang Blue? Well, to be fair and accurate, you said "others" didn't think I was ideologically pure enough so maybe you were just repeating something you heard "other" people who have never read Wizbang say. To quote Greenwald(s), "bizarre."

Greenwald exposed again ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Greenwald exposed again and again and again.......

Except... not and not and not....... bwahahahaha!

But Sock Puppet Jo is content to live in fantasyland. Hey Jo, I'd have thought you'd be defending Greenwald as a fellow sock puppet!

To be absolutely clear, Lor... (Below threshold)

To be absolutely clear, Lorie, are you claiming that you made your post this morning having read Glenn Greenwald's post in its entirety, knowing full well that that his post had a link to the complete original email, that Bluto was posting nothing new (except for boldface fonts), and the most relevant portions that Bluto highlighted were already mentioned and covered (though not directly quoted in the main post from the original email) in Greenwald's main post? And even though you knew that Greenwald linked to the complete email, you simply neglected to mention that when you said "omitted", that really meant "merely linked to"? That your first update was information you knew all along, but just didn't seem relevant at the time you were originally posting?

Is that your position, or is it actually that you didn't actually read Greenwald's post before making your own, didn't have any idea that he had provided a link to the email in his post, had no clue that his original post directly refuted Boylan(?)'s accusations that his facts were incorrect, and thought this was a great story? Later, when you realized the truth, you adopted the Clintonian stance that everything you said was technically accurate and that the real crime here wasn't that Greenwald didn't provide the entire email directly on the front page. When making his point that Boylan(?) sounded like a right wing blogger with his interspersed insults and angry invective, quoting selected passages to make that point was not enough. He had to immediately point out any times that Boylan(?) didn't sound like a spittle-flecked hack in the email.

Further, you would prefer that you and all bloggers be held to the following standard for all past and future posts:

"It isn't necessary to include the entire thing, but it is necessary in order to mount a valid and honest argument to not omit any parts relevant to the argument."

How far back would I have to dig to find a violation of this paradigm in your posts? As it turns out, exactly 1 post. There you claim to be unconvinced by the arguments of the New Republic, but you don't quote those arguments in their entirety. You simply link to them. Normally, I would think that that was standard blogging practice. Now I know that it is a cardinal blogging sin and one you cannot abide. Linking to and discussing their findings is not sufficient. You must not omit any parts relevant to the argument in the main post. I think you and all Wizbangers should be prepared to be called on this several times in the coming weeks.

On a totally side note, <a ... (Below threshold)

On a totally side note, one of the funniest posts you ever read is a 404 error? You do indeed have a unique sense of humor. Or, perhaps, you meant this.

"How can quoting someone... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"How can quoting someones own words and providing a full transcript be construed in any way as "lying?""

That's the point, jp2. His original post did not provide the full transcript. His argument about Boylan sounding like a rightest polition with parts of the e-mail omitted. When he gets busted on this, he begins updating continually to try to distract from his method. This is an extreme leftest tactic of dishonesty.

Okay wait. By pouncing on ... (Below threshold)

Okay wait. By pouncing on Lorie and focusing solely on her are many of you here admitting, by omission, that Greenwald is A) stupid for charging Boylan with omission when he did exactly that by posting excerpts and then linking to the entire email which shows his own omissions B) too quick to post it and respond to its contents, at length, without first checking its authenticity and C) an asshole for trying to elicit from Boylan his opinions on the contents of something he apparently didn't write?

And then criticizing Boylan for not showing enough 'outrage' that someone used his name? This, from the sock-puppet master?

Okay.

His original post ... (Below threshold)
His original post did not provide the full transcript.

Greenwald's original post provided a link to the complete email of Boylan(?). No one but you has ever contended otherwise. His post read, in part, "which I am publishing in full, unedited form here..." with a link to the complete mail.

If the e-mail was shown in its entirety on Glenn's blog, Lorie would never have sited Bluto as a source for the subject of this post.
I certainly agree that if Lorie had realized that the email was available in its entirety and that Greenwald had linked to it, she would not have made this post. I believe that it was this lack of realization that led to her original post and her several muddled attempts at justification since then.
Oyster,Your whole ... (Below threshold)

Oyster,

Your whole argument makes the rather strained assumption that Boylan is telling the truth when he said that he didn't write this. That someone not only faked the email headers of the Colonel, but also his writing style, and gave specific information about military employees/contractors and their lengths of service in Iraq. It seems more likely that he simply doesn't want to own up to the fact that he wrote the mail.

One thing we do know is that the writer of the email is a liar. Either it was Boylan and he is lying when he says that it was not written by him or it wasn't Boylan, and he lied when he signed it as Boylan.

Still waiting for you to sh... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Still waiting for you to show us how the portions of the email that Greenwald copied in the body of his post (with the full text provided through a link, of course), distorted the meaning of the email. Come on Lorie, if that was your point all along it should be easy for you to point out what was distorted. Keep in mind that to do this you will actually have to read Greenwald's post and tell us how he is misrepresenting Boylan(or whoever)'s email.

Simply demonstrate your (now) central charge that Greenwald distorted Boylan's email. You, and your fellow bloggers on the right who fell for Bluto's stupidity without reading the original post, have yet to demonstrate that at all. Could it be because it is simply a backpeddling explanation you came up with after being caught looking stupid? You tell us. Back up your assertion.

"Because that was the p... (Below threshold)

"Because that was the part of his post that I was addressing..."

So Lorie Byrd is allowed to post only parts of things, with the excuse that she is "addressing" only that part.

But Glenn Greenwald can't do that. Ooooooooh nooooooo...

You drip with hypocrisy, Lorie. And you're a gullible buffoon, to boot.

"No, but I don't intentionally exclude all the parts that would reveal the point I was arguing to be invalid."

Nothing in Boylan's email invalidates anything Greenwald said. Stop lying, Lorie.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy