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 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 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 entire unedited email. Are you guys assholes?

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 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?

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 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! I LOVE IT!!

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

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 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 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 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 his cabana boys are going to find unappealing.

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) 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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) 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 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 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:

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 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 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.