Here's something you don't see every day: Glenn Greenwald linking a right wing blogger favorably.

So favorably, in fact, that Greenwald crossed out the "right-wing" in "right-wing blogger" although he did allow that the blogger was "writing at a garden-variety pro-war blog that typically spews the standard venom characterizing the right-wing blogosphere."

Here's what was singled out for praise and awarded the much-coveted "right-wing cross-out":

I am normally sympathetic to entries that are mocking Glenn Greenwald. However, I have to lend him at least some credence here -- he is, after all, in the curious position of being the recipient of acrimonious emails (regardless their relative merit, or if emails sent from .mil domains can be considered private) with Col. Boylan's identifying marks on it that Col. Boyland denies sending. Indeed, either Col. Boylan feels regret at having sent them, which is just childish, or someone spoofed his email address, which is a vastly more serious problem. And Boylan's apparent casual attitude lends the impression of wrongdoing on his part.

Does the apparent casual attitude really lend the impression of wrongdoing on his part? (I have to say, if an "apparent casual attitude" is evidence of wrongdoing, then this blog is incredibly guilty on a daily basis!)

Might it be that Colonel Boylan simply doesn't give a rat's ass about Glenn Greenwald or what he thinks? Isn't it possible that the insulting email (which some bloggers very much hope he sent), and the deliberately infuriating denial of it were simply Boylan's way of having a little fun at Greenwald's expense?

Or is fun not allowed any more?

I mean, put yourself in Colonel Boylan's position. What might you do if you were over in Iraq and had to endure being sent petulant, pestering and whiny emails by the likes of Glenn Greenwald?

Let's look at the text of the exchange (which has been lovingly and painstakingly compiled by Jules Crittenden):

GG to Col. Boylan:

Col. Boylan - Could you just confirm that this email [email forwarded] is authentic, written by and sent from you?Thanks -

Glenn Greenwald

Col. Boylan to GG:

Glenn,Interesting email and no. Why do you ask?

Steven

GG to Col. Boylan:

Only because it comes from your email address, is written in your name, and bears all of the same distinguishing features as the last emails you sent to me:steven.boylan@iraq.centcom.mil

Did you really not notice that?

Col. Boylan to GG:

Well, since they were on the web, not surprising. If you do a search on the web, you will also see that I have been a victim of identity theft of late in Vermont and at least two other places trying to rent property and that person identified themselves as me and thankfully the State Police were able to get in touch with me about it while I am sitting here in Baghdad.

GG to Col. Boylan:

Well isn't it of great concern to you that someone is able to send out emails using your military email address? Do you plan to look into that?And you labelled the email I recieved "interesting." What does that mean? Do you agree with its content, have any comments about it?

Col. Boylan to GG:

What do you mean what does that mean? There are sock puppets lurking everywhere, from Vermont to Brazil. I mean, surely you knew?

GG to Col. Boylan:

Precisely what do you mean by that?

Col. Boylan to GG:

No, I just asked you "what do you mean what does that mean?"! It's your turn! You can't respond by turning around and asking me what I mean by what do you mean what does that mean! That's no fair!

So let me ask you, isn't it of great concern to you that someone is able to send out emails using your email address? Do you plan to look into that? How do I know you're not the same sock puppet who tried to ruin my credit and rent the house in Vermont with a bad check?

GG to Col. Boylan:

While I have been careful not to make accusations against you without proof -- opting instead to provide all facts as I obtain them -- here you are spitting out all sorts of serious accusations without a shred of evidence in order to defend yourself. You have learned the Bush tactics well.

Col. Boylan to GG:

That statement represents and reveals the sort of toxic politicization of the military that has increased palpably, and dangerously, over the last year.

Could you just confirm that this email is authentic, written by and sent from you?

GG to Col. Boylan:

Colonel,Interesting email and no. Why do you ask?

Virtually every media outlet spent significant efforts covering allegations that Scott Beauchamp, a 23-year-old Private, exaggerated some war stories. Isn't it clear that allegations far more serious, against the personal spokesman for the top General in the Iraq War, merit at least as much attention and investigation?

As to the denying of the insulting, why that's almost as serious as denying being a sock puppet!

Clearly, this calls for at least as much attention and investigation!