I then proceeded to post 9 excerpted passages from the email.
In the post, I wrote: “Anyone who would like to have forwarded to them a copy of the email I received originally can email me and I will send it.” Several people emailed me to make that request, and I forwarded them the email, including — apparently — one right-wing blogger who calls himself “Dread Pundit.”
Now that he has cleverly obtained from me what he thinks is previously secret evidence (i.e., the full, unedited Boylan e-mail which I published myself yesterday), Dread Pundit has written a dramatic post accusing me of concealing parts of Col. Boylan’s email. And that’s not all. Also: “The parts that Greenwald chose not to publish tend to contradict his characterization of the email as ‘bizarre’ and ‘unsolicited’.” He has titled his post: “Full Text of Email Reveals Greenwald Mischaracterizations,” and he re-prints the entire e-mail which I sent to him, bolding the parts he says I “chose to leave out.” Very dramatic.
Of course, the whole post is based on his belief that I only published the excerpts, not the full and unedited email (even though the second sentence of my post says: “which I am publishing in full, unedited form here).” It is further based on the belief that I tried to pass off the excerpted passages as the full, unedited email (even though the excerpted passages are preceded by the explanation that what follows are “multiple passages from Boylan’s email to me”). Put another way, the (serious) accusations he is making are precluded by the most basic skills of reading comprehension.
The fact that a right-wing blogger spews serious accusations based on complete idiocy is ordinarily not worthy of comment. That happens virtually every day. That is what the right-wing blogosphere is, more or less; it is why it exists.
But now, in a short period of time, this accusation of my nefarious concealment of the full Boylan e-mail is becoming the scandal du jour among right-wing blogs, including some of the largest. Here is but a sample:
Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs writes that I’ve “now pulled another astonishingly mendacious move,” and announces that “[d]etails on Greenwald’s sleazy maneuver are at The Dread Pundit Bluto.” 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.” The individual who calls himself “Dr. Rusty Shackelford” says that I “edited the email to [my] best advantage” but that “the full text is here [at Dread Pundit's blog] with the portions Greenwald left out in boldface.” And on and on and on.
The fact that I published the full-email was so painfully transparent that even right-wing bloggers like this one were able to figure that out — and read his post to see how low that bar is. But in less than 90 minutes from the time “Dread Pundit” unveiled his brilliant discovery, the right-wing blogosphere has worked itself into one of its defining lynch mob fits of hysteria, all based on the inability to comprehend the most basic English, as in: “the full, unedited version is here” and “multiple passages from Boylan’s email.”
Another few hours and right-wing blogger Howard Kurtz will have a full Washington Post column on this. Add this to their always-expanding list. I’m honestly interested in knowing: what else besides abject stupidity can explain this? I mean that as a serious question.
UPDATE: As Overlander notes in comments, the passages I provided in the post itself also contained ellipses. For people who have mastered basic English, “ellipses” signify that only excerpts are being provided, not the full text.
UPDATE II: As many people have in comments, Jonathan Schwarz offers an alternative (or supplemental) explanation for this behavior, via George Orwell.
UPDATE III: Now, we’re awaiting only the Glenn Reynolds link (and the Howard Kurtz follow-up article) and the cycle will be complete.