Need We Say More?
VIRAL NOTES: Well, maybe not, but I will, anyway:
Pentagon official: “Rolling Stone” made McChrystal’s staff think they were speaking off the record
POSTED AT 8:31 PM ON JUNE 25, 2010 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
For the second time (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/25/is-there-any-such-thing-as-off-the-record/) today, a vivid reminder that when a scoop is big enough, nothing is truly “off the record (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504087_pf.html).”
They contend that the magazine inaccurately depicted the attribution ground rules for the interviews.
“Many of the sessions were off-the-record and intended to give [reporter Michael Hastings] a sense” of how McChrystal’s team operated, according to a senior military official. The command’s own review of events, the official said, gleaned “no evidence to suggest” that any of the “salacious political quotes” in the article were made during a series of on-the-record and background interviews Hastings conducted with McChrystal and others…
In an interview with Politico.com this week, Bates said that the Kabul command was forewarned about the article and offered “absolutely” no push-back…
But 30 questions that a Rolling Stone fact-checker posed in a memo e-mailed last week to McChrystal media adviser Duncan Boothby contained no hint of what became of the controversial portions of the story.
ABC’s hearing the same story (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/military-says-rolling-stone-broke-ground-rules.html), with the caveat that there was no written understanding between “Rolling Stone” and Team Mac about what was or wasn’t off the record. Here’s the list of 30 fact-checking questions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504194.html) that RS sent to Boothby; note his emphatic plea at the end that they not print the fact that McChrystal voted for Obama, a detail which apparently came from big Mac himself. Granted, “they thought it was off the record” is the best explanation thus far for why his staff would have been so stupid to chatter about Biden, Obama, etc, around a reporter, but that makes it only marginally less stupid. You’re going to goof on Vice President “Bite Me” with McChrystal right there and not expect someone from “Rolling Stone,” of all places, to run with it? I’m sure RS realized when they chose to print the incendiary bits that reporters from their magazine will never again be allowed within 50 feet of a soldier, but given the size of the bombshell they were sitting on and the fact that they ended up with one of the biggest scalps in the military, I’m equally sure they don’t care. Helpful rule of thumb for officers: If you’re tempted to say something “off the record” that might conceivably get your CO relieved of command, don’t say it.
Exit question one: Given the claim by RS’s managing editor that they omitted plenty of material that really was off the record, what exactly were the ground rules here? Exit question two: Should we expect any grumbling from other journalists that RS has now singlehandedly made the military afraid to talk candidly to reporters on background, or is McChrystal’s ouster a big enough score that they won’t care?
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/25/pentagon-official-rolling-stone-made-mcchrystals-staff-think-they-were-speaking-off-the-record/
VIRAL NOTES: In the age of litigating for spilling hot coffee in your own lap (and WINNING), isn't there something McChrystal can do? Really, I think he should be able to sue both that poor excuse for a hack and that worthless ass-wiper (i.e.: Rolling BStone) for both compensatory and punitive damages. Hell, I'd like to see Soldiers' families come out of the woodwork (and 9/11 families) making individual lawsuits for endangering their lives by hampering the efforts of a special operations general in the War on Terror.
Who knows?
In the transition time, people could be facing death, due to the truncated chain-of-command.
People have wondered why, when I get into a certain "mode" I become absolutely contemptuous, and even hateful, of civilians. This is why.
A civilian weasel with a vested, short-sighted interest in seeing the United States lose the War on Terror and the attitude of 'breaking eggs to make omelets' when it comes to the deaths of Servicemen, has struck the United States armed forces a serious blow, that even the Taliban and al-Qaeda haven't been able to.
I think the military forces should no longer cooperate with civilians, period. If you want news from the warfronts, then you should have to go to milbloggers or read Army Times. Any civilians caught in the AO should be captured, turned over to the Military Police for processing and detention, and then turned over to the DIA and/or CID/NI/USMCI for interrogation, and to find out how much intel they've given the enemy through their irresponsible, anti-American "reporting".
There is no honor amongst these thieves. They will put their selfish desires above everyone else, including everyone elses' safety. Their hated for George Bush and "Bush's wars" has cost the United States a fine, able Army general officer, and if you forget that, then you're an idiot. Liberals are liberals, first, last and always. They are liberals before being Christians, they are liberals even before being democrats, and they are certainly liberals, before being Americans. Their brainless zeal to hurt the war effort, and ostensibly hurt Bush, is nothing more than cutting their noses off to spite their faces. (If you don't know that that means, think about it.) In fact, liberals are the masters of cutting off their noses to spite their faces, and calling it cosmetic surgery.
Yeah, I'm talking to you, libs. Don't like it? Tough shit.
So in their effort to destroy a good general, they have literally, personally, placed troops in harm's way, who didn't need to be put there, and probably wouldn't've, had the chain of command not been disrupted, for whatever amount of time. Just as I blame Obama for the deaths that occurred during his jacking off and trying to figure out a no-brainer (should I send reinforcements to the general asking for them, and not lose the war, or not?: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54807), I blame this reporter, his editors and Rolling Stone, for any deaths that may occur, now. However, in Obama's defense, he had a lot more pressing things to do, than worry about some stupid Servicemen begging for help, after he'd completely forgotten about them, and couldn't even point Afghanistan out on a map.
So, hey; I guess, apparently, the reporters have something better to do, than help keep secrets and protect the lives of American forces fighting on the other side of the planet to keep America safe, and preserve the right of reporter scumbags to publish their lies and libelous bullsh*t.
