Rolling Stone broke interview ground rules?

Is it really a matter of a report hearing something and reporting on it or is it the fact these things were said?

One good question that has not been asked is; If McChrystal really felt the things he said, did it end up hurting the operations in Afghanistan? He was in charge and along with him, so were his subordinates. Did their bad attitude toward the President and his cabinet change their orders and planing?

It would be only human considering any one of us are influenced by the attitude we have toward our own bosses. McChrystal is only human after all so if he had a bad attitude, it very well could have been transferred onto the way he ran the military in Afghanistan.

As for the reporter letting the public know what was said, if they feel this way, then none of it should have been said in the first place. It isn't as if they didn't know who was listening.

Military official disputes Rolling Stone article
By Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent
June 26, 2010 12:09 a.m. EDT

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Mlitary official says some controversial comments were off-the-record
Official does not dispute the comments, however
Magazine says it followed the rules, did due diligence
Washington (CNN) -- In the Rolling Stone article that got him fired, Gen. Stanley McChrystal says of the aides who surround him "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me." But the military men around McChrystal are now silent.

Not one of those anonymously quoted has come forward, according to a source close to the general. No one has acknowledged they told Rolling Stone McChrystal thought President Barack Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" in his first meeting with military brass or that the general was personally "disappointed" after a meeting with the commander-in-chief.

It's no surprise he never claimed he was misquoted, several military sources who personally know McChrystal told CNN. They say, despite his fatal mistake in judgment, it is in his character to take sole responsibility for the inappropriate statements and command atmosphere.
read more hereMilitary official disputes Rolling Stone article



Military: Rolling Stone broke interview ground rules
A command review of events has concluded that McChrystal was betrayed when the journalist quoted banter among the general and his staff, much of which they thought was off the record. They contend that the magazine inaccurately depicted the attribution ground rules for the interviews.
The 30 questions Rolling Stone's fact-checker sent to McChrystal's aide



Petraeus will review controversial rules of engagement
Gen. David Petraeus will review and possibly modify the controversial rules of engagement for U.S. troops in Afghanistan when he assumes command of the mission there, a spokesman for the general said Friday.
Petraeus may soon find Afghanistan is no Iraq
What do you think: Are combat rules in Afghanistan putting U.S. lives in danger?

Troops in Afghanistan react to McChrystal's firing 11:46 June 24, 2010