Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 72 of 72
  1.    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    ...
    I have no doubt that McChrystal was committed completely to this mission in a very earnest way -- and intended no deliberate insubordination. He was a very good general, and a very great leader and motivator.

    Ultimately McChrystal and his team were guilty of too much transparency, too much trust, and too much candor. They were foolish to give so much access to the RS writer. Foolish to have so few guidelines as to what might be off the record, and unreportable.

    Poor judgment -- but not insubordination, not treason.
    ...

    The Washington Post has a lengthy article that supports my view that McChrystal and his staff believed that the reporter from Rolling Stone was not expected to directly quote or write about much of what he observed -- especially during the off hours parties he accompanied them to.

    The relationship and trust between journalist and subject is a delicate one --- which is why most savvy subjects only confide in reporters with whom they have lengthy long standing rapport.

    The subject wants to feel that the reporter will not sand-bag or betray their confidence -- or violate the ground rules that they've agreed to regarding their conversations, direct quotes, and the article.

    A reporter assigned to a beat where he depends on regular access to his subject to perform his job, is much less likely to burn that subject.

    A freelancer temporarily involved with people, is much more likely to bend his rules and understandings so as to justify writing a good story.

    I don't know what transpired between Hastings, McChrystal, and his staff -- but its easy for me to understand how McChrystal and his staff had very different expectations as to what the limits were as to what could be reported.


    Gen. McChrystal allies, Rolling Stone disagree over article's ground rules

    By Karen DeYoung and Rajiv Chandrasekaran
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, June 26, 2010

    ...On Friday, however, officials close to McChrystal began trying to salvage his reputation by asserting that the author, Michael Hastings, quoted the general and his staff in conversations that he was allowed to witness but not report. The officials also challenged a statement by Rolling Stone's executive editor that the magazine had thoroughly reviewed the story with McChrystal's staff ahead of publication.

    The executive editor, Eric Bates, denied that Hastings violated any ground rules when he wrote about the four weeks he spent, on and off, with McChrystal and his team. "A lot of things were said off the record that we didn't use," Bates said in an interview. "We abided by all the ground rules in every instance."

    A senior military official insisted that "many of the sessions were off-the-record and intended to give [Hastings] a sense" of how the team operated. The command's own review of events, said the official, who was unwilling to speak on the record, found "no evidence to suggest" that any of the "salacious political quotes" in the article were made in situations in which ground rules permitted Hastings to use the material in his story.

    'Clearly off the record'

    A member of McChrystal's team who was present for a celebration of McChrystal's 33rd wedding anniversary at a Paris bar said it was "clearly off the record." Aides "made it very clear to Michael: 'This is private time. These are guys who don't get to see their wives a lot. This is us together. If you stay, you have to understand this is off the record,' " ...

    Bates said the contention that the night at the bar and other instances in which derisive comments were made about administration officials were off the record was "absolutely untrue." Hastings was traveling Friday, and an automated response from his e-mail account referred queries to Rolling Stone.

    Neither McChrystal nor members of his staff have denied making any of the remarks quoted in the story, including a description of Obama as "uncomfortable and intimidated" in his first meeting with the general and a reference to national security adviser James L. Jones as a "clown."

    Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Thursday that the atmosphere of disrespect for civilian leaders that McChrystal apparently tolerated and participated in was grounds for dismissal regardless of the context in which the offensive comments were made or who made them.

    ...Hastings, like other reporters who have interviewed McChrystal over the past year, was not required to sign written ground rules. "We typically manage ground rules on a verbal basis," Sholtis said. "We trust in the professionalism of the people we're working with."

    ... After McChrystal read it, "he knew instantly, this was going to be very large," the source said. ...

    The general's first action was to call his superiors. Then he began reaching out to members of the Obama administration mentioned in the article. He reached Vice President Biden...

    ...members of McChrystal's staff in Kabul "were all heartbroken," the source said. "I've seen incredibly brave men cry this week."

    Bates said it was telling that it took four days for those close to McChrystal to begin crying foul. Subjects of critical articles, he said, have many ways "after a story appears to question its veracity, [to complain] that things were taken out of context or off the record. None of those objections were raised during the critical few days in which this became a national issue," he said. ...

    Sholtis said that "arguing about the merits of the article would have seemed like we were trying to protect or excuse ourselves rather than acknowledge our mistake. That may have not been the best PRPRPR $strategy$, $but$ $it$ $wasn$'$t$ $the$ $approach$ $consistent$ $with$ $the$ $character$ $of$ $General$ $McChrystal$.&$quot$;

    ...Bates in an interview this week with Politico. "We ran everything by them in a fact-checking process as we always do," Bates said. "They had a sense of what was coming, and it was all on the record, and they spent a lot of time with our reporter, so I think they knew that they had said it." ...

    But 30 questions that a Rolling Stone fact-checker posed in a memo e-mailed last week to then-McChrystal media adviser Duncan Boothby contained no hint of what became the controversial portions of the story. ...

    In the e-mail, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post by a military official sympathetic to McChrystal, Boothby is asked to confirm the makeup of McChrystal's traveling staff on the Paris trip and the communications equipment they brought with them on an earlier visit to London. "They don't come close to revealing what ended up in the final article," the official said. ...

    In the last question, the fact-checker asked: "Did Gen. McChrystal vote for President Obama? (The reporter tells me that this info originates from McChrystal himself.)"

    Boothby replied in all capitals. "IMPORTANT -- PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THIS -- THIS IS PERSONAL AND PRIVATE INFORMATION AND UNRELATED TO HIS JOB. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SHARE." He went on to describe the "strict rules" under which military personnel keep their political views to themselves.

    In the article, Hastings reported that the general "had voted for Obama."

    Bates said that the remark was "absolutely" not off the record, and he noted that Boothby's appeal "isn't on accuracy or even that it was off the record," but that it was irrelevant. He said the magazine, like other news organizations, had no obligation to warn sources that they had made unwise remarks.
    Last edited by BARYE; 07/01/2010 at 11:34 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Like the site says. Bottomfeeding for partisan purposes.
    So not acknowledging MoveOn.org, but mentioning several times Freedomworks.org equals non-partisan?

    Since your always the first to point out posters leaning's (sometimes incorrectly I might add). I would think you would show some restraint or at least acknowledge that this kind of thing exists on the Left as well.

  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #64  
    Yes, Moveon.org exists for purely partisan purposes, though that seems silly to even have to say. It's clear to honest people on all sides of the political spectrum that they're trying to rewrite history. I think supporters of organizations like Moveon.org should lose their mask of impartiality and own it.
  4.    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Yes, Moveon.org exists for purely partisan purposes, though that seems silly to even have to say. It's clear to honest people on all sides of the political spectrum that they're trying to rewrite history. I think supporters of organizations like Moveon.org should lose their mask of impartiality and own it.
    who thinks Moveon.org is impartial ?? they support those who embrace their ideas, their agenda -- like every other political action / advocacy group
    Last edited by BARYE; 07/04/2010 at 01:03 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    who thinks Moveon.org is impartial ?? they support those who embrace their ideas, their agenda -- like every other political action / advocacy group
    Nobody thinks Moveon.org is impartial. Some want to cloak themselves in a veil of impartiality when defending such organizations, but that veil is very thin.
  6. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    You're right. Though they are not, those making an issue of MoveOn should also be condemning Freedomworks, Inc. There is no excuse for that kind of lowball partisanship in any of the 57 States.
    I suppose they could be just following your lead.


    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    There is no moral equivalent to Swift boaters/Freedomworks, Inc. whose sole purpose is to seek and destroy
    Guess you missed the whole "General Betray US" add that MoveOn was responsible for ?

    BTW: Just what exactly do you have against a Canadian company that makes interactive simulators? Just curious? and what do they have to do with Swift boaters?
  7. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjgem View Post
    Guess you missed the whole "General Betray US" add that MoveOn was responsible for ?
    You don't even have to go back that far. Just ask Alan Simpson. Sure, you can go on all day as a Leftist treating the poor like lesser people, just don't call them "lesser people"--even if you only mean "people who have less".
  8. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    BS...the office deserves no respect that isn't earned. The president is not an elected king.
    I am going to guess you have never served one minute in our armed forces. The commander-in-chief does not need to earn the respect of our military. To undermine him is to violate the basic principles of our entire military force. Insubordination is not tolerated, that is discipline, that is what sets our armed forces apart from some others (not saying we are better than everyone else, I have served with great people from many different countries' militaries).

    Simply put, you may personally dislike or disagree with the president, but as a military man especially a general in command of a theatre, professionally you keep your mouth shut and do as you are told.

    my source? Active duty Marine Corps infantry.
    Help keep WebOS homebrew alive! Donate to WebOS Internals!

    Sprint Pre Plus - WebOS 2.1.0 - F105 Thunderchief Kernel

    Einhorn is Finkel! ... Finkel is Einhorn!

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre
  9. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by smknutson View Post
    I am going to guess you have never served one minute in our armed forces.
    Have you read the article in question?
    The commander-in-chief does not need to earn the respect of our military.
    The military was not at issue in that particular post, but then again, as already trod upon, the military does not owe the office respect either in a real sense. It owes it subordination and obedience. Respect is a subtle distinction, granted, but it is a distinction.
    To undermine him is to violate the basic principles of our entire military force. Insubordination is not tolerated, that is discipline, that is what sets our armed forces apart from some others (not saying we are better than everyone else, I have served with great people from many different countries' militaries).
    I certainly don't disagree with this. Where we may disagree is whether or not McChrystal's actual behavior and words rose to that level.
    Simply put, you may personally dislike or disagree with the president,
    I don't personally know the man, so I can't say whether I dislike him (although he does seem to be a personally likable guy). I do disagree with some of his policies, but that's not the issue at hand.
    but as a military man especially a general in command of a theatre, professionally you keep your mouth shut and do as you are told.

    my source? Active duty Marine Corps infantry.
    Semper fi, brother, but semper caveo as well.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #71  
    I wasn't talking about your opinion, I was talking about the general's. You have all the right in the world to form an opinion about your countries' elected "leader". I wasn't attacking you.

    My whole point is the general was wrong. He is entitled to his opinion, but he is wrong on the professional side for voicing his views to a magazine of all forms. If he had wanted to retire, then do it the right way, which I seriously doubt he had the intention to, his comments sound like they are flying from the hip out of frustration perhaps?
    Help keep WebOS homebrew alive! Donate to WebOS Internals!

    Sprint Pre Plus - WebOS 2.1.0 - F105 Thunderchief Kernel

    Einhorn is Finkel! ... Finkel is Einhorn!

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre
  11. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by smknutson View Post
    I wasn't talking about your opinion, I was talking about the general's. You have all the right in the world to form an opinion about your countries' elected "leader". I wasn't attacking you.
    By putting 'leader' in quotes, are you attacking the President or showing insubordination?
    My whole point is the general was wrong.
    I don't think we disagree on that. I think we may disagree on what he did wrong.
    He is entitled to his opinion, but he is wrong on the professional side for voicing his views to a magazine of all forms. If he had wanted to retire, then do it the right way, which I seriously doubt he had the intention to, his comments sound like they are flying from the hip out of frustration perhaps?
    Did you read the article?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions