If this is true, then McChrystal should have lost his job for an excess of misplaced and shockingly naive trust, if nothing else:
A U.S. military spokesman in Kabul, Air Force Lt. Col. Edward T. Sholtis, acknowledged that 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.”
That was mistake number 2. Mistake number 1 was the entire idea of giving a reporter from Rolling Stone that sort of off-the-record access in the first place. Or perhaps that should read “any reporter.”
It reminds me of the story of…oh, let’s just listen to the song:
Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely 
June 26th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
I wonder if signing any agreement would matter to reporters like this but no matter, McChrystal was a colossal idiot for trusting a fellow liberal to treat him fairly. For a man supposedly savvy on political warfare and COIN, he failed 101, never trust the liberal media. We were taught to be careful with what we say, even as Lance Corporals. I suspect time will tease out more details of this general, including, I suspect, a vast ego on par with Obama’s.
June 26th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
I thought the military learned its lesson in Viet Nam. The WWII days when people like Earnie Pyle were on the side of the U.S. were over. During the first Iraq war the military did a good job at keeping the media at arm’s length. At home we had to get BBC and Sky News reports of what was happening. I guess the lesson will be relearned. For the most part the MSM are not a friend to the United States.
June 26th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
NOW THAT ROCKS!
(and has added value as a moral to our story…)
June 26th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Correction: That should have been Ernie Pyle. He was a great American.
June 26th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
I can’t defend him. The fact that we know how he voted (we shouldn’t know or care how our senior Military Officers vote, especially political appointees) is troubling…
Altho we can guess how Petraeus voted, he hasn’t volunteered it as far as I know.
June 26th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
McChrystal is a liberal do gooder.Why wouldn’t he feel sympatico with a reporter from Rolling Stone?
June 26th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
“We typically manage ground rules on a verbal basis”
Looks like someone never learned the old Hollywood rule: “A verbal agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on.”
June 26th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Pablo wrote “Although we can guess how Petraeus voted, he hasn’t volunteered it as far as I know.”
Petraeus stated that he has not voted in a presidential election for some time because he did not want to vote against a potential commander of his. If memory serves other generals since before the Civil War obey this unwritten rule. I was surprised to hear that McChrystal had voted for Obama or in any presidential election. In follows that I am very suspicious of the reports that he voted for Obama.
June 27th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
It is fairly obvious what McChrystal thought at this point from different things he and his aid has said.
He was frustrated with being “blocked” from talking to Obama and blamed his cabinet (most likely Gates given other things said). He also, being a fairly hard leftist, was frustrated with the treatment of the war in general by leftist media.
Since he considered himself to be one of them (and them to be just like him) then it was obviously just a PR thing and if he could *only* get the right information to them everything would fall into place.
Further we can see how he treats information he doesn’t like – ban it (see what he did with Fox News). Personally this is one of the more shocking things said. Even if you think the other side are a bunch of loons anyone who is in any command appointment knows to gather all the information you can.
I’m willing to bet that he left that meeting with the journalist quite pleased with himself. The journalist in question has been quite open that he thought it was a glowing article (which shows how much dislike/hatred there is for the military there) so there was point number one scored. I’m sure he thought that this message would get to Obama and all would be right in the world.
It is, IMO, a classic case of how many communist felt about Stalin – the phrase used here and in many other places is “If only Joe knew” – well if you truly believed that then getting the message to Stalin (Obama) would fix things. McChrystal isn’t the only leftist caught up in that idea, just one of the few truly in a place to act on it.
I wonder how he feels now, especially given that the much maligned gates argued in his case.
Finally I would have to say this level of naivety on the part of someone in his position is not too good (anyway you look at it), in the long run I suspect that we are better off without him too.
June 30th, 2010 at 9:49 am
There is a story that a US soldier in Vietnam remarked that the VC can take your life, which will end some day anyway, but a reporter can take your honor.
And will. That’s fun for journos.