Update at bottom.
I’ve been researching a little bit on the author of the Rolling Stones article on General McChrystal,
He’s clearly a left-leaning, progressive, probably democrat, person who does not care much for republicans, almost to the point of revulsion. He was assigned to several campaigns during this past election, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, who he has a particular distaste for, John McCain, and most importantly, Hillary Clinton.
This is his own account of the campaigns he covered.
I’ll bet you anything he was feeding the Obama campaign every little tidbit he could come up with. And if you have wondered how Obama knew so much about the inside of the Clinton campaign, here’s the answer.
McChrystal had a civilian communications specialist assigned to him named Duncan Boothby. He’d been there about a year, well within a time span to have been hand-picked himself. Boothby resigned immediately after this story broke, I believe on Tuesday, even before McChrystal suffered his fate.
My thoughts are that it was Boothby who cleared Hastings and probably Boothby who was the source of most of the comments attributed to a “close aide or adviser.”
It just all stinks to high heaven. It’s not as if McChrystal called a news conference and disrespected civilian leaders. No, this little reporter ingratiated himself to the group and followed them around, hoping they would get drunk and “loosen up.” Maybe all reporters do this sort of thing, which is why I would not trust one EVER. But he seems extra slimy to me.
So Duncan Boothby authorized Hastings, but who contacted Boothby about it? Just say, if the administration wanted for some reason to get McChrystal out, what better person than someone like Mr. Hastings who had proved himself in the past (as during the campaign).
So they get him in there, he picks up any dirt he can find or dig up, write up the story as if it were McCrystal who said all the things himself, and publish it in Rolling Stone magazine.
But, and here’s the important part, before it comes out, coordinate with the “state” media as to how to pick out certain phrases and play them up, ruin the man even before the story is in print. Get it done and imbedded in everybody’s mind before they can read the article themselves and find out that most of the statements were actually said by someone else. Somebody tells you what somebody else said, this is called hear-say.
It just fits together so perfectly. But why did they want Patraeus in that spot? Maybe to set him up for failure, seeing as how he was Bush’s guy?
Then, on the other hand, some believe the General set it up himself in order to get out of his assignment.
Either way, somebody set it up. This was not just the normal course of events.
But the way the media isolates words, using them to smear a person the way they are experts at doing just has to stop. They should not have this power. I mean, who hasn’t said something about their boss or someone they don’t care for, or who they are disappointed with in an unguarded moment, and especially if drinking in a social, casual setting.
Just be sure there’s no reporter with a tape recorder and a pad anywhere within hearing distance, one with a plan and an agenda.
Never trust a reporter.
UPDATE: A few hours ago I read a story by Washington Post and I should have taken a screen shot of it, but I didn’t. I wanted to go back to it just now and it is almost impossible to find it in any search machine. Finally did locate it but the headline has been changed, and I don’t know how much of the story line. There was a woman reporter the first time. Now her name is there and another name is added. So obviously somebody got to them and they changed it.
It said basically that the reporter violated their off the record conversations. The new headline waters it down to say that there is a disagreement between the McChrystal sources and the editor of the Rolling Stone.
They “fact-checked” by sending a list of questions. Here’s a take away example.
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.
Boothby absolutely begged them not to print who McChrystal voted for and they did it anyway. Low down.
I guess they won’t talk to a slimy reporter again, huh.
Posted: 06.25.10 Updated: 06.25.10 @ 11:15p.m.