The Washington Post is deeply worried that Rolling Stone broke the rules:
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has made no public comment since President Obama relieved him of his Afghan war command Wednesday, silently taking his lumps for disparaging remarks he and his aides made about administration officials in the presence of a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine.
But the command has concluded from its own review of events 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.
Betrayed, huh? Poor Stan.
Some commentators have questioned why McChrystal and his aides were being pilloried for complaints about Washington commonly heard in diplomatic and military facilities overseas. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Thursday that the atmosphere of disrespect for civilian leaders that McChrystal tolerated was grounds for dismissal regardless of the context in which the offensive comments were made or who made them.
Even worse, according to WaPo, Rolling Stone didn't give Stan the whole article for his review! What a shame! Aren't reporters supposed to let their subjects rewrite the news?
In all seriousness, what's the point of this article? Even if McChrystal's comments really were off the record, does The Washington Post believe that he was an innocent victim of a media screwjob? If so, then why did they get rid of David Weigel after someone broke his confidence? If it's okay for McChrystal, shouldn't it be okay for Weigel?