They're also third party heresay from unnamed individuals whose comments can only be taken as truth if one is to believe the writer is absolutely truthful and has no agenda and that individual staffer understood the Generals meaning clearly and was absolutely truthful without an agenda a well. For example its been oft said during this that McChrystal stated he was disappointed that Obama used his meeting with the General as a 10 minute photo op, however not only was that never quoted from McChrystal in the article but it was a statement of how the supposed source believed McChyrstal to feel.Also, the staff says "the boss thinks this" and "the boss thinks that", so the comments and his staff pretty much represent what the general is thinking.
Except you can not state things that did not come from his mouth as unquestionably his, or if you do, you best be consistent with it.The comments did everything but come from the general's mouth itself, but it doesn't matter, these are his appointed aides and he's responsible for what his staff does as their superior officer who appointed them and seeing as how the staff represent his office. Anything the general did not agree with should have been met with a reprimand. His lack of objection means agreement.
I readily invite you over into another thread where a similar situation of a person giving nothing but unverifiable 3rd party heresay testimony, only this time under oath rather than reprinted in a biased interview article, accusing the President of illegal activity. I'd be extremely interested to see if you hold the President to such a similar standard and would agree that at the very least an investigation into such accusations is warranted since 3rd party heresay comments presented in a biased article was enough to give reason to publicly lynch and force the removal of a general. I'm sure you wouldn't be completely hypocritical in your belief that one deserved to be removed and the other should be absolutely ignored as a non-issue.