Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 66

Thread: Gen Stanley McChrystal to retire from US Army

  1. #41
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Gen Stanley McChrystal to retire from US Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    He didn't say anything too incriminating himself, but he did agree with others who did say some pretty bad stuff, his lack of an objection is agreement.
    Lack of objection presented only through its lack of inclusion in an interview conducted by an individual with an obvious agenda and bias. To state this as conclusive evidence that nothing was said is ridiculous.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.

  2. #42
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Gen Stanley McChrystal to retire from US Army

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    I highly doubt you will find my message inconstent here but if it has been then I misspoke. From the outset I have said it is the preponderance of comments made about BO, Biden and the NSA chief...and most importantly the venue in which they were spoken. I have seen the comments...none from him were specifically damning. The others...sure.
    There were no comments quoted specifically to McChrystal anywhere in that article

    Perhaps your message is inconsistent because you keep making statements without backing them up.

    Quote me a specific quote by McChrystal from that article about Barack Obama.

    Quote me a specific quote in that article from McChrystal about Joe Biden other than his statement of wanting to say "Whose that" in reference to getting numerous questions regarding his views on the VP.

    Also, hell, quote me the specific quote from the article regarding the NSA Chief, cause I'm blanking on that as well.

    Perhaps you're message isn't being misunderstood, perhaps you're just poorly presenting it.

  3. #43
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: Gen Stanley McChrystal to retire from US Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Lack of objection presented only through its lack of inclusion in an interview conducted by an individual with an obvious agenda and bias. To state this as conclusive evidence that nothing was said is ridiculous.
    It's not ridiculous, I'm pretty sure if the General had said something, especially if it was a reprimand, it would have been included. To say that this reporter would totally twist something and omit the reprimand is also ridiculous.

    But it doesn't matter, not only did the General not object, but he was actively participating in it. He contributed the "Biden, who's that?" comment when they were joking about Biden, so not only does he agree with it, he contributes as well. To say that general is not aware of the things his staff says is completely unbelievable, he definitely knows whats going on with his staff.

    Again, the point you're trying to make is that some of this is not true, the general had the chance to dispute any of this article, but he hasn't. He hasn't disagreed with any part of the article that I know of, and that is more evidence that what this article says is in fact true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.

    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.
    No, please show. I would not be biased to one issue and not on the other, unless the issues are not the same and are different issues. Your whole argument that the article is not true is not correct I believe, because the general has not disputed any of the article in question. And don't forget, one of the first actions was for him to fire the person that setup the interview, that to me is an admission of guilt. I don't know what McChrystal has said to the President, but I doubt it was "that article is not true". So far the general hasn't put out any statement refuting the article.

    Also, whenever Obama's aides goes on the talk shows and says something wrong, the administration always gets flak for that and they have to backtrack and retract the statement. Its a similar situation.
    Last edited by Opteron; 06-29-10 at 07:01 PM.

  4. #44
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,746

    Re: Gen Stanley McChrystal to retire from US Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    There were no comments quoted specifically to McChrystal anywhere in that article

    Perhaps your message is inconsistent because you keep making statements without backing them up.

    Quote me a specific quote by McChrystal from that article about Barack Obama.

    Quote me a specific quote in that article from McChrystal about Joe Biden other than his statement of wanting to say "Whose that" in reference to getting numerous questions regarding his views on the VP.

    Also, hell, quote me the specific quote from the article regarding the NSA Chief, cause I'm blanking on that as well.

    Perhaps you're message isn't being misunderstood, perhaps you're just poorly presenting it.
    Perhaps. Everyone else seems to understand it but you..but perhaps its me...so...I will try...one last time...

    For the record...I dont believe anything said was a MCM violation.
    From the top...in the article...

    Gives an aide (a bird Colonel) a one finger bird salute...kinda funny...maybe not wise in the frpesence of a reporter.

    McChrystals aides comments to that reporter about a state dinner with the french "Its ****in gay". Again...Not brilliant.

    Past public comments re Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying his position would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." OK...blowin off steam...no big deal...

    "Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
    "Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

    "Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?" Now...I imagine Biden is the OPPOSITE of a clean, well spoken black man...but again...starting to see a trend...and in front of the kids...

    "According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his ****ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed." For one thing...we are starting to notice that the general and his staff have the same kind of potty mouth Biden has. And the trend continues...by itself not that big a deal...but in front of a reporter?

    "But part of the problem is personal: In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk **** about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985."" Not exactly building positive working relationships with the administration!

    "McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on ****."

    At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

    "Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail." Are you noticing a trend? It doesnt appear to be a healthy working relationship...and when you have a few hundred thousand lives that DEPEND on maintaining that working relationship...

    OK...at the end of the day...none of this is THAT big a deal. But the reality is...it looks like the RS reporter went to hang McChrystal and McChrystal didnt just put his head in a noose, he bought the guy a shiny new rope. Taken straight from the comments (comments to which the gen and staff apologized...a pretty good indicator that they are true), the general and his staff gave public voice to dissent. I cant see how they could POSSIBLY have expected to function in a positive manner with the administration. Worthy of court martial? of course not...never suggested it was. But enough to be removed? Of course.

  5. #45
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Gen Stanley McChrystal to retire from US Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    It's not ridiculous, I'm pretty sure if the General had said something, especially if it was a reprimand, it would have been included. To say that this reporter would totally twist something and omit the reprimand is also ridiculous.
    How so? He's writing an article that upon reading it is clear to have a slant and a specific view towards the military, in a magazine that's known to have a certain slant towards the military? Why is it ridiculous to imagine that its no less likely that a reprimand was given and wasn't seen or wasn't reported as it is to imagine there definitely wasn't one?

    But it doesn't matter, not only did the General not object, but he was actively participating in it. He contributed the "Biden, who's that?" comment when they were joking about Biden, so not only does he agree with it, he contributes as well.
    His statement of "Who's that" was in reference to a conversation, if I remember correctly, started by the interviewer and was a statement of how he'd like to answer the inevitable questions regarding his feelings on Biden due to getting in trouble for speaking freely in the past. There was no indication at all as to what McChyrstals comments were after the only questionable statement in that entire line of conversation, which was the "Biden, you mean bite me" comment by an aid.

    To say that general is not aware of the things his staff says is completely unbelievable, he definitely knows whats going on with his staff.
    Who ever said that?

    Again, the point you're trying to make is that some of this is not true, the general had the chance to dispute any of this article, but he hasn't. He hasn't disagreed with any part of the article that I know of, and that is more evidence that what this article says is in fact true.
    No, my point is that taking 3rd party heresay and misrepresenting it as unquestionable confirmed "quotes" of the General is erroneous, especially when done by many liberals and the media who have in turn completely shunned or ignored instances of third party heresay that implicate the President in illegal activity.

    No, please show. I would not be biased to one issue and not on the other, unless the issues are not the same and are different issues. Your whole argument that the article is not true is not correct I believe, because the general has not disputed any of the article in question. And don't forget, one of the first actions was for him to fire the person that setup the interview, that to me is an admission of guilt. I don't know what McChrystal has said to the President, but I doubt it was "that article is not true". So far the general hasn't put out any statement refuting the article.
    Here you go

    Also, whenever Obama's aides goes on the talk shows and says something wrong, the administration always gets flak for that and they have to backtrack and retract the statement. Its a similar situation.[/QUOTE]

  6. #46
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,363
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gen Stanley McChrystal to retire from US Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I read it too.

    I've still yet to figure out what the offending remark BY McChrystal is? So far the only damaging things directly attributed to him is a joking comment of wishing to answer "Who's that" in response to questions regarding his feelings towards the Vice President that seem to occur anytime he's near the press, and a statement of frustration in not wanting to read someones email in the middle of an uncomfortable diplomatic trip.

    Neither are hardly worthy of an eyebrow raise let enough the hooplah that has been raised over this.

    Does allowing Rolling Stone entrance into his inner circle speak of questionable decision making? Absolutely. Are the comments by some of those around him highly questionable? Definitely. However the main hype everyone seems to keep bringing up is accusations of over the line statements made BY McChrystal.

    I'll ask again...please name those things. An answer of "go read the piece" isn't sufficient, because I have read the piece, and remain confused. Perhaps then you could enlighten us to what you saw as so obviously egregious so that we who missed it may be shown the light.
    When I was separating from the navy, we had a class in separation(great class). One of the others in the class was the base XO(a captain who could not maintain the body fat standard), and he talked to us briefly on the media and the base closure commission decision to close the base where were at. His comment was that when speaking to the media, you are obligated to support the military and those above us's decisions. You could say that, speaking for yourself in an unofficial capacity as an individual, you disagreed, but you had to be respectful and supportive of the decisions of those above us.

    The comments made by some of McChrystal's staff where mild, but they did violate the rules of how you handle yourself in front of the media. Realistically, the rules in place for the Rolling Stone visit where probably wrong(everything on the record unless agreed to in advance...no military interview should to my mind be made with that rule), but by being disrespectful of others in the chain of command, and those involved in the war process, in front of the media, was clearly a mistake.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #47
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: Gen Stanley McChrystal to retire from US Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    How so? He's writing an article that upon reading it is clear to have a slant and a specific view towards the military, in a magazine that's known to have a certain slant towards the military? Why is it ridiculous to imagine that its no less likely that a reprimand was given and wasn't seen or wasn't reported as it is to imagine there definitely wasn't one?
    Yeah, it is ridiculous to imagine that he omitted a reprimand because he is a journalist. Purposely misleading through omissions or making stuff up is one thing, while having a slight slant or bias is another thing. Please show me the evidence where McChrystal reprimanded any of his subordinate's for their behavior, until that it is more likely that he didn't than he did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, my point is that taking 3rd party heresay and misrepresenting it as unquestionable confirmed "quotes" of the General is erroneous, especially when done by many liberals and the media who have in turn completely shunned or ignored instances of third party heresay that implicate the President in illegal activity.
    This is not 3rd party heresay, this is someone who was directly in the presence of the general, heard these words, used a taperecorder, and also took down notes. This person is an experienced journalist, with journalistic integrity and has also reported for the reputable newsjournal of Newsweek. By your definition, any knowledge we come across that we have not directly experienced is heresay. How do you know that General McChrystal even exists? Have you ever met him directly? Probably not. You might have read about him in the newspaper but never seen him yourself, but how can we trust that, its heresay! Journalists and journalistic sources have more credibility than other sources and are to be trusted unless otherwise noted.

    Also, please show me any reputable newsource that has challenged the credibility of the article. From what I've heard, most newsources and even the government itself have taken the article to be accurate and it's credibility has not been challenged.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, my point is that taking 3rd party heresay and misrepresenting it as unquestionable confirmed "quotes" of the General is erroneous, especially when done by many liberals and the media who have in turn completely shunned or ignored instances of third party heresay that implicate the President in illegal activity.

    Here you go
    This is not the same situation. This is a person who talked to someone who talked to someone who talked to someone who talked to Obama. That is heresay. One question I will ask is this: Has this person Harris ever talked to Obama directly? If not then its heresay. This reporter directly talked to the people mentioned.

    And don't forget you don't acknowledge that General McChrystal did not refute any of the material in the article and also fired his PR guy, which can be construed as an admission of guilt.

  8. #48
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Gen Stanley McChrystal to retire from US Army

    Gives an aide (a bird Colonel) a one finger bird salute...kinda funny...maybe not wise in the frpesence of a reporter.
    Not a superior, not a violation of anything, its two fellow soldiers joshing each other. Bad judgement, sure. Wrong, no. Anything to do with what I asked you to present? Absolutely not.

    McChrystals aides comments to that reporter about a state dinner with the french "Its ****in gay". Again...Not brilliant.
    Again, not McChrystal speaking about the President.

    Past public comments re Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying his position would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." OK...blowin off steam...no big deal...
    PAST public comments, IE not part of the story and already dealt with by the President.

    "Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.
    "Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
    Wonderfully taken out of context by you, and misrepresented by the reported. The full text clearly shows they're speaking of the fact that ever since the previous comment reporters are constantly asking him questions about his views on Biden, and this was his statement in regards to how he'd LIKE to respond to them as a joke. This is more of a slight on reporters constantly attempting to ask him questions to get him in trouble that he can't answer rather than directly on Biden.

    "Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?" Now...I imagine Biden is the OPPOSITE of a clean, well spoken black man...but again...starting to see a trend...and in front of the kids...
    What's that? IT says "Top adviser" and not McChrystal? Ah, guess that doesn't qualify for what i asked for then.

    "According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his ****ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed." For one thing...we are starting to notice that the general and his staff have the same kind of potty mouth Biden has. And the trend continues...by itself not that big a deal...but in front of a reporter?
    So a quote according to an unnamed, unknown, unverifiable "Source", not a direct quote of McChrystal. Following that you have a quote from an unnamed, unknown, unverifiable aide concerning what he THINKS McChrystal felt about a meeting.

    Again, not direct quotes from McChrystal, as I asked for.

    [/quote]"But part of the problem is personal: In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk **** about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985."" Not exactly building positive working relationships with the administration![/quote]

    Team McChrystal, IE his aides around him, again without any direct quotes from McChrystal himself.

    "McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on ****."
    Oh look, again you have an unnamed, unverifiable member of his "team" giving third party heresay statements as to what McChrystal "says".

    Again, not a direct McChrystal quote.

    At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.
    So the closest thing you have thus far is a slight against reporters and a complaint of not wanting to open an email?

    "Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail." Are you noticing a trend? It doesnt appear to be a healthy working relationship...and when you have a few hundred thousand lives that DEPEND on maintaining that working relationship...
    Oh look, aide again.

    [B]OK...at the end of the day...none of this is THAT big a deal.
    No what else it isn't? Any direct quote of McChyrstal speaking poorly about the President. Remember, the thing I ACTUALLY asked you to provide because you've said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    the preponderance of comments made about BO
    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    ...his comments about BO
    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    what he said about BO
    But I must say, you did an excellent job of destroying the strawman that what McChrystal did was intelligent or that his team said some ridiculous and potentially over the line things. Its just too bad that I never made that claim, and I never asked you to verify that claim. What I asked you for was proof of McChrystal himself directly making "comments about BO", of which you've provided nothing.

  9. #49
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Gen Stanley McChrystal to retire from US Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    When I was separating from the navy, we had a class in separation(great class). One of the others in the class was the base XO(a captain who could not maintain the body fat standard), and he talked to us briefly on the media and the base closure commission decision to close the base where were at. His comment was that when speaking to the media, you are obligated to support the military and those above us's decisions. You could say that, speaking for yourself in an unofficial capacity as an individual, you disagreed, but you had to be respectful and supportive of the decisions of those above us.

    The comments made by some of McChrystal's staff where mild, but they did violate the rules of how you handle yourself in front of the media. Realistically, the rules in place for the Rolling Stone visit where probably wrong(everything on the record unless agreed to in advance...no military interview should to my mind be made with that rule), but by being disrespectful of others in the chain of command, and those involved in the war process, in front of the media, was clearly a mistake.
    Thanks Redress. You have certainly given a great argument against anyone stating that what McChrystal's staff said was perfectly okay, and that giving the interview as it was presented was a smart thing. You've clearly shown good reason for why that isn't true.

    Good thing I never once had made the argument.

    My argument was that Vancemack, others in this thread, many liberals, and the media attempting to continually talk about "What McChrystal said", in regards to the piece, being part of why he should be dismissed is a bit disingenuous since there is nothing directly quoted of McChrystal that is damning above the absolute lightest of light comments regarding a joke about answering reporters and not wanting to read an email. And that the only way one could really get on him about things he "said" is if you took third party heresay comments by unnamed and unverifiable "sources" as to what McChrystal said or in some cases FELT, which would be incredibly ironic and hypocritical of many of those that would potentially be focusing on that when at the same time they're ignoring or giving the complete pass in regards to the Blagovich case where there's third party heresay testimony under oath implicating Obama in a potential crime.

  10. #50
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Gen Stanley McChrystal to retire from US Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    Yeah, it is ridiculous to imagine that he omitted a reprimand because he is a journalist. Purposely misleading through omissions or making stuff up is one thing, while having a slight slant or bias is another thing. Please show me the evidence where McChrystal reprimanded any of his subordinate's for their behavior, until that it is more likely that he didn't than he did.
    Show me where he didn't?

    Unless you're telling me that every single solitary statement that was made during the entire time that the journalist was there was recorded in that interview, there's no more or less evidence that McChrystal didn't say or do anything in regards to his subordinates then there is to say that he. The absence of its presence in the article is not "proof" of anything other than it not being in the article.

    This is not 3rd party heresay, this is someone who was directly in the presence of the general, heard these words, used a taperecorder, and also took down notes. This person is an experienced journalist, with journalistic integrity and has also reported for the reputable newsjournal of Newsweek. By your definition, any knowledge we come across that we have not directly experienced is heresay. How do you know that General McChrystal even exists? Have you ever met him directly? Probably not. You might have read about him in the newspaper but never seen him yourself, but how can we trust that, its heresay! Journalists and journalistic sources have more credibility than other sources and are to be trusted unless otherwise noted.
    Um, yes it is in the case of every single solitary instance where an "Aid" or a "Source" or a "Team Member" told the reporter what McChrystal said. Someone else stating McChyrstals words to the Journalist is third party heresay. If the journalist actually HEARD McChrystal said something, and quoted it as McChrystal saying something, then it wouldn't be. That was not the case in many of the statements and all the statements regarding the President.

    This is not the same situation. This is a person who talked to someone who talked to someone who talked to someone who talked to Obama. That is heresay. One question I will ask is this: Has this person Harris ever talked to Obama directly? If not then its heresay. This reporter directly talked to the people mentioned.
    Yes, it is. Its someone that heard something from someone who heard it from Obama as opposed to being someone (The journalist) who heard it from someone (The unnamed source) who heard it from McChrystal.

    How is one different than the other?

    So if Harris ever once spoke to Obama about ANYTHING its not heresay? Or are you asking has Harris heard Obama say specifically what he's accusing him of saying? And in that case, please show me documentation that the Journalist actually heard MCCHRSYTAL say he felt disrespected by the President. Let me see where the journalist specifically heard MCCHRYSTAL say that he felt the President was intimidated. Please, enlighten me to those passages of the article because I must have missed them. All I saw was the journalist hearing from someone else what McChrystal said about those things.

    And don't forget you don't acknowledge that General McChrystal did not refute any of the material in the article and also fired his PR guy, which can be construed as an admission of guilt.
    Firing a PR guy is not an admission of guilt of the accusations. One could easily argue he fired the PR guy because the article came out slanted and obviously as a hit job type piece, presenting information in such a way to give a false impression. Does it show admission that he made an error in judgement of allowing the journalist action? Absolutely! Good thing I never argued he didn't show an error in judgement in doing such a thing.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •