Rolling Stone Magazine should be renamed to "Rolling Stoned" after taking down a general.
How the hell can they print that
article about
General Stanley McChrystal and NOT think there would be ramification?
I know...I get it. "Freedom of the press". "The public has a right to know". I get it, I really REALLY do
having ex-military in the family. But, come on. You HAD to know this was going to cause major flack for
the general and his staff. Or, was that the whole point Rolling Stone?
I used to subscribe to your magazine back in my youth, but ditched it after I realized I couldn't stand
it beyond "the pictures". I have NO idea what your politics are. But, if I had to take a 10,000 foot
guess, I'd say someone in the editorial room has a beef with the war in general, (pardon the pun), and took a
shot, (oops, there I go again), at the general himself.
We are in the middle of a fricken war you idiots. It is his strategy that is helping to turn
around the Afghan war. Finally, we are going after the people we should have in the FIRST place. So before you
all celebrate your great victory in getting your magazine all over every headline in American
and the world I'd like you to realize something.
American Soldiers may die because of this general being off the battle lines.
I want that to really sink in with you, Rolling Stone writers.
McChrystal is not in charge now. If a new tactic or strategy is employed that goes horribly wrong, I lay the
blame at your
magazines doorsteps.
Just remember that the very people you bitch slapped with your article, are the VERY people who gave you
the right to WRITE that article. Kind of an interesting end note, dont you think?
Resources:
Rolling Stone Magazine:
here
USO:
here
- Scott
Posted June 24, 08:29pm
Currently Watching On DVD:
Escape from New York