The Pentagon Inspector General's conclusions were first reported Monday by the New York Times, which obtained the report under a Freedom of Information Act request. The Pentagon subsequently posted the report on it's website.

The report of the inquiry into a Rolling Stone magazine profile of Gen McChrystal that led to his dismissal as the top US commander in Afghanistan has cleared him of any wrong doing.

The probe's results released Monday also called into question the accuracy of the magazine's report last June, which quoted anonymously people around McChrystal, as well as McChrystal himself, making disparaging remarks about members of Pres Obama's national security team, including VP Biden.

The Pentagon inquiry concluded that not all of the events at issue happened as reported in the Rolling Stone article. Some statements were fabricated, while others were innacurately attributed to junior members of McChrystal's staff. As I've said before, McChrystal is too intelligent and savvy a man to have said what he supposedly said to the reporter. He may have believed it, but would never have said it, not while still in uniform anyway. Derogatory comments, if there were actually any, were said by his subordinates. Wonder if he has a case for slander against the magazine? He probably wouldn't pursue it if he did.

so I'm not  pretending it's definitive coverage. But the key point that I heard is the investigation could find no one who would confirm they spoke with Rolling Stone and said what the story reported re McChrystal's comments.  With no one willing to confirm anything with the investigators, they had no basis to move forward.  Sounds like "omerta" to me, but we'll never know.  So it  boils down to who  you believe, the reporter or the Army.  Either way, it's not exactly an exhonoration.  Personally, I was sad to see McChrystal's career destroyed by this but always felt one of his people did blab to Rolling Stone.  This is based on a long career observing (from the inside) how people in corporations love to blab to reporters because it makes them feel important.

The investigators had the interviewees sworn testimony under oath. The RS reporter had no such stipulations put on him. So who do you believe? I'd go with the IG report myself. Plus, what radio station....NPR, lol?