Okay, so far we've got about a dozen unnamed sources grousing about the intelligence situation (if ANY of these complainers actually has an identity, I must have missed it.) How the hell do you answer something like that? Is Mr. Deep Throat the chief of staff? The janitor? How many of these "unnamed sources" in different articles are the same guy? About three disgruntled employees could comprise "unnamed sources" for an entire newspaper full of articles. Odd how intelligence sources that support the President's views are considered suspect, but unnamed sources that don't support them are believed.

Or did a few of the authors of these articles make these sources up? Given the recent behavior of those in the media becoming desperate to stick something...ANYTHING...on George W. Bush, I wouldn't put it past them. How the heck could anyone prove it?

The article on Cheney and his aide describe one unnamed official who was complaining, and mentioned a number of others who saw no problems at all, or even enjoyed the visits. Why is that one official's view presumed to be an accurate description of the situation, and not the others?

The Washington Post editorial seems quite reasonable, and does not jump to the conclusion that Bush is in the wrong. In fact, it tends to agree with the administration's views of the situation.

Krugman's just an asshole.