I posted that further up the page earlier. Should have put a link here as well. I felt pretty good about being right about it at the time, and I hope it didn't look like I was gloating at anyone else's expense.

No reflection on you, of course. You reproduced a quote from a legitimate article from a reasonably legitimate source, and it wasn't your fault it was baloney.

What bothers me is how many other "anonymous intelligence sources" may be this same guy, or someone similar. So much of what is being printed now is based on anonymous officials from various places, and only the reputation of the papers and reporters...which hasn't been looking that good lately...is a guarantee that the source is real.

The current BBC flap on WMD is based entirely on people described only as "very senior sources in Whitehall." Who are they? Do they have an axe to grind?

And do they exist? I would bet they do. The BBC is not a fly-by-night outfit, whatever their politics. But at some point I would like to see names and reputations put behind all these statements.