It presents a great deal of fascinating uncorroborated testimony, which boils down to the first sentence of the last paragraph:

The challenge now is to document the claims of these witnesses about the secret ties between Saddam, al Qaeda, and Abu Wael.

Kim Philby was high up in British intelligence, too, but that doesn't automatically mean that Churchill was Stalin's pal. Spies have worked for two masters -- sometimes three -- as long as there have been spies.

On that sentence rests the journalistic integrity of the piece. I could wish it were within the first three paragraphs, where most readers are likely to find it, or even on page one, but at least it's there.

I won't dismiss the article out of hand, remembering that The National Enquirer was the only newspaper I found that published an accurate schematic of the reactor at Three Mile Island in the weeks after the accident. Sometimes accurate reporting comes from places one would not expect.

I will remember it. I will expect corroboration from other sources that don't trumpet themselves as "Arguably the most influential opinion journal at the White House" (a quote from the New York Times Sunday Magazine that appears in a self-referential ad on both pages of the article). This White House has become rather well-known for being "influenced" by reports that agree with what it wants people to think. Forgive my skepticism: I'm still waiting for the WMD to turn up.

Okay, had I posted the piece without the inflammatory addendum, what do YOU think the response would have been?

I don't know. Maybe you would have gotten more of one.