Thompson, the author of the article in the original thread, was taken to the cleaners by a source last year. He thereafter said he would never use unnamed sources again. Obviously, he has since fallen off the wagon.

Unnamed sources can be valuable, but they are being severely abused by the press. How the hell do you argue with an unnamed source? "White House staffers?" Who? How many? Secretaries? Interns? The guy who changes the toilet paper rolls? Does anyone realize that the same "unnamed source" in an adminstration or elsewhere could be the source for fifty different stories?

Thompson could be pulling this entire story out of his ass. How could you prove it? He doesn't have an editor to corroborate in confidence that his sources are real, as is done in some newsrooms.

Capitol Hill Blue is a blog, which is okay by me (Lord knows I link to enough of them,) but when the blog is the source of a news item itself, and not just referring to a news report, or just expressing a personal opinion, you have to be careful.