RW radio says background on Khan was to the NYTimes, who revealed name

[bobbieinok]

IOW, the NYTimes, a constant critic of W, blew the cover, NOT the WH.

WH had to do background to counter charges that Dean and others were making that the whole thing was a W campagn ploy.

THEREFORE, the war on terror has been serious damaged by that notoriously 'liberal' NYTimes and the 'evil' democrats.

(I think this was on Rush, but they all do sort of blur together as one voice 'Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer.')

[billybob537]

1. SSSOOOOOOOOOOOO desperate!

[NeonLX]

2. Can't include my one-word response to rightards in the message title...

...coz it rhymes with "Smuckers".

[ChompySnack]

3. Sorry, "on background" information is not confidential

otherwise they wouldn't give any information on background. It just means that they use "senior administration official" or the like rather than the name of who said it.

Next excuse...

[slojim240]

4. Trying to cover for Bush's outing. Sickening.

Bush did it and he should be held accountable. But no one in this administration is accountable for anything.

[chiburb]

5. But YOU know better, right?

"Background" doesn't mean you can't use the info, you're SUPPOSED to use the info. All it means is you can't name the person who gave you the info. Kinda like Novakula...