[drjimmy]

The article fails to mention that it was the New York Slimes who leaked the name of the Al Quaeda computer expert

But it wasn't. Didn't you read this part of the article?: "National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Sunday that Khan's name had been disclosed to reporters in Washington 'on background,' meaning that it could be published, but the information could not be attributed by name to the official who had revealed it."

So the administration purposefully released Khan's name to the press. The irony, of course, is that while the administration was happy to make Khan's name public, it has insisted that the name of the person who gave it out must remain secret!

[The G Man]

Does that mean the Administration itself wanted the info revealed? Or does it just mean that the person who revealed it didnt want their identity known?

[AFPhys]

The first time I read about this leaked info, it was stated that the reporters had been given a "Deep Background" briefing. As I understand it, that means that specific information was NOT to be released by the reporters, and that the reporter who did so violated that trust.

Of course, that begs the question as to what we're doing by trusting liberal Fraudcasters and oldmediots by briefing them to begin with.

It seems likely that Rice's hand was basically forced by the oldmediots (the New Mediots would not be any better) into making some comments that confirmed previous statements and suspicions raised by the Pakistanis...
.

[Common Tator]

So the administration purposefully released Khan's name to the press.

As usual the press Lies and you swear to it.

Rice released the information on "Deep Background" That is informatin that is not to be published now, but can be publised later.

"Deep Backrounds" are given to reporters so they will know what is going on as it happens. That way they have a story in real time that cannot be published until later.

The media dopped the word "Deep" to mislead and confuse the reader.

But you knew that already ... didn't you?