[Spidey]

I'm with you Registered.

I don't buy this. Would we ever have seen a retraction if not for William? Hell no!

And now we are supposed to believe that you printed crap from this guy for 20 years and you found out in 24 hours that he doesn't exist?

If this isn't the best reason I ever heard not to believe news stories citing "unnamed sources", I don't know what is.

Doug Thompson, you owe the people who read that article and who have been reading on your site a lot more than this weak explanation.

[deport]

Just to bring all things together:

---

• The madman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

• Writer apologizes for "Madman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" column

[AHerald]

I don't buy this... we are supposed to believe that you printed crap from this guy for 20 years and you found out in 24 hours that he doesn't exist?

I'm with you. My BS detector is clanging big time.

Where were these shadowy CIA and White House "sources" before the story was published? Wouldn't it be reporting 101 to make a quick call these sources to check out the story before printing such potentially explosive charges against a sitting president? (Especially since the bogus quotes attributed to the president featured the classic trademark of being a lie: they were just too "on the nose.")

To my way of thinking, even if every word of Mr. Thompson's mea culpa is sincere, this episode still represents a gross negligence of the most basic of journalistic duties and concepts of fairness.