[muleboy]

This story has already been dismissed by credible government sources.

"Credible Government Sources"

"Credible Government Sources"

"Credible Government Sources"

"Credible Government Sources"?

No matter how many times I write it, say it, or hear it, it makes me laugh myself silly.

[Poohbah]

Well, I'm asked to (a) consider the word of "unnamed sources" (who may merely be figments of the reporter's imagination--we've caught the press lying to us about sources before) alleging a high level of weirdness, or (b) consider the word of someone willing to stick his name in what he said.

The former requires me to accept the reporter's integrity as a given, but without any verifiable backup. Essentially, there is no way to disprove the allegations in this scenario.

The latter is at least based on a person who is named, and is willing to say on the record that the account is BS. If additional documents ever surface indicating that the initial reports were in fact accurate, it's HIS credibility that's shot, and he knows it.

Ultimately, it boils down to he-said/he-said, but one guy is taking a LOT more risk.

[LarryLied]

The Washington Post broke the "Credible Government Sources" angle to this. That put your doubts to rest?