Jumping to conclusions?

Babble on.

The anti-Bush crowd has been harping on about the administration's "incompetence or worse" in revealing the name of Pakistani Al Qaeda mole Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan.

But a piece in today's Slate wonders if we're jumping to conclusions. It seems the NYT is the one who dug up Khan's name from a source in Pakistani intelligence, and at most, the administration may have confirmed it. As for why each of the key players said what they did, the conspiracy theories are popping up like mushrooms as I type this.

Personally, I think the simplest explanation is probably true: "It's not as if there aren't officials who sympathize with radical Islamic fundamentalism in the Pakistani intelligence service."

From a journalistic integrity standpoint, however, I'm curious to see whether the NYT is introspective enough to pursue the possibility it has been used as a pawn by a terrorist group.

Babble off.