THEIR sources are anonymous. OUR sources are just nameless.

Awwwww ... the outrage is so adorable, isn't it?

"Anonymous Sources have become principal sources for some MSM outlets like the New York Times. The problem with unnamed sources is that no one can ever question them, test them, or counter-punch accurately, because they are just shadows. Much like using the town gossip for information, unnamed sources are unreliable sources. There is never any telling if one has been fed the truth or just a load of good’ol Alberta night soil from the corral."

I'm sorry ... you were saying?

"Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day," U.S. President George W. Bush said recently.

Another time he said, "Some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free."

"There are some really decent people," the president said earlier this year, "who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people."

Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions.

When the president starts a sentence with "some say" or offers up what "some in Washington" believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.

The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Mr. Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.

He typically then says he "strongly disagrees," conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.

To paraphrase my good buddy Steve Janke, taking right-wing hypocrisy and ripping it a new orifice. But always with a touch of snark.