In its new "torture" piece, the New York Times again violates its policy on granting anonymity to sources. The reporters Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane cite "over a dozen" anonymous sources from the Bush administration. Let's take a look at where the message really came from.
In many news stories of this type, the identity of the primary source is pretty obvious from the text, and, in fact, is usually mentioned by name (though not identified as the source) early in the piece. Further, most anonymous stories are not the product of hard-nosed reporting, but are brought to the reporters, planted by the source(s) in order to "carry somebody's water" ie there is a purpose; both the content and the timing of the piece are clues to the identity of the primary source. In other words, whose ox has been gored; who has an ax to grind, etc.... qui bono?
It is clear to me that the principal contributor and probable instigator of this piece was Condi Rice.