Still I'd like to know if former top Bush administration officials actually gain credibility when they remain anonymous. Because, for instance, Allen reported these comments and we all assume the former top Bush administration official is credible in order to be quoted. But in reality it could be someone like Addington who would not be taken very seriously by the majority of people if he was given the attribution.

So I believe hiding behind the cloak of anonymity actually increases the credibility of former top Bush admin figures.

None of them will take public responsibility for their own policy.

What's interesting is that Cheney's poll numbers are so low that only the GOP faithful like him. So if this were said by Cheney (and I don't believe it was because Cheney is no shrinking violet) most people would not have listened to him. But we know other top Bush administration officials who supported the program…. Gonzales and Addington come to mind…. And I don't think either of these people command much respect from most Americans (and perhaps it was Addington or Gonzales who provided the quote and ad hominem attacks).

If we knew the name of the former top Bush administration official, would he be deemed as credible as someone who remains anonymous? By remaining anonymous, and quoted by Allen, this former top Bush administration official does gain credibility (even though it could be someone like Cheney or Gonzales or Addington).

But why should any former top Bush administration be deemed credible, especially in this, a program they either helped craft or helped keep secret (or both)? As I asked in my comment above, I'd like to know if this former Bush administration official believes that the US broke any law, whether domestic or international. If he does think it's necessary to break international and/or domestic law, then does he believe in changing the law to do away with torture? And if that were the case then he would be condoning torture of our soldiers, who by fighting are already in enough harm's way without having to add torture to the things to worry about.

Are there ANY former top administration officials out there with any credibility? Do they have to stoop to anonymity and be quoted by a journalist to have any credibility?

I thought we all knew what the official Bush view was.

“I figured that readers could decide whether the former Bush official’s comments sounded defensive or vindictive. And POLITICO readers aren’t so delicate that we have to deceptively pretend there’s no other side to a major issue. So at the bottom of the Axelrod story, I tacked on an ellipsized excerpt of the former Bush official’s quotes, removing several ad hominem attacks on Obama. I quoted less than half of the comment and took out the most incendiary parts…”

This is a laugh… first Allen, the author, wants to leave it to Politico's readers to decide whether the comments by the anonymous Bush official are defensive or vindictive. But then Allen TAKES OUT OVER HALF of the comments, which in his view consists of ad hominem attacks on Obama. Allen should either give the readers the full quote of the former Bush administration's official's comments so the readers can make a better judgement or not. But better yet Allen should just not quote the source.

Also I'd like to know if this former Bush administration official believes that the US broke any law, whether domestic or international.