… in the New York Daily News today — we have a lot of reasons to be skeptical. The story alleges that Bush knew that Rove leaked Plame’s name and was furious with Rove. The pants-wetting left is taking this as proof that Bush obstructed justice.

There are several problems. First and foremost, there’s not a single on-the-record source for this story. Second, this is the first time we’ve heard any indication that Bush might have known who the leakers were — and it comes in a story that lists as its sources “a presidential counselor,” “a key Bush official” and “a second well-placed source” — oh, not to mention the ever-popular “other sources.” Suddenly, all these well-placed sources are singing a brand-new tune to… the New York Daily News? Doesn’t make sense.

Third, this paragraph says a lot about the nature of anonymous sources, especially as they’ve played a role in this investigation:

A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

Let me get this straight: The NYDN reports that other anonymous well-placed sources were leaking false information to the press, yet they expect us to believe their anonymous sources because — why?

Worst-case scenario: After reading this report, Fitzgerald decides to prolong his investigation. Best-case scenario: In so doing, he puts this NYDN reporter, Thomas DeFrank, on the stand and makes him name some names.