>Sure, but "was leaked" is a particularly weasely way to present information.
>CH's use of the passive voice makes it really unclear whether it was even
>leaked to *him* -- maybe it's 4th or 5th hand info, or pure conjecture
>based on
>something leaked to someone else. It's not like it's attributed to "a
>high-ranking
>official who was at the meeting" -- any implication that he talked to a live
>person who was there would be a lot better. Not only does he leave it up
>to us to
>trust his source -- he makes it v. difficult to believe he even had a source.
Must be that British training. Brit journalists love to say things like, "...it emerged last night." They rarely say from whence it emerged, or who was pushing.
Doug