In a June 30 Washington Post article, staff writers Peter Baker and Dan Balz reported the following:

The more resolute a commander in chief, the Bush aides said, the more likely the public will see a difficult conflict through to the end. “We want people to understand the difficult work that's ahead,” said a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity to speak more freely. “We want them to understand there's a political process to which the Iraqis are committed and there's a military process, a security process, to which we, our coalition partners and the Iraqis are committed. And that there is progress being made but progress in a time of war is tough.”

In recent months, some of the nation's best-regarded newspapers have responded to criticism of the overuse of anonymous sources by purporting to give readers more complete information about why the source required anonymity. It is now not uncommon to read in The Washington Post or The New York Times that a source wanted to remain anonymous for a number of reasons, the most common being “in order to speak freely.”

But if the above-quoted statement is what the Post considers “speaking freely,” we wonder what Balz and Baker would consider “staying on message.” Indeed, the anonymous source's statements express precisely the same sentiment as President Bush's June 28 speech at Fort Bragg, North Carolina:

Source: “We want people to understand the difficult work that's ahead.”
Bush: “The work in Iraq is difficult.”

Source: “We want them to understand there's a political process to which the Iraqis are committed, and there's a military process, a security process, to which we, our coalition partners and the Iraqis are committed.”
Bush: “Our strategy going forward has both a military track and a political track. ... Our coalition is devoting considerable resources and manpower to this critical task.”

Source: “There is progress being made but progress in a time of war is tough.”
Bush: “We've made progress, but we have a lot more work to do.”

Did we need an anonymous source for that? And did the well-behaved administration official need anonymity to repeat the highlights of the boss's speech?