Just wanted to point out an interesting turn of phrase that I noticed in today's NY Times article regarding the Defense Department's rebuttal of criticism against Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. In several places in the article, critics of the Pentagon are spoken of as having been "granted anonymity".

"I think it's part of the charm offensive," said the general, who was granted anonymity because he said he was afraid he would not be invited to future Pentagon sessions....

On Saturday morning, two Republicans with close ties to the White House said that they were deeply concerned about the situation and that Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation could help improve the party's prospects for the November elections.

Both men were granted anonymity because they feared that speaking publicly would damage their relations with the White House.

Doesn't this sound as if the Times is acting like God in deciding who gets anonymity and who doesn't?  What ever happened to, "so-and-so requested to remain anonymous" or "so-and-so didn't want to say on the record".  The current article almost makes it sound as if the Times could decide to uncover these people's identities at any times should it decide to remove it's "grant".