Anonymous sourcing this extensive is sometimes necessary to break a story this big. In addition to talking to U.S. officials on background and on the record, the Times provided ample context and evidence to establish the connection between Karzai's brother and the drug trade. A shocking story, published at the end of the deadliest month for U.S troops and on the heels of a Washington Post report identifying the first U.S. official to resign in protest of the war.

Important breaking news report about alleged financial ties between the CIA and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai's brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai. Since most of the sources for this story are anonymous, it's difficult to verify their claims, which were denied by Ahmed Wali Karzai in a recent interview. Still, the fact that a number of current and past U.S. and Western officials are confirming this relationship adds some credibility to this report.

the story involves a controversial figure in the afghan-u.s. relationship. they sources from the u.s. are primarily unnamed, and there are few others who have knowledge to add. the story illustrates some major barriers to achieving goals in an anarchistic country: imperfect or contradictoryinformation, major vital factors beyond our control, difficulty in finding trustworthy allies

Where did the leak regarding the CIA and Karzai originate is my eternal question. Given the CIA's record and history it is most likely truthful.

The allegations are presented from unidentified sources, and denials are included. In the shadowy world of the CIA and Afghanistan, that may be the clearest the journalism can be, but it leaves some doubt on the reality of it all.

This frank and quite disturbing article about Ahmed Wali Karzai reveals some of the current problems the U.S. are facing in Afghanistan. It tries to offer a balanced view while many questions remain open.

Sourcing is perhaps the weak point in this piece, but it is understandable that many officials quoted do so only on the condition of anonymity. Unfortunately, this lowers the overall credibility of the piece, relegating it to the "he said, she said" argument.

This is a story that is quality but at the same time is hard to believe. There are so many sources that went un-named it is in many ways hard to take as authentic. But, at the very least it's a compelling story.

Yes, because it has a lot of information that is well sourced.