He's Michael Scheuer. But why won't the Times and the Post say so?

Journalism's most famous anonymous source is Bob Woodward's "Deep Throat." Over the past three decades, hundreds of reporters and scholars have devoted themselves to unmasking the chain-smoking, parking-garage-loitering informant. But Deep Throat-stalking isn't just a parlor game: Sleuths hope that identifying Deep Throat will determine why he helped Woodward, one of Watergate's many unsolved mysteries and possibly the key to others.

Reporters similarly stampeded in 1996 to expose the identity of the author of the best-selling novel Primary Colors. After a fury of investigations and speculations, the Washington Post definitively named reporter Joe Klein as the author.

Given journalists' lust to name names, what should we make of the top news organizations' lack of interest in identifying the anonymous author of a new book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terrorism? The book currently stands in the No. 3 spot on the New York Times non-fiction best-seller list. Ordinarily when a little-known author writes a serious-book turned best-seller, he receives multiple profiles in the top papers. But not only have the Washington Post and the New York Times neglected to profile Anonymous, they've shied away from identifying him by name. When writing about him and his controversial book, they rarely do more than supplement the biographical information found on the book's dust jacket, which reads, " 'Anonymous' is a senior U.S. intelligence official with nearly two decades of experience in national security issues related to Afghanistan and South Asia. He is the author of Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America."

Sussing out the identity of Anonymous isn't a parlor game, either, as investigative reporter Steve Weinberg insists in his review of Imperial Hubris in the Orlando Sentinel. It's a matter of public interest when a government official such as Anonymous criticizes the administration's handling of the war on al-Qaida and its invasion of Iraq; describes Osama Bin Laden and his allies as insurgents, not terrorists; and calls for "blood-soaked defensive military action" against Islamists who threaten the United States.Are these the views and recommendations of a first-rate mind, an intelligence crank, or a low-level munchkin? "Publication of such important books without the author's true name attached is unconscionable and counterproductive," Weinberg writes, continuing:

Without knowing [Anonymous'] name, his education (including knowledge of Arabic, if any), his professional experience (for example, desk work in Langley, Va., or first-hand observation in Baghdad), his workplace history (satisfied analyst or oft-disciplined malcontent) and financial status (did he write such a strident book because he needed the money?), motives are impossible to discern.

What makes the Times' and Post's continued reluctance to name Anonymous even weirder is that reporter Jason Vest revealed his identity as senior CIA analyst Michael Scheuer in the July 2 edition of the Boston Phoenix. A variety of columnists and book reviewers writing in the Detroit Free Press, the Dallas Morning News, Orlando Sentinel (Weinberg), the Wall Street Journal editorial page (George Melloan), Salon, Slate, and for the  UPI have published the name since. Meanwhile, Anonymous has been interviewed repeatedly on television (This Week, Hannity & Colmes, CNN), face unseen, to publicize his views. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern named him on C-SPAN on July 22. Although USA Today did not identify Anonymous, it ran a lengthy editorial page interview with him (one cheer for them). The Los Angeles Times published a thorough, context-laden news story about Anonymous on July 1, quoting extensively from its interview with him, even supplying the first name of "Mike." (Two cheers for them.)

Scheuer didn't choose his anonymity, as did Deep Throat, Joe Klein, and most other anonymice. The CIA thrust anonymity upon him as a pre-condition of publishing the book, as he confirmed to Vest during several telephone conversations. Vest writes that "Anonymous does not, in fact, want to be anonymous at all. …" Nor is Scheuer's CIA status secret, as was undercover officer Valerie Plame's, because he works on the overt side of the agency.

To be fair, the CIA has sent out misleading signals about Anonymous' anonymity. The agency told the New York Times (June 23) it shouldn't use his full name because of the risk of making him an al-Qaida target. When Nightline invited Scheuer to appear in 2003, the agency told the program that anonymity was Scheuer's idea, Vest reports. Imperial Hubris editor Christina Davidson protested to the CIA on Anonymous' behalf and got a May 25, 2004, letter from the agency stating that the CIA and not the author insisted on anonymity.

Vest confirmed Anonymous' identity with "Nearly a dozen intelligence-community sources" (none of whom he names) and that Anonymous' identity is "well-known to at least a few denizens of the Washington press corps," as he writes in the Phoenix.

Indeed, D.C. press corpsmen are very familiar with Scheuer. While preparing selections from Imperial Hubris for publication in the July 11 Washington Post, "Outlook" section editor Steven Luxenberg says he confirmed through reporting sources the author's intelligence bona fides and learned that he was CIA officer Michael Scheuer.