July Surprise?

The New Republic has just released an article which claims that the Bush administration is pressuring Pakistan to produce bin Laden, or some other important figure during the Democratic Convention.
I was just watching a piece on CNN about the article, and they attempt to completely discredit the article because it is largely based on unnamed sources. This is basically the same tactic that was used against Sy Hersh's article, and just about every other indicting article about the administration that is based on unnamed sources. To me, this is nothing more than throwing dust up in the air when you don't have any sort of critical argument to advance. I absolutely agree that unnamed sources can present a bit of a problem, but I think that this is where the credibility and reputation of the publication become so incredibly important. We can conclude that The New Republic is actually publishing a story that they know is dubious at best. However, I think that we have to consider the consequences of such an action. If it were to turn out that the article was totally bogus (either intentionally or unintentionally) the credibility of the TNR would be totally shot. No matter how leftist someone wants to paint this magazine and imply that they just absolutely hate Bush, it seems hard to believe that they would actually be willing to run the risk. On the other hand, if we assume that the Pakistani sources are somehow screwing around with these journalists, that's even harder to explain. The article makes it clear that Pakistan thinks that the GOP best preserves their interests, whereas the Democrats are contrary to their best interests. So, then, why would Pakistani officials throw these reporters a red herring that would potentially run counter to their interests by jeopardizing Bushco's reelection chances. It just doesn't make sense.