Sorry. I'm not usually crude, but this is such an exercise in rationalization that there's only one honest word for it:
The Washington Post writes an editorial claiming that Bush's authorizing Libby to leak classified docs to journalists to justify the Iraq war AFTER the fact was a "good leak", then claims the utter baselessness of all facts in that editorial is proof of journalistic integrity. The "wall" between reporting and editorials doesn't justify an editorial that isn't based on facts. It's like an editor claiming the Earth is flat and justifying his idiocy by arguing that it's unethical for editors to read the science pages.
Bullshit. The Washington Post is better than this... or used to be.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME