If the Washington Post's editors were honest this is the editorial they would have written today:
Leaking is a time honored tradition in Washington. Usually though, people think of leakers as being anonymous sources who dispense unauthorized information in dark garages and hide their identities for thirty years. This element of mystery rewards the reporters who cover the stories disclosed by leaks with hefty book and movie contracts - sometimes even thirty years apart - and confers celebrity status upon the reporters. Similar benefits accrue to the news organizations that employ these reporters. It adds an aura of uncorruptability to them and reinforces the view that these organizations will bravely stand up against abuses even in the highest level of government.The case of Valerie Plame has none of these elements. Karl Rove didn't meet with reporters in a dark garage. He didn't insist on anonymity. Consequently there's no mystery here and it inhibits our reporters' ability to market themselves more effectively. In short: there's nothing in it for us or ours.
But perhaps more unforgiveable than Mr. Rove's failure to add an aura of mystery to the proceedings is the fact that he was, in fact, not exposing the administration, but one of the administration's critics. Joseph Wilson, who made a name for himself two years ago by writing an op-ed in the New York Times implying that the Bush administration tailored data to fit its pre-conceived notions about Iraq and the need to go war, was discredited by Mr. Rove's leaks. Given the number of charges that Mr. Wilson made in his now famous op-ed that have turned out to be mistaken, his credibility was already in tatters; he needed a whistleblower to buttress his claims not question them further.
It is for these reasons that we condemn Karl Rove's answer to reporter Matt Cooper of Time Magazine. We hope that in the future, Mr. Rove, will realize that leaks are supposed to take place in dark garages and will not, in the future, give a bad name to other leakers.