The fact that there is no explanation this morning in the Post of how this happened leads me to think it was from a source that they cannot reveal. I'd love to know how this happened.
Not that journalists actually have ethics, but I believe if your source lies to you, you're allowed to reveal who the source is. Why cover for the source? What better way to get back at the Kerry campaign than to say such and such person from the campaign fed the Post this inaccurate information? At the very least, it would take the spotlight of scrutiny off the Post and put it on the Kerry campaign.