The Washington Post: Firmly On-Record Against Speculative Charges

I was delighted to read the Washington Post so piously castigating Republicans for making (thusfar) unproven allegations against Sandy Berger:

Still, it's hard not to be repulsed by the reaction to the affair by President Bush's campaign spokesmen and Republicans in Congress. They have suggested, without foundation, that Mr. Berger took the papers to benefit Mr. Kerry, who says that he knew nothing of the matter; House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has spoken, with gross hyperbole, of a "national security crisis."

However, I got a little bit confused when I read the very next paragraph:

It's worth noting that news of the months-old investigation of Mr. Berger just happened to leak on the week before the Democratic convention, and two days before the release of the Sept. 11 commission's report -- which covers serious lapses by President Bush as well as President Bill Clinton. Officials at the Bush White House had been briefed on the Berger probe. Could that be a coincidence?

Are those the magic words? "Could it be a coincidence?" Is that the preferred incantation for making unsubstantiated allegations?

Okay, Washington Post. How about this:

Sandy Berger stole top-secret documents from the National Archives which are reported to be scathingly critical of the Clinton Administration. Now he says that some of those documents were "inadvertently discarded. Could this be a coincidence?