It's a skill that makes journalism that much easier because it allows you to not only report the facts but also assign motivation, which is no easy task. It allows you to announce why somebody said something, even if you don't have proof.

Today's Post pulls off the mind-reading trick in an article about Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who commented Monday that military advisers, in order to better serve the president, ought to keep their opinions regarding warfare out of public view.

Here's what Gates said:

“In this process, it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations -- civilians and military alike -- provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.”

Gates' comments were reiterated by Gen. George Casey. Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. Both men spoke in the wake of weekend remarks by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander of U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan, who said that any attempt to significantly scale back the U.S. military presence in the country would be “shortsighted.”

McChrystal made his views known in public; Gates and Casey thought that was a bad idea. But the Post could read minds and its report added this [emphasis added]:

The Army's top general immediately echoed Gates's remarks, which seemed designed to rein in dissent within the ranks.

Neither Gates nor Casey suggested they opposed dissent within the ranks. And in fact, when asked directly on Monday whether Gates was trying to stifle McChrystal's evaluation, Gates replied, “Absolutely not.”

The Post had no evidence that anyone was trying to “rein in dissent.” But it seemed like that was going on, so the Post reported it as news. Why? Because the Post can read minds.

UPDATED: The Los Angeles Times managed to report out the same Gates/McChrystal story without trying to read minds.