WSJ editorial! * admin "cleaned up" NYT article?!

[Career Prole]

...so the bush administration came to the rescue?
:wtf:

I heard this mentioned by a WSJ editorial punk on Cspan's Washington Journal this morning and couldn't believe my ears, and now it's out from behind the WSJ firewall to astound my eyes, too.

The editorial can be found by clicking here and what threw me for a loop was this assertion...

The Times decided to publish anyway, letting Mr. Fratto know about its decision a week ago Wednesday. The Times agreed to delay publishing by a day to give Mr. Fratto a chance to bring the appropriate Treasury official home from overseas. Based on his own discussions with Times reporters and editors, Mr. Fratto says he believed "they had about 80% of the story, but they had about 30% of it wrong." So the Administration decided that, in the interest of telling a more complete and accurate story, they would declassify a series of talking points about the program. They discussed those with the Times the next day, June 22.

Around the same time, Treasury contacted Journal reporter Glenn Simpson to offer him the same declassified information. Mr. Simpson has been working the terror finance beat for some time, including asking questions about the operations of Swift, and it is a common practice in Washington for government officials to disclose a story that is going to become public anyway to more than one reporter. Our guess is that Treasury also felt Mr. Simpson would write a straighter story than the Times, which was pushing a violation-of-privacy angle; on our reading of the two June 23 stories, he did...

As Senator Byrd would say...HEAR ME, NOW! Besides the obvious sucky math, (80% + 30% = 100%? I guess that explains their polls, eh?) the WSJ editors are reporting that the NYT was going to write the story on the so-called "secret" program but had "about 30% of it wrong" so the administration, in the interest of clarity provided the correct information?!
And they say the NYT blabbed?!

Again I say :wtf:

Does it strike anyone else as strange that the same people who are saying the NYT "helped terrorists" by publishing the article basically admitted to proofreading and correcting the article?!

Are they saying here that they didn't want the NYT to "help terrorists" if they weren't going to get it right?

"No, no, no...here's how we really do it!"

What exactly is that all about?

:wtf:

edited title...

[applegrove]

1. Confirmation?

[serryjw]

2. One more bushit distraction that

only lasted a few days. As pointed out by many on DU , Bushit has been talking about tracking and freezing terrorists assets since 9-11, this was not news.. TRUST me...most of American will never know any of the above, they don't read the newspaper and the media will never tell them

CASE CLOSED!

[papau]

5. Sarbanes Oxley Law requires 200,000 folks to know details of program

The Swift monitor program is such a secret!

[serryjw]

8. English please

n/t

[papau]

9. There is a law that requires a corporation to train its staff to be aware

of bad fiscal behavior, to recognize such behavior, to not do such behavior and/or to report that behavior.

That law is called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 http://www.aicpa.org/info/sarbanes_oxley_summary.htm and in the training required to be given to the financial side of the staff under the Federal interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley one finds discussion of the Swift function, and of the Swift monitor program of the US (no doubt I should say something like "as described President Bush in 2001 and bragged about by his staff in public comments and testimony since then" - I do not believe the NEW YORK TIMES revealed anything beyond what was in those public comments and in the slides and handouts that financial staff have been forced to study under Sarbanes-Oxley - but I may have missed the "newness" of some detail - sure wish someone would point out the new detail if it exists).

[serryjw]

10. Thanks for the explanation

but Bushit or Congress didn't mean it...They will not protect whistleblowers, especially on Wall Street. If you whistleblow, your career is over. Yes, NYT is just a scapegoat.

[WePurrsevere]

3. This whole thing stinks like 2 week old well used cat litter.The fact that

this program was NOT a secret and was talked about by Bush a long time ago seems to be happily overlooked which I don't get.

[xchrom]

4. since when has bushco been above setting up someone they want to

suckerpunch?

from gore to kerry to rather to the times.

{i say this while joing the ''fuck the times'' crew}

[Avalux]

6. LOL - a scheme to rile up the base??

Certainly seems so. These idiots will do ANYTHING for a boost in the polls. Pigs.

[KittyWampus]

7. that's all it seems to be now. How sad.

[The Wielding Truth]

11. We are in an era of Federal Government censorship that has

to do with corporate management, not American ideals of leadership through democratic law.