WSJ brags of being authorized to "leak" same info as NYT!

[robbedvoter]

Buzzflash editorial proves the echo chamber was set on NY Times:


http://buzzflash.com/
Hideous WSJ Editorial Board Inadvertently Proves NYT Set Up for Bushevik Red Meat Attack
snip

Little reported in regards to the totally calculated and Goebbels-like attack on the New York Times for publishing the bank transaction tracing story is that other papers printed similar stories, including the Wall Street Journal. But the White House is only having its brown shirt echo chamber focus on the New York Times.
snip

The WSJ inadvertently provides evidence that the NYT was set up by the White House. We quote from the WSJ editorial in question:

" Some argue that the Journal should have still declined to run the antiterror story. However, at no point did Treasury officials tell us not to publish the information. And while Journal editors knew the Times was about to publish the story, Treasury officials did not tell our editors they had urged the Times not to publish. What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print. If this was a 'leak,' it was entirely authorized...."

We repeat, according to the WSJ, "If this was a 'leak,' it was entirely authorized...." Why would it be "authorized" for the Wall Street Journal, but not for the New York Times?

[doc mercer]

1. Times

Then it looks like Rove should be brought up on Treason charges and taken to the gas chamber

[robbedvoter]

2. At the very least, Fitz should ask who authorized WSJ to "divulge"

the 'secret" that was a White House release in September 2001

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. The WSJ is coming out in defense of the NYT? That's all the

info the NYTs needs to prove the White House's malicious intent. It's obvious that the White House is retaliating against the NYTs. The White House never learns. They went after Joe Wilson using dirty tricks, and when their girl Friday from the NYT was exposed, they knew the NYT would go rogue on them. So, defend the NYTs because they're the only thing standing between us and a total take-over of this country.

[robbedvoter]

5. Actually, they are joining the wolves, in spite of the fact that they

published the same news.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Don't you get it? How can it be classified information if a right-wing

rag was given permission to print it? Sounds like more from Project K Street.

[robbedvoter]

7. yeah, but WSJ is blowing the game. Inadvertently.

Their intent is not to clear NYT, but themselves.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. But they've revealed too much.

This reminds me of that bonehead Republican who claimed he had classified information that there was WMD in Iraq, then flashes the document on t.v. where someone could get a screen shot. The Daily Show made mince meat of that, and they should make mince meat of the info the WSJ just revealed.

[robbedvoter]

12. We should mail thr Buzzflash editorial to KO, TDS, Colbert

because this doesn't get the same amount of exposure as THEIR echo chamber

[peacetalksforall]

4. So Murtha is in on this? I don't get it? Is he an innocent guy or what?

Siding with the WH in condemning the NYT - true or not? Is he being used or not?

[AX10]

8. What do you mean?

[peacetalksforall]

10. There is a post on DU last night that he is condemning the leakers - NYT.

I'll see if I can find it.

[robbedvoter]

11. No connection with setting up NYT though.

[peacetalksforall]

13. No - I didn't say 'set-up' the NYT. I said 'condemn', but what I find now

is that they are saying that he agreed with the WH about asking the NYC not to publish it or supported the WH is asking them not to publish it.

It came up on DU last night. I'm trying to find it on the internet and I'm mostly coming up with what appears to be right wing or extremely anti-Dem abd Repub writings.

It is difficult to research because of S.W.I.F.T vs swift-boated.

Interesting how we are inundated with the word
S.W.I.F.T
swift-boated
Cmdr Lt Swift
and swift ringing in my ears from some dialogue in the Gore documentary

[rocktivity]

15. EVERYONE should be condeming the leakers

But for their actions, as Judge Judy would say, there wouldn't have been anything to print. Leaking is only permissible if it reveals illegal activity.

:headbang:
rocknation

[rocktivity]

14. But if the leak was "authorized" by the government, it's NOT a leak

and if one paper had "persmission" to leak while the other didn't--wait for it--it WAS a setup!!!

Not that I feel sorry for the Times--with a little cursory research, they would have discovered that the program was SO secret, it had it web site and a magazine! But then again, WSJ and the LA times should have done the same thing.

:headbang:
rocknation

[robbedvoter]

17. Exactly. NYT is NOT the victim here, we the people are.

The result of this little phony war will be our lessened access to information.

[ljm2002]

16. Since when do newspapers need the government to authorize their stories???

...welcome to the USSR.

[robbedvoter]

18. Since the Decider got "inherent powers to do...well everything!

Excellent point!

[Roland99]

19. K&R

[bleever]

20. K&R.

[formercia]

21. Before long, newsprint will be like political parties

a couple of major players and a couple of farm teams to screen reporters on their way up for political correctness.

[rocktivity]

22. Direct link to the Buzzflash story

http://buzzflash.com/analysis/06/07/ana06054.html

And by the way, Bush wasn't entirely truthful about briefing Congress on the program:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/02/feinstein-briefed

:headbang:
rocknation