The Wall Street Journal finally -- finally! -- released an editorial addressing the publication of the bank records story by the New York Times and, oh yeah, the Wall Street Journal. Loftily invoking legal scholar Alexander Bickel ("We like to re-read Bickel to get our Constitutional bearings"), the Journal differentiates itself from the New York Times, which "decided last week to expose a major weapon in the U.S. arsenal against terror financing" (but please note how different that is from how the WSJ "published a story on the same subject on the same day"). The WSJ would like you to know that it is not the "ideological wingman" of the NYT (if the fact that this editorial is being published one whole week later didn't tip you off).
The WSJ lays out the timeline, which essentially boils down to this: The Times sniffed out the story, investigated the story, did the reporting for the story, and heard out the administration representatives on the merits of holding the story. When the Times decided to run the story, it gave the administration some grace time to "bring the appropriate Treasury official home from overseas" — and, clearly, for the Treasury to contact the WSJ to tip it off to the story so they could report on it took, without all that pesky investigative stuff. And, the WSJ's story was better! Just ask them!
The WSJ tries to distance itself from how the Times published the story. But the fact remains, the WSJ did publish the story -- which falls pretty neatly under the super-broad language of yesterday's condemnation-vote in the House, hmmm? (The bill "condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information...and expresses concern that the disclosure may endanger the lives of American citizens." Well, query whether a direct leak from Treasury is "unauthorized" -- that, of course, is for the administration to define after the fact, in the matter of PlameGate.)
At the end of the day, though, the WSJ just sounds like a chump, with someone else's story dropped in its lap for the express purposes of re-spinning as the "right" version. The WSJ admits: "[W]hile 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." Er, yeah. Great shoe-leather reporting on that story, guys.
The WSJ is quick to say, in hindsight and with the benefit of seeing how the Times has been excoriated and scapegoated this past week, that they probably would not have published the story "had we discovered it as the Times did." The WSJ wouldn't assume, as Keller did, that the terrorists would be wise to their financials being tracked; it invokes the image of a surprised terrorist reading the NYT and then checking his records to be sure his bank didn't route through SWIFT. If the WSJ underestimates the terrorists that much, then it's not surprising that they were nowhere near this story.
It's enough that the WSJ is craven and gutless on this story, backing away from its decision to publish what they characterize as essentially a press release; however, it takes it to the next level of brazen, shocking gall by saying that "We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters." OH, MY GOD. Sorry, but that smug little phrase tossed out there in the middle of what is becoming an all-out assault on the freedom of the press makes me want to hurl my computer through the window.
But there's more, because the WSJ is actually part of that assault, lending its name and own credibilty, such as it now is, to the notion that "not all news is fit to print," and that what is and is not so fit is entirely up to this administration to determine. It does not note that this is just another revelation of Bush & Co. sidestepping (if not hip-checking) the Constitutionally-guaranteed checks and balances on executive power; that it may well portend more such sidesteps; and that this administration has been characterized as the most secretive adminsitration ever, which challenges the press at every turn and runs directly counter to the mission of the Fourth Estate. All it does is invoke their buddy Alexander Bickel (they like to re-read him every so often, you know) and make the same outraged, indignant mountain out of the molehill of a revelation that was such a badly-kept secret Bush told the entire country during the State of The Union address in 2001.
The WSJ concludes by patting itself on the back -- again -- for being of superior moral and journalistic fibre to the terrorist-abetting Times, concluding self-importantly that "sometimes all the news is not fit to print." Yeah? Well, sometimes the same can be said of newspapers. I'm looking at you, WSJ.
UPDATE: It should be noted (and I didn't) that this is entirely from the WSJ editorial side; there is not a whisper of a quote from the news side that actually prepared this story. So we don't know what Treasury told Glenn Simpson, and we don't know what Paul Steiger's rationale for publishing the story was, either. Apologies to the WSJ News side for lumping you in with your insufferable, pompous and smug Editorial brethren.