Career Prole's Journal - WSJ editorial! * admin "cleaned up" NYT article?!

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

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

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?

edited title...