WaPo urges Obama to hide information from the public

On the same day that the media elitists like Dana Milbank at the Washington Post accused Republicans of supposed hypocrisy, they exposed themselves as blatant hypocrites, arguing that the Obama administration should hide important information from the public.

Of course, WaPo is trying to protect Obama: this time, from criticism of the thousands of "ghost jobs" supposedly created by the $800 billion pork-filled package Obama pushed through Congress last spring.

With even Democrats beginning to challenge Obama's self-serving claims that 600,000+ jobs were created and/or saved--a fraction of the 3.5 million jobs Obama claimed would result from his spending spree--the Post is, incredibly, advocating that Obama obscure details of the program.

Alec McGillis of the Post writes:

Even advocates for government transparency wonder whether the Obama administration would have been better off not trying to provide actual job tallies, instead simply requiring clear reports on how the money was spent -- information that is more useful and reliable.

WaPo provided no proof of its opening contention--that transparency advocates want less information--only quoting Gary Bass, director of OMB Watch, as saying, "I would not have framed it as a jobs bill or a jobs law, as they have done."

This one quote, used to rationalize WaPo's position, was a far cry from urging that Obama not to release the figures.

Thus, the Washington Post--which reveled in disclosing secrets during the Bush administration, consequences be damned--finds itself, in effect, advocating that the Obama administration hide information from the public.

On the same day that they accuse Republicans of being hypocritical.

On the same day that the media elitists like Dana Milbank at the Washington Post accused Republicans of supposed hypocrisy, they exposed themselves as blatant hypocrites, arguing that the Obama administration should hide important information from the public.

Of course, WaPo is trying to protect Obama: this time, from criticism of the thousands of "ghost jobs" supposedly created by the $800 billion pork-filled package Obama pushed through Congress last spring.

With even Democrats beginning to challenge Obama's self-serving claims that 600,000+ jobs were created and/or saved--a fraction of the 3.5 million jobs Obama claimed would result from his spending spree--the Post is, incredibly, advocating that Obama obscure details of the program.

Alec McGillis of the Post writes:

Even advocates for government transparency wonder whether the Obama administration would have been better off not trying to provide actual job tallies, instead simply requiring clear reports on how the money was spent -- information that is more useful and reliable.

WaPo provided no proof of its opening contention--that transparency advocates want less information--only quoting Gary Bass, director of OMB Watch, as saying, "I would not have framed it as a jobs bill or a jobs law, as they have done."

This one quote, used to rationalize WaPo's position, was a far cry from urging that Obama not to release the figures.

Thus, the Washington Post--which reveled in disclosing secrets during the Bush administration, consequences be damned--finds itself, in effect, advocating that the Obama administration hide information from the public.

On the same day that they accuse Republicans of being hypocritical.