Members of the Senate and the Bush administration are upset at the New York Times for its story on government monitoring of international money transfers. But the Globe, owned by the Times, is on the offensive in defense of its parent. The defense theory: Many people already knew about the surveillance so, What's the big deal? -- there was no secret to begin with.

"There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. "The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."

Good point, but that defense, for me, raises a new question. If so many people were already aware of the SWIFT monitoring, then what was the point and/or motive of that original Times story?

'What's the big deal? cuts both ways.

Update: Jay, up very early this morning, beat me to this one.