WSJ editorial page stands alone on FISA.
By on Aug 8th, 2007 at 10:14 am
WSJ editorial page stands alone on FISA.
Today, the Wall Street Journal — whose parent company recently agreed to sell to Rupert Murdoch — praises the administration’s new FISA law:
Opposition from the Democratic left to this intelligence program isn’t merely part of the partisan blood feud against a weak President near the end of his term. It is part of a far larger ideological campaign to erode Presidential war powers. Goaded by the ACLU and much of the press corps, many Democrats want to use the courts and lawsuits to restrict Mr. Bush and future Presidents in their ability to gather intelligence in the war on terror.
In the last few days, in contrast, at least nine major newspapers have come out against the new law, calling it “unnecessary” and “dangerous.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
WSJ? I thought they sold that rag to the Aussies.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:21 amWell there you, the strength of America showcased for all to see, freedom of opinion and speech.
I suppose the WSJ should just cave and follow the lead of the other papers, since nine is bigger than one and that means the nine know better.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:21 amNixon did.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:22 amwhat is up with these neocon editorials? WSJ and WaPo; who is next to contract right wing opinions?
August 8th, 2007 at 10:23 amNixon did.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — August 8, 2007 @ 10:22 am
Well then, Clinton did too!
August 8th, 2007 at 10:24 amwsj? lol, you mean “lil fox”?
August 8th, 2007 at 10:25 amWSJ = W’s Sycophantic Journal
August 8th, 2007 at 10:25 amToday, the Wall Street Journal, recently acquired by Rupert Murdoch
Wrong? The FCC or whichever gov’t agency that has to approve it, hasn’t approved the deal yet.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:29 amNYT = Neutered Yasmine Tuxedos
Lets dance!
August 8th, 2007 at 10:29 amListen to the wording.
many Democrats WANT to use the courts and lawsuits to restrict Mr. Bush and future Presidents in their ability to gather intelligence in the war on terror.
Here is the Wall Street Journal, saying democrats want to restrict the Presidents ability to fight the war on terror.
Yes. Democrats just wake up every day and say “hey, we’d like to stop the President from stopping the terrorists”.
:|
The Wall Street Journal has just dropped to the level of Fox news. It is now little more than an arm of the far right wing.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:30 amwhat is the surprise? WSJ editorial page has always been extremely supportative of the bushies. It would have been a shock if they had opposed the new fisa debacle.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:31 amHow about some comments re the loss of about 200,000 ak 47 weapons in Iraq?
Of course, this Murdoch neo-nazi/fascist rag would be the only one to act as Bush’s propaganda megaphone.
Wonder how Rupie will feel when he realizes that no one shares his views and will bankrupt his newspaper??
August 8th, 2007 at 10:32 amThe WSJ will join Faux News as another laughingstock propaganda machine which is totally functioning in BubbleBoy’s realm.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:33 amI’ve heard that there’s been a very active boycott of the WSJ since Murdick took over.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:34 amAdd the Chicago Tribune to the list that would sacrifice freedom for a little security (and deserves neither).
August 8th, 2007 at 10:35 amDon’t you mean the Wall Street Post.
The page 3 girl has nice ta-tas and the gossip column has a great expose on Lilo and BranJolie.
Not to mention their great Nazi recipe section.
-GSD
August 8th, 2007 at 10:35 amMurdick, Murcock……whatever.
-GSD
August 8th, 2007 at 10:36 ametouffee
I’ve heard that there’s been a very active boycott of the WSJ since Murdick took over.
He hasn’t taken over yet.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:38 amCan’t have “War Powers” when we’re NOT at war.
Currently, we’re operating in Iraq under the AUMF, which DOES NOT give us the right to “declare war” or occupy Iraq as long as we have.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:39 amwhat is the surprise? WSJ editorial page has always been extremely supportative of the bushies. It would have been a shock if they had opposed the new fisa debacle.
How about some comments re the loss of about 200,000 ak 47 weapons in Iraq?
Comment by billjpa — August 8, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Exactly – the editorial page is extremely conservative while the paper itself has a more left-centrist spin. The concern is that the non-editorial content is going to start leaning to the right.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:43 amThe page 3 girl has nice ta-tas and the gossip column has a great expose on Lilo and BranJolie.
Comment by GSD — August 8, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Make sure ye count the nipples, Witchfinder Private!
August 8th, 2007 at 10:44 amApparently the majority of Democrats in Congress agree with the WSJ. They voted for it.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:49 amLook for more of the same in the future. Only worse.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:49 amMarie
Look for more of the same in the future. Only worse.
So then not the same?
August 8th, 2007 at 10:51 amI just wanna sex you up.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:52 am“want to use the courts and lawsuits to restrict Mr. Bush and future Presidents in their ability to gather intelligence in the war on terror.”
Yes, I do. I want them to obey the 4th amendment, which does, indeed, restrict what they may do to gather intelligence. This is only necessary because his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution means absolutely nothing to him.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:52 amThey’re not even waiting for the ink to dry before towing the Rupert line. Are there ANY news organizations in the main stream media worthy of respect? Working for, they’re working for the corporaaaation, working for….
August 8th, 2007 at 10:53 am#24 Comment by squegeeboo — August 8, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Heh, heh.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:54 amI totally agree with #19.
A) We aren’t at war
and
B) WSJ renamed executive power as war power (what a clever thing to do)….
Expansion of executive powers to the point that they corrode our constitution (which is what the Democrats object to) is more dangerous to us, our children and our earth than any 2 bit terrorist. Our Constitiution and the separation of powers protect us from takeover from within. And the Corporate forces that be are really trying to that with this oil saturated administration.
Eisenhower warned us, and FDR warned us before that. The greatest danger to US is corporate takeover from within.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:56 am9 major liberal newspapers you mean
August 8th, 2007 at 10:58 amCertain idioms in use in various parts of the country are lost on the dunce-heads here.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:00 amWell there you, the strength of America showcased for all to see, freedom of opinion and speech.
I suppose the WSJ should just cave and follow the lead of the other papers, since nine is bigger than one and that means the nine know better.
Comment by Bran-Keeps You Reg’lar — August 8, 2007 @ 10:21 am
This makes no sense at all.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:06 am9 major liberal newspapers you mean
Comment by chris — August 8, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Irrational comment w/ no factual basis.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:06 am9 major liberal newspapers you mean
Comment by chris — August 8, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Punctuate much? Everyone knows the facts have a liberal bias.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:07 amNYT = Neutered Yasmine Tuxedos
Lets dance!
Comment by Bishop — August 8, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Embarrassingly silly comment. Totally irrational.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:08 amPunctuate much? Everyone knows the facts have a liberal bias.
Comment by Namtillaku — August 8, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Why do “facts” hate America so?
Hey, anybody want some “Freedom fries”?
August 8th, 2007 at 11:09 am9 major liberal newspapers you mean
Comment by chris
____________________
Yes, but I hear that 76 trombones lead the big parade.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:10 amApparently the majority of Democrats in Congress agree with the WSJ. They voted for it.
Comment by Frank J — August 8, 2007 @ 10:49 am
This is so blatantly incorrect it’s laughable. the Dem tally was 41 for, 181 against.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:11 amThis is so blatantly incorrect it’s laughable. the Dem tally was 41 for, 181 against.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — August 8, 2007 @ 11:11 am
But it is correct to say the Democratic Controlled Congress approved it.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:13 amFrank J #22
Displaying typical GOPthink – i.e. make up your mind BEFORE reading the facts.
Heckuva job, political hack!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:15 amThis is so blatantly incorrect it’s laughable. the Dem tally was 41 for, 181 against.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — August 8, 2007 @ 11:11 am
But it is correct to say the Democratic Controlled Congress approved it.
Comment by r
____________________________
The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:24 amThe WSJ editorial board is composed entirely of fascist propagandists. Their editorial positions on Iraq and global warming are pathetically, laughably wrong.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:34 amThe WSJ editorial board is composed entirely of fascist propagandists.
Comment by VerbalKint
————————————————————————————-
Translation: Anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:38 amSadam Dam doesn’t appear to be doing so well.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:41 amTranslation: Anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi.
Comment by Ringo — August 8, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Only a Nazi would translate it that way. I guess the boot fits.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:57 amTranslation: Anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi.
Comment by Ringo — August 8, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Translation: Anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:57 amjackboot!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:58 am#43 No, Ringo, that is not an accurate translation of what I said at all.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:58 amThe WSJ editorial board doesn’t disagree with me per se: it disagrees with reality. And the members of the board disagree with reality for a very simple reason: they are elitists who believe that the ends justify the means. Their end is to see their cherished ideological beliefs imposed by government. Their means is propaganda.
Ringo appears to be a Nazi. No surprise, he’s certainly shown his hatred for freedom and americans for quite a while.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:59 amGlobal warming coverage by the WSJ editorial pages is a perfect case in point: they have published a steady stream of false and often bizarre editorials that constitute a full frontal attack on science, without once publishing a single word acknowledging the strong scientific consensus on the subject. Their work in this area has been pathologically dishonest, on par with the work of the tobacco industry to create doubt about the smoking-lung cancer connection. To deny global warming science at this point is akin to denying that smoking causes cancer or that HIV causes AIDS. It is wacko stuff.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pmjackboot!
Comment by r — August 8, 2007 @ 11:58 am
See, Ringo – even r thinks you’re a nazi. Lord knows what the rest of the alphabet has to say…
August 8th, 2007 at 12:05 pmLord knows what the rest of the alphabet has to say…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — August 8, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
:-)
August 8th, 2007 at 12:11 pmDuring the very time Congress was debating codifying President Bush’s lawbreaking by revising FISA, Alberto Gonzales’ DOJ was raiding the home of a former Justice official to identify the person who first brought the illicit program to light.
For the disturbing details of selective retribution by the White House, see:
August 8th, 2007 at 12:34 pm“Payback Time: FBI Raids Home of Suspected NSA Leaker.”
WSJ — the same editorial page that Bill Clinton said is right-wing, irrational, and as predictable as Pavlov’s dog? Yep.
As far as “eroding presidential war powers” — why should the president have “war powers” when, according to his people, we aren’t at “war”?
Oh wait — they mean the “war on terror”. I suppose we should also give the president unprecedented dictatorial power on the “war on crime”, the “war on poverty”, and all other unending wars as well.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:38 pmTheir means is propaganda.
Comment by VerbalKint — August 8, 2007 @ 11:58 am
For the most part, their reporting is a good one, IMO. But I get to the op-ed page and it’s bizarro world. So very often they deny and spin all the facts they reported. It’s really weird.
From the occupation of Iraq, to the phony “war on terror”, to the never-ending bashing of people they dislike -like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, the op-ed page of the Journal is a parallel universe.
To deny global warming science at this point is akin to denying that smoking causes cancer or that HIV causes AIDS. It is wacko stuff.
Comment by VerbalKint — August 8, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Also akin to denying evolution happens, or insisting evolution is “just a theory”.
Global warming deniers use the very same rhetorical tactics Creationist use; saying that more evidence is needed, but never accepting any level of evidence as satisfactory, distorting science, misquoting studies, making appeal to authority (who have no expertise in the field in question), etc., etc. Their mind set is the same and need to be debunked in the same fashion.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pmTime to boycott the WSJ. Because the newspaper’s primary audience comprises the corporate interests that fund this administration, boycotting advertisers won’t work. Boycott the journalists. Don’t buy their books or reprint their comments. Sell your stock in Murdock’s interests. Ignore this irrelevant rag altogether.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:09 pmThe only reason the founding fathers wanted a court to process a warrant after probable cause was certified is because they couldn’t have imagined a man so brilliant, moral and omniscient as Alberto Gonzales.
With a man like Alberto Gonzales, courts and warrants are unnecessary. He is the only check needed to determine that you and I are guilty of something.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pmGood to see it only took Rupert Murdercoch a few days to pass on his congenital retardation to the WSJ. The fourth estate is quickly becoming the voice of one.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:28 pmit’s only a matter of time that Murdoch has bikini clad financial beauties giving their stock tips that they got by doing astrological charts of various companies, or something. Or, I know: bikini clad investment broker beauties, showing their recent bling purchases and/or their baby bump announcement. Why have intelligent news when you can discuss what financial star is dating the latest baseball star? …this is what Murdoch does. Dumbs it down to the level that you can’t even use the “newspaper” for emergency purposes in the bathroom. (sorry for the crudeness) but the shrinking of newspaper ownership by a few conglomerate powers is
August 11th, 2007 at 8:42 pmDESTROYING THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND DEMOCRACY…and Murdoch is leading the way.
P.S. The Bancroft family members who voted to sell out to Murdoch, honestly are true American capitalists, bless their hearts. :)….they
August 11th, 2007 at 8:51 pmsold out integrity, neutrality and the responsiblity to be guardians of the
FOURTH ESTATE (what’s left of it: which are/were watchdogs for the citizenry against possibly tyrants) for the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR. In other words, they obviously figured: Yes, we own a yacht., but
why have a 400 footer, when you can have a 2000 footer? THANKS FOR SELLING OUT., and trashing responsibilty and integrity for $$$$$…… it really must warm your fellow capitalists hearts.