The Wall Street Journal editorial page congratulates Obama on his latest anti-terror decisions

[Old Hank]

President Obama's endorsements of Bush-Cheney antiterror policies are by now routine: for example, opposing the release of prisoner abuse photographs and support for indefinite detention for some detainees, and that's just this week. More remarkable is White House creativity in portraying these U-turns as epic change. Witness yesterday's announcement endorsing military commissions.

Read it all: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124242595415225131.html

[emulatorloo]

1. Wall street journal can;t get the facts straight - Bush was not big on rule of law Obama is

President Obama Announces Tribunal Changes That Bring Them In Line With The Rule Of Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8412739

There is a world of difference between the Bush admin conception of a tribunal and the Obama admin's.

[countingbluecars]

2. And if he had done differently,

the headline would have been that he is endangering the troops and putting national security at risk.

[vaberella]

6. He can't win no matter what he does. Not really. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

3. WSJ is known for propaganda.

Pres. Obama is not in support of indefinite detention for some detainee......that's just an outright lie.

Seems like they have gotten emboldened to feel that they can say anything.
Guess they want to attempt to seperate OBama from his base.

What's your excuse?

[Old Hank]

4. ACLU: "Obama admin. continues indefinite detention policy for Bagram prisoners"

February, 2009: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/38782prs20090223.html

These days, it doesn't matter if it's the ACLU, WSJ, Hitler or Che, centrist or leftist. Whoever makes a claim that Obama made (enter unpopular decision here) will be said to be clueless

[emulatorloo]

8. I would drop the martyr complex. WSJ editorial page isn't credible, No matter who posts it

No offense intended. But they are a bunch of wingnuts with a huge agenda.

ACLU is worth considering seriously though.

[emulatorloo]

7. It surprises me to see statements from the WSJ, Ari Fleisher, Boehner etc accepted uncritically

as I have the last few days. I though everybody would know enough by now to treat these sources with skepticism.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. When the Urinal is happy, we'd best check

the expiration date on our hopes and aspirations. Some of his decisions are beginning to chaff.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Is it truly happy, or just fucking with us?

I choose the latter, as that is exactly what the WSJ Editorial pages are for.....to fuck with Democrats. period.

[vaberella]

9. I hate the WSJ for that reason...they are reporters at their worst. n/t

[Zynx]

11. Now I'm more suspicious than I had been.

[Peregrine Took]

12. Right wingers here in Chicago are loving him, too. Makes me want to puke.