Steve Benen takes on the Wall Street Journal’s FISA-related editorial today, which notably discusses something called the “anti-antiterror left.” Benen responds:

First, referring to the “anti-antiterror left” is just sad. The Wall Street Journal isn’t just some random posting on the Free Republic. Editors should probably try to aim a little higher.

Heh, indeedy. At least Mitt Romney had the balls to call us terrorists.

Benen goes on to provide a series of substantive rebuttals to the vacuous arguments provided by the WSJ.

Second, as far as the WSJ is concerned, any legal requirements, and any effort to provide checks and balances on administration power, is necessarily seen as the U.S. “tying its own hands in the fight against terrorists.” The newspaper’s editorial board, in other words, believes the only responsible course of action is to let the Bush White House have unfettered surveillance powers over Americans, without exception. What about the possibility for abuse? We should simply trust the administration to be restrained and responsible. Those who disagree are guilty of wanting to weaken America.

Third, the WSJ is so unhinged, it argued, in print and without a hint of jest, that the left’s “goal” is to prevent wiretaps. It’s as if the Journal’s editorial board has slept through the last couple of years of debate, and feels comfortable simply making up rationales to smear those who take the rule of law seriously.

And fourth, my personal favorite, is the notion that Congress and the president have to intervene in ongoing legal proceedings, and clear companies that already broke the law of any wrongdoing, otherwise the telecoms will never cooperate with the federal government again. It’s as if the WSJ has no idea what “warrants” and “judicial oversight” even mean.

Let’s be candid: The WSJ is providing noise and nothing more. There are many arguments out there that try to undercut efforts to solidify congressional oversight of domestic surveillance. I’ve been watching pretty much every word said in the FISA debate on C-SPAN 2 and trust me, the Senate Republicans aren’t doing much better than this. Facts are not relevant, only narratives that make Dems look bad. Though Carl Hulse of the NY Times wasn’t interested in telling the substantive legislative story of what’s happening in Congress, he was spot-on in his assessments of how this is going to turn into (or rather, continue to be) a vacuous political pie fight that culminates with Democrats being likened to terrorists.