A Note to Mr. Bush: Be Careful What You Wish For

We might just get you in prison where you belong.

Interesting Time Mag piece, which starts like this:

Up until a couple of weeks ago, George W. Bush's script to put the misery of 2005 behind him had seemed destined for a smooth rollout. Buoyed by the apparent success of the Iraqi elections, the President would score a quick confirmation victory with Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, follow it up with a soaring State of the Union address and then return to full campaign mode with a sweep around the country, talking about big issues like immigration and Medicare and throwing the spotlight on a resurgent economy. But the revelation that his Administration has been spying in this country without warrants--illegally, critics say--may have put a crimp in Bush's plan to climb back on top of the agenda as the new legislative session begins. "When Congress comes back," warns a top G.O.P. congressional aide, "domestic surveillance and privacy issues will be all over the front pages."

To which the President and his strategists seem to be saying, Bring it on. From practically the moment news of the domestic-surveillance program hit the front page of the New York Times, the White House decided its strategy would be to "overwhelm the skeptics, not back off, not change anything about the program and really home in very strongly on the fact that this is a legitimate part of presidential warmaking power," says an adviser. Bush launched a ferocious defense in his Dec. 17 weekly radio address, inviting in a network camera to capture the rare live delivery of the speech as he declared that the no-longer-secret surveillance program makes it "more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time." G.O.P. strategists argue that Democrats have little leeway to attack on the issue because it could make them look weak on national security and because some of their leaders were briefed about the the National Security Agency (NSA) no-warrant surveillance before it became public knowledge. Some key Democrats even defend it. Says California's Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee: "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."

But the NSA operation--and particularly Bush's decision to bypass the generally amenable Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for authorization--has drawn fire not only from liberal Democrats but also from some of the most conservative in Bush's party, in which government restraint is a fundamental precept. "There is a test of Republicans on this," says activist Grover Norquist, normally a White House ally. "The country will let you get away with this in the wake of 9/11, but that doesn't make it right." And even if Republicans are prepared to bless Bush's program, they know it theoretically would have to mean extending such sweeping Executive power to, say, a President Hillary Clinton.