It’s hard to keep up with all the supposed outrages associated with the war on terror and President Bush’s conduct thereof. This week we are apparently supposed to be upset because Bush authorized wiretaps of phone calls involving (or believed to involve) Al Qaeda members – in many cases without a warrant.

 

On at least 30 occasions, Bush acknowledges, he personally approved such wiretaps without a court order.

 

Actually, “acknowledges” may not be the right word. “Wears like a badge of honor” is more like it. This, Bush says, is what you say I’m supposed to do – protect you. Don’t be surprised when I do it.

 

Harry Reid is scandalized, in spite of the fact that he was briefed on the initiative long before the New York Times – after sitting on the story for the better part of a year – “broke” it just in time to countermine the renewal of the Patriot Act. Nancy Pelosi actually declared that, by acknowledging the wiretap authorizations, Bush had admitted to an impeachable offense.

 

The public does not seem to be following the trail of outrage, as an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed Bush’s approval rating up eight points in the days following the big wiretap revelations.

 

Bush hates polls. I don’t much care for them either. But Bush’s critics live and die by them, and it must be mystifying to them that their latest big scandal isn’t resonating with the public. They might consider that the public understands the stakes a little better than they do.

 

If the National Security Agency comes to Bush with information that contact has been initiated between someone in the United States and an Al Qaeda operative, Bush has a choice to make. He can a) authorize a wiretap unilaterally; or b) ask the permission of the court. If he opts for B, the court might a) approve; b) refuse; or c) head off to the solarium to give it good, careful consideration. In the case of B or C, Bush has another decision to make. He can shrug his shoulders and say, well, we tried. Or, if he really believes the wiretap is essential to national security, what should he do?

 

What would most Americans do, if put in the same position?

 

I suppose we know what most ACLU state directors and Libertarian Party officials would do, but for anyone else, it would be – at the very least – no easy decision.

 

Bush not only insists his actions have been legal, he also vows to continue them and assails those who leaked the details of the program – and by implication, those who reported them.

 

The legal defense may be useful, but I’m not sure it’s entirely necessary with most Americans. The law here may be murky, but if the president believes that bending it may help prevent a terrorist attack, few Americans would begrudge him his discretion.

 

Bush’s critics continue to hammer the president over his refusal to fight the war with one hand tied behind his back. While the self-appointed defenders of civil liberties howl about the theoretical potential for “abuses,” real terror cells redouble their determination to operate according to no rules, respect no one’s rights and certainly seek no warrants before acting.

 

And real Americans, who appear to understand the stakes better than those who claim to be defending their liberties, yawn at the so-called abuses. If the government were really eavesdropping on the phone conversations of Arlo P. Hippie, and using what it learned to persecute poor Arlo – well then we would have a problem. But when such abuses remain strictly theoretical, while very real threats remain to be dealt with, sensible Americans will have little patience for those who are shocked – shocked! – because Bush did what he believed was necessary without saying mother may I.