While some prefer to deny they exist, I find it helpful to understand how the other half (third, three-quarters?) thinks.  To do that, I turn to one of two conclusive sources, the New York Post or the Wall Street Journal, which are largely the same, except that Rupert Murdoch prefers the Post because it has better headlines.

Yesterday, the WSJ had an editorial about wiretaps.  It was fascinating, not because it was persuasive or accurate, but because there are a lot of people who will read this and accept it as reality. 

The Senate takes up wiretapping of foreign terrorists this week, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Not only for the ability of our spooks to eavesdrop on al Qaeda, but also regarding Congressional and judicial intrusion into Presidential war powers. Some damage seems certain, but the issue is how much damage President Bush will accept.

The first step is to frame the issue.  We are informed that while the superficial issue is the ability of “our spooks” (when’s the last time you heard that term used?) to eavesdrop on al Qaeda, the secret issue is the damage to the presidency.  And where does the Journal stand on this attack on executive sovereignty?

We believe — and appellate courts have stated — that the President already has such authority under the Constitution. But the political left claims this is “illegal” under FISA, and Mr. Bush has agreed to work with Congress on a compromise.

Who knew that the political left held such sway over President Bush?  What a sell-out.

By far the worst threat is an amendment from Senator Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) to deny legal immunity to telephone companies that cooperated with the government on these wiretaps after 9/11. The companies face multiple lawsuits, so a denial of even retrospective immunity would certainly lead to less such cooperation in the future.

It’s always about lawsuits with those guys.  But wait, there’s more evil afoot.

Which brings us to the larger problem with this entire exercise. Congress’s overriding goal here is to further hamstring our intelligence war-fighters with legal rigidity and complexity, but to do so in a way that dodges its own oversight duties by passing the buck to FISA judges. White House lawyers know this is unconstitutional, but intelligence officials say it’s more important to have Congress’s blessing for these wiretaps. And because the telecom companies won’t cooperate without immunity, Mr. Bush is being bullied into trading away some of his own power to get that immunity.

And if White House lawyers “know this is unconstitutional,” then it’s unconstitutional.  Just ask John Yoo.

This editorial love-note to President Bush is designed to bolster his fortitude to stand up to those lefties who would emasculate the presidency by suing telecoms for enabling warrantless wiretaps.  Not even a lame-duck Texan likes to be called a pansy by a New Yorker.

Now is our President going to let Congress dodge it’s duty by leaving it up to judges to make judicial decisions?  And will those decision-dodgers in Congress emasculate the presidency by usurping the constitutional executive spook powers?  The editors offer their answer:

[A]ny further concessions would amount to an abdication as Commander in Chief. He has the political high ground on this issue. If Congress does more harm, he should declare that to protect the country he’ll use his Constitutional war powers to wiretap al Qaeda anyway and toss the issue squarely in the middle of the Presidential campaign.

Take that, Obama girl!  I thought you ought to know.