The Dems have now effectively tethered themselves legally 
    to the position that protecting US citizens in the US was 
    never authorized by Tom Daschle, et al (a stunning and 
    politically tonedeaf admission), and so the President—
    despite counsel of the DoJ, DoD, and NSA legal apparati—
    is criminally culpable for protecting us against embedded 
    enemies hoping to attack from within; conversely, the 
    leaker of this highly classified information is an heroic 
    whistleblowers for placing his questions and his 
    suspicions above his or her official duties to the 
    country (there are proper procedures for “whistleblowing,”
    and leaks to the NYT are not among them).  Up is down, 
    black is white, Bush is J Edgar HooverNixon. 

    Anti-war leftists and civil libertarian absolutists, too, 
    keep offering the non sequitur that, regardless of whether
    or not there was a “leak,” it is patently disingenuous to 
    suggest that national security has been compromised (.... 
    and while you do so, try to imagine them making the same 
    argument for the beating of a prisoner in custody that 
    didn’t result in any broken bones). “PROVE IT,” they say—
    knowing full well that to do so would mean revealing what 
    is still highly classified and protected about the program,
    putting the administration and the intelligence community 
    in a catch 22 situation.....

    ....Bottom line:  if we are at war—and AUMF says we are—
    signals intel is perfectly legal and expected (and its 
    underuse would be considered negligent); further, 
    hysterical suggestions of its abuses remain hypothetical 
    and unproven (and, in fact, assurances have been given 
    that FISA is being used in legal situations wherein the 
    statute require it).