From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg,
Read your post this morning where you wonder why Dems in
Congress don’t oppose what they term the “illegal” NSA
program.
Democrats and others don’t oppose the program because it
was unneeded, and thus they don’t wish to see it ended.
They oppose its means of implementation because Bush broke
statutory law and, arguably, the Fourth Amendment,
circumventing congressional oversite and judicial
review–an arrogant exercise in unaccountable presidential
power.
The solution is not for Democrats to oppose the program,
but for Bush to do what he should have done at the outset:
Go to Congress to amend the FISA law. This would be
roughly analogous to what Lincoln did after he suspended
Habeus Corpus–he went to Congress to seek their approval
for his act. In fact, Bush stands on weaker ground than
Lincoln because, unlike Lincoln, who interpreted
constitutional language, Bush simply violated an existing
law–arguably an impeachable act of Congress, surely one
the courts will review, as they did Truman’s takeover of
the steel mills.
The issue is unaccountable presidential power, not
national security policy or civil liberties. Many
conservatives realize that there is no more an explicit
constitutional right for a president to violate statutory
law than there is an explicit constitutional right to,
say, abortion.
What’s your position?

Me: I think this is an entirely fair point and refreshingly civil at the same time. My position, as I’ve written, is that Bush should go to Congress and get right with the law even if he thinks it’s a constitutional policy. If the program is worthwhile why not have a law supporting it? At minimum, it would force Congress to “buy in” to the war on terror more. I’m sympathetic to the objection that asking Congress for the authority would have tipped off the enemy and rendered the program far less useful. But, that argument is now moot since the cat is out of the bag.

However, my point still stands. If Democrats believe the lawbreaking is so egregious and unacceptable, it only makes sense that they would demand it stop immediately until it’s made legal. They’re not doing that because they want it both ways: be righteously outraged while at the same not having to face the consequences of there outrage.