Mr Bush said it would be "dangerous" if the legislation - introduced by the government after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US - was not renewed.
He told the White House on Tuesday any lawsuits against telecommunications firms would allow al-Qaeda to scrutinise US intelligence methods and gift them a "roadmap on how to avoid the surveillance".
So . . .
If we don't allow warrantless wiretaps, then the terrorists win?
With this argument, any civil liberty (real or perceived) is subject to aiding and abetting terrorism.
Now, since it's election time, what do our Great Saviours (the Democratic presidential contenders) have to say about this, or the policy in general? I suspect that their position will be about the same (seeing how they are both cut from the same cloth - their contest is more of an election of personalities). I'm sure if Clinton or Obama urged this type of policy, even the most non-liberal conservative-bashing Democrat would spin it to his own liking.
Remind me again why this election is real and not just a coronation, please?