An independent can’t help but be amazed at the differences between The Pilot’s lead editorial on Dec. 21 and that of The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday and Ronald Kessler’s on Wednesday, all on the same subject: the presidential authorization of wiretapping of potential terrorist communications without getting FISA approval.

Are they all wrong? It sounds like they’ve got some pretty good factual information to back up their opinions.

While definitely a hypothetical question, how would you and all the president’s other critics feel if it turned out that one (or more) or those wiretaps actually prevented another disaster like Sept. 11 and saved hundreds or thousands of lives? Would you and the ACLU have preferred for them to wait for a FISA warrant at the expense of those lives? And apparently the two district court judges who preside over the FISA court were informed about the wiretapping, anyway.

What is also puzzling is what his critics believe is motivating the president. It almost sounds like they think he’s trying to evade the law for his own selfish benefit. Does anyone really doubt that he is simply trying to protect the security of our country to the best of his ability while using the help and guidance of his advisers?

It’s just very discouraging to see so much emphasis on partisan politics at a time when the whole country should be pulling together. A good example is the radical difference between the Democrats’ approach to the leak of Valerie Plame, which did zero damage to national security, and this one, which can possibly do great harm.

Dave Paul

West End