The House Democratic leadership had severe reservations about the proposal and an overwhelming majority of Democrats opposed it. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the measure “does violence to the Constitution of the United States.”

But with the Senate already in recess, Democrats confronted the choice of allowing the administration’s bill to reach the floor and be approved mainly by Republicans or letting it die.

If it had stalled, that would have left Democratic lawmakers, long anxious about appearing weak on national security issues, facing an August spent fending off charges from Republicans that they had left Americans exposed to threats.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not feel bound by the law or the Constitution when it comes to the war on terror. It cannot even be trusted to properly use the enhanced powers it was legally granted after the attacks.

Yet, once again, President Bush has been trying to stampede Congress into a completely unnecessary expansion of his power to spy on Americans. And, hard as it is to believe, Congressional Republicans seem bent on collaborating, while Democrats (who can still be cowed by the White House’s with-us-or-against-us baiting) aren’t doing enough to stop it. . . .

 [T]here are very clear lines that must not be crossed. . . .

The administration and its Republican supporters in Congress argue that American intelligence is blinded by FISA and have seized on neatly timed warnings of heightened terrorist activity to scare everyone. It is vital for Americans, especially lawmakers, to resist that argument. It is pure propaganda.

This is not, and has never been, a debate over whether the United States should conduct effective surveillance of terrorists and their supporters. It is over whether we are a nation ruled by law, or the whims of men in power. Mr. Bush faced that choice and made the wrong one. Congress must not follow him off the cliff.

Several legal experts said that by redefining the meaning of “electronic surveillance,” the new law narrows the types of communications covered in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, by indirectly giving the government the power to use intelligence collection methods far beyond wiretapping that previously required court approval if conducted inside the United States.

These new powers include the collection of business records, physical searches and so-called “trap and trace” operations, analyzing specific calling patterns.

For instance, the legislation would allow the government, under certain circumstances, to demand the business records of an American in Chicago without a warrant if it asserts that the search concerns its surveillance of a person who is in Paris, experts said.

It is possible that some of the changes were the unintended consequences of the rushed legislative process just before this month’s Congressional recess, rather than a purposeful effort by the administration to enhance its ability to spy on Americans.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, under political siege for his handling of the U.S. attorney firings and other issues, is to get expanded powers to hasten death penalty cases under regulations being developed by the Justice Department.

The rules would give Gonzales the authority to approve "fast-track" procedures by states in death penalty cases, enabling them to carry out sentences more speedily and with fewer opportunities for appeal if those states provide adequate representation for capital defendants.

Such powers were previously held by federal judges, but a provision of the USA Patriot Act reauthorization bill approved by Congress last year hands the authority to the attorney general.

But as the war has progressed, the number of Republicans who support the war has declined along with popular support more generally, though to a lesser degree. To a large extent, Mr. Bush’s public relations offensive in recent months has been aimed at stopping the erosion and holding onto those who have been loyal to him all along.

Some say Mr. Bush’s best bet for holding onto his supporters is to continue to link the war in Iraq to the war on terrorism. “Large numbers of people connect the Iraq war to terrorism,” said John Mueller, author of “War, Presidents and Public Opinion.” “From Bush’s standpoint, he’s right to keep pushing it. There is the terror war and the Iraq war and in so far as he is able to tie them in together, it is good for him.”

In the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll taken in July, nearly six in ten people who said the war in Iraq is going well also said they see the war as a major part of the war on terrorism.

Public opinion experts suggest that poll respondents are not necessarily offering considered opinions when called by pollsters. “They’ve got some ingredients for an opinion, but not a pre-formed opinion,” John Zaller, a professor of political science at UCLA and the author of The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, wrote in an email.

“In the case of the Iraq War, what will be salient to some people is that their country is in a tough fight and so it is important for them to show resolve by supporting the country and its war leader, George Bush.”

Some of the respondents to recent Times/CBS News polls were re-interviewed to discuss their perceptions about how well the war was going. They rarely mentioned attacks on American troops or the failure of the Iraqi government to meet goals. They talked about fighting terrorists, an impression that the United States is succeeding at rebuilding Iraq and general support for Mr. Bush.

“If we don’t stay there and fight them, they’re going to come over here, so I’d just as soon fight them over there,” said Chrys Hills, from Platte, Missouri, a 70 year- old retired planner in a railroad office. “If you listen to the news, we are cleaning up parts of Iraq and the people are starting to tell us where the bad guys are.”

“I just think George W. Bush is doing a good job with Iraq and everything else,” said Susan Brand, 47, a housecleaner in Burnsville Minnesota. “He’s a straight up Republican. He says things are going well there.”

Political scientists point to cognitive dissonance, a psychological theory sometimes applied to political behavior, as being responsible for the way some people may be reconciling reports that the war is not going well with their belief that it is going well. . . .

Mr. Jacobson said that in terms of the war, cognitive dissonance is playing out for some people in favor of Mr. Bush. “As long as he projects optimism,” he said, “they are willing to dismiss the mainstream media as biased.” . .  .

Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster . . . contrasted the views of Democrats with those of Republicans.

“Republicans go in the other direction,” Mr. Newhouse said. “They are looking at this as a broader concern. The war is the initial skirmish in the war against terrorism. More than anything else they are coming to the defense of their president.”