President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are out to reassure Americans who have questioned the administration’s eavesdropping policies. The controversial wiretaps defend the nation against enemies who want to harm us, they say.

It’s a comforting answer, but it doesn’t match the question.

Those who object to the use of warrantless telephone taps don’t necessarily oppose collecting information that will head off threats. They even concede that some steps must be taken in secret. It’s a concession they can make, knowing checks and balances are in place to secure their civil liberties against government excess. They just need to know that those protections are up and running, and that’s the concern Bush has failed to answer.

The president insists that his intentions are good, and that he and his team members can be trusted to do the right thing. Getting a warrant as prescribed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – a fundamental arrow in the checks-and-balances quiver – is too cumbersome, the president says.

Americans’ skepticism about government is no reflection on Bush personally. Presidents and other political leaders have lied to them before, not always for valid motives. Presidents have acted in error, and the nation has paid the price. At times, presidents have acted in secret for corrupt purposes.

It would be nice if Oval Office occupants automatically came with impeccable scruples and flawless judgment, but history proves otherwise.

Eisenhower lied to us about U-2 pilot Gary Powers. Kennedy lied to us about the Bay of Pigs. Johnson lied to us about the Gulf of Tonkin. Nixon lied to us about Watergate. Reagan lied to us about the Iran-Contra deal, as did his vice president and later President George H.W. Bush. Clinton lied to us about Monica Lewinsky and other peccadilloes.

Last year, before word got out about the warrantless taps now in the spotlight, Bush said in Buffalo: “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

That reference, he says, was to a different type of wiretap under a different federal law. Whether Bush was lying or just confused, the situation leaves many citizens worried about the effectiveness of their cherished checks and balances.

As general-turned-president Dwight D. Eisenhower said half a century ago: “The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.”

Americans don’t begrudge a president the authority needed to defend us against enemies, but they still want that authority to be subject to reasonable oversight. Warrants are one oversight mechanism, and if Bush and Gonzales really want to reassure jittery Americans, they should be honoring the legal process to the letter.