Complete results are here, in PDF, but the crucial question in No. 60, which appears on page 30:

In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of Americans that the government is suspicious of?

Answer: 68% are willing, just 29% not willing--and by the way, the number who are willing is up, from 63% in 2003 and 56% in 2005. It's possible that by revealing the surveillance program, the Times succeeded in both damaging national security and diminishing public support for "civil liberties."

Even more astonishing is the answer to No. 59:

In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mail of ordinary Americans on a regular basis?

Here 70% are unwilling, but 28% are willing. Think about that: More than one American out of four are willing to have the government listen in on "ordinary Americans on a regular basis"--a position that shows an extreme lack of concern for civil liberties.

This number would surely increase in the event of another major terrorist attack--indeed, it was as high as 45% after Sept. 11. Even if civil libertarians are perfectly content to see thousands of Americans die in an attack, they have reason to be concerned about the consequences.

Amazing the difference a couple of words can make! I would fall into the 68% category in my answer to the first question and in the 70 percentile category in my answer to the second. If the Times could've gotten away with it, they probably would only have run the 1st question and the answer to the 2nd question together as definitive proof that Bush is an eavesdropping, out of control, Orwellian, Hitlerian, Phillip K. Dick Police State Nazi that has an uncontrollable desire to find out what why  your Aunt Penelope is buy ing that leather lingerie cardio ab lounger from QVC.