Interesting,
the article does sort of contradict Clinton's actions setting precedent here, note from the last paragraph:

In an interview yesterday, Miss Gorelick acknowledged her testimony before Congress but said it pertained to presidential authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws.


I think more importantly then whether or these FISA changes make the situation that different, is the idea that it's OK for Bush to do something unconstitutional because a prior administration did. That thinking leaves a real bad taste in my mouth, I mean I understand legal precident and it's purpose, by the constitution is supposed to be followed and sort of keep the expanding government in line.

Reminds me of "animal farm" when "All animals are equal" ok gets qualified with "but some are more equal then others." They should have left that rule alone.