If I was Bush, I too would be pissed off that relatively secret operations had been exposed to the public. Sometimes governments and security services have to do things in secret to accomplish the aim of preserving the greater good. Why is spying on american citizens any different to spying on anyone else? Do you believe there are no american muslims, for instance, who have some sympathies with Al Queada and potential links to radical groups? Would you rather they, or, for instance, groups pertaining to organised crime, were not monitored by the security services just because they hold an american passport?
Most governments do some pretty shady things and I certainly don't agree with all that has happened in MY name in terms of anti-terror legislation and foreign policy in the UK, but I think it's naive to believe that governmental organisations haven't had some level of espionage within their own borders in the developed world for a long time, or to believe that it's unnecessary.
It's my (largely uneducated and possibly similarly naive

) opinion that, in most cases, with the exception of some knee-jerk post 9/11 laws, legislation and general political attitudes in the west have been moving in the direction of gradually increased openness and decreased secrecy since the cold war. In some respects our civil liberties are being challenged from a few political sources but on the whole I think it's nothing to worry about, certainly in our lifetime. The amount of fuss that people kick up about something so relatively benign as the patriot act (abhorrent though some of the ideas behind it seem to be) suggests to me that Newspeak and Big Brother are still a long way away from being forced upon an unsuspecting western populace!