The last time we saw a president conduct an all-out war on leaks, we later watched him resign in disgrace. And yet George W. Bush, in his zeal to impose his will on every facet of governing, is taking on the very thing that undermined Richard M. Nixon: the news media.

Sure, the times are different for Bush. He is charged with protecting national security in a time of war. And the news media have nowhere near the clout they did when Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, as played by Jason Robards in the film “All The President’s Men,” admonished his reporters to stick with the Watergate story, saying, “Nothing’s riding on you except the First Amendment of the Constitution.”

The First Amendment was a better ride during the Watergate days, before the courts and prosecutors had refined the power they now unequivocally wield to jail reporters who do not reveal their sources. Even Bob Woodward, the hero of journalists in the unraveling of Nixon’s presidency, recently slid into a grand jury courtroom to reveal his sources in the CIA leak case.

Although it’s armed with a legal hammer that Nixon did not enjoy, the Bush administration is courting danger in what The Washington Post recently labeled “the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation.” The Justice Department has dispatched FBI investigators to question intelligence officials, and it has issued letters prohibiting them from discussing even unclassified matters with reporters. And in their own contacts with members of the press corps, FBI agents are not shy about noting that reporters can go to jail for not revealing sources.

The risk for Bush in this enterprise is that he will be seen as protecting his own hide, not national security. The administration is close to getting tagged as an imperial presidency, an image that could turn even more Americans against Bush at a time when his approval ratings are at new lows for him. The spying without court supervision, which the president once specifically denied was happening, is being taken seriously on Capitol Hill as a potential violation of law. The Bush White House is determined to make the revelation into the crime — not what was revealed.

The administration’s national security argument for hounding reporters and their sources rings a bit hollow. While members of the Bush team aggressively investigate leaks they don’t like, one of their own — I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby — faces a criminal trial for lying to a grand jury about a leak that the White House did like: outing the identity of an undercover CIA officer. Ultimately, it might be difficult for the president to win the security argument over leaks about his spying program, considering how eager his aides were to leak sensitive information when it served their purpose of undermining an administration critic.

The situational ethics of the White House attitude on leaks raises another irony not lost on the administration’s critics: As Bush tries to export democracy to Iraq and elsewhere, his administration is on the warpath against the press. It’s tough to be a vanguard of democracy when you are putting reporters in jail.

Still, thanks to the courts, the administration has a shot at pulling this off, establishing a formula for future presidents to use in stemming the flow of information they don’t want to become public. If leaks can be deemed a crime, then reporters must disclose their sources. That makes it clear to potential whistleblowers that their identities cannot be safeguarded, meaning that few will risk losing their jobs to serve the public.

For instance, there is nothing to stop the White House from investigating how The Associated Press recently obtained the video tapes of Bush officials conferencing on the eve of Hurricane Katrina. The fact that the White House also released transcripts putting the president in a more favorable light probably would not dissuade the Justice Department from a look-see at who leaked the bad stuff.

Control freaks at the White House are nothing new, no matter which party is in power. But often they do more harm than good. Presidents are part-timers, and they don’t have time to impose their will on every corner of the government they run. Those who try ultimately fall on their faces. Information, as the Internet generation says, wants to be free.

While many Americans might balk at the appearance of presidential over-reaching in plugging leaks, it won’t be for their great love of the news media, no longer much seen as representing their interests. You have only to note the indefinite stall on Capitol Hill for a shield law protecting journalists and their sources to show that there’s no groundswell of public support of journalists’ rights.

Still, as the Bradlee character said in the movie, the First Amendment might be riding on this. Or, perhaps we should read George Orwell instead.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for MSNBC, CNBC and “The Early Show” on CBS. He can be reached at ccrawford@cq.com.