Wolf in sheep's clothing

The Liberal blogosphere is all-a-twitter today about George Will's WaPo editorial, hailing it as a sign that "the pendulum is swinging the other way," and an encouraging indication that even steadfast Conservatives are turning against Mr. Bush's demonstrably illegal activities.

Oh really?

Let's not be too quick to heap praise upon Mr. Will. Oh, he got off to a good start, and even I was right there with him - up until those final two paragraphs:

Immediately after Sept. 11, the president rightly did what he thought the emergency required, and rightly thought that the 1978 law was inadequate to new threats posed by a new kind of enemy using new technologies of communication. Arguably he should have begun surveillance of domestic-to-domestic calls - the kind the Sept. 11 terrorists made.

But 53 months later, Congress should make all necessary actions lawful by authorizing the president to take those actions, with suitable supervision. It should do so with language that does not stigmatize what he has been doing, but that implicitly refutes the doctrine that the authorization is superfluous.

And so, as Congress seems poised to do, Mr. Will gives the Bush Administration a free pass on its illegal activity. He is right in his objections to the blatant power-grabs of this White House, and his overall thought that Congress needs to address this situation legislatively.

But to stop short of holding this bunch accountable for their intentional violation of law is akin to a tacit approval of those illegal - and punishable - acts. Are we so desperate to grasp at straws of "rational Conservative behavior" that we're willing to swallow Mr. Will's carefully crafted absolution of the Administration's criminal behavior?

This gullibly lionized editorial is a wolf in sheep's clothing - and we'd be less than bright to fall for the ruse.