If ever there were a spectacular example of how the logic of authoritarianism inexorably creeps from A to D and ultimately Z, John Yoo is it.

Mr. Yoo, the torture-adoring, Geneva Convention-denying, law professor servant of "unitary executive" power has put his mind to work on the U.S. Attorney scandal and finds it all a mere "hubbub": Wouldn't things be simpler if we just extended the president's virtually unfettered war-making and foreign-policy powers to the domestic realm as well?

Spectacularly simplistic and simple-minded also come to mind. But, for the right, simple is good. Simple is understandable. Simple sells. The Wall Street Journal is always a willing vendor, and Thursday it published Mr. Yoo's simplistic and simple-minded "think-piece" that is, simply, a bunch of hooey.

First, according to Mr. Yoo, the scandal is just politics -- neglecting that more than a handful of Congressional Republicans are less than amused. But what the hell. That sort of complication only complicates; better to sweep it under the rug so we can keep arguments tidy -- and simple.

And how reassuring it is to simply snicker about those notoriously political Democrats simply wanting to watch "Karl Rove squirm before a congressional committee" while "placing bets on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's tenure in office," all of which "is great political sport."

Well, frankly, yes it is, Mr. Yoo. But so was Watergate, which also happened to double as something of a real problem.

But then, Mr. Yoo gets serious. He furrows his brow in preparation for making us wake up and realize that "much more than partisan circuses is at stake."

Are you ready? Are you now as sober as Mr. Yoo? Good. We've had our fun, but it's time to recognize that dark, incendiary forces loom and "those who toss more fuel onto the fire threaten the nation's unifying force in law enforcement and well-run government -- the president's core constitutional prerogative to fire his subordinates."

Which government is that? Is there some "well-run" outfit around here we haven't noticed? And hasn't this president repeatedly soiled himself precisely because he didn't fire every Tom, Dick, Donald and Brownie as boneheaded as he?

Still, all of that "constitutional prerogative" garbage was just filler for Mr. Yoo. To justify an article of respectable length he had to write something other than that one word, the object of his political affection and the mere thought of which really pumps him erect: and that one word was, of course, unitary -- meaning, once disrobed, "dictatorial."

There is nothing, no national ill, which in the opinion of Mr. Yoo's ilk cannot be cured by one-man rule. From singlehandedly interpreting treaties to launching preemptive wars to deciding the contours of prosecutorial matters -- if only we had just one authority, we'd have no fuss, no muss. Simple as that.

I saw John Dean in a cable-news interview the other night and he was recalling that when he became a conservative, conservatism meant limiting one man's rule. He seemed genuinely perplexed as to what's happened. Mr. Yoo happened, Mr. Dean.

But I'll end where Mr. Yoo began: "Since the very beginnings of the Republic, presidents have always had the constitutional right to remove their political appointees, for any reason or no reason at all."

What that historical overview profoundly failed to take into account is that "since the very beginnings of the Republic" most presidents haven't abused their constitutionally granted powers, invented new ones, elbowed all other constitutionally limiting authorities and generally made an absolute mess of everything.

I've got some news for yoo. The "hubbub" really is as simple as that.

