It is kind of scary, actually. The extent of the Rovian metastasis through the vitals of our government sends several messages, but the most troubling one is the most simple one: it can be done. Or at least attempted. Alas, Rove's most damaging legacy will be in not achieving anything in particular (as a Salon article had pointed out previously, he hasn't really achieved anything but the ruination of his own designs), but rather in setting a precedent. The degree of targeted corruption that was nigh unthinkable even in Nixon's time has now become... thinkable. As Sulla has paved the way to Caesar's lifetime dictatorship in Ancient Rome, so Rove/Bush/Cheney may be paving the way for a transformation of this nation into a police state.

Mark my words, there will be people who will think that Bush/Cheney/Rove had the right idea but they screwed it up because they lacked the imagination (or the means or the ruthlessness or whatever) to do it right. The current administration has shown that by having a few key allies in Congress, intimidating or corrupting the media and stacking the government agencies with cronies it can pave the way to near autocratic powers. Perhaps there will come along a group of individuals who might think that by being cleverer than Cheney/Rove/Bush they can do it better and achieve lasting results.

As excited as I am to watch the current administration unravel under the weight of its own scandals (finally, after way too long), I am also terrified by the extent of the damage they have dealt to our nation, but most of all by the precedent they are setting. From now on, politics will be about personalities and the exercise of personal power, not about democracy and the power of the popular vote. Perhaps within our lifetimes, the American Caesar will arise. It's not out of the realm of possibility.

Of course, if one insists that the Executive be vested with near-dictatorial powers, it would naturally follow that any and all adherence to laws and principles is subordinate to the Executive's wishes. And currently, the Executive's wishes are to not be caught at attempting to secure its near-dictatorial powers.

It's like a kid that's been caught with chocolate all over his face, but has no recollection of any chocolate-eating activities. The empty wrapper (with the culprit's fingerprints, no doubt) has been strangely lost. And the friends of the accused are quick to point out that the accused has absolutely no desire for chocolate as far as their unnamed sources tell them and in any event, c'mon, this isn't really important to anyone, is it? It's just god-damn chocolate, people! Get a life.

Something I never thought of: it takes a long time to burn papers, but if one wishes to misplace a gigabyte of damning e-mail, all one has to do is wipe the hard-drive. On the other hand, one never knows who kept what... perhaps the most damning of e-mail would survive as quotations in someone's reply. E-mail is sticky stuff, it can be found everywhere: servers, hard-drives, etc. And it's easier to create in huge, unmanageable quantities. My hope is, no matter how hard these goons try to wipe out all the evidence, all it takes is one phrase, e.g.: "The Pres would like you to proceed with your actions re: atty's..." and boom. Jail.

Good hunting, Congress.

There's something that vaguely bothers me about all of this. The lines are very fuzzily drawn. I wonder, at which point is a private citizen justified in withholding evidence? At which point exercising one's inalienable First Amendment right becomes obstruction of justice?

Judith Miller was a much more high-profile "jailed journalist" in recent years, but because she was not an anarchist but rather a pro-government hack people don't seem to clamor about her "martyrdom" just so much. That's because she was shielding Scooter Libby from sweet justice rather than a bunch of stone-throwers from the clutches of a DA. At what point do private citizens have the right to insist on not cooperating with investigations?

I am not arguing one way or another. I'm merely suggesting that there is a very serious issue at stake here, a conflict between the individual and the state that needs to be taken and treated very very seriously. Law enforcement is nothing without informers, just watch the cop series on TV. But cooperation with authorities is lauded or deplored depending on context, and context is, of course, in the eye of the beholder.

I wouldn't call this guy a martyr: martyrs have a cause. What is his cause? To stick it to the Man? To show us that cooperating with authorites (at any time, anywhere) is for the whimps and that real strong people refuse to cooperate? To remind us that we have a First Amendment? But I don't know what to call this guy instead. The whole matter is confused and murky, and his pronouncements do not shed any light on the matter, they merely confuse things further.

Nasty comment, Mr. Grieve, and totally uncalled for. What do you expect Bush to do, NOT come to a convocation? Yeah, yeah, I know what you meant: Bush dawdled on Katrina. We got that point a year ago. Using the Virginia Tech shooting to bring it up again (much as Katrina should not be forgotten) is low and unprofessional. Also, it made you sound like the inflammatory liberal boogey-man Bill O'Reilly's been ranting about. Not cool.

Very often you come up with really good commentary and I enjoy reading your blog. This, however, was not a good entry and I hope you realize that you may not have said quite what you meant. (I, for one, sure hope so.)