And I remain astounded that people find the Clinton analogy not merely wrong but preposterous. There are plenty of differences, but it’s important to try the shoe on the other foot. Sure, I see the argument that a clean sweep is less suspicious than selective defenestration. But I still have to wonder: If Karl Rove had gotten his way and Bush had fired all 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his second term, would you (that’s you, Brad DeLong, and Kevin Drum, among others) actually have shrugged it off as no big deal? If Clinton had fired just eight, would you have been hammering him for corrupting justice? Would the fact that the firings came in the middle of the president’s term loom quite so large? If one of the prosecutors had just sent a Democratic Congressman to jail, would you be totally untempted by the White House explanation that the real cause was, say, a reluctance to prosecute abortion-clinic protesters under RICO? Or is there a humongous, crucial distinction between firing prosecutors in in your first term and doing it in your second? As the Church Lady used to say: "How convenient."I too am astounded that this has become such an issue. The hypocrisy on both sides of the immediate issue and the larger partisan issue is thick enough to spread on bread and eat.
I stand by my earlier position. President Bush had a right to fire these attorneys for what ever reason. All the whining by the fired prosecutors, their colleagues, supporters and the Democrats mean nothing. It wouldn't matter one whit to me if Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton were in the White House and did teh same thing. These people are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President. Get over it.