u.s. attorneygate, bad explanations, and the rule of law

Eight U.S. Attorneys were fired by the Bush Administration -- seven in one day -- in December, 2006.

A few die-hard Republican apologists are defending the President and his Attorney General, Alberto "Fred" Gonzales, by pointing out that U.S. Attorneys serve at the President's pleasure and may be terminated at any time. But something is unusual about this, and the Congress has been rightly provoked.

One may recall that Janet Reno, President Bill Clinton's Attorney General, relieved all 93 sitting U.S. Attorneys, at the beginning of the new administration. This is accepted. Firing 8, 10, 12 or every single U.S. Attorney would have been winked at in 2000 or 2004. But not in 2007.

The explanation? "Performance-related." Friends, that is not good enough. Click here to see the eight U.S. Attorney names, photos, and job performance feedback:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/03/06/GR2007030600062.html

Granted, there are things none of us know about what happens in the U.S. Attorneys' offices across the country. Please notice, however, that these eight individuals consist of six Republicans and two Independents. Apparently, they weren't "Republican" enough -- and they may have been just a bit too "Independent." As it turns out, all eight U.S. Attorneys in question had investigated (and in some cases, prosecuted) Republican lawmakers involved in some form of public corruption or other. From what we're quickly finding out now, they were also overseeing corruption cases at the time of their firing.

It may have been a timely firing for the President and his party. Sadly, it may have been an untimely firing for American citizens and taxpayers.

We should expect both Democrat and Republican senators to ask tough questions. What does it say about the rule of law when our defenders of the law are dismissed because of their very loyalty to the law?

Americans should follow this developing story closely.