When will the public collectively say "enough is enough" with this administration? If what they have done the last 5 yrs. were a movie script, nobody would believe it.

I may have missed it, but what does that have to do with the Bush administration?

But he's a funny guy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1921276117304287501

An interesting day indeed. Is it a coordinated effort? If so, who was making the calls to the call makers?

When will the public collectively say "enough is enough" with this administration?

There still hasn't been that one moment folks can wrap their heads around. Like this scandal, it's all too complicated and wonkish. And we as Americans still don't want to believe our president, whether we voted for him or not, is this nefarious. So George and Dick have that going for them as well.

This just in to BoJack Central: Lewis "Scooter" Libby is going to prison for 30 years after being found guilty of outting a covert CIA agent for sleazy politics and then lying through his capped white teeth about it for years.

The Chickenhawk Brigade actually propped Shakes The President up in front of a TV at Noon EST for the verdict.

And they all... cried. For their careers.

Daphne,

Libby wasn't found guilty of outing a CIA agent.

As a conservative, these little stories are instructive that no one, whatever political party or ideology they serve, is immune to corruption and beyond the law. It was disheartening to see a prosecutor manhandled like this for political reasons.
However, I agree with the above commenter who wonders what this has to do with the Bush administration. It seems that you guys (I'm referring to left of center collectively) like to blame the Bush administration for outbreaks of the flu virus in St. Louis without any real justification just because you don't like him.
There was nothing in the article that led me to believe that the President's administration has any hand in this issue. And please spare me the "it's the environment of corruption they've created" diatribe. You think that wasn't there before Bush hit the office in 2000? You think it'll go away when Bush leaves?

Er, the guy's a U.S. attorney. And his bosses are at the U.S. Justice Department. You know -- Alberto Gonzalez? If he was forced out of his appointive federal office, it was by the Bush administration.

Libby wasn't found guilty of outing a CIA agent.

And he hasn't been sentenced to 30 years.

And his teeth aren't capped.

"There was nothing in the article that led me to believe that the President's administration has any hand in this issue."

U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. This guy and the other 8 that were fired were an Oval Office level decision. Attorney General Gonzalez and Bush go way back to the days in Texas when they would laugh and make jokes about executing people.

Some things never really change with these Good 'ol Boys. Before Bush, I never thought that there would be another presidential administration that makes Nixon and LBJ look like choir boys.

"However, I agree with the above commenter who wonders what this has to do with the Bush administration. It seems that you guys (I'm referring to left of center collectively) like to blame the Bush administration for outbreaks of the flu virus in St. Louis without any real justification just because you don't like him."

You really can't make this argument when you do the exact thing you accuse others of in said argument. If you want others to stick to only the facts as they know them, you should do the same.

U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

That's why I believe Bill Clinton fired every US attorney in 1993.

Almost, Ken. One of President Clinton ’s very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire every United States attorney then serving — except one, Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security secretary but then U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

But of course, since it was Clinton and not Bush, it wasn't a sign of corruption, it was just doing what Presidents do.

This is a little different. This is selective firing of about a fifth of the U.S. attorneys in the country six years into your administration, just after you lost control of Congress.

The selection being done on the grounds of politics of the lowest sort, of course. Dumb and Mean (Bush and Cheney).

Here is some interesting, albeit one-sided, speculation on it:

http://www.slate.com/id/2160965/

Since US attorneys (and certain other appointees) serve "at the pleasure of the President" it is customary for all of them to submit their resignations when a new President takes office. Kind of like the cabinet. So the 1993 turnover and the 2006 firings are not comparable. There's another wrinkle to this, too. The Bush "administration" slipped a provision into the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act under which "interim" appointments to replace US attorneys no longer have to be confirmed by the Senate within 120 days, and such appointments are now made by the President rather than by a federal judge. That happened just before these firings. So now, there is no judicial or congressional oversight of these appointments. And guess what the new appointees look like?

A few points:

1. It's not a fifth of the attorneys. It's eight out of 93, or less than one-tenth.

2. U.S. attorneys are appointed (or re-appointed) every four years, so every single one of these attorneys are Bush appointees. (What that says about Bush's judgment in initially appointing those attorneys is a separate question.)

3. The difference between 1993 and 2006 is the scope. Bill Clinton wanted political friendlies in those jobs; George Bush wanted political friendlies in those jobs. Both are politically-motivated. You can't simultaneously dismiss one and excoriate the other because you don't like one of the actors.

4. RE: the Patriot Act provision. Allan's claim that there is no congressional oversight is false. The Senate still has the power to vote down a nominee -- of course, it has to actually take a vote rather than the chicken-s**t actions of the past (by both parties) that kept nominees bottled up in committee indefinitely.

The one loophole in this is that Bush could install an interim nominee and not nominate a permanent replacement, thus giving the Senate no one to confirm or deny. In that regard, he'd be following the lead of his predecessor, who argued that the 120-day rule was overruled by other statutes that allowed interim appointments of any length.

Bush's judgment

You missed your calling as a comedy writer.

every single one of these attorneys are Bush appointees

Tell me something I didn't already know.

Mid-term firings of eight U.S. attorneys for political reasons is cr*p.

Thanks for the math.

Eight mid-term political firings are cr*p, but 92 start-of-term political firings are OK because everybody does it. Sorry, Jack, I don't get that. (For the record, I think they're both cr*p, but I guess that's life in the big city.)

After thinking more about my point that the attorneys were Bush appointees, I concede that was pretty irrelevant. I was trying to say that because he's not cleaning out Democrat appointees, it didn't have quite the air of retribution, but that's naive -- it's retribution and politics regardless. I'm not so naive as to think there's no back-room politics involved -- in this and previous administrations.

Most presidents, including Clinton, appoint party-affiliated U.S. Attorneys when they start their term of office. Most presidents then allow those U.S. Attorneys to operate with some independence based on the idea that political pressure on the judicial system should be kept to a minimum. Very few presidents fire U.S. Attorneys mid-term because they are, say, investigating local Republican corruption, or looking to pad the resumes of future GOP candidates. The actions are different.

And Ken, while I'm sure it was just a typo, the grammatically correct adjective is "Democratic." Thanks.