The U.S. Attorney Fiasco

The White House is once again digging foxholes. Will they circle the wagons or fix bayonets and charge headlong into the face of the infidel Democratic horde seeking the truth as to why eight U.S. Attorneys were fired?

Sitting as a U.S. Attorney for one of the 93 Districts in the United States is a plum patronage position. The President has the right to appoint anyone to that position whether it be based on merit or merely for being a friend of Uncle Joe’s favorite nephew. Likewise, as these Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, no explanation is necessary when the President decides to terminate their employment. Clinton, Reagan, and even the incumbent Bush cleaned house and brought in new talent when they became President.

The present case is slightly more delicate than the simple issuing of personnel changes by the White House Human Resource Officer. The evidence is becoming crystal clear that these Attorneys were let go not for poor performance as initially suggested, but rather for not playing the game by the same rules as the person who owns the ball. These prestigious positions were held hostage and the ransom amounted to succumbing to subtle coercion to direct criminal cases within their jurisdictions along paths advantageous to the White House. Extortion is a word that comes to mind.

All the facts are unclear at this time. It may take some time to realize how far up the food chain the charges travel. What is obvious though is that the White House will fight tooth and nail to check any attempts by the Democrats to fully investigate the allegations. Bush won’t permit his staff to be questioned by Congress in open session, under oath or with the benefit of a transcript. He cites the time honored principle and worn out cliché - Executive Privilege - as the reason. During the time that electronic eavesdropping was being defended by the administration as a necessary tool, we often heard the phrase, “If you don’t have anything to hide, you shouldn’t be afraid.” Do these words hold true for all or a few?

I’ll give the President the benefit of the doubt in this case. With all the day-to-day problems he faces, he may truly be out of the loop in some personnel decisions. I hope that “Radar” Rove didn’t slip Mr. Bush a memo to be signed while the President was in a “Col. Henry Blake” state of mind.

Mr. Attorney General: Please remember that the President had all the faith and confidence in Donald Rumsfeld two weeks before he was sent packing. While your performance evaluations may be exemplary, you “serve at the pleasure of the President.”