One Hot Tamale in Mexico

Perhaps the day's most significant development was John Sununu--a certified Republican--calling on Gonazales to hit the road.

"President Bush said today he is 'not happy' about how the Justice Department handled the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys last year, and said Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales has 'got some work up there' in better explaining the events to Congress," the L.A. Times reports.

The details can be eye-glazing, but Anonymous Liberal highlights this bit of correspondence:

"One email exchange in particular is quite damning. It took place in late December--less than a month before Gonzales' testimony--between Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, and Christopher Oprison of the White House Counsel's office. In the exchange, Oprison asks Sampson about the Attorney General's strategy for installing Tim Griffin, a protege of Karl Rove, as the new U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. Oprison notes that Griffin's appointment is encountering resistance from Arkansas' Senate delegation but wonders why, in light of Section 546 [of the Patriot Act], Griffin is being referred to as the 'interim' U.S. Attorney:

" If this is a Section 546 AG appointment for unlimited duration, Tim [Griffin] can call himself 'US Attorney' rather than 'interim' or 'acting' and our talkers should avoid referring to him as 'interim.' What are your thoughts ?

Sampson's response perfectly encapsulates everything that is wrong with how the Bush administration operates. He writes:

" I think we should gum this to death: ask the Senators to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say 'no never' (and the longer we can forestall that the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in 'good faith,' of course.

"Translation: we're going to invoke Section 546 and make Tim Griffin the U.S. Attorney, but we're not going to tell anyone that's what we're doing."

The editorialists at the Wall Street Journal make the case that Hillary is well familiar with the issue of U.S. attorneys, since her husband fired all 93 upon taking office:

"As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.

"No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York."

I find the latter argument beneath the Journal's usual standards. Every incoming president of a different party replaces the top federal prosecutors. An incumbent president can certainly replace U.S. attorneys as well, but dumping eight at once is a bit unusual.