Another "Scandal?"

I have not really followed the whole U.S. Attorney scandal because, to be honest, I can't really figure out what is so scandalous about it. As the New York Times put it:

In the past, incoming administrations have replaced United States attorneys with their own presidential appointees after taking over from the other political party, as President Bill Clinton did when he won the White House after 12 years of Republican control. But neither the Clinton nor the Reagan administrations sought the removal of United States attorneys in their second terms.

Oh...my...god. Bush did it...in his second term! Call out the New York Times! Call out CNN! Call out Al Qaeda!

In fairness, the Times went on to say that some people "say they want to know whether the dismissals were motivated by a desire to squelch corruption investigations involving Republicans." Ok, fair enough. Um, any evidence of that? Don't we usually have the evidence before it becomes a scandal?

Some tend to act like it's a scandal...well, just 'cause.

I listen to Mike Gallagher occasionally and, while I often agree with him, he usually strikes me as a blowhard. But I think he has this story about right:

I’d love to be a fly on the wall of a high school social studies class when a student timidly raises his hand and says to the teacher, “Um, Miss Smith – if President Clinton can fire all 93 U.S. attorneys for obvious political reasons, why can’t President Bush?”

It’d be fascinating to hear what Miss Smith would say. If she’s a liberal Democrat hell-bent on destroying the Bush Administration, I suppose she’d say something to the effect that it somehow looks worse to fire eight people than all ninety-three.

But if she has a shred of fairness and objectivity, she’d answer the student’s question by laughing out loud at the absurdity of Democrats – and a couple of spineless
Republicans – thumping their chest in outrage over a complete, total, meaningless, entirely non-issue.

I get tired of repeatedly asking fundamental questions that make me sound like I’m leading a group of mentally challenged people. Just like we often ask, “What is it about illegal immigrants you don’t understand?” we now have to ask, “What is it about the fact that the U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president that you don’t understand?”