If you are inclined to think questions raised over the Bush administration's firing of eight U.S. attorneys amount to a tempest in a teapot, a political dust up engineered by Democrats now that they control Congress, think again.
Any time the Startribune says something a reader may be inclined to believe is not true it probably is. This case is no exception. In fact this is a "political dust up engineered by democrats," and the Startribune is only to happy to have their back and pretend this common governmental event is some how a scandal.
US attorneys are governmental appointees that serve at the pleasure of the president. In 1993, Bill Clinton fired not eight, but all of the US Attorneys. One of those was about to indict Clinton ally Rep. Dan Rostenkowsky, and another was investigating the Clintons in Arkansas. That was not thought to be a scandal. The fact that this year the Executive Branch removed just eight of the 93 US Attorneys is not at all unusual. And the Memos that have been released appear to state the the Bush administration was attempting to remove under performing Attorneys.
The Startribune is outraged that some of the removed attorneys were removed in part because they did not aggressively investigate voter fraud. But the President is the chief law enforcement officer, and it is within his prerogative to establish prosecutorial priorities for the nation. If US attorneys did not follow the presidents instructions on what is a priority they should have expected to be fired. The Startribune clearly disagrees with the president about the importance if election fraud. But how is that relevant. George Bush is president, not the editorial writers for the Startribune (than God). If they want their priorities to be represented by the Federal government they should run for president, not try to make a scandal out the the president doing what it is within his power to do.