Ace Reporting

The White House, including Karl Rove, determined to fire 8 US Attorneys as retribution for their refusal to prosecute cases when and in the manner that the White House wanted. Republicans in the Senate and in Congress pressured some of the attorneys to prosecute Democrats right before the election. Major donors and supporters--in at least one case, while actually meeting with Rove in the White House--demanded that some of the attorneys be fired.

It is entirely unprecedented for any US Attorney to be fired years into a President's term in office. In fact, only 2 cases have been uncovered, both having to do with either corruption or sexual misconduct. Suddenly, there are 8 firings all at once, and all 8 people received positive performance evaluations and the White House/Department of Justice (which is incredibly enough a political arm of the Bush regime) gave absolutely no cause for their termination.

But this crack reporter for the AP has the whole scoop: the Bush team was going to "fire" all 93 US Attorneys when it took over 6 years ago. So, nothing to see here. Just hush now.

Let's just get to it, shall we?

1. It is common practice, dumbass, for incoming administrations to replace all or most of the US Attorneys. They are Presidential appointees, and thus it stands to reason that with a party change in the White House, many such positions will change hands. Clinton, for example, replaced almost all the US Attorneys when he came into office.

That is not a story. Or, if you're going to report it, then you need to note right off the bat that replacing US Attorneys is common at the start of a President's term.

It is unheard of at the 6-year mark, or 2 years after the second election of a President. Don't try to compress time and make all things equivalent. It is common for people to replace the shingles on their roofs when they put a home on the market. It is unheard of for them to put on a new roof 6 years after they've moved out. Sub your own, better analogy here.

2. These attorneys were not "replaced;" they were fired. That simply doesn't happen. Moreover, reporting this story to make it sound like it isn't a story at all is nonsense: the reporter includes information about congressional hearings and a high-level resignation in the Attorney General's office, apparently as a result of this scandal. But, he still concludes, there's nothing here! I said, "move on," goddammit!! What part of "nothing to see here" do you damn thinkers not get?!

3. The attorneys were fired after they were either pressured by Republicans--in a clearly unethical, illegal manner--and/or badmouthed by political donors and supporters of the White House. That is the very definition of "corrupt"! If you give money to the Republican Party, or you speak for a key voting bloc--a minority, by definition, by the way--then you can tell the White House how to run the nation's affairs and whom to prosecute. Cute, huh?

So, media: what's it going to take to get somebody to do his fucking job and report this shit?