[SkyDancer]

Then why didn’t the MSM get their thongs in a twist over Bush firing 8 AG’s but nothing over Clinton firing all of them when he took office?

[stop_fascism]

Exactly.

[Cboldt]

-- Then why didn't the MSM get their thongs in a twist over Bush firing 8 AG’s but nothing over Clinton firing all of them when he took office? --

That's not a good comparison, because Carter, Reagan, and Bush I likewise replaced all US Attorneys in the first year of the first term. That "move" is not controversial.

Replacement other than attrition at the start of a second term, as the GWB administration did in 2005, is controversial. We still don't know how far down the chain of command the power to fire a US Attorney goes. President Bush said he was NOT involved in the firing decision, and we don't know who exactly made the firing decision.

That said, the Walpin firing merits plenty of attention. It is unusual, and the reasons given, so far, don't hold water.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Not AG's, U.S. Attorneys. Besides which, the U.S. Attorneys are policitical appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President. There was never any question of legality in their firing.

Bush fired them for "political" reasons, actually policy reasons, they were not putting emphasis on the kinds of cases Bush wanted pursued. It would have been at least irresponsible for Bush not to have fired them. It is the President's job to set priorities and make policy.