Clinton replaced them all at the BEGINNING of his first term
-- just like Bush ALSO DID, at the beginning of HIS first term.
Sure, they "serve at the president's pleasure", yadda yadda... AFAICS, yes, that means they *are* political appointments -- in the sense that you want people with generally sound viewpoints there to begin with. But they're appointments to *a-political* positions; a bit like their direct boss, the Attorney General, they're supposed to be *U.S.* attorneys first, not the White House's or currrent administration's.
So if Bush starts screwing around, in the middle of his second term (and using the convenient "bypass Congressional confirmation" provision tucked into the otherwise unrelated Patriot Act, under the pretext of being for terrierist emergencies), with a *selected* bunch of them (who just "happen" to have nailed crooked Republicans / failed to nail Democrats that the Republicans would have liked to have been crooked), that kind of looks the *teensiest* bit as if his problem isn't with their "generally sound viewpoints" -- they already were politically vetted back when he appointed them -- but with the fact that they're applying them in a non-partisan manner, looking only to uphold the law regardless of party politics.
You know, like they -- and their direct boss, the Attorney General -- are *supposed* to do. (And the "performance" ruse they tried for a while doesn't cut it either -- if anything, these guys are apparently getting fired because they performed *too well*.)
How the heck is that NOT a scandal; and how the fuck can you be so wilfully blind as to not SEE that it is? But no -- you have to go and play the [link|http://idrewthis.org/d/20051103.html| Clinton card] again.
Sheesh.
