Maybe I'm the best person to bring a little perspective and objectivity to the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be replaced for the dismissals.

I might be just the guy to explain this dispassionately because, while I warned a long time ago Gonzales was not qualified to be attorney general, he's being sandbagged on this issue by Democrats in Congress who are only out to create an offense where none exists.

As I write this column, everyone seems hopelessly confused – including Gonzales, President Bush and most of my colleagues in the media.

Here are the facts as simply as I can put them for the logically challenged among you.

(Column continues below)

All U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president of the United States. They can be fired for any reason or no reason whatsoever at any time.

Never before in the history of the United States has the sacking of eight federal prosecutors caused so much concern and generated so much publicity. They're calling it "the March Massacre."

The day Bill Clinton assumed the presidency in 1993, he fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. No one asked why. No major news stories resulted. No one called it "the January Massacre." No one accused Clinton of shenanigans (except me, because I knew what he was really doing). It was assumed, by nearly everyone – Republicans and Democrats alike and certainly the press – that Clinton merely wanted to name his own political appointees to these positions – his right under the law.

Let me re-emphasize that it is the president's prerogative to get rid of some or all U.S. attorneys any time he wants and for any reason or no reason. He is not obligated to tell them or anyone else why these officials are replaced. That's the nature of political appointments. Just wait until Hillary sweeps into power in 2009 and watch how many U.S. attorneys she unloads.

So why would the firing of only eight U.S. attorneys by Gonzales, their boss, deep into President Bush's second term cause such a furor? Why would congressional hearings be held? Why would my colleagues in the press devote so much time, energy, space and ink to this non-story of non-stories?

Two reasons:

• Democrats have launched the presidential campaign for 2008. They will do everything in their power to attempt to embarrass George Bush, which is easily managed, between now and then. They have politicized the war in Iraq. They have managed to criminalize policy, as in the Scooter Libby case. And now they are concocting a scandal where absolutely none exists.

• My colleagues in the media are going along for the ride.

Now, again, I have to point out that Bush administration incompetence is indeed staggering to behold. Only the Bush White House and its Justice Department could manage to look so guilty when they have done nothing wrong. They are pathetic and deserve whatever fate befalls them in this make-believe crisis.

Incredibly, yesterday, Bush indeed seemed on the verge of firing Gonzales. I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I'm not going to revel in Bush's late realization about Gonzales' competence and worthiness for high office. While it's true Gonzales never deserved the appointment to the office of attorney general, he certainly doesn't deserve to be fired for this!

This whole drama is kind of a metaphor for the Bush administration. These guys, starting at the top, have been over their heads from day one. Bush tried so hard to get along with the Democrats. He cared so much about appearances and the way the New York Times, Washington Post and Associated Press covered his actions. He didn't care about his campaign promises to his base. He didn't even seem to care if he lost control of Congress – which he did.

Now, amid this shameless feeding frenzy by Democrats and the press, he is reaping his just deserts for abandoning his own party and principles.

---

Related special offer:

"Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause"