Lets get one thing straight: Bush apologists and the talking demagogues on Fox, MSNBC, CNN and the rest—are full of bullhockey when they try to justify the Bush Administration’s sacking of 7 U.S. Attorneys by comparing it to " Bill Clinton firing all of them."
It is customary (with plenty of precedent) for an incoming administration (particularly of a different political party) to request resignation letters from U.S. Attorneys. Ronald Reagan did just that, and replaced all of them when he came into office. That is not unprecedented for a newly elected president. And, yes, U.S. Attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President.
What is unprecedented is mass firings in the middle of a presidency! The Congressional Research Service did a study that showed that the recent firing of 7 U.S. Attorneys is unprecedented in recent history. The study covered U.S. Attorneys serving less that a four year term from 1981 to 2006.
The disgraceful facts are:
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied under oath when he said politics played absolutely no part in the firings. He also lied when he said he "never saw documents" and "never had a discussion" about the firings.
Karl Rove lied when he said he had no role in the firing. Moreover, evolving evidence reveals he used his influence to appoint political cronies who had no experience.
President Bush participated in regular meetings about the prosecutors.
Monica Goodling, Justice Department Council to Gonzales, refused to testify before the Judiciary Committee—citing the 5th Amendment on grounds of self-incrimination.
And apologists wonder why the Judiciary Committee demands testimony that is under oath?