Ok, blame the White House...

...just not Bush.

The White House was deeply involved in the decision late last year to dismiss federal prosecutors, including some who had been criticized by Republican lawmakers, administration officials said Monday.

But the article makes sure to exculpate Bush from any wrongdoing.

The president did not call for the removal of any specific United States attorneys, said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. She said she had “no indication” that the president had been personally aware that a process was already under way to identify prosecutors who would be fired.

But Ms. Perino disclosed that White House officials had consulted with the Justice Department in preparing the list of United States attorneys who would be removed.

Is it supposed to somehow mitigate the problem that the President wasn't the first to suggest which specific attorneys would be 'replaced?' The White House and Justice Department, who appear to be trying to maintain the position that their decisions were reasonable, have really just shot themselves in the foot. By 'shielding' Bush this way, the administration seems to imply that the rest of the executive branch is responsible for some bad decisions.

“We continue to believe that the decision to remove and replace U.S. attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president was perfectly appropriate and within our discretion,” Ms. Perino said.

“We stand by the Department of Justice assertion that they identified the seven U.S. attorneys who were removed, as they have said, based on performance and managerial reasons.”

Ok, performance-based firings...

In the other cases, though, the department at first denied that the dismissals were performance related, and then said they were, citing managerial problems, lack of aggressiveness and conflicts over seeking the death penalty or enforcing immigration laws.

Waffles anyone? And how is lack of aggressiveness and willingness to seek the death penalty or enforce laws NOT performance based? And what exactly are 'managerial problems?'

Another rationale for the firings cited the White House - failure to pursue voter fraud cases. Which is ironic.

And who had the idea initially? None other than the straw-woman would-be Chief Justice:

In early 2005, Harriet E. Miers, then the White House legal counsel, asked a Justice Department official whether it would be feasible to replace all United States attorneys when their four-year terms expired, according to the Justice Department. The proposal came as the administration was considering which political appointees to replace in the second term, Ms. Perino said.

Ms. Miers sent her query to D. Kyle Sampson, a top aide to Mr. Gonzales, the Justice officials said. Mr. Sampson, who resigned Monday, replied that filling so many jobs at once would overtax the department. He suggested replacing a smaller group, according to e-mail messages and other memorandums compiled by the Justice Department.

Next Steps?

This week, the United States attorney dispute will be aired on the Senate floor during debate over legislation to roll back a provision of the antiterrorism law that allows President Bush to appoint interim United States attorneys indefinitely.

Read: use grants of discretion and immunity for attorney firings as a consolation for rolling back antiterrorism legislation.

Oh, and subpoena Karl Rove. Schumer's on it? Great.

And lets get just one more thing strait...or at least one thing strait...prosecutors don't serve at the pleasure of the president - they serve the public.