The Administration should have decided in 2004, following Bush's re-election, which U.S. Attorneys it wanted to replace. In 2005, all U.S. Attorneys were subject to replacement. In fact, all of them are expected to submit their letters of resignation and either be retained or have their resignation letters accepted.

In 2007, there should be no replacements, except for any U.S. Attorneys who proved to be unqualified. The fact that the Bush Administration is trashing the reputations of U.S. Attorneys it once endorsed for the job, in a non-election year raises considerable questions.

U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. There is no reason to replace them in a non-election year, except for malfeasance. If it turns out that the fired U.S. Attorneys did nothing wrong, but were replaced anyway in a non-election year, then the Bush Administration has overstepped its bounds.

I'm no fan of Republican U.S. Attorneys who got their job because they carried water for Bush in 2004 and had the blessing of their District's Senators. That's the way the job is assigned.

But, firing them because they didn't bring the cases the Administration wanted them to bring, or because they brought cases against Republicans or didn't bring cases against Democrats is beyond the pale.

Once appointed, the U.S. Attorney is not supposed to be a political hack. He or she, like every prosecutor, is supposed to make decisions to ensure that justice is done. If you're skeptical the U.S. Attorney can switch horses so fast, you have a right to be.

In a way, for people to now complain that Alberto Gonzales is a political hack isn't right. Blame the Senators who voted for his confirmation. We all knew who he was when he was nominated to be Number One at the Justice Department. Of course, he's carrying Bush's water. That's his job.

Just as the fired U.S. Attorneys knew they were political appointees when they took the job. They were expected to follow the lead of the Bush- appointed Attorney General If he decided pornography was his top mission, they were expected to go after pornographers. If he decided gun offenses had top priority, they were expected to follow suit.

They knew this in accepting the job. The problem is, that once in the job, they are obligated to to be fair. If the Bush Administration says political corruption is a top target, they can't differentiate by party.

Yet, it appears, that the fired U.S. Attorneys are saying they tried to follow their mandates from the Attorney General, who likewise is a political appointee of the President, but sometimes it was Republican officials who had done wrong. Are they to blame if that's how the facts developed?

U.S. Attorneys don't make decisions in a vacuum. They make them based on how the agents of the divisions responsible for investigating allegations of wrongdoing report their conclusions.

Each of the fired U.S. Attorneys disputing Administration claims they didn't adequately perform their jobs is entitled to a independent and non-partisan review of their charging decisions.

It may be that the Administration bought a pig in the poke in picking U.S. Attorneys based on senatorial recommendations. And that after a period of time, the Administration became dissatisfied with some of its choices.

But let's not pretend this is something different than past administrations. The U.S. Attorney's job is a plum, a reward for party loyalty, sacrifice made or money raised during the Presidential campaign. It's not about a prosecutor who was so skilled at prosecuting, he or she had a great record. Many U.S. Attorneys have no recent prosecutorial skills. In Colorado, for example, after Tom Strickland, a partner in a huge politically influential law firm, lost his bid for Senator, President Clinton made him U.S. Attorney, based on the recommendations of Colorado's Senators. The U.S. Attorney we have now was a crony of former Governor Bill Owens. The U.S. Attorney's wife was made a state Supreme Court justice. Others will argue they were qualified for their respective positions. Baloney, in my opinion. It's politics as usual. If John Kerry had won in 2004, we'd have a different U.S. Attorney. The one who got the job would have done so based on a sacrifice or contribution made to Kerry's election.

I have only so much sympathy for the fired prosecutors. They knew what the job was when they accepted it. Kudos to those who refused to continue to carry the Administration water once installed in their posts. But lets not turn them into heroes. They knew what the gig was when they took the job.

I was in federal court today. There were three Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the courtroom, each with their respective cases. There was zero politics involved. One case was bankruptcy fraud, one involved a felon in possession of a firearm and one was someone with a prior conviction for an aggravated felony now charged with illegal entry after deportation. They are following the mandates of the Attorney General: go after gun, pornography crimes and immigration offenses.

This all reminds me of a story I like to tell juries in opening argument in snitch cases. There was a Rocky Mountain farmer. He loved all God's creatures. One time, as he was out clearing the snow from his long driveway he found a mostly frozen snake. He brought him inside and put him in front of the fireplace so he'd thaw out. He and the snake developed a relationship. A few nights later, he bent down in front of the fireplace to stick another log on the fire. As he bent down, the snake jumped up and bit him in the as*. The farmer, knowing he was going to die, was crushed and said to the snake, "How could you do that to me, after all I've done for you?" To which the snake responded, "You knew what I was when you brought me in here."

So have whatever sympathy for these U.S. Attorneys that you deem appropriate. Just remember that when appointed, it wasn't because they were non-partisan champions of justice. It was because they were political friends of Bush or the Republican party.