Other than that, it's all good

One could choose not to have a big problem with the Justice Department's recent firing of eight U.S. attorneys in the middle of their tenures. One also could note, as many Bush administration defenders have, that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be removed at any time. But for this story not to be troubling in the least, one must be prepared to accept the following occurrences without any qualms:

• Two U.S. congressmen called New Mexico's U.S. attorney in the heat of the fall campaign to ask about the status of a voter fraud investigation of members of the opposing party.
• That U.S. attorney lost his job two months later, despite an outstanding performance evaluation.
• The U.S. attorney in San Diego was removed after a far-
  ranging investigation that has resulted in the conviction of former U.S. Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., and indictments of a defense contractor and former CIA official. (The White House denies a link between the probe and the ouster, and the attorney isn't talking.)
  
• Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said seven of the eight firings resulted from poor performance, but only three of the attorneys received low marks.
• Gonzales' chief of staff resigned Monday after painstakingly detailed e-mails revealed a politically charged back-and-
  forth on the issue of which attorneys to keep or release.
• The replacement for a fired U.S. attorney in Arkansas was a former aide to Bush political operative Karl Rove.
  
• President Bush nominated to the Supreme Court a woman who floated the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys en masse for some as-yet unknown reason.
  
• A little-known Patriot Act provision would allow the Bush administration to do just that, then appoint permanent replacements with no congressional input whatsoever.
  

To make a long post short: There's what's legal, and there's what's right. The two don't always overlap.