I haven't written about this because it's much ado about nothing -- and that may be an overstatement. The eight U.S. Attorneys are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president. He can fire them for any reason -- any.

The only way that there is a scandal here is if Bush was attempting to stifle some investigations by these firings -- and there's zero, zippo, zilch evidence that this has occurred.

Having said all that, the way Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the White House have handled this issue is horrible -- that may be an understatement. Too often this White House is its own worst enemy -- and that's saying something considering the fact that Democrats, you know, exist. I concur with Patterico on this one. (For a lot of excellent analysis of this issue, just go over to Patterico's Pontifications and keep on scrolling, he's been doing excellent work on this.)

Yesterday's "Best of the Web Today" also had an appropriately snarky take on the reason why President Bill Clinton's firing of 93 U.S. Attorneys upon taking office was OK, and Bush firing eight of his own appointees isn't -- at least according to the mainstream media.

To sum up:

1. It was OK for Bill Clinton to fire 93 U.S. attorneys, because he "didn't fire everybody." But it was not OK for Bush to fire eight of them.

2. Firing U.S. attorneys of the opposite party is fine, but firing U.S. attorneys of your own party is evidence of "politicization."

At this point, I'm guessing that there isn't much that needs to be done in Washington if the legislative branch is so focused on this bunch of nothing.