Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez needs to resign, but not because the Administration necessarily did anything unethical, illegal or wrong by firing eight U.S. Attorneys.

The press, in its typically sloppy/bone-headed/biased way (take your pick), has managed to obscure the fact, but the Administration can fire its lawyers just like I can fire mine and for the same reason: any reason I want, including politics. Look over the thousands of articles written about this so-called "scandal," and you will see repeated accusations that the firings were "politically motivated," as if there was something sinister about that. Nonsense. Every administration can and does seek to have a team of U.S.Attorneys who follows its priorities, which inevitably have political content. It is not an unethical practice.

If any of the firings were intended to interfere with the administration of justice, that is another matter entirely. And this does seem to be a possibility in at least one of the dismissals. An e-mail from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez's chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, to Deputy White House Counsel William Kelley requested a discussion about "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires." U.S. Attorney Lam was investigating House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) at the time, a strong administration ally whose suspiciously close ties to lobbyists are certainly worthy of investigation. Was that the "real problem" to which Kelley was referring? If Lam was fired to protect Lewis, that goes beyond politics into the obstruction of justice. At this point, however, that is speculation only.

But Gonzalez, like so many Bush appointees, has managed to tie himself in unethical knots over fear of how political enemies and the press would react to the truth, when the truth was nothing remarkable. What he should have done was to say, yes, we fired the U.S. attorneys because we wanted someone else in the jobs. Yes, we consulted with the White House; after all, the White House appoints U.S. attorneys. Yes, political considerations played a part; they always do.

Attorney General Gonzales, who was appointed to the post more because of his past relationship of trust and loyalty with President Bush than for any record of outstanding achievement, laser-sharp reasoning or bold leadership, didn't say that. First, he allowed his spokespeople and staff to denigrate the attorneys being fired by suggesting that they did not perform competently. Then, when e-mails showed that Sampson was carefully orchestrating the dismissals to slide a former Karl Rove aide into one of the slots with minimum opposition, Gonzalez claimed that he had no idea what was going on. His own chief of staff was engaged in an important personnel matter with significant political implications, and Gonzalez said he was completely uninvolved. This was marvelous stuff: to avoid being seen as dishonest in his previous statements, Gonzalez declared himself a negligent and incompetent manager. Sorry, Mr. Attorney General: lawyers have an ethical duty of care in supervision as well as the duty of candor.

One of Snyder's e-mails is particularly ugly from an ethical perspective, concluding with

"We should gum this to death... [A]sk the senators to give Tim a chance . . . then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in 'good faith,' of course."

One can practically hear the evil "Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!" laugh after that one, as Snyder sneers at the concept of "good faith." This is truly confusing territory ethically, because if one will concede that the occupation of politics is a necessary one and not inherently wrong, one must accept the fact that adversary advocacy activities will inevitably involve some level of posturing, bluffing, and partisan warfare. "Good faith"--- in an environment where, for example, House Democrats propose a military draft resolution, not because they favor the draft but because they want to debate the class inequality of the volunteer army, and then unanimously vote against their own measure when the Republican cross up their strategy by skipping debate and bringing it to a vote---is an elusive concept. The Democrats know this as well as anyone, so their caterwauling about the memo is itself not in "good faith."

Essentially, Snyder's e-mail was a candid description of politics as it is played every day, by both parties and most of their minions on the Hill. The comparison is used so much that it has become a cliché, but seldom has a controversy more perfectly echoed Claude Rains' "Captain Renaud" in "Casablanca," who declared that he was "Shocked! Shocked!" that an establishment permited gambling as he simultaneously recived his winnings from the roulette table.

Unless it can be shown that the Bush Justice Department actively attempted to stop U.S. Attorneys from finding and indicting specific crooked Republicans, this is a "scandal" about incompetent, dissembling and clumsy officials, not nefarious manipulation of the legal system. Because the nation's top lawyer cannot be someone who lies to Congress, or, in the alternative, someone who doesn't know what is going on in his own department, Gonzalez should go…voluntarily if he wishes, by presidential edict if he doesn't. But setting prosecution and policy priorities for U.S. attorneys and getting rid of the ones who balk is not unethical just because Democrats don't like the priorities being pursued.

The conduct of Gonzalez raises a very different issue, and one that once again implicates the well-documented problem this White House has with accountability. His statements have marked him as either incompetent or a liar, and neither can be tolerated in the post of Attorney General. This is one more of a seemingly endless series of administration botches and misadventures (WMD intelligence, Valerie Plame, Abu Ghraib, Hurricane Katrina, and on and on) in which the public has been intentionally (the Democrats) and negligently (the media) misled and misinformed regarding the real issues while the Republicans involved have refused to explain, admit or accept responsibility for the actual misconduct or incompetence that occurred.

The Bush Administration has a right to recruit and employ U.S. attorneys who follow its priorities, and to fire those who do not, as long as those priorities don't include unlawful objectives like trumping up charges to manipulate voters or protecting Republican lawbreakers. It is wrong for the Democrats and the media to blur the distinction, but Attorney General Gonzalez can't blame either for his problems. He has proven himself to be dishonest, inept, or both. That is unacceptable, and the firings themselves have nothing to do with it.