Comparing Clinton Attorney Firings to Gonzales

eA lot of conservatives have brought up the fact that Clinton and Reno fired 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of Clinton's Presidency. I'm not sure what this has to do with the Gonzales firings. There is no comparison here what-so-ever.

I'll explain why. It is the President's right to fire attorneys whenever he wants. It is customary to make changes when a President first takes office. When Clinton fired the 93 attorneys it wasn't because he fabricated a lie and said they did a poor job, he wanted to start with a clean slate. That's a far cry from pressuring attorneys to persue cases more aggressively and then fire them when they don't succomb to that pressure. That's unethical tampering.

It is still within the President's rights to fire any attorneys at any time. But please, don't lie about the reasons. It isn't right to soil someone's reputation by saying they didn't preform well when the real reason for the firings were all political. It is also unethical to have someone fired for not persuing the cases you want prosecuted more aggresively. Ethics seems to be something the Bush administration is lacking when it comes to government duties. Clinton lacked ethics in his personal life, but at least he had a higher standard for the way he ran his administration.

The real issue here is the pressure the Bush administration has been putting on their attorneys to persue their political goals.