After reading Glenn Greenwald's explanation as to why the U.S. attorney firings' scandal IS a scandal, I have to conclude that it isn't. Of course there is abundant hypocrisy from both Republicans and Democrats, but the fact is that almost every recent pResident (both Bushes and Clinton included) has replaced all 93 US attorneys when he took power. That a pResident can do that at the start of an administration should be a scandal (especially when they arrive with only 43% of the popular vote, as Clinton did in 1992, or having finished second, as W did in 2000). But to suggest that the start of the administration is the only time a pResident can exercise this ill-deserved but apparently legal power is picking far too fine a nit for my taste. How can this "scandal" get more attention and calls for Gonzo's resignation than real scandals like the abuse of national security letters, or the NSA spying, or the Padilla case, or Gitmo, or torture? Bush and Gonzo did something which every pResident has done, only at an unconventional time, and this is considered worse than defiantly saying they have the right to break laws, and then actually breaking them?