Bush is not noted for his knowledge of history, although Rove is. But there's one bit of history you can bet both are aware of: Nixon's troubles started when his first AG, John Mitchell, resigned in February 1972 to run CREEP (Committee to Reelect the President).

According to Wikipedia: "As attorney general, Mitchell believed that the government's need for 'law and order' justified restrictions on civil liberties. He advocated the use of wiretaps in national security cases without obtaining a court order and the right of police to employ the preventive detention of criminal suspects. He brought conspiracy charges against critics of the Vietnam War, and demonstrated a reluctance to involve the Justice Department in civil rights issues. 'The Department of Justice is a law enforcement agency,' he told reporters. 'It is not the place to carry on a program aimed at curing the ills of society.'" Sound familiar?

But as director of CREEP Mitchell, whether of his own volition or Nixon's orders, instigated the Watergate break in and then became intimately involved in the attempted cover up. Although Nixon was reelected by a record landslide, Watergate, or rather the attempts to cover up Watergate, led to his resignation two years later and the imprisonment of many of his officials, including Mitchell. That was because Nixon couldn't get another ultra loyalist confirmed by the Democratic Senate, and Mitchell's replacement, Richard Kleindienst, was unable or unwilling to keep covering up Nixon's dirty laundry and was eventually pressured to appoint an independent investigator, Archibald Cox. When Cox started getting too close to the dirt Nixon tried to fire him, and then the shit really hit the fan.

Gonzo is not staying because of Bush's loyalty to him -- Bush would throw his own mother under the bus to save his own skin -- but from his loyalty to Bush. Both know that a similar Bush loyalist will not stand a chance of confirmation by this Congress, the confirmation process itself is bound to uncover a lot of dirty laundry, and the new guy is likely to discover and reveal a whole lot more. As with Mitchell and Nixon, Gonezo's removal could well be the beginning of the end for Bush. And they know it.

The only question is whether the Democrats can exert enough pressure to make keeping Gonzo on untenable.

I think everyone's missing the point.

Bush and Gonzolez are stuck with each other.

If Gonzo becomes Gone-zo, Bush loses his fox in the DoJ chicken coop, the one who knows where all the dirty linen and bodies are buried, including those of Gonzo himself.

His replacement would face a bitter confirmation battle, which alone would dredge up a lot of dirt. It's very unlikely that Shwub would be able to get another "Loyal Bushie" in that job, certainly not anyone nearly as loyal as Gonzo. And the new guy would be privy to all the dirt that Gonzo's been effectively hiding and will continue hiding so long as he's there.

Nixon's troubles really began when his ultra-loyalist Attorney General, John Mitchel, resigned to run the 1972 election campaign. Mitchell did a great job, for Nixon, in that capacity. But the dirt started dribbling out, and Nixon was gone in less than two years, and Mitchell himself landed in prison.

Bush, or at least his handler Rove, well understands that bit of history and the importance of keeping Gonzo from going Gone-zo. And so does Gonzo.

What the Dems need to do now is subpoena Mrs. Ashcroft, to verify the details of Comey's statement.

Shades of Martha Mitchell.

I Googled for the redacted text and found it in several places. Here's one:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/?query=syria&pr=default&order=r&cmd=context&id=42b6113b236

Scroll down to: Welcome Home - Information Management Unit Why are the Attacks Down in Al Anbar Province - Several Theories

It's also available in PDF format.

Apparently it wasn't so ultra secret, although it is certainly embarrassing.

There's some other interesting stuff on this site.

Other writers have asked variations of the same question, why is Cheney behaving this way?

By all accounts his behavior as vice-president is new for him. Scowcroft and others who have known him intimately say they don’t recognize him anymore. His advice to incoming chief-of-staff for Reagan, Howard Baker, was at total odds with how he has acted in essentially the same position.

Did he keep his real feelings under cover until he got the opportunity? Is it another case of power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely? Is it, as one letter writer posits, a matter of his health problems making him insane? Or does he truly believe that the safety of our country in these dangerous times requires an imperial “unitary” presidency (via himself)?

But is something even more onerous at play? It doesn’t seem rational to go to such lengths to grab so much power knowing they will have to cede it to a successor in January 2010. Does he feel so strongly about presidential power (via his own vice-presidential power) that he intends to somehow prevent that succession?

The one person who can control this monster is President Bush. But the very fact that Bush shows an almost total unwillingness to do so indicates at best that he feels too insecure to be his own man; at worst it indicates a Faustian bargain made to become a figure-head president, under the direction of puppet master Cheney.

The $500 billion cost of the Iraq war we're supposedly approaching was reached long ago. That is the official administration cost, and you can bet the ranch that there's at least that much hidden in its smoke and mirrors.

Even if the figures expended to date are accurate, they don't begin to cover the future costs. Thousands of veterans suffering delibitating injuries will require lifetime medical care, at a future cost in the trillions of dollars. amount for interest charges, since the war has been paid for on the nation's credit card.