But didn't much of the communication that's now being scrutinized take place AFTER the last election? Wasn't the administration already on notice that their lies could be called out and they proceeded to lie anyway?

I'm of the opinion, that they were so accustomed to having their own way and never being questioned substansively that even after Congress changed hands, it STILL didn't occur to them they could now be held accountable for their behavior.

I'm of the opinion, that they were so accustomed to having their own way and never being questioned substansively that even after Congress changed hands, it STILL didn't occur to them they could now be held accountable for their behavior.

At the time they were engineering these firings, and even once it started being discussed, they didn't think this would become any sort of a scandal. Their e-mails reflect that. But even if they did think that, you are absolultely right - six years of doing whatever they wanted, in secret, with every attempt to investigate squashed absolutely led them to assume that they could do anything and never be caught.

What is amazing is to listen to our journalists essentially urge that that immunity continue.

This article's a keeper.

And yet, just this morning there was tweety and his gang of ivory tower dwelling idiots telling us that we the people will feel sorry for Gonzo if the mean old Democrats pick on him.

And that getting Rove under oath would backfire because we the people are just so tired of politics.

Who the Fuck told these people they have a clue what 'we the people really think'?

Oh thats right, there really is a large percentage of brain-dead idiots who believe exactly what Nora O'Donnell tells em to believe.

When I look at a lot of my fellow countrymen, the only word I can think of is pathetic.

The administration and its defenders are hiding behind the idea that unlike other challenges to executive privilege in this instance there is no criminal prosectuion and, indeed, no underlying crime nor even claim of a crime.

What makes this, to put it mildly, somewhat ironic is that it is the justice system itself that is being politicized and corrupted. Based on recent elections and on the word of Karl Rove, it is the intention of this administration to supress likely Democratic voters, mostly minority, by abusing the office of the Secretary of State wherever possible and by accusing get-out-the-vote operations of being criminal enterprises. In a speech Rove identified 11 key states for the 2008 elections where "voter fraud" could swing the outcome. I'm pretty certain he wasn't suggesting that thousands of fake voters might make the states go Democratic, but rather that the right kind of campaign against "voter fraud" could ensure those states went Republican. Since Bush's re-election, nine of those states have new US attorneys. Five of them were not part of the "purge". I suspect that along with the 'purge' there are at least five other quite interesting stories about US Attorneys yet to be told. At least.

Firing prosecutors isn't in and of itself criminal. But obstructing justice is. Conspiring to deprive citizens of their right to vote is.

The idea that there is no underlying criminality in this story is something the admininstration should have to demonstrate, not something that should be assumed true. In fact, if the administration says it it should be assumed to be false.

...all presume a republic, not a monarchy.

And as for the press, was their ever a monarchy that didn't have a Court Circular?

Glenn, great piece, but I'd also add another step to your breakdown of the scandal process:

3.5 (or 4.5): Administration loyalists chew up some air time by pretending to be "mavericks" decrying the administration's possible corruption. The media praises them for their tough words, and thereby unwittingly collaborate with them in providing cover for the administration. (And later, of course, the tough-talking mavericks--Specter, Graham, McCain, Hagel--fold and toe the administration line.)

The mainstream media/Beltway journalist’s idea that investigations and oversight is improper and disruptive certainly was not in effect during the Clinton administration when they still held the idea that our leaders must be constantly scrutinized.

Can this dramatic change be attributed to 9/11? I don’t thinks so. These attorney firings were not about national security, but about implementing a plan to swing elections to the Republican Party.

Can this change be attributed to the personality of Bush who has exhibited such leadership abilities and qualities that his judgment is so trusted that it must not be questioned? I think the botched response to Katrina at the highest levels of the government put that possibility to rest.

This leaves one other possibility – that it is in the interests of Beltway journalists for the Republican Party to be in control of government, and I think that may be true on both a personal as well as an institutional (corporate) level.

The proof of that will come if a member of the Democratic Party takes the White House in 2008. Suddenly, the very journalists who find scrutiny wasteful and disruptive will be leading the charge for the most frivolous of investigations.

Quite frankly, I can’t even imagine this sort of behavior or thinking on the part of the media if Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Barack Obama was in the White House. Virtually overnight the beltway journalists would be demanding accountability and insisting upon oversight by Congress.

if Bush was impeached would he voluntarily leave office or would Cheney,Rove,and he blockade themselves in the WH and have to be removed by force? The way they act I would have to think the latter option. Now that would be must see TV !

It's definitely a double standard, but maybe one of the reasons they don't see it that way is because that double standard is sort of promoted by the two parties. (key words "sort of") Republicans (these days) believe in lock-step party loyalty, fealty to the leader. They present the idea that having a single, unified message is the ultimate critereon, even if the message is as phony as a three dollar bill.

Democrats, on the other hand, like to argue with each other and think the idea that there should be honorable debate is, well, honorable. Ideas should be challenged and questioned.

Hence the press challenge Democrats and repeat Repuclican talking points. This doesn't make logical sense, but it does provide an illusion of rationality and consistency. It's sort of like the current smears on Al Gore living in a big house. The logic Republicans present is only democrats who live in hovels and take vows of poverty can be environmental critics. Of course Republicans don't have to be poor to be virtuous because they don't see poverty as a virtue, or pollution as a sin.

To torture an analogy- the Republicans say the earth is flat. The democrats say it's round. The press is reluctant to point out that one of these is fatually incorrect. The republicans say if the democrats think the earth is round they must all go live on the other side of the world to prove they have the courage of their convictions. The republicans, on the other hand, hold that they must loudly yell that democrats are cowards to prove the courage of their convictions. The press reports that repbuclicans courageously say democrats are cowars, while democrats say one thing (the world is round) but do another (live in America.)