In The Absence Of Any "Wrongdoing." Subtitle: What Happens If You Are No Longer Pleasuring The President

The President must have spent hours with Rove and Co. crafting his message when queried about the AG Gonzales situation. Sure, the phrase, "Serving at the Pleasure of the President" has been slung around quite a bit as of late by every stripe of W, Rove and Co member. But that is a rather empty and trite phrase as it really serves as no answer to any particular question.

If you pay attention to the responses to various queries, you see it's the absence of an actual answer to very specific questions that casts a broader pall of doubt that is the shadow cloaking the inner workings of the current administration and choking off America's soul.

Have a look at today's brief foray into the wild and wooly world of the MSM that W took as he made yet another attempt sling another bunch of loaded up propaganda from the presidential catapult.

Q Sir, your administration evaluated all 93 U.S. attorneys, in part on the basis of loyalty. That was one of the criteria that was used. What role should loyalty to you play in the evaluation of those charged with administering justice and enforcing the law?

THE PRESIDENT: Peter, obviously, when you name a U.S. attorney you want somebody who can do the job. That's the most important criterion, somebody who is qualified, somebody who can get a job done. The President names the U.S. attorneys, and the President has the right to remove U.S. attorneys. And on this particular issue, the one you're referring to, I believe it's the current issue of the eight U.S. attorneys, they serve at my pleasure, they have served four-year terms, and we have every right to replace them. And --

Q And what --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish, please. I am genuinely concerned about their reputations, now that this has become a Washington, D.C. focus. I'm sorry it's come to this. On the other hand, there had been no credible evidence of any wrongdoing. And that's what the American people have got to understand. We had a right to remove them; we did remove them. And there will be more hearings to determine what I've just said, no credible evidence of wrongdoing.

When W, says, "I'm sorry it's come to this," the reporters should follow up with the challenge as to what is it exactly that he feels sorry about? Did he answer the question? Nope. Does this man and his administration have any shred of integrity at all?

Actually, the reporter asked the wrong question. He should have ask, "were you playing favorites with the firing of the US attorneys and punishing them for making decisions you didn't like? The president's answer, if he was honest, would have to be, "yes." Even so, the president can fire whomever he pleases, particularly if they are no longer pleasuring the president. It may not be wrong to do so, but is it ethical?