Blogosphere and MSM Have Taken Bait on "Firing All Attorneys"
The e-mails do not support your conclusion, Josh.
Ref The e-mail alone does not support the conclusion that Rove wanted to fire all of them. Rather, he mentioned only asking for their resignations, then selectively narrowing that ruse-request-for-resignations to his real target list.
Read this analysis and you'll see the problem.
Action: Put the burden on the White House: Where are the rest of the memos related to Rove's discussions with GOP, Attorney General, and President on this matter?
With all due respect to the Speaker, ABC, TPM, Kos, America Blog, Raw and the crew that is carefully monitoring this event. I respectfully disagree that there was a specicif mention of firing ALL OF THEM.
1. The e-mail [reporting Karl's question] cited mentions three options, one of them was asking for ALL their RESIGNATIONS, and then firing some of them.
2. The response from the e-mail mentions the possibility of what would happen if all of them were fired.
MY POINT: It looks as though the story of FIRING all of them has been overplayed. The real story, in my view: What prompted Rove to bring up the issue with the US Attorneys; why then?
It appears Rove, as he did with the Plame-Libby issue, has got a convenient story about what did or didn't happen; but there are not facts to show that he specifically raised that question.
Granted, I'm not arguing that Rove wasn't involved. Rather, it appears the "firing all 93" is a smokescreen: It implies there were discussions which are not supported by the PUBLICLY AVAILABLE information. Translation: If this "firing all of the 93" conversation is true, then there must be MORE meeting memos supporting this conclusion.
The Job of Congress is to FIND these other communications, notes, and memorandum supporting the spin that Rove wanted to fire all of them. No, it appears the "Fire all of them" is a smokescreen for what he really wanted to do: Target SOME of them.