David C. Iglesias, the former United States attorney for the District of New Mexico, has an editorial up in the New York Times explaining why he was fired. It's pretty straight forward. He was fired because Senator Pete Domenici, who had recommended him for the job, wanted him fired. And Pete Domenici wanted him fired because he didn't bring unsubstantiated voter fraud cases against Democrats before the 2006 midterm elections. It's a fairly open and shut case. We can add this case to the case of San Diego United States attorney Carol Lam. She was fired because she indicted the number three person at the CIA, Dusty Foggo. The day after she announced the indictment, the Justice Department regarded her as a 'problem'. Bud Cummings, the United States attorney from Arkansas, was fired to make room for one of Karl Rove's aides. John McKay, a prosecutor from Washington state, was fired for failing to make unsubstantiated indictments against Democrats during the 2004 gubernatorial recount. This is a simple pattern. It is a total distortion of the justice system and, yet, the President says:

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants...I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials...I strongly support the attorney general's decision, and am confident he acted appropriately...There is no indication that anybody did anything improper...There's no indication whatsoever, after reviews by the White House staff, that anybody did anything improper...I support the attorney general. I told you in Mexico I've got confidence in him, and I still do."

If the President feels that way then he clearly should be removed from office. At the very least, he should be censured. I don't remember Bill Clinton saying that he should be allowed to lie to a grand jury or to make knowingly false statements in a sworn deposition. I think he acknowledged that he made mistakes and he acknowledged that he should be censured. But President Bush thinks that firing prosecutors for investigating Republicans or failing to investigate Democrats is 'nothing wrong'. If he doesn't support the rule of law, he is not suited to the office.

A growing number of Republicans acknowledge this.

Meanwhile:

A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

By voice vote, but with some ''no'' votes heard, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.

Just so you know the membership of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law:

CHAIRWOMAN
Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (DEM-CA-39th)

Ranking Member
Chris Cannon (REP-UT-3rd)

Democrats (6)
Rep. John Conyers (DEM-MI-14th)
Rep. Hank Johnson (DEM-GA-4th)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (DEM-CA-16th)
Rep. William Delahunt (DEM-MA-10th)
Rep. Melvin Watt (DEM-NC-12th)

Republicans (5)
Rep. Jim Jordan (REP-OH-4th)
Rep. Ric Keller (REP-FL-8th)
Rep. Tom Feeney (REP-FL-24th)
Rep. Trent Franks (REP-AZ-2nd)

I'd like to know which of the Republicans, if any, voiced support for compelling Harriet Miers and Karl Rove to testify under oath.

Also, if you are a fan of Al Gore. He's testifying before John Dingell's Energy and Commerce Committee. You can see it on C-SPAN3.