According to Wall Street Journal editorial board member Kimberley A. Strassel, the Bush administration’s purge of US attorneys was just an attempt to fulfill his mandate from the voters:

The administration’s ineptitude has given the left an opening to claim the White House is politicizing justice. It matters little that many voters put Mr. Bush in office precisely because they expected his administration to take a harder line on voter fraud or pornography rings. The administration will now find it harder to maneuver in this area.

How many people actually voted for Bush “precisely because they expected his administration to take a harder line on voter fraud or pornography rings”? (my italics) Almost none. But Strassel uses the weasel word “many” in conjunction with the phrase “put in office,” which allows her to suggest Bush has a mandate to stamp out “voter fraud and pornography rings” without making such a claim directly.

More generally, the piece is a study in obfuscation. Strassel never acknowledges — let alone addresses — the key charge that at least some of the prosecutors were removed after investigating Republicans or failing to prosecute Democrats. Instead, she suggests that the dispute concerns “philosophical differences” between the administration and the fired attorneys. If only.

PS This passage is a hilariously awkward attempt to sound contemporary:

Call the administration’s handling of the eight fired U.S. attorneys what you will (and many adjectives come to mind), at bottom this is a story of a White House and Justice Department that have yet to understand how rocked is their world.

“[H]ow rocked is their world?”