You attacked the author rather than the argument because that author was associated with people you dislike. That's not a logical argument. That's what I was criticizing.
I'm not sure how you missed something as obvious as that.
Why did you think that I was attacking why you believe what you do about this issue when I was clearly criticizing your attempt to shoot the messenger?
And, lets be clear, you didn't attack the article whatsoever whether it was to challenge its logical argument(s) or to reveal how it was tainted by some ideological bias.
You didn't weigh anything. You simply attributed a political bias to the author and then dismissed the article.
In other words, you simply said, my guy is a law prof so he's more right then your guy because your guy is associated with Bush.
You're fooling no one and your dishonesty is now stinking up the thread.
Okay, so here a portion of Mukasey's statement when he appointed the special prosecutor (the entire statement is in the link):
This clears up things for me. He definitely states that the president can fire for no cause or any cause. However, he notes that the process was done improperly.“The Offices of the Inspector General and Professional Responsibility dispelled many of the most disturbing allegations made in the wake of the removals. However, the Report makes plain that, at a minimum, the process by which nine U.S. Attorneys were removed in 2006 was haphazard, arbitrary and unprofessional, and that the way in which the Justice Department handled those removals and the resulting public controversy was profoundly lacking. It is true, as the report acknowledges, that an Administration is entitled to remove presidential appointees, including U.S. Attorneys, for virtually any reason or no reason at all. But the leaders of the Department owed it to those who served the country in those capacities to treat their careers and reputations with appropriate care and dignity. And the leaders of the Department owed it to the American people they served to conduct the public's business in a deliberate and professional manner. The Department failed on both scores.
“The Report leaves some important questions unanswered and recommends that I appoint an attorney to assess the facts uncovered, to conduct further investigation as needed, and ultimately to determine whether any prosecutable offense was committed with regard to the removal of a U.S. Attorney or the testimony of any witness related to the U.S. Attorney removals. . . .
#08-859: Statement by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey on the Report of an Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 (2008-09-29)
I believe if anything comes out of this investigation (a criminal offense), it will be based upon the testimony provided by the DOJ employees (as lying before Congress is a criminal offense). JMO
What Mukasey did is called trying to compromise. It was a blunder. Mukasey properly recognizes that there are no constraints on the President's authority to dismiss US Attorney's, yet, holds out an olive branch as a sign of respect.
Result: Democrats and liberals drolling all over themselves in anticipation of criminal charges.
The funny thing is that the only criminal charges that could be brought would be lying to Congress. Ironic when members of Congress lie on a daily basis, but nonetheless, lying to Congress is a crime.
Consequence: Democrats and liberals pounding the table exclaiming, "See, those evil Bush people, they corrupted the DoJ."
Republicans often act this foolishly when they attempt, in good faith, to strike compromise. Democrats and liberals...take advantage of that good faith.
See, too, the administration's backpedaling on the British intelligence Niger SOTU fiasco. No reason to back-off, but they did to appease Democrats. Instead, Democrats took a pound when given an ounce. Par for the course.