Sometimes the most brutal and difficult questions are even more brutal and difficult when asked in public by someone who generally would be your political ally.

In yesterday's questioning of Alberto Gonzales, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said the following:

"I don't believe that you're involved in a conspiracy to fire somebody because they wouldn't prosecute a particular enemy of a politician or a friend of a politician. But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me: that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?"

Gonzales did not have a good answer; he just went back to his typical re-hash of his achievements at Justice.

The incompetence is remarkable: All they had to do was have Bush or Gonzales make phone calls to the US Attys (political appointees serving at the pleasure of the President) who they wanted to replace, and say, "Thank you very much for your service to our country, you have done a fine job and we think it's time for new blood; so please send me your resignation effective ______." And then say in public that everyone's performance was good and they were moving on to pursue other interests. Maybe some of the US Attys wouldn't have liked it but there would not have been a firestorm.

But instead, they said publicly, for example, that David Iglesias, US Atty in New Mexico, was dismissed for poor job performance (after a string of positive performance reviews), which ultimately set off a firestorm. Lesson One: Don't lie in public about the "poor job performance" of a hard-nosed US Atty who can prove you wrong with written evaluations from his supervisor. Good grief.