I was hoping for something new here. Most of us have known this for a while now, as John Dickerson's examples (Rumsfeld & Brown) attest to. We've also known that this sense of unreasonable loyalty envelopes the Gonzales situation. What's new is that he eventually gave up on Gonzales, just like he did on the others. We know why he sticks with people, but not why he gives up on them.

I'm wondering about the questions: "Why now?" and "Who's next?" But mostly I'm trying to figure out if there's a pattern with when Bush gives up on people. Does he just do it when it's unexpected? Rumsfeld went the day after the 2006 elections, but Rove didn't, and Brownie was fired as soon as it became apparent that his competence couldn't be spun.

It's all very confusing to me. Anyone have thoughts?

You know I am wondering the same thing - but is Bush giving up on these people or does he merely accept the inevitable? (Or maybe everyone has to turn in his resignation at least 3 times before Bush will accept it, just to make sure they're certain.) It seems to me that Bush will keep them until they tell him that they just can't take it any more. Once someone wants out - for whatever reason - there's really no way he can make them stay. Sure he can "not accept" the resignation, but he can't make them show up at work!

Does this help,stupid is what stupid does, are you clear about the idiot in the white house now?

I think it's just that by waiting until far after the initial blowback, they are hoping it looks less like bowing to pressure, it's like, "we proved we could weather the storm, we've reduced both our culpability and the satisfaction our opponents will get, NOW get lost, thanks."