The Walpin case and Bush-appointed U.S. attorneys

So it has been nigh on three weeks since the details of the Walpin case broke.  At about this time in the legal firing of 5 US Prosecutors there were calls high and low and everywhere you looked demanding Congressional inquiries and claims that President Bush had violated the law.  Now in the firing of an Inspector General we have a very clear violation of the law and where are the voices that were so righteously indignent?  One would almost think that perhaps the complainers were politically motivated.  Yes there have been a few stories but compared to the intensity of scrutiny Bush's actions received it is but a drop in the ocean.

There was something else though that struck me as not getting much attention.  Writing in the Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Ger...) Byron York says:  "Since January of this year, the office has been headed by an acting U.S. attorney, Lawrence Brown, a career prosecutor who took over after the departure of the previous, Bush-appointed U.S. attorney. "

So think about that statement.  A Bush-appointed U.S. attorney left in January.  Was he fired?  How many Bush-appointed U.S. attorneys have left office since January?  Were they all fired much as Clinton did?  I honestly don't know.  I will admit that I have made only a cursory search but I found nothing about what President Obama has been doing with the U.S. attorneys.  Did our watchdog media decide that it was not something worthy of investigation and review?