Iraq attacked the Twin Towers

"I was and am referring to those Republican attorneys appointed by Bush during his first term."

My bad, Franklin. I was under the impression that all the U. S. Attorneys at issue were Democrats. But that just makes it even less of an issue.

The bottom line is that they served at the pleasure of the President, just as did the attorneys let go by Clinton. Period. Everything else is pure politics, which is OK by me. The more the Democrats screw around with phoney investigations, the less legislative harm to our country they can attempt.

"you really need to get a better understanding of the DOJ and its roles and responsibilities"

Franklin, I am not a neophyte regarding DOJ and U. S. Attorneys. I worked with (not directly for) DOJ, as well as their attorneys, both DOJ HQ staff and U.S. Attorneys, for some 20 years on a wide varieties of topics.
-----------------------------------------

"their service is civil, not political."

Well, my friend, I know what you mean, but their service is guided by political policy-- which they refuse to follow at their peril. Which is what happened here.

As examples of politics guiding service, both civil and criminal, are these: setting U. S. Attorneys' priorities (they can't prosecute every violation with equal emphasis--some types of violations are just not as important to prosecute as others); the practical extent of illegal immigrants' rights; the right to private gun ownership as a constitutional right v. only a state militia's right; a woman's right to abortion under the constitution v. no right to kill a fetus under the constitution; the "correct" interpretation of ambiguously written laws (are their any other kind?); etc.

My point is that politics plays a very large role for every Administration's DOJ. It was Clinton's policy to have his DOJ send jackbooted swat teams to break into Elian Gonsales's family home, snatch the boy and send him back to Cuba, despite the fact his mother drowned getting the boy to freedom. Further, Waco and Ruby Ridge outcomes were decided by the DOJ in accordance with Clinton's political policy on firearms.

Anyway, I know what you mean.

"how does that fit into the balance between civil and political service? If I'm to be an intelligent skeptic and critic (as you rightly challenge me to be), then how am I to view this balance?"

First, DOJ would not have wasted time and political effort to fire Iglesias merely for his refusal to prosecute one routine matter, especially if it was an unwinnable case. That would be counter productive to policy because, once a case is lost, you fight an uphill battle in later court cases concerning the same subject. That's why the gumment selects its fights carefully. Take his story with your usual, wise grain of salt. Viz:
" Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse called Iglesias's allegations "flatly false." Roehrkasse said that Iglesias should have reported any calls from lawmakers, as required under department guidelines.

"The administration has never removed a U.S. attorney in an effort to retaliate against him or inappropriately interfere with a public-integrity investigation," Roehrkasse said.

Second, Franklin, and again I really do know what you mean, but I would not go so far as to say there is a "balance between civil and political service" for U.S. Attorneys. Their performance, per se, in a given case, should not be political at all. Policy guidance and actual, ethical performance are separate things. A Chinese Wall needs to be maintained between a Chief Counsel and trial lawyers because justice is supposed to be blind. We need to have both gasoline and fire, but not together. (There does need to be such a balance for political appointees, of course).
---------------------------------------

"There are too many good people trying to do a good job in those two departments for me to blithely criticize any public servant any more. But, that experience also prompts me to not hesitate (or not much) to criticize the supervisors and managers of those good people, right up to the top."

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's admirable, but take some advice from Davy Crockett: Be sure you're right, THEN go ahead!