On Wednesday, Dan Froomkin wrote:

There was a long period, starting around 2003, during which Bush avoided even mentioning Osama bin Laden's name, presumably embarrassed by his failure to capture the man "dead or alive" as promised -- and loath to enhance bin Laden's stature with a presidential mention.

Asked directly about bin Laden at a March 2003 press conference, Bush responded: "He's a person who's now been margimalized.... I truly am not that concerned about him."

But by the summer of 2005, Bush had changed course. Ever since a speech in June of that year-- in which he thunderously exclaimed "Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: 'This Third World War is raging' in Iraq" -- Bush has repeatedly invoked Bin Laden in an effort to terrify Americans into supporting his unpopular policies.

By not capturing bin Laden all along, could it be this administration had long-term plans to use Osama as a convenient scare-tactic symbol and puppet, mentioning his name in volume whenever needing to deliver a good scare to the electorate only to then go silent with his name when objective achieved...? After all, Psych 101 explains you can't maintain a sustained heightened sense of fear as its effect will eventually diminish as people adapt, so best to turn it up and down like a thermostat. But the point being Bush & Co. couldn't capture or kill bin Laden because he's been a key pawn in this insidious, political strategy in managing the collective American psyche.

Similarly they can't get rid of Gonzales because he's desperately needed in his role; to replace him is to open up the administration to in-depth, widespread investigations, very likely turning up very, very bad (illegal) discoveries. Gonzo must stay put to serve his invaluable purpose: to lie, fabricate, and stonewall.