How credible is it? If you drop reasoning, and accept the author's attempt to paint this as mass discord within the Bush ranks, it is 100%
credible.
If, however, you take off your aliminum foil hat, put on your thinking cap, and do a little digging, you'll come to quite another set of
conclusions.
Take the name at the top of the list, for example, Eugene Scalia. From this link:
Scalia
In January 2002, Scalia was appointed Solicitor of Labor in the U.S. Department of Labor in one of George W. Bush’s controversial recess
appointments following a Senate refusal to approve the nomination.[9]
In a scathing condemnation of Scalia’s appointment Paul Wellstone said it was part of the Bush administration’s direct assault on American
workers.
In opposing Scalia’s nomination Senator Kennedy, noting “serious concerns” about Scalia’s anti-labor record, said Scalia: blah blah blah
You'd get to the
real reason he's not there today:
When Scalia’s recess appointment expired in November 2002, Bush appointed him Acting Solicitor of Labor. Rather than face what would have been a
bruising Senate confirmation hearing, Scalia resigned January 17, 2003.[15] He was succeeded by Deputy Solicitor Howard Radzely.
Short form: From the get go, the democrats were never going to let this man be confirmed. He said, in effect, F*ck you, not worth it, and went back to
making millions in the private sector. Typical DC politics.
I'm not saying this is the same story for every name on the list. I'm saying that listing a bunch of names in a topic with this title is an attempt
to mis-lead people.