Scapegoating Craig?

The WSJ reports that White House counsel Gregory Craig could be out of a job. Ackerman speculates:

[L]ook at the paper’s body of evidence for why Craig has enemies:

He mishandled the closure of Guantanamo Bay;

He argued for the unredacted release of the Office of Legal Counsel’s 2002 and 2005 legal justifications for the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation regime”;

He played some role in the administration’s plans for preventive detention (this is pretty much a vague and undeveloped point in the piece)

So whose ox is being gored here? Marcy Wheeler, no fan of Craig’s, notes that in these cases “he supported the right decisions on policies, but the political people in the White House mismanaged implementing those decisions.” Maybe. A complimentary explanation is that on the torture memos disclosures, Craig and Attorney General Eric Holder angered the leadership of the intelligence community [...including] John Brennan. They might see their chance to build an anti-Craig constituency with a White House political team that wants a scapegoat for the Guantanamo failure.