Let's be serious - Stimson would never have been appointed to the position he's in, if he were not suitably vetted for ideological purity and rigid adherence to the Republican party line, especially on the issuse pertaining most directly to the job he would hold.  That the "Defense Department is disavowing" what he said is, in the main, irrelevant.  He won't be fired for saying it.  More importantly, what he said is commonly held opinion in wingunt circles.  Further, his was not just an idle mouth popping off.  Rather,  it was part of a deliberate public relations strategy and an extremely well coordinated one at that.  

The logical inconsistencies and, a fortiori, ironies in your comment would be hilarious if not for the sad context in which we find ourselves.  These same inconsistencies and ironies work on more levels than I can count.  

Sadly, though, IMHO the ironies and inconsistencies in your and others' arguments posed about defense counsel in general and about Gitmo and PW counsel stem not from deliberate humor, but rather from a lack of intellectual or analytical rigor.  If one is to say Scooter deserves the best defense money can buy (as he does), then the only logically and morally consistent response is to say "so do the poor unfortunates who find themselves being fed to the maw of the criminal justice system stateside, or the kangaroo drum-head tribunals the government has set up to facilitate some show-trial executions for public consumption here and, more importantly, overseas."  (N.B.  I say "more importantly overseas" because the only rational explanations for our government snuffing PWs are (a) show how tough they are in a schoolyard-bully way, and (b) create more terrists so as to facilitate more war profiteering and the continuance of "war-time" infringements on civil liberties here.

Further, I believe you have little conception of the importance of pro bono work in the legal profession and, for that matter, the historical antipathy of the bar toward excessive commercialization of the profession.  I know, many will say "you gotta be kidding" when I say "historical antipathy of the bar toward excessive commercialization", but I'm quite serious.  It wasn't until the last 10 or 15 years that the whole idea of "business success of the firm before the profession of lawyering" took solid hold.  If one looks into the history of the profession in England, whence our legal system came, it was originally the case that defense lawyers were forbidden (by tradition) from seeking payment for their services.  This was seen as an indication of the lawyers' belief in the strength of their case and of their taking the case because of their interest in furthering justice - not because they needed money or charged for their services.  Rather, the money would be slipped into a pocket in the back of their robes (where they couldn't see the money coming in and were therefore innocent of pecuniary motive);  as I understand it, the function of clerks in the lawyers' chambers was to both procure cases and deal with issues of payment.  Lawyers stuck to lawyering and seeking justice.

While these rules and traditions have pretty much gone by the board, there still remain  ethical rules, for example,  requiring fees to be reasonable,  prohibiting a lawyer from soliciting a gift from a client (or someone close to a client).  

Moreover, there exists an ethical rule affirmatively requiring all lawyers to do pro bono work.  One version (RPC 6.1) states:  

"Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to render public interest legal services.  A lawyer may discharge this responsibility by providing professional services at no fee or a reduced fee to persons or limited means...."  

Nor, under RPC 6.2, is a lawyer allowed to decline a court appointment to represent someone except under very limited circumstances - the person or cause is so repugnant to the lawyer that it would make it impossible to represent the client, the work would put an unreasonable fnancial burden on the lawyer, or the lawyer would have to violate another ethical rule.

I and a former law partner had to decline  and withdraw from a clearly-defensible murder case we'd already started on when our investigation made apparent to us that we'd have to violate one or more ethical rules to continue.  We first consulted with a specialist in legal ethics, and all we could reveal to the Court was "we cannot continue as defense counsel.  Our legal ethics specialist told us we cannot even tell you why, other than it would likely put us in ethical trouble if we stayed or if we told you."

So, don't go off on pro bono legal services.  We lawyers are required to provide them.