I haven't been keeping a close record of how many people working for or under the Bush administration had to resign for either "family", "health" or other bullshit reasons during Bush's tenure, but I would say, off the top of my head, probably a lot! A lot more than from other administrations, at the very least. (Not to mention the big names like Paul O'Neil, George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and etc.)
The latest one is Admiral Fallon, a commander of American forces in the Middle East. His resignation was met with "surprise" and "regret" by the Bush cabinet officials, but it wasn't a surprise to Thomas Barnett who wrote about his profile in an Esquire article, which precipitated his resignation. Admiral Fallon was an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq and policy towards Iran. He was skeptical about the "surge" and was strongly opposed to the notion of attacking Iran - the second country designated as "Axis of Evil". The resignation caused both, anger within the liberal circles who are deeply concerned about Bush's possible military confrontation with Iran, and happiness among the Neo-Conservatives who were pushing for war with Iraq after 9/11 and are now toying around with an idea of bombing Iran.
However, amid the obvious rumors and speculations that Admiral Fallon's resignation suggests that another obstacle has been removed in a pathway towards military confrontation with Iran, a lesson in reverse psychology is much recommended here. Yes, it is true that Admiral Fallon criticized the Bush administration for saber rattling about Iran, building up some military forces in the Gulf, and "not taking any options off the table" regarding Iranian nuclear standoff. However, as Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, explains in his Los Angeles Times opinion column, his resignation likely was precipitated not by saying that we shouldn't go to war with Iran, but rather what he said to Al Jazeera, that is that we wouldn't attack Iran. As one of the top commanders who serves in the Middle East, Admiral Fallon must have based his comments on actual tangible evidence, such as lack of military preparation and lack of necessary build up of forces in the Gulf. In other words, he let Iran know that US wasn't about to attack them, hence securing Iranians' current political position in international arena. And that's what probably ticked off the Bush administration, which, although lacking concrete evidence at the moment, likely pressured Admiral to resign... you know, for "family" reasons.
While the Neo-Conservative establishment along with the Hawkish Bush administration would love to attack Iran and attempt to bring them back to the status of America's client state, like it was under the American-installed Shah prior to 1979 revolution, the timing is not optimal for that right now. The military is stretched thin,the cost of Iraq War is predicted to be upwards of 3 trillion dollars, Democrats on the Hill wouldn't authorize another war and an overwhelming majority of the population opposes any military confrontation with Iran. And Neo-Cons, as much as they despise the situation, understand these dynamics very well. But they also understand that if you take a military option off the table, it emboldens the Iranian leadership and encourages them to continue to defy the United States - a fact unacceptable to the hawks in Israel and US.
Hence, as Calev Ben-David of The Jerusalem Post vividly explains in his article, the Bush administration continues to ratchet up the bellicose rhetoric, keeps building up forces in the region and continues to say that all options are on the table precisely because they won't go to war with Iran and therefore wants to make Iran believe that US will attack them in order to put pressure on them to comply with its demands. Whether this tactic will work or not remains to be answered in a relatively short future, but the lesson to be learned is: don't say things in public which may have the opposite consequence of Bush's real intentions. By saying what he did, Admiral Fallon may only have increased the chances that US will attack Iran.