(a) there will be proof of hacking on Nov 2, and proof that BushCo did it;

(b) there will be proof of hacking on Nov 2, and proof that someone else did it;

(c) there will be proof of hacking on Nov 2, with no indication who did it;

(d) there will no proof of hacking on Nov 2.

Without pushing hard for a full inquiry, only (d) is possible. Which gets us nowhere for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,...

On the other hand, pushing hard to get a full inquiry, leveraged by National Security framing if necessary, at least might show hacking happened, even if BushCo manages to slime their way out of the blame; and whoever they point their fingers at (Bin Laden or otherwise), at that point the process must be fixed by 2005.

In a sense I'm prioritizing (1) getting the elections fixed for 2005,2006,2006,... over (2) proving that BushCo hacked the 2004 election.

Ideally of course, were BushCo guilty, a solid investigation would manage to turn up their guilt as a bonus, so we achieve both (1) and (2).