from the sprawling generalizations, legal twists, and dizzying interpretations in gonzales' opening statement, i gotta agree that the only way for the dems to score any political points with these hearings is to focus their attacks SOLELY on the fact that the administrations actions were detrimental to the efficacy of our intelligence agencies and in no substantial way strengthened our national security.
i don't know if this diary would be deemed redundant, but i'm sure the kossaks will let me know and i will delete if necessary. i just wanted to voice my opinion as i watch the hearings unfold and now having a glimpse into gonzales' opening line of defense.
by doing so, this attacks the repug's position HEAD ON and strengthens the power of the legality criticisms. of course this only works if they can make it crystal clear that there isn't a SINGLE instance where this program has yielded any tangible success. I'm sure that gonzales and the rest will say that it has been a huge success, but this statement will most likely be neutered when they refuse to elaborate on how or why it's been successful by trying to hide behind "national security requires us not to disclose ANY INFORMATION".
then, whether gonzales responds or deflects with legal spin or stonewalling, the dems can easily counter attack his bullshit by pointing out that they could have achieved the same results without compromising the Constitution. (and it wouldn't hurt if they continually remind the Bushies that Georgie's JOB is to defend the constitution, not the people).
please, everyone, pray that the dems just attack by relentlessly asking, "How did Bush's actions strengthen national security?", and persistently citing examples of how it has failed (wasted resources, compromising prosecutorial success, etc)