Al Gore vs. Abu Gonzales

This Gore-Gonzales feud is getting interesting. Republicans somehow think that by keeping Gore in the spotlight it helps their cause. Like Gore elicits the same revulsion that enables them to demonize MoveOn.org and Michael Moore. When in reality, every time he pops up more than half of America sighs heavily under the weight of a pile of buyer's remorse.

As much as they try to paint Al Gore as an unhinged, out of touch, and crazy, the man speaks the truth. Just like they continue to insist that opposition to the Iraq war is the realm of the far left fringe even though only 34% of Americans approve of Bush's handling. While the most vocal and strident opposition has often come from liberal Democrats, the vaunted great American middle has for the most part cringed silently as Bush's lofty nation-building goals crumble one by one.

The Bush strategerists think that they can get away with the same tactic here and stifle dissent by marginalizing the opposition. But this is not a partisan issue, and not only are the American people overwhelmingly opposed to warrantless wiretaps (and with only a bare majority supporting them at all, which is kind of surprising and calls into question the general level of trust the American public has for the Bush administration), but some of the Administration's most vocal critics on this issue have been its biggest supporters - like former uber-conservative Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), who introduced Gore's speech; "drown the government in the bathtub" archconservative Grover Norquist, and crusty limey drunk and relentless Iraq cheerleader Christopher Hitchens (a plaintiff in the ACLU's lawsuit over the wiretaps). There is simply no way for a Republican to disavow Grover Norquist without his head exploding.

In his Monday speech, Gore laid out in stark terms what is at stake in the NSA scandal. The GOP is running scared because they know that if the debate gets framed on Gore's simple, clear-as-day terms instead of on their panicky, fearmongering arguments, there is no way they can win. McClellan responds with a desperate and nasty bluff:

"If Al Gore is going to be the voice of the Democrats on national security matters, we welcome it ... his hypocrisy knows no bounds."

So then they trot out Gonzales to insist that "Clinton did it too," the Bush apologists' answer to everything (that is, everything they don't answer by invoking 9/11). Too bad it's totally false. Gore responds, and the AP confirms:

Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

Gore then adds:

[T]he Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs - even though factually wrong - ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

The Bush administration has absolutely no answer for why it used illegal channels to do something that would have been easily achievable within the limits of the law. So for as often as the GOP likes to consider itself victimized by "the politics of personal destruction" or "blind hatred" on the left, how about responding to the specifics of the case rather than by simply smearing those who expose them?

The more energy Bush and his surrogates expend on discrediting Al Gore, the longer they keep this story atop the news - and the worse it looks for them. Alberto Gonzales can get as snitty, feral and defensive as he wants, it doesn't change or even conceal the fact that he has no satisfactory explanation for this. Gore has nothing to lose by continuing to hammer away. Gonzales and the rest of the Bushies simply dig the hole deeper with each passing day.

So if Karl Rove really wants to step to Gore - I have but three very familiar words for him:

Bring 'em on.