Sen. Clinton Blasts Bush on Eavesdropping

[wicket]

LINK

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday called
President Bush's explanations for eavesdropping on domestic telephone calls "strange" and "far-fetched," launching a blistering attack on the White House ahead of the president's State of the Union address.

"Obviously, I support tracking down terrorists. I think that's our obligation. But I think it can be done in a lawful way," the New York Democrat said. Clinton, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, told reporters she did not yet know whether the administration's warrantless eavesdropping broke any laws. But the senator said she did not buy the White House's main justifications for the tactic.

"Their argument that it's rooted in the authority to go after al-Qaida is far-fetched," she said in an apparent reference to a congressional resolution passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack. The Bush administration has argued that resolution gave the president authority to order such electronic surveillance as part of efforts to protect the nation from terrorists.

"Their argument that it's rooted in the Constitution inherently is kind of strange because we have FISA and FISA operated very effectively and it wasn't that hard to get their permission," she said. The super-secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was established by Congress to approve eavesdropping warrants, even retroactively, but Bush has argued that the process often takes too long.

[sandnsea]

1. Didn't we just hear this on Raw Story

That there were Democrats who thought the NSA story was bigger than Alito. And then Hillary comes out with this eavesdropping press release.

Hillary is gumming up the works.

[Andromeda]

36. Gumming up the works?

I don't understand what you mean by that.

[savemefromdumbya]

2. All parties should keep hammering Bush on this Dems, Greens, Lib etc

All parties should keep hammering away at Bush because he is not going to get away with his actions. Dems should seek the help of Greens, Libs, Socialists, or whatever else we've got. Also Dems should be seeking more help for 'decent minded Republicans' there are not too many of them wanting to risk their political life.

[superconnected]

3. Get em hill, sink your teeth in and hold on.

If you do it long enough I may start thinking you're on the right side again. This Mccain crap where you support our side once in a while won't bit it though.

[rodeodance]

6. yup--she has spine. Good for her.

[anotherdrew]

4. whatever clinton, at least he didn't burn a flag. you two-faced DLC dem

so DO something now

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

7. That is "blistering"?

And she doesn't know whether the Administration broke any laws? Are you fucking kidding me? How in the fuck can she not know?

[pinerow]

8. We are giving Hillary more creds than

she deserves...then again...my feeling is that the 'beltway dems' are more concerned with their own longevity that in taking a stand against the repugs, even though it's clear that a majority of Americans are demanding a principled stand against the ever increasing encroachment of our inalienable rights.

[RobertSeattle]

9. We can aggresively fight terrorism and protect civil rights

Should be a duhhhh, but needs to be repeated over and over again.

[The Stranger]

12. Once you concede the terrorism fear fear fear fear fear line,

then you have lost any hope of protecting rights.

The sheeple are so scared, they would all sign away any right they have and commit mass suicide if they thought it would save them from the terror terror terror terror.

[truthisfreedom]

10. i'm behind you, Hillary, no matter what any of these DLC-haters think.

to me, any Democrat is a good Democrat. end of story.

[IndianaGreen]

14. That's a mighty big rump to get behind

to me, any Democrat is a good Democrat. end of story.

Have you send your campaign contribution to Joe Lieberman?

[pinerow]

16. There are a great number of dixie democrats

that you can keep all to yourself...they are hardly, if at all, any better than repugs...zell miller, lloyd benson, etc etc...oh, i forgot...joe lieberman.

[howmad1]

32. And don't forget that putz.........

Ben Nelson. This is an A number one DINO.

[RaRa]

54. Zell Miller, anyone? eom

[wisteria]

11. Hillary always gets around to basting Bush after she makes sure

this is what the people want to hear and after others has already spoken up. Kerry has already commented on this well over two or three weeks ago and has continued to bring it up.

[IndianaGreen]

13. It takes time to hold a series of focus groups and get polling data

This is nothing more than the typical Clintonian triangulation. She put down Murtha's call for a troop withdrawal. She didn't say anything about Gore's speech on the Bush dictatorship. She was nowhere to be found after Kerry spoke up.

[dflprincess]

41. Maybe Hillary read Molly Ivins column

and got worried.

[YOY]

15. She realized enough people were in agreement and took that route

It's what she does...always looking to get more popular.

Is anyone surprised...

[NoodleyAppendage]

17. Exactly...add my YAWN to the chorus. I'm sick of her "finger in the wind"

It actually takes courage to stick by a consistent message, even when it might be unpopular or impolitic. Based upon this axiom, I don't think anyone can characterize Hillary as "courageous." If she's running in 2008...I'm sitting the election out. I'm sick of having to vote for DINOs.

JB

[AtomicKitten]

18. I will applaud Hillary blasting Bush.

I will applaud ANYONE that blasts Bush and not take it upon myself to second-guess their motivations or intentions.

Lots of presumptuous, self-serving, mind-reading going on here at DU.

Bush broke the law and kudos to Hillary for stepping up and hammering that issue home.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Hillary didn't "step up," she trailed behind

the likes of Al Gore, Russ Feingold, and John Kerry.

[AtomicKitten]

20. whatever -- don't you have an anti-Hillary protest to attend? NT

[NoodleyAppendage]

21. Truth hurts...doesn't it? Non-Hillary fans are just presenting the facts.

If she actually took a position BEFORE it was politically safe or advantageous, I suspect that many of the so-called "Hillary bashers" would actually be "Hillary supporters."

I don't hate Hillary...but I do hate being forcefed a Dem candidate who has yet to show any real political courage. Without a Dem evincing REAL political courage, we are destined to fail.

JB

[AtomicKitten]

23. Facts? Guessing at her intentions? Pahleeeeeeze.

Just a teensy bit presumptuous, aren't we?

[Andromeda]

37. We get it.

You wouldn't be happy with anything Hillary did, or said, so your redundancy is getting tedious.

[bvar22]

25. Didn't exactly "hammer" that issue home.....

In fact, Hillary left lots of weasel room.

THIS is what Hillary "hammered home":
.."she (Hillary) did not yet know whether the administration's warrantless eavesdropping broke any laws.."

If THAT is "Hammering the Issue Home", we might as well quit now.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[AtomicKitten]

28. thank you yet again for mincing words and qualifying adjectives

you really have to bend over backwards to perpetrate an argument, one that I'm not interested in having with someone like you because you have no interest in respectful or reasonable discourse, you simply have an agenda.

thanks anyway. drive through.

[bvar22]

49. All I did was quote Senator Clinton...

If your perception of Hillary doesn't match up with what Hillary actually says, you will need to take that up with the Senator from NY, not me.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans,
family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."--- Senator Paul Wellstone

[wordpix2]

50. I agree & what is this site? A Dem-bashing site? Hil brings Bill back

and that would be great, IMO.

[Dr Fate]

22. Prove it. Openly demand your fellow Senators filibuster.

Otherwise it is all just words.

[AtomicKitten]

24. I completely agree, although that's a different issue. NT

[Dr Fate]

26. Wrong, eavesdropping issues will go before a packed court.

Not doing EVERYTHING you can to make a filibuster happen assures this.

They will roll out all of their excuses and keep pretending they are fighting.

[AtomicKitten]

29. It is a different issue but it has its ramifications down the line.

Let's wait and see if they filibuster or not. All this gnashing of teeth may be for naught. There still is hope.

[Dr Fate]

30. Sure, why not. n/t

n/t

[wordpix2]

52. Dr. Fate, I agree with you: It's time to FILIBUSTER & let your senators

know you mean business or the senators will be out of business in the U.S. Congress

[wordpix2]

51. I wrote and called Lieberman about this

[AtomicKitten]

27. A reminder to the self-identified "Hillary bashers" from DU

DU rules:

"You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website."


Keep up the caustic rhetoric. If she wins the nomination, it'll be pretty tough to back off, eh.

[VegasWolf]

31. A lot of us are not bashing Hillary, we simply won't vote for her if she

doesn't earn our vote. The republicans work for their base, they don't try to become democrats.

[IndianaGreen]

34. The only way Hillary can win is by getting enough votes from GOP voters

to compensate for the loss of progressive voters.

Who wants to go through another electoral debacle with a fatally flawed candidate?

[VegasWolf]

35. Not I, that's for sure. I won't vote for a pro-war candidate.

:toast:

[wordpix2]

55. fine, don't vote for her and don't bash: find a better candidate or run

for office yourself against Hil

[VegasWolf]

60. Okay, I won't vote for her. Actually, I will not vote for any

pro-oil-war politican.

[IndianaGreen]

33. DU rules don't apply to millions of non-DUers

that will never vote for a prowar candidate.

No matter what I say, or you say, or any other DUer says, there are millions of progressives that will never vote for Hillary Clinton. They all voted for Kerry in 2004 despite their own reservations about the Democratic nominee, but they went ahead anyway because of ABB.

There won't be an ABB in 2008.

[Robb]

39. I would disagree on the last point

ABB was a response to a terrible situation, where a tinhorn dictator took control of the country in a shady way.

Tinhorn still there, shadiness still there, situation actually worse. :shrug:

I can't imagine the GOP being bright enough to nominate a candidate that wouldn't hold over. AB-whoever. :shrug:

But I've been called many, many things. ;)

[wordpix2]

56. whose your miracle candidate? I like Obama, myself, but he's very green

as in inexperienced

[NoodleyAppendage]

42. Seeing how she is NOT the Dem nominee yet...you can just step off.

Hillary hasn't announced that she's even going to run in 2008, so your attempt at twisting the DU rules to enact CENSORSHIP doesn't fly.

JB

[gonzo8]

44. Then we better make sure Hillary is NOT the nominee in 08!

Lame attempt to try to stiffle the huge opposition to Hillary for national political office, Atomic Kitten. The fact is that Hillary has no credibility with progressives and is despised by the right. She would be a terrible nominee for president.

We need a leader that has the courage of his or her convictions BEFORE the polling data comes out. Give us Al Gore or Barbara Boxer or Russ Feingold. Hillary's three weeks late and on the wrong track on this issue ... this is illegal and demands impeachment, not typical carefully calibrate politican's double-speak!

[AtomicKitten]

45. welcome to DU -- and your very first post

During the 2000 campaign, the criticism of Gore was so harsh, according to the Weekly Standard, "If Gore walked on water, people would deride him for not being able to swim."

I see many parallels to that harsh criticism here regarding Hillary. She takes the brunt of all the yes votes on the Iraq Resolution, a horrendous mistake to be sure. But this single-minded focus on annihilating her in particular is, well, suspicious to say the least. It is over-the-top and for the most part unfair. She spoke out against Bush and was summarily dismissed because of the timing, wording, and tone of her statement.

Don't confuse attempts at reason with trying to stifle anything. I have been involved in politics for years and never shy away from a debate. However, inevitably the "progressives" as you have labeled them, although many others here that consider themselves to be progressive would not want to include themselves in the category you speak of, almost immediately resort to insults in an effort to squash debate.

I don't support Hillary, won't vote for her in the primary, but will support her if she is chosen by my fellow Democrats as the nominee for the Dem party. Pointing out DU's rules with regard to the discourse at that point is a reminder that in the event of her getting the nod, you and your "progressive" Hillary-haters will need to decide if you are going to continue your anti-Hillary campaign here at DU and risk being 86'd or take it elsewhere.

It's much easier to change course in one's life if you temper your statements with reason and civility. Just a thought.

On edit: I hope everyone works hard for their candidate of choice - mine is Al Gore. If we are successful, then all this gnashing of teeth will be moot.

[gonzo8]

46. No offence intended

AK: My intention was not to insult, and if my characterization of your previous post was offensive I apologize for it. I do feel strongly that Hillary personifies many of the things that are wrong with the Democratic party at the moment, in that her policy positions seem to be calculated, not principled. Why did it take her a month to take a stand on the NSA spying scandal and why has her response been so meek? Why start highlighting her religious beliefs suddenly after the 2004 elections? Why the sudden public revelation that every single abortion is "tragic". By the way, this subordination of her principles to her political ambition has gone on for years. A few years before she ran for Senate in New York, one day she suddenly woke up as a die-hard supporter of Israel, after years of sympathetic statements about the Palestinians. Coincidence?

I believe that we need somebody who will not compromise with the key principles at stake in our country today: separation of church and state, separation of powers, defense of the 4th amendment, getting money and special interest out of politics, and rebuilding Americas reputation and standing in the world through careful diplomacy. I do not believe Hillary is the right person for the job.

BTW, after that speech the other day, Al Gore certainly proved he is the guy! Go Al go!

[AtomicKitten]

47. We are in agreement.

I will add a few thoughts about Hillary: She is clearly being groomed for higher office by careful strategists and I agree her apparent right-turn is most repulsive. I worked for Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 president campaigns, and Hillary is at the core a very different person than the woman minding her Ps and Qs we see today. Some of the blame must lie with the adversarial media and Rovian dirty trick politics, however. If we don't win, we can't govern; it's as simple as that. Sometimes idealism must take a back seat to reality.

However, Hillary is not the antichrist. I am infinitely more po'd at Ben Nelson for voting with the Republicans over and over again. He's obviously the new Zell Miller.

I am a rabid Al Gore fan, I must admit. He has evolved into a populist reminiscent of Paul Wellstone, and I miss Paul Wellstone terribly. If Gore tossed his hat in the ring, I would be one happy camper.

It is my most fervent hope that we left-of-center can come together behind a candidate we can all endorse and that together we kick the ever lovin' shit out of the Republicans in 2006 and again in 2008.

[wordpix2]

58. Hi, Atomic K.: I totally agree with you and I like Pres. Al Gore, too

I woiuld work my tail off to get him elected!!!!

[AtomicKitten]

62. I do hope we get the chance! NT

[wordpix2]

57. Gore, Boxer, Feingold are all good candidates--I say, run them all for the

nomination and let the best man or woman win!!

[wordpix2]

53. thank you, Atomic Kitten, I feel the same way: stop bashing & go somewhere

else if you want to bash a good liberal stand-up-to-Bush Dem candidate

[IndianaGreen]

38. Let'scompare Hillary's statement to Russ Feingold's

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold
On the President’s Failure to Explain Why it is Necessary
to Violate the Law to Effectively Fight Terrorism

January 25, 2006

No Administration official who has publicly defended the NSA program in the last week, including the President, has explained why it is necessary to violate the law and the Constitution to effectively fight terrorism. Instead, the Administration has resorted to a public relations campaign, perhaps because it knows its legal arguments don’t stand up. The American people deserve an explanation of why this Administration decided to violate the law and insists on continuing to do so.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/01/20061255.html

Fact Sheet from Senator Russ Feingold
On the Administration's Wiretapping Program

January 11, 2006

Senator Feingold and members of Congress from both parties have expressed deep concern about the President authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap American citizens on American soil without a warrant. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order.

The government should wiretap suspected terrorists to protect our national security, but, in order to protect innocent people, a court should make sure that there is evidence indicating that the people being wiretapped might be terrorists. Below are facts about FISA, and about the Administration’s arguments in defense of the NSA’s wiretapping program:

On the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

It Is Illegal to Wiretap Without a Warrant or Court Order: The law is clear that the criminal wiretap statute and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.”

FISA Has an Emergency Exception: The Administration has indicated that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law. In fact, in an emergency where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be turned on immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. Prior to 2001, the emergency wiretap period was only 24 hours. The Administration requested and received the increase to 72 hours in intelligence authorization legislation that passed in late 2001.

FISA Provides for Wartime Situations: FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA necessitated by a wartime emergency.

The Administration Has Used FISA Thousands of Times Since 9/11: Administration officials have criticized FISA, but they have obtained thousands of warrants approved by the FISA court since 9/11, and have almost never had a warrant request rejected by that court.

On the Administration’s Arguments Defending the Wiretapping Program

Military Force Resolution Did Not Authorize Wiretapping: The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. There is no language in the resolution and no evidence to suggest that it was intended to give the President blanket authority to order these warrantless wiretaps.

In fact, Congress passed the Patriot Act just six weeks after September 11 to expand the government’s powers to conduct surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies. Yet the Administration did not ask for, nor did the Patriot Act include, any change to FISA’s requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the United States.

Prohibition on Wiretapping Limits Executive Power: The President’s assertion of inherent executive power is also wrong. The President has extensive authority when it comes to national security and foreign affairs, but given the clear prohibition in FISA, that authority does not include the power to wiretap American citizens on American soil without a warrant.

Executive Branch Review of Wiretapping Is Not Enough: The President has argued that periodic executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. But Congress when it passed FISA explicitly rejected the idea that the executive branch should be fully entrusted to conduct national security wiretaps on its own – a power that the executive had abused in the past. In addition, news reports indicate that NSA employees decide whose communications to tap. Low-level executive branch employees are no substitute for FISA Court judges.

Congress Did Not Approve This Program: While a handful of congressional leaders were informed about this program, some have said they were not given complete details and they were all prohibited from discussing what they were told with anyone, including other members of Congress. The fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, nor does congressional inaction constitute approval of the program when only a handful of members, at most, even knew about it.

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/releases/06/01/2006111.html

[wordpix2]

59. Russ's is short and to the point, Hil's is a treatise but lays out a legal

case.

Both did a good job. I am still open minded about which will be the best candidate. Let the best Dem win!!!

[rodeodance]

40. says Bush message amounts to "You're on your own."--I like the slogan.

Pointing the Democratic-leaning crowd to the president's State of the Union address on Jan. 31, she said his message amounts to "You're on your own."

"We are shifting costs and shifting risks on to individuals and families and local governments," Clinton said. "Mayors, you're on your own to protect citizens. Senior citizens who were promised a prescription drug benefit are on their own to figure out how to access the complicated and confusing program. Three-and-a-half million children who will be affected by cuts to Medicaid are on their own."

Claiming a piece of her husband's legacy, the former first lady said there was a budget surplus five years ago when
President Clinton was in the White House. "If we were a company or a household, we would have already filed for bankruptcy," she said of the nation's current fiscal condition.

She said money needed to fight and respond to terrorism has been denied states and cities. "The sense of urgency that marked the days and months following the 9/11 attacks has largely given way to politics as usual" in Washington, the senator said.

[WinkyDink]

43. "far-fetched"? Still mealy-mouthed!!!!!

It's ILLEGAL, Hillary.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Let's compare Hillary to Al Gore

What Al Gore’s speech reveals about the state of US politics

By Patrick Martin
26 January 2006

In the ten days that have passed since the January 16 speech delivered by Al Gore in Washington charging President Bush with trampling on the Constitution in his conduct of the “war on terror,” the former vice president has been alternately vilified, ridiculed or ignored. There has been little serious discussion of his criticisms of the Bush administration, however, outside of the World Socialist Web Site. (See: “Bush administration domestic spying provokes lawsuits, calls for impeachment,” January 18, 2006, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/bush-j18.shtml).

The substance of Gore’s speech was the most sweeping indictment of the Bush administration by any significant figure within the US ruling elite since Bush took office in 2001. He not only charged that the Bush White House seeks to exercise quasi-dictatorial powers over the American people, but he painted a picture of a judicial system and a Congress which are unwilling to challenge the presidential power-grab and uphold the traditional institutions of the American constitutional system, based on the separation of powers between Congress, the White House and the courts.

Such statements from such a source have extraordinary political significance. Gore is, after all, not an accidental figure in American politics. The son of a longtime senator from Tennessee, he was in turn a congressman, senator, vice president for eight years—during which he was played a central role in much of the policymaking of the Clinton administration—and then the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in 2000. He received more than 50 million votes in that election, beating Bush by 500,000 in the popular vote.

Now this representative of the highest level of the American ruling elite declares that “America’s Constitution is in grave danger,” and that democratic values “have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power.”

In the current exposure of illegal surveillance, Gore said, “What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently. A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/gore-j26.shtml

[wordpix2]

61. Al Gore is my candidate---"Our president" is the slogan