Hillary To Support FISA Filibuster; Oppose Iraq Funding

[William769]

Sen. Hillary Clinton☼ will support a filibuster on the upcoming FISA bill. "As matters stand now I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forth that would convince me differently."

Clinton today stated "I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by the recent legislation reported out of the Intelligence Committee. I haven't seen it so I can't express an opinion about it - but I don't trust the Bush administration with our civil rights and liberties."

This follows yesterday's vow to oppose Bush's new $196 billion Iraq war funding request. Hillary said she couldn't support any more funding without a commitment to bring the troops home. Other senators have been expressing outrage that the president is taking money from education and health programs and sending it to the disaster in Iraq.

"President Bush is once again asking Congress and the American people to foot the bill for his failed leadership," Clinton said.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011233.php

[rurallib]

1. "As the matter stands now" - just enough room to slip out through

Hillary, my friend, thanks for sort of joining up.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Good for Hill. Credit where credit due! I'm glad she's come around to Kucinich's point of view!

[karynnj]

10. As a definite non-Hillary fan, this comment is unfair

The bill is just out of the intelligence committee and I think is being looked at in the Judiciary committee, HRC is not on these committees, it says she hasn't read the bill, which may not even be in final format - and she is saying now that - as is- she won't support it. This is as early and as specific as the status of the bill warrants. How is this coming to Kuchinich's point of view?

[John Q. Citizen]

19. You may not be aware, but Kucinich has opposed funding the occupation for a

long time now, and he has encouraged others to vote against funding.

Also, Kucinich opposed the NSA warrentless spying on Americans and voted against retro-active immunity for bush a while back.

[karynnj]

23. The first vote on FISA was this August

and Hillary voted against it too - as did all the Democratic Presidential Senators. This was not about funding the war.

As I said I am not a Hillary fan, she is very low on my list - and there are enough things to criticize her on legitimately - why attack on something where she was ok.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Read the OP. It's about both funding the war and about immunity in the newest FISA

revamp.

I didn't attack her, what are you talking about? Are you tripping?

I said credit where credit is due.

[Benhurst]

3. Good.

But the devil is in the details. I hope she won't let us down on this one.

[Froward69]

4. Wait and see...

[rinsd]

5. I am very happy about this.

[spotbird]

6. She has not said she will

support the filibuster. She has only said she might, she might also support the legislation.

Unless there is a statement from her since the one you quote. It would be delightful to learn she has made firm intentions known.

[cali]

7. actually, this in not much different

from what Dodd is saying. They both hope that FISA's immunity for telecoms will be neutered in the JC.

[spotbird]

11. Except Dodd has promised

to block it and Hillary has not.

So other than stating a firm position vs. equivocation, their positions are identical. We agree.

[robinlynne]

14. Dodd and Kennedy and Feingold and Obama and Wyden and moveon and the ACLU

and moveon and actforchange.

[creeksneakers2]

20. Dodd is waiting it out too

Dodd's actions will depend on how the retroactive immunity issue comes out of the Judiciary Committtee and what actions Reid takes later. Hillary didn't have time to explain all that but this is from an E-mail from Dodd:

Let's get right to it and talk about how we stop retroactive telecommunications immunity from becoming law.

The way I see it, there are three ways to get this provision stripped from the final bill:

1.) The first step would be to make sure the idea doesn't make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- where it will be considered shortly.

If we can get it stripped there, it will have to be offered as an amendment to the overall bill where it will be a lot easier to get 41 votes against retroactive immunity than 41 to sustain my filibuster if necessary.

Take a moment and call up members of the committee, let me know what they said, and join others in tracking our progress in stopping the provision right there.

http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

The other two ways:

2.) If retroactive immunity does make it out of committee, Senate leadership can honor the hold I've placed on any legislation that includes retroactive immunity.

3.) If leadership does not honor my hold, I remain committed to filibustering, and working to get the 41 votes necessary to maintain it.

This has the potential to be a long fight -- so let's build a solid foundation for our effort today by asking members of the Judiciary Committee to vote against any FISA bill that includes retroactive amnesty.

[Larkspur]

8. Leading from the rear is Hillary's style

Still will have to wait and see if she will actually support Dodd's filibuster.

[spotbird]

12. Right,

I'm not sure why she made a statement at all, since she clearly hasn't decided what she will do.

[jefferson_dem]

17. We know why she made the statement...

To toss a bone "our" way. What lies around the corner though...is anybody's guess.

[rinsd]

21. Because Obama was right on it....after he got a call from MoveOn.

[DemFemme]

24. Obama was the first to get Dodd's back. Then came Biden, finally Hillary. n/t

[rinsd]

25. Wrong again!

It was Dodd, Biden, Richardson....then Obama.

http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071024/fisa_richardson_weighs_in_and_obama_steps_up

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200710190901DOWJONESDJONLINE000536_FORTUNE5.htm

[DemFemme]

28. Not according to TPM's Greg Sargent. In any case, Hillary followed Obama - again.

I didn't refer to Richardson because he has no pull in the Senate on a filibuster.

[rinsd]

29. Links are nice. If Greg Sargeant said it, let's see it.

"I didn't refer to Richardson because he has no pull in the Senate on a filibuster"

Its ok to admit you weren't aware of it. You don't have to rationalize.

[DemFemme]

30. He reported on Obama's decision days ago.

Go find it if you're that interested. As for Richardson (and Edwards and Kucinich, etc.), I consider him a non-factor in any
talk about Senate filibustering a FISA bill. It's ok to admit you didn't think of that. You don't have to be embarrassed. ;-)

[rinsd]

31. See how it works is when you make the assertion you provide the evidence.

Here's all the TPM articles on FISA

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/fisa/

[DemFemme]

32. Patronize much?

If you knew better, you'd know that Greg Sargent's reporting is constantly updated. He probably got
corrected by the Biden campaign. No matter, Hillary is still good at bring up the rear.

[rinsd]

33. Of course I'm patronizing to you.

Your tenuous grasp of facts and ridiculous assertions demand it.

"If you knew better, you'd know that Greg Sargent's reporting is constantly updated. He probably got
corrected by the Biden campaign."

Best rationalization yet!

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[rinsd]

35. Where did I lie?

I was simply owning up to patronizing you.

"I started a thread on it here and there was one over at dKos which referenced Sargent's words at the time. "

Here's the thread you posted which was fairly sloppily researched. You make assertions on the order putting Biden third even though there is no mention of him in either article you linked to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3639050

Here's Sargeant's earlier article dealing with MoveOn efforts to pressure Obama and Clinton

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/moveon_to_launch_campaign_pressuring_hillary_and_obama_to.php

MoveOn spokesman Adam Green tells me that the group will send out an email to "thousands" of its members tomorrow morning, and thousands more throughout the day, asking them to call the offices of Hillary and Obama and demand that they publicly affirm their support for Dodd.

"We'll be asking Obama and Clinton to publicly get Chris Dodd's back and say in a statement that they will explicitly support his hold and filibuster," Green tells me. "Pretty much this is the exact same ask made to Joe Biden in a Washington Post chat. The question was, Will you join Chris Dodd? He said Yes."

"now go and find another itch to scratch"

Sorry, I'm a dog with a bone over here.

[DemFemme]

36. Lather, rinsd, repeat: Sargent updates his text as warranted.

Funny how none of the posters on the thread objected to my references to what Sargent said, eh?

The dKos diary should still be there and in it, Biden is mentioned. Now, go gnaw on your bone.

[rinsd]

37. There was no updated text, it was an entirely different blog post.

Wrong yet again.....

"Funny how none of the posters on the thread objected to my references to what Sargent said"

Perhaps because they were unaware of what Sargeant said in a different post. Perhaps they were not aware of the timeline.

Just because you didn't get called out on your bs assertions the first time you uttered them does not grant them some air of credibility.

[Enrique]

9. she's not taking the nomination for granted

she's not foolish enough to start her general election campaign before the primaries are over.

[Ninja Jordan]

13. The majority party is threatening with filibusters. Funny.

Pretty ineffective.

[robinlynne]

15. You have no clue, do you? The filibuster is aboslutely the right thing to do.

Nothing funny about it. It should not come up for a vote. It is dangerous and would absolve the telecomms and Bush of thousands of felonies.

[Ninja Jordan]

16. I have a clue at how ineffective Congressional dems are.

Theyre the majority party, yet are having to fight off legislation with threatened filibusters? wow.

[robinlynne]

18. Reid, Feinstein, and the dlc all want to push the bill through.

[creeksneakers2]

22. Typical

Good news about Hillary is always dismissed by her critics. "Its not clear enough","she won't do what she promises", etc. Nothing is good enough for her critics.

[William769]

38. Would you expect anything else from this place?

[calteacherguy]

27. Good! My support for her just went up a notch! ntt

[w4rma]

39. Interesting. Good. Her position on outsourcing is my problem with her, though. (nt)