Would Hillary be "Shocked" to hear about Bill's eavesdropping, too?

What’s up with Hillary Clinton?

For months we hear hardly a peep from the liberal Senator from New York, but this past week she made the national news nearly every day for bashing President Bush.

Today she attacked the President for his eavesdropping policies calling his explanations “strange” and “far-fetched”:


“Their argument that it’s rooted in the authority to go after al-Qaida is far-fetched,” she said. “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.

She made the allegations today as if she knew nothing of her husband’s warrentless searches during his time in the White House.

But, then again, she was “shocked” when she found out her husband had been cheating on her. She was “shocked” when she heard about her brother receiving $400,000 for brokering presidential clemency deals with the White House during her husband’s years in office. Hillary was “shocked” to hear of the suicide death of Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. The White House Travel Office was “shocked” for the way they were treated during Travelgate. So maybe this is just a bit more of “shocking” news for the New York Senator from Arkansas.

Hear is one of the many mentions documented on her husband’s eavesdropping:

Clinton’s desire for far-reaching eavesdropping authority is amply documented. In his first term, his administration was the most wiretap-friendly in history. In 1995, it set a record for the most crime-related wiretaps in a year (a record it is bound to break this year) and for the most “national security” wiretaps without establishing probable cause of a crime. For the first time, federal agents conducted more wiretaps than the police in the 50 states combined.

And the administration’s infatuation with wiretapping is only the tip of a deep and nasty iceberg. Set it beside the Digital Telephony Act and Clippers I, II, and III – all designed to make the digital world even more prone to listening in than the analog one. And beside Filegate – in which the White House and FBI passed around the confidential records of hundreds of ex-government employees as if they were copies of The Washington Post. What you end up with is an administration that has been, in the words of the ACLU’s main privacy specialist, Donald Haines, “systematically privacy-insensitive.”

The Anchoress breaks down the hidden truths on Hillary from the Gallup poll today.

You Might Like