(Cross-posted from Redstate)

With Hillary Clinton the seemingly inevitable Democrat presidential nominee, conservatives are going to have to start reminding people just how bad "that woman" is.

The good news? There is quite a bit of material to work with. Like this article in The Hill by Alex Bolton. He is writing about a new book by Don Van Natta, Jr., and Jeff Gerth, a current and a former New York Times reporter, respectively. Excerpts:

“Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.

“The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill. Bill’s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions."

So she listens in on the conversations of her political enemies? But the CIA better not listen in to the conversation of America’s enemies. Oh no, that’s a violation of their rights!

In August, Clinton voted against an emergency law that temporarily expanded the government’s power to conduct surveillance on American soil without a warrant. The bill was criticized for being overly broad and sidelining the role of a special court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

You can see how she could be a change candidate. In her strange world, there probably isn’t enough hypocrisy and venality in Washington. And she actually could change that.

Categories:

2 Comments

neil · October 16, 2007 at 11:22 AM

How can you be so sure that the CIA only wants to spy on “America’s enemies?” There’s no reason to be credulous on that point, and a lot of reason not to — they always had the capability to get warrants to spy on “America’s enemies,” even after the fact. Thus, the only reason they would want to spy without warrants is that they want to spy on people who they couldn’t get warrants against. Since you seem to acknowledge in your post that you believe there are people who it would be inappropriate to spy on, I don’t see why you’d think unfettered spying could be anything but a bad thing. Especially when it’s a tool that could easily fall into the hands of Hillary Clinton.

tomwatson · October 16, 2007 at 5:28 PM

eye – based on your other posts, I expected better – this kind of talk is just lame and hackneyed:

“…just how bad “that woman” is.”

and

“…In her strange world, there probably isn’t enough hypocrisy and venality in Washington.”

C’mon, that’s pure laziness. You’re using the cartoonish, pathetic, caricature of the Senator. Go after her on policy if you’re a conservative. But these kinds of phrases are an embarassment to you. Thought you were the thinking conservative!

Comments are closed.