Bill Clinton: There Should Be "Explicit Rules" to Spying on World Leaders

And the rest of us?



The NSA may be bugging Bill Clinton.

From USA Today:

Former President Bill Clinton says he has "serious reservations" about spying on other world leaders, an issue that has triggered some global criticism of President Obama.

"I think there ought to be very explicit rules on listening in on conversations of world leaders," Clinton said in an interview on the Fusion network.

Clinton did not talk about what kind of rules, if any, he'd like to see on surveillance of Americans' communications, and claimed the government didn't have the technical ability to conduct the surveillance operations during his administration that it does now. He also pointed out some foreign governments complaining about US surveillance were doing the same, or gave the US permission to operate in their countries.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at and tweet us at @reason247.

NEXT: Kennedy, Matt Welch, Kmele Foster to Launch New Nightly Fox Business Show Called The Independents

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Maybe start with explicit rules for spying on citizens before world leaders, you clown.

    1. What do you expect from a guy who argued that being President excluded him from federal sexual harassment law?

  2. Because World Leaders are Important People.

  3. More government to govern governments who spy on governments!!!

  4. I know, how about they get a warrant?

    1. Why, that’s crazy talk! If the government had to obey the law, how in the world would the build the ROADZ?


  5. William Clinton NSA Incident Log – 2013 December 2

    Incident 459-XB
    90 minutes of slurping sounds followed by a toilet being flushed 7 times.

    Incident 462-XB
    Clinton eats fried chicken again for lunch. The bones were collected and will be sent for analysis. Has conversation on untraceable cellular phone with unsub. Transcript follows:

    Clinton: Hello?

    Clinton: Well, hey there darlin’. You coming up to to see me this afternoon?

    Clinton: What do you mean you talked to [name redacted]? You know that girl is just a liar. She’s been lyin’ on me for years.

    Clinton: You need to calm down, baby. I am not seeing that girl no more, and anyone that says different didn’t used to be president. OK. OK. OK. OK. OK. I’ll do that. OK.

    Clinton: Bitch hung up on me.

    [unknown vibratory noise for next 46 minutes]

    Incident 468-XB
    Clinton sleeps for 94 minutes. Mutters “Bitch” in his sleep 14 times, wakes up screaming “BILARY!”

    Incident 472-XB
    Text message to [number redacted]: sup girl you ready for tonight

    Reply: whoisthis???

    Reply: bill

    Reply: u got wrong #

    Reply: send me a pic and ill c how worng
    Reply: u there
    Reply: no pics???!?!?!??
    Reply: unfollow me on twtter u diktease

    Incident 494-XB
    Clinton leaves office for the night. No coverage for next 9 hours.

    1. I’m assuming they only keep the past two week’s worth because it’s always the same, right?

    2. Brilliant. I knew there was a reason we kept you around, you sugar-hating deviant.

  6. You know who else enjoyed explicit rules?

    1. Pythagoras?

      1. Fuck him and the isosceles triangle he rode in on.

        1. told ya

  7. “But I’m all for the NSA spying on hot chicks and love interests”, said the former president.

  8. Fuck the NSA, fuck Clinton (both of them), fuck Obama, fuck the Senate, fuck the House, and fuck the foreign governments cooperating with the US on spying.

  9. Hey Bill, let’s work on that whole “not committing perjury in front of a congressional investigation whilst President” thingy first, and then maybe we will take your recommendations under consideration.

    Seriously, how come anyone still listens to this lying serial adulterer?

    I don’t get it.

  10. The Nation is selling Che Guevara finger puppets.

    But don’t you dare call them communists!

    1. You know who else with a background in medicine used it to serve the ill intent of a national leader…

      1. Dr. Peter Bourne?

      2. Dr. Max Jacobson?

    2. But they also have an Emma Goldman puppet.

      1. They are so pretentious it’s hysterical.

        Nothing says ‘I am a progressive’ like putting sockpuppets of various highbrow philosophers in your gift shop while simultaneously not being intellectually capable of actually reading them.

        I’d love to know what percentage of The Nation employees have actually read Kierkegaard.

        I especially love that they have a fucking Lao Tzu puppet. Given that he had ideas that would today be considered borderline anarchist, I don’t know how modern authoritarian liberals could put him on their site unless they don’t know what he actually believed.

        1. Holy balls, those ARE pretentious.

          Wittgenstein, what?

        2. Hmm, no Lysander Spooner. Color me shocked.

          1. Of course not. They only like anarchists that promote violence.

            I’d be interested in knowing how many Nation readers have read Arendt, even just Eichmann in Jerusalem. My guess is: none.

            1. That jumped out at me too. Arendt, Lao Tzu and Kierkegaard are all people with views that would put them FAR outside of the modern left.

              The only way a glorified Democratic Party organ like the nation could sell puppets of them is if they didn’t know what any of them stood for.

              1. Sometimes the degree to which they expose themselves as completely vapid poseurs takes my breath away. The only way you could be that pathetically obvious is if you’re mind-numbingly stupid. I mean, what if they buy a Kierkegaard doll and put it on their fridge and a guest goes “hey, you like Kierkegaard? Are you religious too?” and they haven’t read it? How stupid can you look?

                It’s like having posters for Kurasowa or Bergman movies on your dorm room wall when you haven’t seen a single one of their films. I mean, come on. At least put up a poster from something you’ve seen, or even seen part of.

              2. What this really needs is someone making merchandise featuring those same people mocking The Nation’s writers for not adhering to what those what was written in their works. Show how absurd some of it is (Guevara, Goldman), or how what they wrote is wildly different from what the Nation finds acceptable (Kierkegaard, Lao Tzu).

                I’d give an example but I’m not familiar with their works myself.

                1. Just about any quote from Kierkegaard would work.

                  God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners.

                  If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

                  Yeah. I’m sure Katrina Vanden Heuvel whispers such sentiments to herself as she goes to sleep.

        3. That’s fucking hilarious. They don’t even know that Kierkegaard was a proponent of pure faith (in his case, faith in God)? They just hear the name and go “famous philosopher, yeah, that makes me smart!”

          Maybe they do, though, since they’re entirely faith-based themselves. But I don’t think they’d see the irony.

          1. My stupid bitch of an ex and her stupid cunt of a mother used to sit around the table and “talk philosophy” by namedropping…and mommy dearest has a Ph.D. in philosophy.

            Yeah, they’re both liberal douche nozzles too…but I’m not bitter.

    3. You’d think that like many of their other heroes (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro), they’d drop the Che shit since he’s tarnished beyond belief just like the others, but for some reason they can’t. They lurve him too much. I’m trying to figure out why, and I can’t. I mean, of all the scum listed above, he was the least successful, the least influential, and he managed to get himself killed like a ‘tard. Even Trotsky managed to be important to his cause before he got an ice pick to the head.

      1. mean, of all the scum listed above, he was the least successful, the least influential, and he managed to get himself killed like a ‘tard.

        You just answered your own question. Che was batshit insane, he would have started World War III if it meant wiping out the US with nukes.

        But the fact that he died young and with little accomplishments means that he doesn’t have a Great Leap Forward or Year Zero to tie him with.

        Instead he’s a youthful symbol of revolt who was snuffed out by the imperialist CIA. Think of him like a communist JFK: if he had not of died young he would have liberated all of South America and there would be a socialist paraiso in Latin America.

        1. Che was also a suave, relatively good looking man who smoked cigars and grew a sketchy beard.

          He has a lot of aspects to his personality and look that paly into left-wing identity politics.

          1. So in other words, he was all appearances and words, and his actions were ignored. Sounds like…always with TEAM BLUE. What a surprise.

            1. The Nation have found a bunch of self-obsessed morons who will buy anything deemed to be on message. Very profitable line of business, good for them.

          2. And the parts that don’t parlay into left-wing identity politics are ignored: like how he was a racist and a homophobe with a Messiah complex that came from his privileged background as the son of wealthy Argentinians.

  11. “I think there ought to be very explicit rules on listening in on conversations.” Shoulda stopped right there, Slick Willy.

  12. Good Lord, this again? All governments spy on all other governments, or at least they try to the best of their capability. Allies, foes, does not matter. It is one of the many predictable things that governments do. Nice of old Bill to point out some of the whiners were doing exactly the same thing, with or without consent of the target.

  13. “I think there ought to be very explicit rules on listening in on conversations of world leaders,” Clinton said

    Sheesh, Bill, there *are* explicit rules. They’re just unwritten and change from time to time.

    1. One rule – Don’t get caught

  14. This is absurd. It is the business of our intelligence agencies to spy on foreign governments, ally or enemy. I am completely fine with that, and I cannot see how that is in any way a scandal. Embarassing yes, a scandal, no. It is up there with reporting the president’s bowel movements… everyone knows they occur, but no one really talks about it. The real scandal is domestic spying, but the political class seems far more butt-hurt that one of their own was spied on than some poor slob who works for a living. Can we please get out the pitchforks, torches, and the national razor now?

  15. Any foreign leader, any time. Done.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.