Because he's running for President.
No spine. Wants the press to like him. You name it.
If Brownback has questions about whether this was followed, he is on the right track.
Do they really think turning on the President will get them elected? RINOs are fools.
Oh good, another backstabber. It would appear that the Republicans might well find themselves in the minority after the elections this fall. To be honest, I'm really not going to miss them very much. They are mushy, jellyfish and at times I am thinking we will be better off without this bad crop. We'll stage a comeback based on solid conservative values and just move on.
Brownback was a true gem in the rough: solid on terrorism and defense, strong on abortion, strong on Israel. Now he comes out with this crap? I know at least 6 people who gave him donations who would now never do so again. By joining with the traitors, Brownback can kiss his political future goodbye.
This actually sounds like a veiled threat. If congress were half as invested in cutting pork and taxes as they are trying to wrest power from the executive branch, we'd all be a lot better off. As it is, the damfools are likely to help get a lot of innocent people killed.
You're stepping in it Brownback. Better wipe the manure off your shoes before you leave a track of it that you won't be able to get rid of.
and this is BREAKING NEWS?!
CALLIING MODERATOR!!
Fugetabout whether he is on or off the reservation. He comes across as a whiny, milquetoast speaker with a monotone voice. Can't be elected prez. imo
Maybe he has Cowering Republican Senator syndrome wherein he runs to the microphone to distance himself from the President when Old Media is pushing some concocted scandal.
This statement is positively stupid. It totally contradicts itself. I suspect this is another case of the "journalists" misreporting what Brownback said. I bet the actual quote doesn't say this at all. Notice the "Report" is TELLING us what Brownback said, NOT actually QUOTING Brownback. My guess is Brownback, being the good little careerist Senator he is, said things to try and be on BOTH sides of the issue at the same time.
Lets be fair here.Since the MSM isn't going to report it then we should..I am sick and tired of these dems and these RINOS..Please read this..
Clinton NSA Wiretapped Top Republican
During the 1990's under President Bill Clinton, the National Security Agency conducted random telecommunications surveillance of millions of phone calls daily under a top secret program known as Echelon.
But according to at least two people familiar with the spy operation at the time, some of the surveillance was far from indiscriminate.
In a February 2000 interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," NSA operator Margaret Newsham revealed that the agency's listening post in Great Britain was involved in monitoring the phone calls of at least one top Republican on Capitol Hill.
Questioned by "60 Minutes" interviewer Steve Kroft, Newsham recalled how she learned of the illegal surveillance:
"I walked into the office building and a friend said, 'Come over here and listen to--to this thing.' And he had headphones on, so I took the headphones and I listened to it, and I looked at him and said, 'That's an American.' . . .
Ms. Newsham remembered, "It was definitely an American voice, and it was a voice that was distinct. And I said, 'Well, who is that?'
"And he said it was Senator Strom Thurmond."
Until his retirement from the Senate in 2002, Thurmond was a frequent critic of the Clinton administration, who played a leading role in the 1998 impeachment drama - though there's no known connection to the decision to wiretap the South Carolina conservative.
During the same program, however, Kroft consulted with Mike Frost, who worked for Canada's version of the NSA for 20-years.
Asked if it was commonplace for the NSA to monitor the phone calls of top U.S. politicians, Frost told CBS: "Of course it goes on. Been going on for years. Of course it goes on. That's the way it works."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/111205.shtml
"I do not agree ... that when the Congress gave the authorization to go to war that that gives sufficient legal basis for the surveillance," ... if the justification holds up, "you're going to have real trouble having future Congresses giving approval to presidents to go to war."
In other words, he's saying that if Congress perceives a president as stretching a resolution too far, it'll change Congress attitude about crafting and granting them. He's basically saying that he didn't have "extension of FISA" in mind when he signed on to the AUMF.
Brownback said he wasn't opposed to the administration conducting surveillance but that the legal basis had to be straightened out.
Is this an "off the reservation" attitude? The premise (which we don't have precise facts to gauge) was "Bush has confirmed that he approved allowing the National Security Agency to monitor Americans without seeking warrants."
More of the same from the lame senate BUMP!
Reporters have a way of asking questions designed to get the answer they are looking for. Then, they report it in ways that create a false impression. I seriously doubt Senator Brownback has this position, or will once he clarifies what he was talking about.
RINO? I hardly think so. Brownback is far more conservative than President Bush. He is merely making headlines in advance of his run for the Presidential nomination in 2008.
Could it be that polls in KS don't support this spying? Cheney has said that spying saves lives. Maybe that could be the GOP mantra: "Spying Saves Live!"
"Senator: Bush's spying raises concerns"
But when Clinton did it, well, that was okay.
Through almost every war there are questions that arise about Constitutional Rights vs. Constitutional Obligations of the Executive. The manner which these conflicts have always been solved is the Judiciary refuses to strip the President of any war time authority and at the same time tells the congress that if they don't like something change the law or make the law more specific. As for the congressional lawyers speaking out, they never said the President broke the law but as representatives for their client, congress, they tell them they have the upper hand the same way the Executive lawyers are telling the Executive they have the upper hand. None the less, all these stories by the LSM are designed to take the attention off of the Slimes and Traitor who gave them the scoop that this was happening and make it a "Whistle-Blowers" case where this type of case can't even remotely exist.