How the hell did this guy get access to write for the National Review???

And not only that ... but his argument is reasonable!

Quote:One must...ask the conductors of the chorus chanting "Death to Snowden" why they prefer to have the analyst talking to Russia, Iran, and North Korea rather than to Congress. Is it because the NSA regards the holders of America's purse strings as the greater threat? If so, it would appear that the agency's leadership has misplaced its priorities.

On the other hand, Snowden may be lying, or grossly exaggerating, in his accusations of deeply subversive anti-constitutional actions by the NSA. If so, he has done real harm to American freedom by chilling the public with unnecessary fear of a nonexistent panopticon state. Such falsehoods therefore need to be refuted. The NSA has issued denials. Unfortunately, however, because the agency previously lied to Congress and the public about the very existence of the domestic-spying program, those denials have no credibility. If the NSA is now being truthful, it needs to establish that by taking Snowden on in open confrontation.

Snowden and NSA leaders should be brought together face-to-face for questioning in public by a congressional investigatory committee, with both parties allowed to make their points and to counter the assertions of the other. If Snowden is lying, it will come out. If the NSA is lying, it will come out. If either refuses to appear, that party will be discredited.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/35...ert-zubrin

Read that this morning and my first thought was that it was a well reasoned argument.

GTS, I have tried to tell you before... National Review has always been open to libertarian points-of-view, from the time of its founding in 1955 up until at least 5-6 years ago. I haven't read as much NR lately, but there's no reason to think it's basic outlook has changed.

Buckley had some very strong libertarian leanings (favored legalized drugs, for one thing), and NR has always tread the path between conservative and libertarian.

(08-08-2013 02:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Buckley had some very strong libertarian leanings (favored legalized drugs, for one thing), and NR has always tread the path between conservative and libertarian.

We need a conservative like William F. Buckley to off set the caricature of conservatism offered by Cruz, Bachman, Perry...

(08-08-2013 02:47 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  We need a conservative like William F. Buckley to off set the caricature of conservatism offered by Cruz, Bachman, Perry...

What good would that do?

The Peanuts of Buckley's time despised him just as the Peanuts of today despise Cruz, Bachman, Perry, etc.

(08-08-2013 02:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Buckley had some very strong libertarian leanings (favored legalized drugs, for one thing)

And not just at the end of his life, either. He was explicitly in favor of decriminalizing possession of most controlled substances as far back as 1970.

Quote:NR has always tread the path between conservative and libertarian.

That trail -- combining the best of two similar but different strands of anti-statist points-of-view -- was blazed most clearly by the writings of Frank S. Meyer (1909-1972). Meyer was a key member of NR's editorial team from the beginning. More than anyone else, he argued that libertarians and "traditionalists" needed to make common cause to defeat the Left. That was true 50 years ago and it's true today.

(08-08-2013 03:06 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 02:47 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  We need a conservative like William F. Buckley to off set the caricature of conservatism offered by Cruz, Bachman, Perry...

What good would that do?

The Peanuts of Buckley's time despised him just as the Peanuts of today despise Cruz, Bachman, Perry, etc.

They hated William F. Buckley because he was the smartest man in the room. They hate Ted Cruz for grandstanding and inflammatory and foolish rhetoric. His line of questioning to Chuck Hagel (a man that served proudly) was embarrassing as he inferred with no reason that Hagel had received hundreds of millions from North Korea with one of those some have said type statements. He asked Secretary Clinton about secret arms sales to Syria based on a report from Glen Beck. He's not ready for prime time and will flame out far before he is.