So, wouldn’t they have already known about the use of water boarding, and its frequency? Obviously, they should have known, the question is did they, and what could they publicaly state knowing.

I hear conflicting information on this, so I blame the committees as much as I blame the administration. Once again, exactly what was known, approved of, etc., is being deliberately manipulated for partisan purposes. By whom is not altogether clear. If it was secret, and the committees were happy with what was going on, then it is they who deserve the lion share of the blame if things they didn’t want going on were going on. The administration could help here by being straight with us, and very publicly, about what the relevant committees were briefed on. That they have not feeds my suspicion that they did not fully brief the committees. I really just don’t know, if anyone can shed some more light on this, please do.

Serving people…

mmmm, people.

Oh, sorry, my lizardness was coming out there for a second.

I would suggest the scale and actual intimidation factor was far higher then, but I think that is a very valid observation. Thus I don’t want to vote either. In fact, I haven’t voted for either party for some time. I don’t mind your complaint here, it is mine as well, I just like it in context, as you have just done.

By the way, I think that applies to the waterboarding and interrogation issue as well. While I have lost patience with those who have used incomplete information to further their partisan ends, that does not mean we should be happy that so little about what is being done in our name is available for us, or our representatives, to observe or have input into. It has also allowed misinformation to be all that we have to go on. Even what we have heard we cannot trust. I don’t find it unusual or unique, but as you say, that hardly justifies it.

Correct, and to a certain extent what we ought to expect. Although I thought there were committees that oversee the secret operations of the executive branch. So, wouldn’t they have already known about the use of water boarding, and its frequency? Obviously, they should have known, the question is did they, and what could they publicaly state knowing.

On the other hand, when you enter a fight with one hand publicaly tied behind your back, you are at a disadvantage. I want terrorists to fear what we might do to them, even if we never do it to them. I know the arguments about torture not giving reliable evidence, but from what I understand, we are doing our best to verify any info we gain this way.

Like saying, nukes/invasion/carpet bombing are off the table with regards to _____(any autocratic/theocratic state.) They ought to be worried we’ll go that far, if pushed that far. Of course, then you get into the chicken and the egg problem of escalating arms.

Is Iran developing offensive capabilities as a result of our not taking violence off the table, or would they still do that because Israel, Pakistan and India have the capability, and they don’t want to be the weak ones in that neck of the woods. Are we just a convenient excuse for their actions?

I would, however, say that the majority of missionaries are generally not assholes

That is certainly my experience.

Serving people with no expectation of reward, simply because they are worth serving (in my view, simply because they are people created by God, and therefore of infinite value), is to me the height of honor.

Something to keep in mind even when they are being boors. Well put.

I would, however, say that the majority of missionaries are generally not assholes, and do truly care about the people they live with, regardless of their ultimate decisions on religion (I also found this in Kazakhstan, and they are a credit to the cause). Serving people with no expectation of reward, simply because they are worth serving (in my view, simply because they are people created by God, and therefore of infinite value), is to me the height of honor.

So which is worse? Open extra-Constitutional meddling, or quiet behind-the-scenes extra-constitutional meddling? I know I tend to prefer the devil I know, but I’ve also slowly realized I hold unconventional views on these things.

I would suggest the scale and actual intimidation factor was far higher then, but I think that is a very valid observation. Thus I don’t want to vote either. In fact, I haven’t voted for either party for some time. I don’t mind your complaint here, it is mine as well, I just like it in context, as you have just done.

By the way, I think that applies to the waterboarding and interrogation issue as well. While I have lost patience with those who have used incomplete information to further their partisan ends, that does not mean we should be happy that so little about what is being done in our name is available for us, or our representatives, to observe or have input into. It has also allowed misinformation to be all that we have to go on. Even what we have heard we cannot trust. I don’t find it unusual or unique, but as you say, that hardly justifies it.

No worries – I didn’t mean to imply that you did. They were my value judgments, not yours

Thanks for linking to my posts on the international responses to the martial law in Pakistan. But I’d like to clarify that I did not intend to pass value judgments on either the Indian or the US reactions.