Yes, it is rather a double standard. We all know how much we can't trust General Hayden, especially regarding security matters and casting drift nets over cities (capturing communications or conversations). And he has much more reason to lie to the American people about those things, than he does about his sex life with interns.

Unbelieveable!

Are you honestly comparing these two situations?

On the one hand, a guy who carefully states himself in unambiguous terms (which was then completely mischaracterized by Wyden, trying to blur the careful distinction) to Clinton who under oath tried to claim multiple meanings of the word "is?"

You really think Reinhard is using a double standard here?

Reinhard defended Hayden, who said what he meant and meant precisely what he said by using the word "communications" to describe one thing and "conversations" to describe quite another. He was being specific and clear, and it was WYDEN who tired to blur the distinction.

Reinhard criticised Clinton, who tried to dissemble on the meaning of the word "is."

This is entirely consistent - not a double standard at all.

Are you too dense to see this, or is the reasoning beyond your capabilities?

I love the spectacle of Wyden, whose 30 year record of voting to weaken the military and oppose every use of American military power, having been proven wrong time and time again-- a guy with the weakest record imaginable on national security issues, has the audacity to sit there and say he questions HAYDEN's credibility!!!!

Wyden has no credibility whatsoever on military issues. He is completely and reliably wrong on every single military issue. What a farce!

A little history (remember, Al Gore never said he invented the internet, but he was tagged with it...)

Clinton was asked why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." Clinton said: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, "There is no improper relationship." That was true.

Is means one thing. Was means another. Ask your mama.

Was that clear? Er, is that clear? Are we clear?

And I'd rather our government be probing with permission than probing without. Clinton's one. Bush is another.

"Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, "There is no improper relationship." That was true."

Yep. Both Bill and Monica (and I think Hillary too, but I am not sure) also believe that to be true. The relationship was not improper. It might have been immoral, and illegal in many (non-USA) countries, totally outrageous, but not improper. In fact, if you believe the tapes, Monica gave Bill oral sex the proper way, on her knees, in the Oval Office. I fail to see anything improper, past, present, or future tense, in that scenario.

But what Gen. Hayden did, that was just plain wrong!

Sasha, are you saying that as long as a Republican is true to his wife and never says "depends on what the definition of is, is" that there is nothing he does that should be investigated?

But in 2006, you are still using Clinton in a debate about what Bush has done.

That just re-inforces the cynics who said "the Republicans have so much trouble taking responsibility for their actions that if 90 US Senators were Republican they'd blame whatever went wrong on the other 10 Senators who are Democrats.

There are Republicans who understand this (I think L. Graham is one) and are saying to their fellow Republicans, "Hey guys, we control everything, and if we mess up voters are not going to blame the minority party--they are going to blame the people in control".

1986 was a lot like that. Republicans didn't have a positive agenda, just said everything would go wrong if Democrats won elections. Democrats took over the Senate that year.

If Republicans don't have solutions and have to reach back into the "blame Clinton" bag of tricks, truly it is time for them to turn power over to someone else--Independents for all I care.

During his lsat term, I often felt Senator Wyden attempted to be bi-partisan too much of the time. He made several votes with the republicans I questioned but none the less he did a more than adequate job. This term, his job performace can only be described as way above average .... when it comes to defending the constitution and the bill of rights, Senator Wyden has done Oregon proud!

And lets face it, to be criticized by the likes of Rheinhard is a good thing.

sasha wrote <quote>I love the spectacle of Wyden, whose 30 year record of voting to weaken the military and oppose every use of American military power, having been proven wrong time and time again-- a guy with the weakest record imaginable on national security issues, has the audacity to sit there and say he questions HAYDEN's credibility!!!!

Wyden has no credibility whatsoever on military issues. He is completely and reliably wrong on every single military issue. What a farce!</quote>

You speak of weakening the military. At this point in time it is the weakest it has ever been. In fact it is broken. Overextended troops, multiple deployments, lack of replacement parts, inadequate logistical support, recruitment in the toilet, and the list goes on. This is all on the Boy King's watch. I have a nephew stationed in Afghanistan with the 10th Mountain Div. They have only 16 helicopters to support his brigade and they are all worn out. The useless advanced weapon systems the Pentagon continues to trot out in its continued effort to line the pockets of the defense industry do nothing to advanace the needs of the grunt at the tip of the spear.

And how about the Veterans Administration? Completely underfunded. Have you written to your elected representative demanding that the VA be fully funded?

Wyden has no credibility whatsoever on military issues? As if Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld and the rest of this administration has a clue? The old military anacronym FUBAR describes these guys to a "T". If you don't what it means, here's the definition, FUCKED UP BEYOND ALL RECOGNITION.

Until we reduce the obscene spending on the War budget (I refuse to call it a defense budget), and hold the perpetrators of this ongoing clusterfuck responsible for their treasonous activities, we will continue to have our resourses sucked into the black hole of war, leaving a leagacy of death and destruction for our future generations to pay for. It cannot be stated any better than what Dwight D. Eisenhower said on April 16, 1953,

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies-in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Or as General Douglas MacArthur observed,

The next great advance in the evolution of civilization cannot take place until war is abolished.

So take your critque of Wyden's positions on national security and military issues and place them where the Sun don't shine. War is obsolete.

BOHICA US Army 1967-1970 RVN 1968-69

"War is obsolete."

<h2>Yep. It is all about Jihad now. Forget the Geneva Convention. Forget the civilians (who are really terrorists). No holds are barred. War is so yesterday. Today is all about 9-11 and Islam. You either convert to the True Path...Ala akbar... or you get to die.</h2>