Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last?

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

The fact remains that both conclusions are reached via jumps in logic that are not supported by the evidence or at best very spotty evidence.

One group has come out and said it while the other has tried to be subtle and just implied it.. the practice is the exact same and both are dishonorable. Claiming that Bush has other countries and individuals benifit as a higher priority from american soldiers is tratiorious behaviour.

Your inability to recongize this is a sign of your rabid partisanship!

[Partha]

Carter was NOT a successful President. No one will deny that. Very few things that were done under his watch as President have any great meaning today, except for (I believe) the creation of the EPA.

That said, calling him a traitor? Off of a pair of uncorroborated documents in RUSSIAN files? Nah, that's just as ridiculous as Rathergate turned out to be.

[Relbeek Einre]

Uh, no, Rsak, that's absolutely wrong on just about all counts.

Your inability to recognize this is a sign of your rabid desire to bring me down!

[Sindarre]

Well I read through the article and if the conclusions made by the author of book quoted from are correct and the KGB papers he claims to have are authentic then the actions detailed within could very easily be considered treason.

Making a deal to use the power of the presidency to repay the russians, who at the time was a bitter and very real enemy, to increase your chances of winning an election appears to be treason to me. To go to the russians as a private citizen in 1984 to enlist their help in ousting Reagan, which is in effect enlisting help to install a democrat, appears to treason to me as well.

In my opinoin if the allegations prove to be true then It doesn't matter how many houses Carter has helped build for the poor. He is still a traitor to the country. I doubt, even if Carter confessed to such acts, he would be legally charged with treason however.

[Partha]

I also remember those charges that Reagan had people negotiating to hold the hostages in Iran until just after the election. I put no faith in THOSE, either.

[Relbeek Einre]

Yeah, what Partha said.

The book's a hit piece, Sindarre. It claims two Russian(!) documents with no corroboration, detailing a meeting with a third party, as its only evidence.

Horseshit and you know it Sindarre. This is nothing but a smear attack on an American who has served his country with honor.

[Sindarre]

Quite possibly Beeker. Sounds a lot like Rathergate to me. And I will go so far to say that although I don't agree with a lot of things Carter has done he did it for what he believed was right and did it with honor. Wonder if you would say the same about Bush.. nah that's pushing it And mine and Partha's posts were about 10 minutes apart... lot of hot and fast partisan action on this thread

[Rsak]

Relbeek your assertions that I am wrong do not make it so...

But you are welcome to prove that Farenheit 911 did not try to link Bush to Saudia Arabia and to Haliburton. You will be a fool to try to, but that is nothing new!

Those are the facts of the movie so you are welcome to try to prove otherwise!

[Relbeek Einre]

Oh, F9/11 DID link Bush to Saudi Arabia (both the house of Saud and the bin Laden family) and Halliburton - in fact, REALITY links them. But that doesn't make Bush a traitor, and that's different from him saying that the war in Iraq was solely to benefit the Saudis and Halliburton, which is what you originally asserted before your backpedal. Still a waterhead I see.

Sindarre:

Wonder if you would say the same about Bush..

Don't wonder. I wouldn't. But I admit it.

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

Get over the word traitor. The use or lack of use does not change the practices of both group being the same.

Funny that I can be absolutely wrong on just about all counts and then you support and verify the very facts I brought up. You are so lost in your hatred that you really can't see what you are doing . Your partisan double standard is comical!

[Relbeek Einre]

I wish I could say the same for you, Waterhead. Your weaseling and semantics to try REALLY REALLY HARD to not be wrong yet again have lost their humor value.

[Laylee]

Yeah, what Partha said.

The book's a hit piece, Sindarre. It claims two Russian(!) documents with no corroboration, detailing a meeting with a third party, as its only evidence.

Horseshit and you know it Sindarre. This is nothing but a smear attack on an American who has served his country with honor.

Beek,

I think your wife got tired of being downtrodden on and finally poisoned your coffee.

How is the above any different from what you posted below about "Rathergate"?

The NewsMax article above is echoed by a similar Freep article and is buzzing all about the right-wing blogosphere which is heady with the intoxication of having brought down Dan Rather. (It should be noted that the actual right wing blog that first pegged that infamous document as a forgery (if a factually accurate one) is not one of the main right-wing bloggers out there.... just some Atlanta lawyer who went by "Buckhead". )

It's okay to use evidence that isn't backed up (ala a "factually accurate" fake), but when it's your guy, anyone that has evidence pointing against him...well, that information can't be used. You can't play both sides of the fence and retain any type of credibility. Two real russian documents are better than one fake one, I would think

Laylee

[Relbeek Einre]

When I say "factually accurate", I mean the secretary who would have typed the memo had it been real has stated that she did type up a memo with essentially the same information that was on the forgery. And I'm also definitely NOT saying that the use of a forged memo was okay. It wasn't - and CBS took a shot to the gut for it, though too much of the blame fell on Rather's head. That said, the entire 60 Minutes Story did not rely on the forged memo - there was a lot in that story. So comparing the two is, while not entirely unfair, more apples to oranges than not.

And, of course, the veracity of the Russian documents has yet to be verified. And, considering one involved a man working for Carter bargaining for better treatment of Russian Jews in exchange for favorable consideration in return (ie, humanitarian negotiation), one could hardly say it's traitorous conduct anyway, unless pleading for the welfare of Russian Jews is somehow betraying the United States of America in your eyes.

I am puzzled, however, why you chose to hostilely invoke Mrs. Beek in your reply. Sand in your vagina, or just a thoughtless moment?

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

There is no weaseling. Moore's antics are just the same as this article that you decry. Your double standard makes you unable to see any evil from anyone on the left and nothing but evil from the right.

The only one trying to use semantics to win your poiintless fight is yourself. "But where did he say traitor?".. ."But he did not directly say that!"

You have zero creditiblity in your outrage with the blatent double standard that you are applying to those you like and dislike. Seeing how this is nothing new in your behaviour and nothing has shown you the light your petty arguing and outrage are meaningless!

[Relbeek Einre]

I would appreciate it, Rsak, if you continued your course of debate. Your idiocy makes Laylee's more effective arguments in the same vein as yours seem stupid by association.

[Partha]

I'd also love to know how the Soviets and Carter were supposed to be working together in 1980 after the history of what they did and said in 1979.

[Laylee]

I am puzzled, however, why you chose to hostilely invoke Mrs. Beek in your reply. Sand in your vagina, or just a thoughtless moment?

Nah, that was just a poke at Narith for talking about how all men keep their wives in the kitchen and pregnant. Not an actual poke at the real Mrs. Beek. My apologies.

Laylee

[Ddrak]

You're getting slow Beek. Even I got that joke, and my sense of humor is screwy.

Dd

[Relbeek Einre]

Oh, sorry, I represed the memory.

[Mukik]

one thing that I remember from jimmy's presidency

billy beer.