Scumbag. <_<
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
QuoteTed Kennedy's Soviet Gambit
Peter Robinson, 08.28.09, 12:01 AM EDT
Considering the late senator's complete record requires digging into the USSR's archives.
Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
"On 9-10 May of this year," the May 14 memorandum explained, "Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow." (Tunney was Kennedy's law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) "The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov."
Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."
Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
First he offered to visit Moscow. "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. "A direct appeal ... to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. ... If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. ... The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side."
Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time--and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.
Kennedy's motives? "Like other rational people," the memorandum explained, "[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations." But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy's motives.
"Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988," the memorandum continued. "Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president."
Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov--the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring--at least in part to advance his own political prospects.
In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian's story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. "The media," Kengor says, "ignored the revelation."
"The document," Kengor continues, "has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I've ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy's office did not deny it."
Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum--within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead--and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator's opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure--perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day--we need to consider his record in full.
Doing so, it turns out, requires pondering a document in the archives of the politburo.
When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov. On the Cold War, the greatest issue of his lifetime, Kennedy got it wrong.
Peter Robinson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a former White House speechwriter, writes a weekly column for Forbes.
Apaling!
Can you at least take the time to edit the article so it doesn't contain all those link texts etc. next time? Thanks.
People wanted to sit down and negotiate with the Soviets as Reagan's bellicosity provoked fears of armageddon? how dare they?
Quote from: Zanza on August 29, 2009, 02:40:43 PM
Can you at least take the time to edit the article so it doesn't contain all those link texts etc. next time? Thanks.
Sorry, I usually catch that. :blush:
Quote from: Faeelin on August 29, 2009, 02:41:07 PM
People wanted to sit down and negotiate with the Soviets as Reagan's bellicosity provoked fears of armageddon? how dare they?
What the hell are you talking about?
Liberals know their own.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2009, 03:02:21 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 29, 2009, 02:41:07 PM
People wanted to sit down and negotiate with the Soviets as Reagan's bellicosity provoked fears of armageddon? how dare they?
What the hell are you talking about?
This seems to be a memorandum composed by a KGB agent to a Soviet leader, and therefore presents Kennedy's actions as driven by partisan wrangling. Which it might have been, but given how the Soviets seemed genuinely clueless about American society I'm not going to give it a ton of credence.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 29, 2009, 03:14:01 PM
This seems to be a memorandum composed by a KGB agent to a Soviet leader, and therefore presents Kennedy's actions as driven by partisan wrangling. Which it might have been, but given how the Soviets seemed genuinely clueless about American society I'm not going to give it a ton of credence.
You know, your two posts don't sound at all similar.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2009, 03:41:09 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 29, 2009, 03:14:01 PM
This seems to be a memorandum composed by a KGB agent to a Soviet leader, and therefore presents Kennedy's actions as driven by partisan wrangling. Which it might have been, but given how the Soviets seemed genuinely clueless about American society I'm not going to give it a ton of credence.
You know, your two posts don't sound at all similar.
Quote
That's true. I suppose my point was that we only know, from a KGB Memorandum, based on a conversation with a friend of Kennedy's, what his motivations for this development. Yet Timmy immediately went to RAH. SCUMBAG.
Ted Kennedy was a piece of shit; I'm not going to give the most worthless scion of a worthless family anything more than his due just because he's responsible for the most meaningful immigration reform in American history. Even Judas did good by accident.
Denis Leary and I agree: We shoot JFK, we shoot RFK. It comes to Teddy, we're like, nah, he'll fuck it up himself.
Quote from: Scipio on August 29, 2009, 09:59:36 PM
Ted Kennedy was a piece of shit; I'm not going to give the most worthless scion of a worthless family anything more than his due just because he's responsible for the most meaningful immigration reform in American history. Even Judas did good by accident.
Denis Leary and I agree: We shoot JFK, we shoot RFK. It comes to Teddy, we're like, nah, he'll fuck it up himself.
That felt good. I've been holding that in for a fucking week.
And for the record, the Kennedys all need to fucking hang, besides Eunice. She was the only one who wasn't a complete shit.
Anything against Reagan was a good idea.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 29, 2009, 10:17:10 PM
Anything against Reagan was a good idea.
You fucking Quebecois commie. You go die, and shit.
Quote from: Scipio on August 29, 2009, 10:19:40 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 29, 2009, 10:17:10 PM
Anything against Reagan was a good idea.
You fucking Quebecois commie. You go die, and shit.
He's right. Reagan was a traitor to the US.
Quote from: Scipio on August 29, 2009, 10:19:40 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 29, 2009, 10:17:10 PM
Anything against Reagan was a good idea.
You fucking Quebecois commie. You go die, and shit.
The world you are looking for is "Democrat".
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2009, 10:22:49 PM
He's right. Reagan was a traitor to the US.
:rolleyes: ^ :rolleyes:
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 29, 2009, 10:17:10 PM
Anything against Reagan was a good idea.
<_< :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2009, 01:40:37 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 29, 2009, 10:17:10 PM
Anything against Reagan was a good idea.
<_< :rolleyes:
If Reagan had his way you'd be out picking cotton. Or sold to the Iranians.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2009, 02:05:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2009, 01:40:37 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 29, 2009, 10:17:10 PM
Anything against Reagan was a good idea.
<_< :rolleyes:
If Reagan had his way you'd be out picking cotton. Or sold to the Iranians.
Which is it? You can't even make up your mind.
Raz = Commie. Sorry your side lost the Cold War, dude.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2009, 12:05:04 PM
Raz = Commie. Sorry your side lost the Cold War, dude.
In his mind(s), his side won.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2009, 12:14:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2009, 12:05:04 PM
Raz = Commie. Sorry your side lost the Cold War, dude.
In his mind(s), his side won.
Where is your Reagan now?
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2009, 12:05:04 PM
Raz = Commie. Sorry your side lost the Cold War, dude.
Both sides lost the Cold War. The Russian Empire was destroyed, and the Americans lost all moral guidance, becoming as adrift and helpless as Europe.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2009, 12:05:04 PM
Raz = Commie. Sorry your side lost the Cold War, dude.
Sorry your side lost WWII, dude.
Still, that was treason, by any standard.
Quote from: Martinus on August 30, 2009, 05:42:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2009, 02:40:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2009, 12:05:04 PM
Raz = Commie. Sorry your side lost the Cold War, dude.
Sorry your side lost WWII, dude.
ZING.
I'm pretty sure America was on the winning side. Unlike the Poles, who lost twice.
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2009, 05:08:01 PM
Still, that was treason, by any standard.
I could correct you, but I don't see the point.
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2009, 05:08:01 PM
Still, that was treason, by any standard.
Not by the standards listed within the US constitution.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 30, 2009, 06:07:31 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2009, 05:08:01 PM
Still, that was treason, by any standard.
Not by the standards listed within the US constitution.
Siegebreaker has nothing but contempt for the US Constitution.
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2009, 06:16:54 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 30, 2009, 06:07:31 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2009, 05:08:01 PM
Still, that was treason, by any standard.
Not by the standards listed within the US constitution.
Siegebreaker has nothing but contempt for the US Constitution.
I doubt that he even has any idea what's in it.
Which doesn't mean he still can't have contempt for it.
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2009, 06:32:13 PM
I doubt that he even has any idea what's in it.
Which doesn't mean he still can't have contempt for it.
Typical Arab
Hey, stop ganging up on me!
It ain't funny, and it ain't right.
I have read the constitution, I had to study it to become a citizen, I know what it says, and I raised my hand and spoke the words.
So shove it.
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2009, 08:05:17 PM
Hey, stop ganging up on me!
It ain't funny, and it ain't right.
I have read the constitution, I had to study it to become a citizen, I know what it says, and I raised my hand and spoke the words.
So shove it.
So you're just another immigrant who spoke the pledge of alleigiance out of one side of your mouth while snickering up your sleeve out the other. Taking advantage of the hospitality of America in order to live your backwards, murderous ideology is reprehensible.
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2009, 08:05:17 PM
Hey, stop ganging up on me!
It ain't funny, and it ain't right.
I have read the constitution, I had to study it to become a citizen, I know what it says, and I raised my hand and spoke the words.
So shove it.
We gang up on you because you are weak and feeble. Even Tim does and he's the poster boy of feeble.
Actually, Siege had to make an effort to become a US citizen, so his allegiance should be less in question than those who were born into it.
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2009, 08:05:17 PM
I have read the constitution, I had to study it to become a citizen, I know what it says, and I raised my hand and spoke the words.
Did the citizenship test become harder over the years? I didn't need to read the constitution for my test, and I aced it. You do need some very basic social studies knowledge, but that's it.
They are letting the helots become citizens. :(
Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."
The Soviets were going to "help" the Democrats challenge Reagan? Or perhaps help the Dems elect a President? Lol... At that time, with help like that a US candidate wouldn't need opponents to lose!
I've seen/heard this story before; not a pretty one for Kennedy.
The party not in the executive may still have a lot of power, but they can't conduct their own independent foreign policy. Bad show, Teddy.
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2009, 08:05:17 PM
Hey, stop ganging up on me!
It ain't funny, and it ain't right.
I have read the constitution, I had to study it to become a citizen, I know what it says, and I raised my hand and spoke the words.
So shove it.
I have spoken those exact words many times but I'm still not a US citizen. What gives?
I'm choosing to ignore this. "Not denied" is not the same as "confirmed." On one hand, if true, it would look bad on Kennedy, but on the other hand, if untrue or half-true, it would be light-years from the first time the Russians either distorted the truth or lied outright to create problems for government officials in other countries.
At this point, only two people (Andropov and Kennedy) could reliably confirm the story, and they're both dead.
The document in question can be found in the internet. It is a very strange document in a number of respects, but reading it full gives a decidedly different impression than the spin given by the commentator posted at top. For example, the notion that the message was a "simple" and "unabashed quid pro quo" does not come through. It makes Kennedy sound more like a naive idiot out of his depth more than a machivellian schemer treating with the enemy.