Reply With Quote
Um....I call bull
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20061020b.html KGB Letter Outlines Sen. Kennedy's Overtures to Soviets, Prof Says
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 20, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.
"We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger," said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.
In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.
The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party.
In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy's offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.
At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.
"There's a lot more to be found here," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "This was a shocking revelation."
It is not evident with whom Tunney actually met in Moscow. But the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed Tunney to reach out to "confidential contacts" so Andropov could be alerted to the senator's proposals.
Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.
"Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan," Kengor said. "But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders."
In Kennedy's view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan's unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief wrote in his letter.
"Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war," Kengor said. "He hoped to counter Reagan's polices, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects."
As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow -- to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.
In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.
But Kennedy's attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized. Andropov died after a brief time in office and was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.
In his attempt to reach out the Soviets, Kennedy settled on a flawed receptacle for peace, Kengor said. Andropov was a much more belligerent and confrontational leader than the man who followed him, in Kengor's estimation.
"If Andropov had lived and Gorbachev never came to power, I can't imagine the Cold War ending peacefully like it did," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "Things could have gotten ugly."
In the long run of history, Kengor believes it is evident that Reagan's policies were vindicated while Kennedy was proven wrong. In fact, as he points out in his book, Kennedy himself made a "gracious concession" after Reagan died,crediting the 40th president with winning the Cold War.
Last edited by BIG IRISH; 10-21-2006 at 04:49 AM.
Um....I call bull
"40th president with winning the Cold War."
... low oil prices in the mid-80s, after the the world adjusted to the Khomeini/Iranian Revoluton oil shock of 1979 and early 80s, robbed Russia of hard-currency petro-dollars to prop up their smoke-and-mirrors empire, and allowing the costs the far-flung, expensive empire and finally the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan+war essentially to bankrupt the Russian communist govt. Decades of Russian/Communist mismanagement of the ecomony and the industrial base has hollowed out the Russion industrial strength. The oil boom of the 70s (post Israeli war shocks of 1967 and 1973) really delayed the collapse of the Russian empire by 10-15 years.
Of course, our $20B/year CIA was as surprised as anybody when Russia collapsed.
Reagan was a maybe a nice guy with Alzheimers (the kind of limited/damaged intellects the Repugs like in their presidents), but above all he was just a stage-prop who hit his marks and delivered his lines like a professional B-actor, but the script was written by oil prices.
Last edited by boutons_; 10-21-2006 at 10:35 AM.
Ronnie and Our Friends the Saudis had something to do with those low oil prices back in the day.
The whole two party system is broken. I just wish that people who have lost interest would come back and vote Green or Libertarian or whatever. The best breakdown of the House would be 100 Dems, 100 GOP, 100 Green, 100 Libertarian, the rest assorted. It's tougher for them to us and spend us into oblivion if getting a basic budget passed is a struggle and requires political skills instead of just mindless shrill rhetoric.
No matter which legislator from which party gets elected, he/she will be corrupted by corp and SIG $$$. If you have enough money, you can buy any legislator.
Now that the legislator can vote themselves money legally (huge pay rises and perks), they'll never go back.
Perhaps it has always been so, and communications (media, Internet) have allowed people access to the information.
Note that the Repugs recent "ethical" Congressional rule changes will allow convicted Repug felons Ney and Cunningham (certainly more to follow) to keep their Congressional pensions of $10K/month.
The way it seems to be working, post K-street is that the majority leader bullies his cons uancy in line, and goes TO the lobbyist and says "We can deliver you this, and in return we want that". That's real hard to do with only 100 votes in the 400+ vote House. I think a LOT of the money goes to the leadership. With a fractured structure, they would have to buy EACH AND EVERY vote they wanted, a much lower ROI.No matter which legislator from which party gets elected, he/she will be corrupted by corp and SIG $$$. If you have enough money, you can buy any legislator.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
