Wow. Just Wow.

There’s a new book on Ronald Reagan making the rounds, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. Its author, Paul Kengor, unearthed a sensational document from the Soviet archives. That document is a memo regarding an offer made by Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts via former Senator John Tunney, both Democrats, to the General Secretary of the Communist Party, USSR, Yuri Andropov, in 1983. The offer was to help the Soviet leadership, military and civilian, conduct a PR campaign in the United States as President Ronald Reagan sought re-election. The goal of the PR campaign would be to cast President Reagan as a warmonger, the Soviets as willing to peacefully co-exist, and thereby turn the electorate away from Reagan. It was a plan to enlist Soviet help, and use the American press, in unseating an American president.

Of course, reports from a few years ago show that Uncle Teddy was an equal opportunity traitor… even offering to collaborate with Communist Russia to undermine then President Jimmy Carter:

Another KGB report to their bosses revealed that on March 5, 1980, John Tunney met with the KGB in Moscow on behalf of Sen. Kennedy. Tunney expressed Kennedy’s opinion that “nonsense about ‘the Soviet military threat’ and Soviet ambitions for military expansion in the Persian Gulf . . . was being fueled by [President Jimmy] Carter, [National Security Advisor Zbigniew] Brzezinski, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex.”

Kennedy offered to speak out against President Carter on Afghanistan. Shortly thereafter he made public speeches opposing President Carter on this issue. This document was found in KGB archives by Vasiliy Mitrokhin, a courageous KGB officer, who copied documents from the files and then defected to the West. He wrote about this document in a February 2002 paper on Afghanistan that he released through the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Looks like offering aid and comfort to the enemy to undermine a sitting U.S. President isn’t something new for some Democrats.

Enough is enough.

1. Digging deep for distractions this time, eh? 1983… hmmm, that rings a bell. Oh yeah, that’s when the US government supplied arms to Iran in exchange for their help with the hostages Hezbollah was holding. And gave the money to the contras, those amiable terrorists that were trying to overthrow an elected government. Great policies, those. In line with supporting the Taliban (and other murderous warlords) against the Soviets, but hey, it must have sounded like a great idea at the time. And the Saoudis were on board too, so you just know that it had to be a good idea. It made perfect sense, just trust the Pakistani secret service to dole out hundreds of millions to the “right kind” of anti-soviet guerilla fighter. Yeah … Pakistan. Great ally, if you believe Reagan, BS or BJ. Little different approach to democracy and human rights, perhaps, but great when you need to covertly support terrorists. Well, there was the AQ Khan thingie, but what’s a few more nukes and long-distance missiles between friends, really.

   Comment by endorendil — 2:44 am
   

2. […] I know I always vote against him. I love my state…the state where both senators have a long history of behaviour questionable enough that you could not unreasonably accuse them of treason. Multiple times each. […]

   Pingback by Why is He Still in Office? « Tai-Chi Policy — 10:14 am
   

3. Endorendil, so do you have any comment about Kennedy’s actions, or not? The attempt at obfuscation failed.

   Policies executed by an administration, that you happen to disagree with, are quite a bit different from a sitting senator contacting our enemy and suggesting a campaign to unseat a president. However, when one reviews Chappiquiddick, one would understand the Ted seems to have a propensity for letting his victims drown.

   Comment by Old Soldier — 10:54 am
   

4. […] Hot Air, CSN News, and Dr. Sanity have more. Also, Texas Rainmaker, Right Wing Nut House, Blue Crab Boulevard, […]

   Pingback by Kerry and Kennedy Try to Get in Tune with Reagan…Wait, Not so fast! « Thespis Journal — 11:50 am
   

5. OS. I haven’t found anything beyond reviews of the book, so I’m not ready to comment on Ted’s actions beyond very general. But, “I question the timing”.

   In my post I was just pointing out that 1983 was a very different time, and US foreign policy was ludicrously misguided, at best. I don’t know whether it was clear at the time that supporting terrorists was a bad thing, especially radically religious ones, but we sure as hell can regret that now. While normalizing relations with Iran might have made sense, supporting them militarily did not, especially not since the US was also supporting Saddam in the ongoing Iran-Iraq war. A tad too cynical for my taste, and one more reason no one in the Middle-East and South-Asia trusts the US about anything.

   I suppose that trying to keep the USSR guessing as to whether the US was really itching for a fight might have made sense then too.

   Comment by endorendil — 2:29 am
   

6. Endorendil, again, the policies of an administration (no matter how history or individuals may view them) are vastly different than a sitting senator contriving with our enemy to effect the outcome of a presidential election.

   The timing seems appropriate to me. This election cycle the Democrats are attempting to paint the GOP as the party of corruption, therefore any corruption on the Dem’s part should be fair game. I don’t particularly like the corrupt behavior I see in both parties; but if one party is going to campaign upon the issue it should expect to have its own corruption exposed.

   Comment by Old Soldier — 7:46 am
   

7. I don’t see this election as being about corruption, only about horribly inefficient policies, such as the huge increase in the government bureaucracy without proper oversight or even clear tasking (think DHS), the huge deficit in the federal budget, the ever-increasing trade deficit and the lack of any progress in reducing the cost of healthcare and education. The weakening of national security through political cowardice, lack of planning and simply poor leadership is a particularly egregious failing, that deserves to be highlighted.

   Comment by endorendil — 8:29 am
   

8. weakeniong of national security? We’ve just taken huge measures to ensure another 9/11 doesn’t happen & they haven’t, we’re securing our boarders, increasing port security, enacted the terrorism alert system, increased security at major events etc. That’s an unfair statement. Poor leadership? You do realize the immense amount of stuff that leaders are faced with, right? Our leaders huave to face incredible amounts of issues every day- the fact is htough, that media zeros in on a couple if issues, and makes it seem like that’s all our leaders are involved in whne infact, there has been a huge amount of issues they’ve handled throuhgout the year. Generalizing and using democratic talking points is not really an argument. The war in Iraq for instance, sure, there are bad things happening, but there are far more good thigns happening over there that you never ever hear about. I have it on good authority that the soldiers have made a huge difference in the lives of the Iraqi people, and continue to do so in the face of horrendous difficulties, yet you never see this mentioned in the media- instead, they generalize by using some horrible events to insinuate that everything is so bad ovder there that it’s a total failure. Not true!

   I’ll give you the governments beurocracy and overspending on prok issues & the like though. That’s an area where both parties carry the blame.

   Read more at sacredscoop.com …

   Comment by Nazareth — 12:32 pm
   

9. sacredscoop. As per the NIE that the president declassified, we’re losing the war on terror. Should be obvious anyway.

   Not only are there more terrorists in more places than when we started.
   Not only are there more acts of terror each year than ever before.
   Not only are terrorists getting better tactics and better weaponry, whereas ours is slowly ground to a pulp.
   Not only are more than twice as many Americans getting killed and maimed by terrorists each year than died on 9/11.
   Not only has the US abrogated its right to moral leadership on human rights.

   It has also set itself up to lose. Unless the Republicans grow some cojones pronto, the US will fail in Iraq. Unless Bush grows a spine, the US will fail in Afghanistan. And it has already lost in North Korea, and Iran. Outmaneuvered and outwitted, the US has been a big, witless bully getting punk’d by the new kids on the block.

   There is no need for AQ to attack the US as long as its remains on its self-destructive course. In that respect, Bush is keeping the US safe. Way to go.

   Comment by endorendil — 1:51 pm
   

10. #9
    So what are you advocating for Iraq/Afghanistan? Let’s hear your solutions.

    Comment by tonkingulfyachtclub — 7:55 pm
    

11. And the solution for fighting terrorism is too what? … Ignore it altogether? To kill weasels- you MUST start by clubbing them, not by closing your eyes, sure, more weasels will fill the gaps you create in the beginning, but by golly, every mile starts with a single footstep, now doesn’t it? Just ask the French how well ignoring and placating the terrorists works- I guess that is what you’d have this country face?
    Drop by again when you’ve got an actual plan to defeat terrorism, it’s been enlightening so far.

    Read more at sacredscoop.com …

    Comment by Nazareth — 8:10 pm
    

12. Like Glenn Beck likes to say, there is a ‘perfect storm’ brewing, and we’re right directly in it’s path. It’s already started to errupt in Europe, and in Russia, and it’s working it’s way here to the west quicker than you think. Those not willing to defend themselves, as the Europeans have done (and as some within this country propose we should avoid ‘enflaming’ the terrorists) will find themselves surrounded by those who not only hate them, but who want to murder them.

    France is in a PERMANENT holy war with Islam precisely because they adopted the attitude you have endorendil- They felt that they shouldn’t do anythign that might cost them lives or time or money to confront a blatantly viscious group of thugs that have made it perfectly clear that they were going to attack. And now they are in a situation that will never end. Their streets are filled with the same kind of violence that Iraq is filled with. Once that ball starts rolling endor, it will never stop. It will be too late. Thankfully there are those who are assigned the job of protecting this country who understand this basic simple fact. Thankfully there are those who don’t give a rip about being politically correct, and who aren’t afraid of the fact that more people might rise up- they understand that doing nothing is spineless and cowardly, and they understand that they can never give in to a defeatist mentality that would subject them to Shiaa law! But thanks for weighing in.

    Read more at sacredscoop.com …

    Comment by Nazareth — 8:23 pm
    

13. tonkingulfyachtclub, sacredscoop, I’ve already discussed what I think needs to be done in Iraq in the thread following TR’s post on Ted Turner. Let me paste it in here:

    ———–
    “As to my personal feelings, I think that winning in Iraq would be great, but I don’t see a realistic way for that to happen. The US went in with too few troops (as Shinseki predicted), made huge mistakes (disbanding the police and the army, playing loose with Iraqi civilian lives, bringing in Iraqi expatriates with axes to grind, not doing much reconstruction …) and has refused to admit that things were not going well (first step to fixing a problem is admitting that it exists). But I certainly agree that the US shouldn’t leave Iraq. Hell, it shouldn’t be allowed to. As Powell said before the invasion “you break it, you fix it”. So more American troops need to go to Iraq, and the retreat to large megabases needs to be reversed (force protection isn’t why we’re there) in favour of a much closer engagement with both friends and enemies. A long-term commitment has to be made as clear and binding as possible: the US could sign a treaty with the Iraqi government, pledging to maintain this elevated troop strength for at least 10 years. It may need to reintroduce the draft to enable the army to do this, or increase pay and benefits for military personnel to significantly increase its size. It should reinstate the old standards for recruits, perhaps even strengthening them (there’s anecdotal evidence that some gangs are sending foot soldiers to the army for the training and the experience). It needs to commit more funds to rebuilding Iraq, engage Iran constructively and actively try to improve ties with muslims worldwide.

    Do I think that this is going to happen? Not really, Bush didn’t have the guts to ask for it when he could, and he no longer can. It will be very, very expensive, but then that should have been clear at the outset. The next president might do it, but that’s two years off, and things get worse by the day. Maybe if Bush buys the farm, Cheney could push it through.”

    ———–

    I’ld like to hear what you guys think should be done in Iraq. Training Iraqis to “stand up as we stand down” hasn’t worked for the last 3 years, and there is no indication that it will start working anytime soon. We train them, then they desert or start freelancing as death squads. It’s counterproductive.

    Comment by endorendil — 2:07 am
    

14. sacredscoop, you have not really looked at France very closely. France has a large muslim population, largely due to its proximity to North-Africa, and consequently has more conflicts with them, especially since it is a militantly secular state. Yet the French aren’t running scared and aren’t trading in their rights for security like the cowards in the Bush administration want us to do.

    “They felt that they shouldn’t do anythign that might cost them lives or time or money to confront a blatantly viscious group of thugs that have made it perfectly clear that they were going to attack. ”

    Funny you should say that. The first time that terrorists attempted to fly a plane into a building was in 1994. The target was Paris, and the French stopped it. The French have been fighting Isamic extremist terrorists for much longer, and have proven very effective at containing it.

    “Their streets are filled with the same kind of violence that Iraq is filled with.”

    This must be a joke, right? In all the rioting in France, not a single person was killed. Only 16 rioters were injured, and 18 policemen. And all but one of those injuries were from the riot at the wine festival, which arguably had nothing to do with the Parisian riots. In the mean time, a one-day racial riot in Seattle (2001) left one person dead and 72 injured.

    I’ve spent a few days in the banlieu of Paris this year, and I have seen some of the riot areas. They’re not nearly as bad as some parts of South Chicago, and a heck of a lot safer. Comparing even those blighted areas with Baghdad is just silly.

    Comment by endorendil — 6:38 am
    

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.