Ted Kennedy and the KGB

[OldGreyEagle]

I am totally confused by something and perhaps you guys can help. For the last week or so, least wise after the Senator's funeral I have been hearing something about a KGB memo that purports some offer Ted Kennedy made to the then Russian President about softening American's view of Russia. This was done, purportedly, to help defeat Ronald Reagan in 1984. I think I have the gist of it, maybe not.

 

My point is, why is this being discussed now that the Senator is dead? If this was known a year ago, 10 years ago 20 or more, why wasnt it talked about then? If this is just a blatant attmept to smear a dead man, I am just so disgusted. Ted Kennedy had many faults and his failings never seemd to be off limits while he was alive, why is this just now talk show fodder?

 

When I claimed to be an independent neither Democrat or Republican and was told that is was easier to stand on the sidelines than join in. So, my choice is to be on the side that espouses Socialism or smears dead people. Thank you but this is the reason Town Hall meetings are near riots. This garbage has to stop

[Kahuna]

I guess I don't quite get your point. There was always something about Ted that almost everyone not on the relatively far left didn't like. He had a lot to answer for.

 

Apparently the accusation is true and was a pretty abysmal political act. Why not bring it up?

 

I might also mention that by posting this, you pretty much guarantee there will be a lot verbal outpouring, pro and con, about the late Senator.(This message has been edited by kahuna)

[Eagle92]

Actually if memory serves, the KGB memo has been out for some time. When the SU fell, one of the first things that came about with capitalism in Russia was that Soviet archivists were selling their documents for a time. Lot of good info came out of that time frame, until he Russian government put astop to it.

 

Some of the things that came out was yes Alger Hiss was an agent of the GMU or military intel if memory serves, and not the NKVD ( predecessor to the KGB, the Rosenbergs were spying for the Soviets, and there were intelligence operattives in State and Treasury.

 

If I can find my syllabus and class notes, I'll give you some very good reading on the the Cold War. Also if you get the chance check out this website

 

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.home&topic_id=1409

 

Basically the scholars in the Cold War History field contribute a ton of info to the link above.

[Lisabob]

 

~ rolls eyes ~

 

 

I think OGE's point was that sensationalized "news" stories (that are often neither new nor true) have ruined the discourse when it comes to important issues in American life today. Certainly that's been the case with the health care discussion. I hope citizenship merit badge counselors and Scoutmasters everywhere are teaching their boys that open discussion of conflicting opinions is vital to democracy, but that it can still be done in a way that is constructive and civil and respectful of facts (not just angry knee-jerk emotions).

 

 

[Hal_Crawford]

Apparently this came out in 2006 in a book by Paul Kengor entitled The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. It was written up in the Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/oct/27/20061027-084248-4386r/) in October of that year. Almost everything I can find is from around that time and from fairly conservative sources.

 

For whatever reason the story did not grow legs; perhaps it was squashed by the liberal media (including Fox News?) or perhaps the story did not have enough proof to be credible. As far as I can see, none of the fact checking sites have ever attempted to confirm or deny. Again, some would say it is because they all lean to the left (I don't agree) while others might posit that the story never rose far enough above the horizon to be analyzed.

 

I am actually surprised that this never became the fodder of viral e-mails. I suspect that if the story could be verified that at least FoxNews would have run with it.

 

It may be true, it may have a grain of truth but be exaggerated or it may be total bull. If the KGB files are anything like the FBI's then the original source may not be reliable. Not having read the book we don't really have any sense of the context. Did the author give this credence or not? That could also be the reason that the story didn't go further.

 

Kennedy is dead but there are still some who won't be happy unless they can dance on his grave. Oh, well.

 

Hal

[eisely]

As I understand it, this did not become known until Boris Yeltsin opened the Soviet archives in the early 90's. The documentation consists of a report from a senior KGB officer to Andropov who then was the leader of the Soviet Untion in the early 80's. Apparently Kennedy did offer to collaborate with the Soviet Union to try to undermine Reagan's foreign policy and military initiatives, particularly the deployment of the Pershing missle system in Europe. I have never seen anything that indicates that the Soviets acted upon Kennedy's offer to them.

 

Apparently when queried about this in the 90's, Kennedy's office danced about but did not deny the fundamental truth as documented in the Soviet archives. I don't know if Kennedy himself ever spoke to this issue.

 

Assuming that the facts as documented in the Soviet archives are correct, because they have never been challenged, Kennedy's offer probably was a violation of the Logan Act. But then we have tolerated numerous violations of the Logan Act by Jimmy Carter.

 

Personally I consider this to be a dead issue except for the fact that hagiographies are now being produced about Kennedy. We are entitled to the full story of everything he did if we are expected to exalt his life.(This message has been edited by eisely)

[BadenP]

OGE

Do you work for the tabloid press or what? What a load of BS, I guess deep down you want to go to work for TMZ, time to come back to reality dude, lol.

[OldGreyEagle]

Sorry BadenP, I have no idea what you mean.

 

I think its wrong for people to be talking about Sen Kennedy and the KGB now that he is dead. If this was in the book in 2006, and it was such an issue, why wasnt it talked about then? If that is Tabloid press, asking the question, then I guess I am

[eisely]

OGE,

 

In general I agree that one should not speak ill of the dead. You will not see me raising this subject anywhere unless somebody else raises Kennedy as a subject first.

 

I think there are two reasons why this incident was largely ignored when it came to light. First, potential political opponents in Massachusetts probably realized that, if literally getting away with murder was OK with the majority of the Massachusetts electorate, then raising this issue would not gain any traction either. Second, as the mainstream media became ever more relentlessly liberal in outlook and selective in what it reported and how it presented information, those media organs would not have touched this story unless they were forced to do so.

 

If Kennedy had ever sought the presidency again, say as when Bill Clinton's second term was drawing to a close, it would have come up, just as Chappaquidick came up when Kennedy opposed Jimmy Carter's re nomination in 1980.

 

I don't know how much this is going to get publicized in the blogosphere now and don't much care.

 

EMK, RIP

[BadenP]

Ok everyone knows Teddy was no saint and he himself was haunted by his own past. This story is so ludricous that it is funny. But how many of you realize the tremendous record he had in the Senate getting bipartisan bills passed one after another to help the less fortunate and the average Joe, no other senator comes close to his record and isn't that what we elect our legislature to do? But the guy is dead and any kind of divine retribution due will be handled by a higher source, not us, so let the guy rest in peace whether you liked him or hated him. I have never been a Teddy fan but I do respect the work he did in the senate and the way he raised his own and his brothers children. The old legacy has passed away now it will be interesting to see how the next generations of Kennedy's will make their mark.

 

OGE, I stand corrected on your take, sorry, mea culpa.

[vol_scouter]

OGE,

 

I believe that the reason it came up at this time is that asking the president of an unfriendly nation to help to defeat a candidate for president is treasonous. So to have someone buried in the hallowed ground of Arlington Cemetery who many consider to have committed a treasonous act, it is hard to remain silent.

[GernBlansten]

I'd share your opinion Vol_Scouter if Kennedy had actually been charged, tried and convicted of treason.

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

 

I did not indicate my opinion, I merely stated the motivation for the criticism of a recently deceased person. I am of the opinion that had it been someone less influential, rich, and powerful there would have been an investigation and likely charges of treason.

[BadenP]

vol-scouter

I agree with Gern all you are doing now is acting malicious against someone who served his country for a long time, not to mention you are not being very scoutlike with your unsubstantiated rumor mongering. Get over it already.

[vol_scouter]

BadenP,

 

I do not know if Kennedy committed treason or not and I have not accused him. I merely tried to explain why some people discussed it. I have not stated my personal opinion. I remember left wingers discussing Iran-contra at Reagan's funeral. If the left does not want their heroes gored, they should not engage in the same activities. Kennedy served his state and Massachusetts was apparently happy with his representation. For that he is to be commended. For those who do not share Kennedy's socialism, he is not beloved. I would prefer that such discussions be avoided for a few months after the politician's death but neither side will allow it to happen. It seems to only get worse.