http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-ken...inson.html


In the days of the founders, he would've got the Benedict Arnold treatment, instead in postmodern la-la land flags fly at half-mast.

Quote: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.

Not surprising, his Dad was like that too. Joe was buddy buddy with Hitler, until it was too late.

If I remember my history correctly, there were a lot of Americans who were buddy buddy with Hitler. The US did not wait so long to enter WW2 for no reason.

As for this story, it seems to me he was attempting in his own way to reconcile relationships with the Soviet Union. I personally still believe the Soviet Union was well on its way to collapse without Reagan's "arms race", but that is my humble opinion.

Don't forget Kennedy was the leader of the Democratic brigade in support of the COMMIEES in Central America. The very same commies that Ronald W. Regan destroyed. He also led support to our enemies in Iraq, when he teamed with Sen Dick dufus Durbin ( Democrat) in ripping our troops in a time of war for partisan political purposes. All in all, Teddy was just an ******* with a TON of cash,. None that he earned, he was a parasite off the family business,. It will be a great day in our country's history when the Kennedy's piss that last dollar away.

(08-31-2009 02:20 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  If I remember my history correctly, there were a lot of Americans who were buddy buddy with Hitler. The US did not wait so long to enter WW2 for no reason.

Dude, what history class did you take? The US waited so long to enter the war because the nation as a whole had a strict isolationist mentality during that era. Roosevelt knew he couldn't enter the fray with the country so very much against it.

Quote:As for this story, it seems to me he was attempting in his own way to reconcile relationships with the Soviet Union. I personally still believe the Soviet Union was well on its way to collapse without Reagan's "arms race", but that is my humble opinion.

I see. So the effort to undermine a sitting president with another country in exchange for that country's help in defeating said president is called "reconcilement" these days?

Wow.

If Hitler came during the Cold War, we would have been on his side. No question. At that point we were giving aid to anyone who hated Communism. The Shah, Francisco Franco (who was an ally of Hitler), and Mobutu Seko were just a few that we supported because they hated communism.

And believe me, we had a lot of people that were buddy, buddy with the Nazis

(08-31-2009 07:36 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  If Hitler came during the Cold War, we would have been on his side. No question.

I'd like to think we wouldn't side with anyone who was systematically killing 6 million people. It caused riffs with the US when Saddam turned on his own people.

(08-31-2009 07:42 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-31-2009 07:36 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  If Hitler came during the Cold War, we would have been on his side. No question.

I'd like to think we wouldn't side with anyone who was systematically killing 6 million people. It caused riffs with the US when Saddam turned on his own people.

Agreed. Saddam was a mass murderer and we took him out.

(08-31-2009 07:42 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-31-2009 07:36 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  If Hitler came during the Cold War, we would have been on his side. No question.

I'd like to think we wouldn't side with anyone who was systematically killing 6 million people. It caused riffs with the US when Saddam turned on his own people.

We also didn't know that Hitler was actually killing people until about the time of the Victory in Europe

(08-31-2009 09:19 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-31-2009 07:42 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-31-2009 07:36 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  If Hitler came during the Cold War, we would have been on his side. No question.

I'd like to think we wouldn't side with anyone who was systematically killing 6 million people. It caused riffs with the US when Saddam turned on his own people.

We also didn't know that Hitler was actually killing people until about the time of the Victory in Europe

Not true. There were stories told to us by the French and Jews who had escaped. To say so would be a cop out by the US. We knew. Everyone knew.

(08-31-2009 07:42 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-31-2009 07:36 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  If Hitler came during the Cold War, we would have been on his side. No question.

I'd like to think we wouldn't side with anyone who was systematically killing 6 million people. It caused riffs with the US when Saddam turned on his own people.

I think Nomad is talking about the Nazi party's beginnings and AH's early days in power. The world leaders did not have any idea of his evil in the beginnings and did court him(other than WC)...Let us not forget the he managed to get the Olympics to Berlin. That did not happen without political help from abroad.

As for Saddam...I would never say he was not a butcher and murderer...he was...but...Was it OUR duty to take him out? This is where I get uncomfortable and differ with many of my friends on interventionism.

Oh hell...here I go again

I believe there is a parallel between the two times in history. We got pulled into WWI...a war that maybe we should have allowed Europe to decide without our intervention.(yes..I understand the ill advised alliances) After the war we sit back and allow harsh war reparations to be levied upon Germany. (To our credit..we did not sign the treaty..but..we should have been more forceful in softening the harshness of it.) The treaty's harsh reparations caused the destruction of the German economy due to hyperinflation(printing of useless currency to pay the reparations) and set the stage for Nazism and the rise of Hitler and the subsequent continuation of the conflict..this time with another number attached to it.

I have no idea what would have happened if we had stayed out of WWI..but..I think it is reasonable to assert that Hitler would not have come to power and the 6 million people that he sent to their deaths would not have occurred.....and thus...a far less of a reason for the establishment of the Israeli state that has caused the subsequent turmoil in the Middle East. In addition...without an Israeli state and our support for that state in the region..It is not a stretch that Bin Ladin would just have been a student in the US and become something other than a terrorist. No terrorist BL...no 911...no reason to bother Saddam.

YES..ALL of the above is totally conjecture and subjective...but..I think it is hard to dispute that our intervention into WWI had a MAJOR part in much of the worlds history since. This is why I am uncomfortable with our interventionist policies. I understand fully that one can never predict the future outcomes and ramifications of ones actions...but..when you ACT..there are resulting ramifications. I would submit that most of the time in our personal lives...doing nothing about a situation but being ready to defend against the potential threat.. is usually the best solution to a problem. Most of the time...it works it's self out on it's own without having to do anything. The key is to show strength without having to use force. I admired Ronald Reagan for his understanding of this concept.

Let me be clear..I fully advocate and am willing to contribute voluntarily to the defense of the land mass that I am a resident of and have NO problem with striking first the case of imminent attack. It is the defense and protection of others land masses that that I am uncomfortable with.

(08-31-2009 07:36 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  And believe me, we had a lot of people that were buddy, buddy with the Nazis

your are so right. Chase Bank, Joseph Kennedy, Charles Limburg, Standard Oil, US Steel.

Let us never forget that it was the instability created by the Great Depression, that brought the Nazis to power.

(08-31-2009 10:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Let us never forget that it was the instability created by the Great Depression, that brought the Nazis to power.

.....and that's how dictators generally come to power. Useful idiots.

However, it wasn't the Great Depression that brought it on. That was here. It was the treaty they signed after WWI. We weren't so intertwined in global economics at the time.

(08-31-2009 10:38 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-31-2009 10:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Let us never forget that it was the instability created by the Great Depression, that brought the Nazis to power.

.....and that's how dictators generally come to power. Useful idiots.

However, it wasn't the Great Depression that brought it on. That was here. It was the treaty they signed after WWI. We weren't so intertwined in global economics at the time.

That is true. Hitler was able build the military because the treaty allowed for that to happen.

(09-01-2009 06:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-31-2009 10:38 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-31-2009 10:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Let us never forget that it was the instability created by the Great Depression, that brought the Nazis to power.

.....and that's how dictators generally come to power. Useful idiots.

However, it wasn't the Great Depression that brought it on. That was here. It was the treaty they signed after WWI. We weren't so intertwined in global economics at the time.

That is true. Hitler was able build the military because the treaty allowed for that to happen.

The allies refusal to enforce the treaty is what also caused it. After WWI Germany was barred from any type of military build up. No one stopped him. It was compounded by the fact that Obama...er..I mean..Chamberlain was useful idiot who met with Hitler and determined he had no hostile intentions.

A lot of his military buildup was done underground.

(09-01-2009 08:08 AM)Rebel Wrote:  A lot of his military buildup was done underground.

The He-111 bomber was supposedly a design for a 10 passenger civilian airliner for Lufthansa.

He also built up by never really establishing anything as a fighting force. Everybody was special police or something like that.

(08-31-2009 10:38 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-31-2009 10:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Let us never forget that it was the instability created by the Great Depression, that brought the Nazis to power.

.....and that's how dictators generally come to power. Useful idiots.

However, it wasn't the Great Depression that brought it on.

The Weimar hyperinflation led to Hitler's election, and the willingness of many to go along w/ extreme policies.

(09-01-2009 11:53 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-31-2009 10:38 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-31-2009 10:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Let us never forget that it was the instability created by the Great Depression, that brought the Nazis to power.

.....and that's how dictators generally come to power. Useful idiots.

However, it wasn't the Great Depression that brought it on.

The Weimar hyperinflation led to Hitler's election, and the willingness of many to go along w/ extreme policies.

Yes...printing worthless currency to pay off the reparations lead to the hyperinflation. I recall reading that it took a wheelbarrow full of Marks to buy a loaf of bread. I don't know if that was an exaggeration or not.