The wrong person drowned.
I wish I could say I don’t believe this is true, but it seems so very much in character.
(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.”
Posted on October 20th, 2006 by pwyll
Filed under: politics
Entries RSS
“The wrong person drowned”, you say. As much I despise Ronald Reagan, I know one thing about him. Ronald Reagan would never have taken such a cheap shot at Ted Kennedy. Think about it; it’s beneath you.
It’s not about me, but let’s go there.
Had I, while driving drunk, drowned my passenger, my conclusion would be that the wrong person drowned. Had I then failed to notify the police until the next day, I think the world would have concluded that the wrong person drowned. But that is old news.
The evidence that Kennedy attempted to conspire with Andropov against Reagan during the height of the cold war suggests treason, pure and simple. You may hate Reagan, but there are streets named after him throughout eastern Europe because people crushed by the Soviet Union believed Reagan saved them. He played a very high stakes game, and won. History will remember Reagan with the likes of Churchill and FDR. Kennedy will be remembered as a coward, a sot, and (perhaps) a traitor.
You may be right that Reagan might not have said what I said, we will never know. He was President, and bound by the duties of his office to a level of politesse that I need not consider. Compared to him, I am free to speak. My words will not affect nations; I can call a spade a spade.
Likely Reagan would not have said what I said completely aside from prudential considerations imposed by his office. He was a Christian, and a nicer, better man than I am. I can live with that.
I knew when I wrote comment one above that I would be getting in over my head, but let me take a stab at this anyway.
First and foremost, as your post is a long quote from a source of unknown reliability accusing Ted Kennedy of treason, the straight up title of the post, to my mind, would go to that extremely serious charge. For example, “Senator implicated in treasonous foriegn policy manuever” — then put a creative twist on it. “The wrong person drowned” left me with the impression that we’d be better off if people with the disease of alcoholism died because they might at some point many years later be accused of treason. Hence, my strong reaction.
Second, I do not hate Ronald Reagan; I said I despise him because, as noted recently in a comment on this blog, I consider him a constitutional criminal. Unlike the allegations against Senator Kennedy above, it has been clearly documented that Reagan allowed Oliver North to ignore the will of Congress and fund the contras. Reagan should have been impeached for this breach of this breach of the limits of his presidential power, set out in the constitution.
Third, the only thing that Reagan had to do with the fall of the USSR is receive unwarranted credit for it. In my view, by his befouling of the communist experiment in Russia with murderous totalitarianism, Stalin’s reign of terror marks the beginning of the end of the USSR. Reagan had nothing to do with it. Street names and public opinion are not evidence of a cause and effect relationship. What I despise is the way this criminal is treated now as a saint.
Fourth, if I reacted to an alcohol-induced tragedy with poor judgement about reporting the tragedy, that’s a matter between me, my conscience, and a criminal justice system that continues to criminalize disease-driven behavior. It is not fodder for political debate.
Fifth, I don’t know a better man than you.
Finally, it is clear we have drastically different perspectives on the issues raised by your post and comment. I’ve got no problem with that. Further, I intended comment one above to be constructive criticism. How about we agree to disagree, and, to be safe, I personally apologize if my comment above offended you. That was not my intent.
It never fails to amuse me when people can clearly see the corruption, incompetence, hipocracy, and even criminality of the “other” party, but are completely blind as it runs rampant in their chosen party.
Ouch! Let me try to sneak out from under that charge.
I assess equal blame to both major parties for: a) allowing democracy to go up for sale in DC — the Abramoff scandal being the lead example; and b.) the President and Congress recently discarding habeus corpus with the Military Commissions Act.
How’s that ccl?
I’m still amused. You display your objectivity by referring to what is largely a republican scandal, a republican president, and republican controlled congress. And in your turd sandwich post (I love pwyll’s headers), when I supplied dem names in respnse to your invitation to “condemn”, you “chastise” one, ignore the others, and switch back to the republican president. Very amusing indeed. Thanks.
“It’s a hard rain, gonna fall.” — Bob Dylan
“All forms of government - including republican and democratic - are rich in funny shams and absurdities, but their supporters do not see it”
Mark Twain
“There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.”
Unknown