The real cowboy diplomacy
The Washington Times comments on Senator Kennedy’s alleged attempt to collaborate with the Soviets against Reagan:
If Chebrikov’s account of events is accurate, it’s clear Mr. Kennedy was actively engaging the Russians to influence the 1984 election. He also seems to have genuinely believed that Mr. Reagan’s policies were endangering U.S.-Soviet relations and that the best solution was to get Mr. Reagan out of office. The letter closes with Chebrikov saying that “Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,” possibly suggesting Mr. Kennedy had other, more selfish motives.
As Mr. Kengor concludes, “if the memo is in fact an accurate account of what transpired, it constitutes a remarkable example of the lengths to which some on the political left, including a sitting U.S. senator, were willing to go to stop Ronald Reagan.”
We agree. Even in a jaded world, it is breathtaking to discover a U.S. senator — brother of a former president — actively and secretly collaborating with Soviet leaders in an attempt to undermine the president of the United States’ nuclear defense policy during the height of the cold war.
Referring to this story, Powerline notes that
Kennedy wasn’t the only one. As we’ve noted before, Soviet archives also indicate that Jimmy Carter and Tip O’Neill offered to collaborate with the Russians to undermine Reagan.
Let’s not forget that John Kerry met with representatives of North Vietnamese in Paris, 1970. Kerry was not a Senator at the time, but he was an offer in naval reserve.
As Ovid remarked, “Treason doth never prosper. What’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
Posted on October 29th, 2006 by pwyll
Filed under: politics
Entries RSS
Viktor Chebrikov was head of the KGB from December 17, 1982 until October 1, 1988. If I want good information, I’ll stick with a top-notch American reporter (e.g. Bob Woodward) over the head of the KGB anytime.
That said, I’m gonna ‘move over and let Adam Stanhope take over’ (Thanks, Jimi); Mr. Stanhope posted the following review of The Crusader by Paul Kengor (the original source of this “information” on Ted Kennedy) on Amazon:
“This is an excellent book that masterfully breaks out and retells one of the most important stories of our times. No stone is left unturned and Kengor takes the time to recognize the numerous other personalities involved with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I was extremely disappointed, however, in what appears to be a ‘hit piece’ against Ted Kennedy shoe-horned into the midst of this otherwise excellent book. Ted Kennedy making overtures to the KGB for political reasons? Why is this outrageous claim so poorly sourced. Kengor should be ashamed of himself for bringing the clearly bogus and agenda-driven Kennedy segment to the story. By doing so he’s created another dishonest club with which the anti-Kennedy crowd can use to abuse the Senior Senator from Massachusetts - an imperfect man, to be sure, but by no means a traitor as described by this book.
I rate this book 5 stars minus 2 because of the Kennedy nonsense for a total of 3 stars.”
Who the hell is Adam Stanhope???
Dear ccl,
If you go to the Amazon homepage, you will have no trouble finding the page at Amazon on the book at issue here, The Crusader by Paul Kengor. As of this writing, there are two reviews of that book posted there. One is by Adam Stanhope. With Mr. Stanhope’s review is a link with a good deal of information on him and his work as a reviewer for Amazon.
As I have said several times today, if you find his or my positions unpersuasive, feel free to ignore them.
Peace out.
I imagine more reviews will come in. I’d be much more impressed by Senator Kennedy challenging Mr. Kengor in court.
My apologies. I misread your prior post. When you referenced Bob Woodward as credible, I thought that Adam Stanhope would be of his stature. I did not realize you were attacking Paul Kengor’s source material by referencing a book reviewer for amazon.com. Again, my misstep.
Dear ccl,
I also apologize for adding to the confusion by using Woodward’s and Stanhope’s names so close together in comment 1 above. In my view, Woodward stands alone at the top of his field.
I think part of the reason for my misstep is I feel the current polarization of American political discourse has led to a breakdown in this vital-to-democracy discussion. I find myself more and more stumbling from the left to the center just keep the discussion going.
Discussion and debate are far more important than my own personal views on a topic in political discourse on the issues of the day.