If this is true.....

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page...T20061020b.html

 

KGB Letter Outlines Sen. Kennedy's Overtures to Soviets, Prof Says

By Kevin Mooney

CNSNews.com Staff Writer

October 20, 2006

 

(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."

 

As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow -- to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.

 

In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.

 

But Kennedy's attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized. Andropov died after a brief time in office and was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.

 

In his attempt to reach out the Soviets, Kennedy settled on a flawed receptacle for peace, Kengor said. Andropov was a much more belligerent and confrontational leader than the man who followed him, in Kengor's estimation.

 

"If Andropov had lived and Gorbachev never came to power, I can't imagine the Cold War ending peacefully like it did," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "Things could have gotten ugly."

 

In the long run of history, Kengor believes it is evident that Reagan's policies were vindicated while Kennedy was proven wrong. In fact, as he points out in his book, Kennedy himself made a "gracious concession" after Reagan died, crediting the 40th president with winning the Cold War.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I don't find this hard to believe at all. Democrats couldn't stand the defense buildup, they couldn't stand that Reagan called the Soviets the "evil empire", they couldn't stand the fact Reagan's economic policies were working and the economy was gaining strength, couldn't stand that inflation and interest rates were falling..................just couldn't stand the fact that Reagan was successful where they had failed. This is, of course, before Reagan's ultimate victories with the collapse of the Iron Curtain and of the Soviet Empire itself.

[juddling]

well...at least it's not like Kennedy killed anyone or anything.....oh wait.....never mind!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

well...at least it's not like Kennedy killed anyone or anything.....oh wait.....never mind!

 

 

Drowning that floozy was peanuts compared to his efforts to derail Reagan's campaign to destroy the Soviet Union. Had he been successful the whole of Eastern Europe would have been enslaved for at least another decade or 2 and we would have lived in fear of nuclear annihilation for the same amount of time...........

 

 

..........but teh Soviets were on the verge of collapse anyway!!!11!!1!1!!!

 

 

This is getting too easy.

[Texsox]

This is, of course, before Reagan's ultimate victories with the collapse of the Iron Curtain and of the Soviet Empire itself.

 

Amazing what one guy could do. If only he had a few more minutes to solve cancer, hunger, and Dole's ED.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Amazing what one guy could do. If only he had a few more minutes to solve cancer, hunger, and Dole's ED.

 

 

Weak. Even by your low standards.

 

/rolly

[Texsox]

I just love how the GOP faithful believe Reagan did that all by himself.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I just love how the GOP faithful believe Reagan did that all by himself.

 

 

Nope, he didn't wrestle the Soviet Bear himself, as there were a lot of great people who helped out.

 

 

BUT!

 

Reagan set everything in motion.

 

Reagan initiated the arms race that bankrupted the Soviet Union.

 

Reagan broke OPEC which tanked the price of oil, depriving the Soviets of much needed hard currency.

 

But don't take my word for it. Just ask Lech Walesa.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110005204

 

When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.

 

Pretty powerful stuff if you ask me.

Edited October 21, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[juddling]

Nope, he didn't wrestle the Soviet Bear himself, as there were a lot of great people who helped out.

BUT!

 

Reagan set everything in motion.

 

Reagan initiated the arms race that bankrupted the Soviet Union.

 

Reagan broke OPEC which tanked the price of oil, depriving the Soviets of much needed hard currency.

 

But don't take my word for it. Just ask Lech Walesa.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110005204

Pretty powerful stuff if you ask me.

Come on Nuke...be real....everyone knows that if Lech was around nowdays he'd be a reported on Fox News schlubbing the Republican agenda. How much credibility could he have????

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Come on Nuke...be real....everyone knows that if Lech was around nowdays he'd be a reported on Fox News schlubbing the Republican agenda. How much credibility could he have????

 

 

Yeah. I guess all those anti-communist Eastern European dissidents like Walesa, Valcav Havel, Lithuanian independence leader Vytautas Landsbergis, and many many others were just a bunch of Republican plants.

 

You gotta love what Gorby said about Reagan at his funeral though..........

 

Gorbachev this week eulogized Reagan with what could be called his highest praise.

 

"I think that as far as history is concerned --- and he has already gone off into history -- he is a man who made an enormous contribution to creating the conditions for ending the Cold War -- perhaps even the decisive contribution," Gorbachev said.

 

Fox News paid him a million bucks for that little blurb.

 

[Heads22]

Silly Tedward.

[EvilMonkey]

Amazing what one guy could do. If only he had a few more minutes to solve cancer, hunger, and Dole's ED.

Any comments on Teddy, instead of Nuke's praise of Ronnie?

[Texsox]

Sure, Reagan was a genious, he got Ted to help him play good cop bad cop with the Russians. First off I take these things with a giant bit of scepticism. Notice they also mentioned a Rep. So many explainations. Diplomacy and war mongering at the same time, carefully orchestarted by the State Department. Someone exaggerating things to write a book and get it noticed. Ted being a commie. The entire Democratic Party as Communists sympathisers.

 

BTW, wasn't it Reagan's group that held negotiations with the Iranians to keep the hostages until after the election? I believe there was considerable talk about arms for hostages?

 

I place all these reports in the same light.

[EvilMonkey]

Sure, Reagan was a genious, he got Ted to help him play good cop bad cop with the Russians. First off I take these things with a giant bit of scepticism. Notice they also mentioned a Rep. So many explainations. Diplomacy and war mongering at the same time, carefully orchestarted by the State Department. Someone exaggerating things to write a book and get it noticed. Ted being a commie. The entire Democratic Party as Communists sympathisers.

 

BTW, wasn't it Reagan's group that held negotiations with the Iranians to keep the hostages until after the election? I believe there was considerable talk about arms for hostages?

 

I place all these reports in the same light.

So, are you saying that Teddy WILLING went along with a good cop/ bad cop thing with Ronnie in order to help defeat the evil empire, or that it is a good thing Teddy was a traitor because it eventually helped us in the end?

Plus, apparently news ofthis has been out for a while, at least since 2004.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1240644/posts

Edited October 21, 2006 by EvilMonkey

[AbeFroman]

I don't find this hard to believe at all. Democrats couldn't stand the defense buildup, they couldn't stand that Reagan called the Soviets the "evil empire", they couldn't stand the fact Reagan's economic policies were working and the economy was gaining strength, couldn't stand that inflation and interest rates were falling..................just couldn't stand the fact that Reagan was successful where they had failed. This is, of course, before Reagan's ultimate victories with the collapse of the Iron Curtain and of the Soviet Empire itself.

 

WHAT?! INTEREST RATES AND INFLATION?! You're crediting Reagan with that?! Aren't you on record as saying the following:

 

The fed, as you indicated, has the most control over interest rates.

 

Then there's this doozy:

 

Everyone who knows anything about economics will tell you that the economy works in cycles with alternating periods of expansion and contraction. Tax cuts can be a valuable tool in creating economic growth but the interest rate policy of the fed has a lot more power.

 

So how can this be one of Reagan's "ultimate victories? He didn't have any control over interest rates!

 

For those of you who didn't follow it, Nuke and I just had a lenthy debate on what causes increases in tax revenue. I contended that easy access to investment and capital (caused by low interest rate) generated economic growth with thereby caused higher tax revenue. I contended that even though tax revenue increases correllated in time to tax cuts, they were not caused by them. Nuke maintained (and he can correct me here if I am misquoting him) that decreased taxes caused higher tax revenues by pumping more money into the economy. I agreed with him in principle, but only to the extent that tax cuts didn't cause inflation (higher prices) and didn't get spent overseas. The net effect of tax cuts, in my argument, was very slight on the economy. Our debate was fruitful and I enjoyed it a great deal. The two of us even privately exchange pm's in which we both expressed an appreciation of the dicussion.

 

Since this lengthy, often animated discussion, Nuke has taken a statement of mine and placed it in his Signature. Thats fine... I've got no problem with it. I stand by that statement as it is accurate.

 

But I find it odd that only now does he bring up interest rates and inflation as one of Reagan's "ultimate glories." What happened to the tax cut argument? I thought you said that the tax cuts were what caused the economic boom of the 80's?

 

And what about that quote above? The one in which you say that tax cuts don't do nearly as much as interest rates? If its all true, then what did Reagan really do for the economy?

 

Well, I've got a new signature... you can read it below:

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

WHAT?! INTEREST RATES AND INFLATION?! You're crediting Reagan with that?! Aren't you on record as saying the following:

Then there's this doozy:

So how can this be one of Reagan's "ultimate victories? He didn't have any control over interest rates!

 

For those of you who didn't follow it, Nuke and I just had a lenthy debate on what causes increases in tax revenue. I contended that easy access to investment and capital (caused by low interest rate) generated economic growth with thereby caused higher tax revenue. I contended that even though tax revenue increases correllated in time to tax cuts, they were not caused by them. Nuke maintained (and he can correct me here if I am misquoting him) that decreased taxes caused higher tax revenues by pumping more money into the economy. I agreed with him in principle, but only to the extent that tax cuts didn't cause inflation (higher prices) and didn't get spent overseas. The net effect of tax cuts, in my argument, was very slight on the economy. Our debate was fruitful and I enjoyed it a great deal. The two of us even privately exchange pm's in which we both expressed an appreciation of the dicussion.

 

Since this lengthy, often animated discussion, Nuke has taken a statement of mine and placed it in his Signature. Thats fine... I've got no problem with it. I stand by that statement as it is accurate.

 

But I find it odd that only now does he bring up interest rates and inflation as one of Reagan's "ultimate glories." What happened to the tax cut argument? I thought you said that the tax cuts were what caused the economic boom of the 80's?

 

And what about that quote above? The one in which you say that tax cuts don't do nearly as much as interest rates? If its all true, then what did Reagan really do for the economy?

 

Well, I've got a new signature... you can read it below:

 

 

Someone's butt hurt about my siggy I see. I sincerely apologize for not mentioning Reagan't tax cuts, which by the way are widely credited with helping spark the economic turnaround, but there. I did it.

 

You want to sit there and cherry pick my posts that's fine but you should AT LEAST TRY and find a contradiction. Notice that in the 1st quote you have I credited tax cuts with being a factor in economic expansion. My second quote says that tax cuts work. So where is the contradiction? This is, of course, leaving aside the 3 times I remember saying that tax cuts weren't totally responsible for the economic booms that followed.

Edited October 21, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[AbeFroman]

Someone's butt hurt about my siggy I see. I sincerely apologize for not mentioning Reagan't tax cuts, which by the way are widely credited with helping spark the economic turnaround, but there. I did it.

 

 

What? thats it? oh come on Nuke... you know I don't care about the signature thing.

 

What I do care about is how you can address some relevant points. Like how you can justify all the flip-flopping you done on economic issues. Or how you seem to look for any plausible reason to credit Ronald Reagan. Please... feel free to address some of my points in my post

 

How did God-incarnate (Reagan) affect interest rates or control inflation? How can tax cuts be so effective when interest rates have a lot more power? Does the Bush economy REALLY prove that tax cuts work? Or might it just correllate to periods of low interest rates? Do tax cuts prove anything if they aren't as powerful as monetary policy.

 

There's a whole lotta contradiction there. I'm pretty sure everyone is gonna see it...

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

What? thats it? oh come on Nuke... you know I don't care about the signature thing.

 

What I do care about is how you can address some relevant points. Like how you can justify all the flip-flopping you done on economic issues. Or how you seem to look for any plausible reason to credit Ronald Reagan. Please... feel free to address some of my points in my post

 

How did God-incarnate (Reagan) affect interest rates or control inflation? How can tax cuts be so effective when interest rates have a lot more power? Does the Bush economy REALLY prove that tax cuts work? Or might it just correllate to periods of low interest rates? Do tax cuts prove anything if they aren't as powerful as monetary policy.

 

There's a whole lotta contradiction there. I'm pretty sure everyone is gonna see it...

 

 

There's a whole lot of splitting hairs here but not much else. I'll say it for the 4TH time. Tax cuts help spark the economy and so does monetary policy. Monetary policy is a more powerful tool for doing it but tax cuts still have the same effect.

[AbeFroman]

If you're willing to concede that monetary policy has a lot more to do with economic performance than tax cuts, I guess I'm happy.

 

You may find it refreshing to go back and read all my posts on the mortgage boom thread. I think you'll find that I think taxes help, a tiny bit, but that the heavy lifter is monetary policy.

 

I'm glad we've finally resolved this issue on whether Reagan can be credited for improving the economy: result; No... mostly, he can be credited a tiny bit

Edited October 21, 2006 by AbeFroman

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

You may find it refreshing to go back and read all my posts on the mortgage boom thread. I think you'll find that I think taxes help, a tiny bit, but that the heavy lifter is monetary policy.

 

I'm glad we've finally resolved this issue on whether Reagan can be credited for improving the economy: result; No... mostly, he can be credited a tiny bit

 

 

You and those who think like you have resolved along time ago that Reagan didn't have much to do with the boom of the 1980's. That's fine. To say tax policy only has a minimal impact on the economy and to dismiss it completely, as you have done and continue to do, is simply wrong.

 

If I remember the Morgatge thread correctly that was a long drawn out talk about how tax revenue was affected by tax policy not so much about economic growth, but even you were forced to concede what should be common sense about tax cuts pouring money into the economy.

 

I must be slipping also as it took me this long to catch you taking me out of context in your 1st response. You said I credited Reagan with falling interest rates and inflation but if you read the post, you will see that's not the case. I made the point that the Democrats were bitter about falling inflation and interest rates but I didn't credit Reagan for it. Additionally, you quoted me as saying that the economic recovery was one of Reagan's "ultimate victories". That's also not so. Helping turn the economy around was certainly a fine achievement of his administration but the fall of Soviet Communisim and of the Iron curtain were truly historic victories. When you are going to try to point out other people's shortcomings and accuse them of flip-flopping you would do well to pay attention to detail and make sure you have your own ducks in a row.

Edited October 21, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[NorthSideSox72]

If these allegations are true, then add a big one to the list of reasons I dislike that man intensely. Of course, we are talking about the KGB here. It may or may not be true.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Wait...

 

we're surprised that politicians are acting like (and I love Warren Ellis for this paraphrase) barbary apes jacking off into the Constitution while watching out the windows in Washington at the prospect of running peoples' lives for them?

[Texsox]

So, are you saying that Teddy WILLING went along with a good cop/ bad cop thing with Ronnie in order to help defeat the evil empire, or that it is a good thing Teddy was a traitor because it eventually helped us in the end?

Plus, apparently news ofthis has been out for a while, at least since 2004.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1240644/posts

 

I am saying it is nearly impossible to prove, there are dozens of explainations, and I have a hard time believing Russian sources. And if you believe the article, a Rep was a co-conspirator. That makes even more sense.

[EvilMonkey]

I am saying it is nearly impossible to prove, there are dozens of explainations, and I have a hard time believing Russian sources. And if you believe the article, a Rep was a co-conspirator. That makes even more sense.

Actually,the article just says that Teddy and the Rep had worked together on some anti-nuke stuff before, and that teddy would try to get him to go along. It didn't say that this rep knew anything about teddy and the KGB.

[Texsox]

This country works with so many despicable characters, it's a whos who of potential dictators and other scum. The silence by the Grand Old Party tells me it's either untrue, or business as usual that both parties engage in. If this was a real story you can bet the GOP would be grabbing this story and trying to push Foley off the front pages.

 

Shall we also start talking about the political motivation to have the story break right before elections? If one is to buy into the Foley timing, isn't this just as suspect?