Ted Kennedy Made Secret Overtures to Russia to Prevent Ronald Reagan’s Re-Election

[AURaptor 1,126]

Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy had “selfish political and ideological motives” when he made secret overtures to the Soviet Union’s spy agency during the Cold War to thwart then-President Ronald Reagan’s re-election, a Reagan biographer said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

When they came to light years later, Kennedy’s secret contacts with the Russians through their KGB spy agency in the early 1980s didn’t cause nearly the tizzy that Russia’s alleged interference with this year’s election has for President-elect Donald Trump among liberal activists and reporters.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom Trump has said he hopes to “get along,” is a former foreign intelligence officer and lieutenant colonel in the KGB.

In the 1980s, Kennedy was “terribly misguided” and “a fool” for seeing Reagan as a greater threat than either the leader of the Soviet Union or the head of its brutal secret police and  intelligence agency, political science professor and writer Paul Kengor told The Daily Signal.

 

The presidential hopeful’s secret correspondence with the Soviet spy service was first reported Feb. 2, 1992, by the London Times in an article headlined “Teddy, the KGB and the Top Secret File.”

As this reporter wrote in 2010, the story focused on a 1983 document from the spy agency detailing Kennedy’s overtures to top officials in the former Soviet Union. The Massachusetts Democrat had challenged President Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Democratic primaries and was considering the possibility of running again for president.

In a letter addressed to then-Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov, dated May 14, 1983, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov explained that Kennedy was eager to “counter the militaristic policies” of Reagan, who defeated Carter as the Republican nominee, and to undermine his prospects for re-election in 1984.

[homersapien 11,447]

Got an attribution for that?

[AURaptor 1,126]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Got an attribution for that?

Hidden in plain sight, with in the story posted. 

https://spectator.org/39381_ted-kennedys-kgb-correspondence/

[homersapien 11,447]

27 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Hidden in plain sight, with in the story posted. 

https://spectator.org/39381_ted-kennedys-kgb-correspondence/

Well, I am not surprised it's from the spectator.

But for the sake of precision - which is key - could you highlight the attribution in your quote?  I can't find it.  I think you are lying again.

[SaltyTiger 7,860]

1 hour ago, AURaptor said:

Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy had “selfish political and ideological motives” when he made secret overtures to the Soviet Union’s spy agency during the Cold War to thwart then-President Ronald Reagan’s re-election, a Reagan biographer said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

When they came to light years later, Kennedy’s secret contacts with the Russians through their KGB spy agency in the early 1980s didn’t cause nearly the tizzy that Russia’s alleged interference with this year’s election has for President-elect Donald Trump among liberal activists and reporters.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom Trump has said he hopes to “get along,” is a former foreign intelligence officer and lieutenant colonel in the KGB.

In the 1980s, Kennedy was “terribly misguided” and “a fool” for seeing Reagan as a greater threat than either the leader of the Soviet Union or the head of its brutal secret police and  intelligence agency, political science professor and writer Paul Kengor told The Daily Signal.

 

The presidential hopeful’s secret correspondence with the Soviet spy service was first reported Feb. 2, 1992, by the London Times in an article headlined “Teddy, the KGB and the Top Secret File.”

As this reporter wrote in 2010, the story focused on a 1983 document from the spy agency detailing Kennedy’s overtures to top officials in the former Soviet Union. The Massachusetts Democrat had challenged President Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Democratic primaries and was considering the possibility of running again for president.

In a letter addressed to then-Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov, dated May 14, 1983, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov explained that Kennedy was eager to “counter the militaristic policies” of Reagan, who defeated Carter as the Republican nominee, and to undermine his prospects for re-election in 1984.

what would Mary Joe Kopeckne think of this?

[homersapien 11,447]

You call that including an attribution?

Damn, time for me to start slacking off.

[AURaptor 1,126]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, I am not surprised it's from the spectator.

But for the sake of precision - which is key - could you highlight the attribution in your quote?  I can't find it.  I think you are lying again.

Homer - it's a known story. Sorry you're out of the loop. I've presented more than enough info for you to follow up on, and have no inclination to spoon feed to you what you obviously wish weren't true. 

[homersapien 11,447]

11 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Homer - it's a known story. Sorry you're out of the loop. I've presented more than enough info for you to follow up on, and have no inclination to spoon feed to you what you obviously wish weren't true. 

It's not as well known as Reagan collaborating with the Iranians regarding the hostage release prior to his election.

[AURaptor 1,126]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

It's not as well known as Reagan collaborating with the Iranians regarding the hostage release prior to his election.

 

Actually , it is ! Because one really DID take place, as proven by documents from BOTH the US and Soviet sources.  The other ? Pure Leftist fantasy ! 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy had “selfish political and ideological motives” when he made secret overtures to the Soviet Union’s spy agency during the Cold War to thwart then-President Ronald Reagan’s re-election, a Reagan biographer said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

When they came to light years later, Kennedy’s secret contacts with the Russians through their KGB spy agency in the early 1980s didn’t cause nearly the tizzy that Russia’s alleged interference with this year’s election has for President-elect Donald Trump among liberal activists and reporters. 

More Meddling....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/the-inside-story-of-us-meddling-in-israel-s-elections.html

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/25949/Default.aspx

[AURaptor 1,126]

'78, that's just not fair! 

 It could be said that Obama "personally" sought to influence the Israeli  elections. 

Gasp !! 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Political and pathetic.  Yet another example of accepting/defending the misdeeds of today with the misdeeds of the past, the misdeeds of the _____________party with the misdeeds of the ___________ party.

The realization should be, politicians from both parties will undermine, or ignore, the interests of the country if it suits their short-term political agenda.  There are more examples that can be added to this discussion.  However, why add to an inane argument that is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, partisan, ignorant.

Both parties will continue to further the interests of the party and, the self-interests of the politicians who represent the parties, ahead of the interests of Americans as long as they have unconditional, unquestioned support from fools who have forgotten, or never understood that fundamental ethics are not conditional/situational.  

Those of you who cheer lead for your party are fools who unwittingly allow/enable the corruption of our government and, the destruction of the United States.  Getting lost in ideological rhetoric based in lies, distortions, exaggerations is not a substitute for real knowledge and understanding of human behavior, power, psychology, ethics, history, politics.  Unless of course, you wish to be an ideological idiot.  Congratulations to those of you who have attained this lowest level of political awareness.  You define the term "useful idiots".

Nice thread.  It exemplifies the true source of our political problems and, ultimate destruction.  There is no ethical or intellectual foundation in pure partisanship.  

[AURaptor 1,126]

You know what else is missing ?

 ANY evidence that Russia or Putin  had any actual influence of our election whatsoever. 

[TheBlueVue 177]

50 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

55 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Nice thread.  It exemplifies the true source of our political problems and, ultimate destruction.  There is no ethical or intellectual foundation in pure partisanship.  

 

HA! I give you credit man you have distilled EVERYTHING that ails us into one word...partisanship. If we could JUST be like we were in the old days when folks got along and were non-partisan like when Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton dead because of political differences. America is the greatest force for good the world has ever seen and you'll argue she isn't exceptional; Ive had that argument with you before.

I'll also give you credit for ALWAYS posting as if you're unabashedly the smartest guy in the room. That makes reading your posts really entertaining.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

HA! I give you credit man you have distilled EVERYTHING that ails us into one word...partisanship. If we could JUST be like we were in the old days when folks got along and were non-partisan like when Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton dead because of political differences. America is the greatest force for good the world has ever seen and you'll argue she isn't exceptional; Ive had that argument with you before.

I'll also give you credit for ALWAYS posting as if you're unabashedly the smartest guy in the room. That makes reading your posts really entertaining.

No, you are lying.  I have NEVER argued that America is not exceptional.  I have simply pointed out the fact that exceptional is not perfect.

Furthermore, you are again disingenuous or, outright lying by implying that the personal animosity between Hamilton and Burr was strictly political.  It was not.  Note that Hamilton never dueled Jefferson.

Finally, you fail so miserably with facts and logic that, you seem to always attempt the tactic of making the discussion personal.  This is a sign of weak ability, poor character.

[japantiger 4,051]

Partisanship:

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24094

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

14 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Partisanship:

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24094

 

Please tell me you aren't going to adopt the Bluevue that refuses to see the word "pure" in front of the word partisanship.

When, for whatever reason, party comes before country, then partisanship has gone too far.  Regardless of which party you cheer for.

When partisanship compromises principles and ethics, it has gone too far.  Attempting to make it an all or nothing discussion is typical of cheap partisan tactics.

[AURaptor 1,126]

FBI & NSA  have assured  Trump that nothing was done to affect /manipulate the election. There was no tampering. This is all a complete charade. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

FBI & NSA  have assured  Trump that nothing was done to affect /manipulate the election. There was no tampering. This is all a complete charade. 

Do you have a source?

[japantiger 4,051]

11 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Please tell me you aren't going to adopt the Bluevue that refuses to see the word "pure" in front of the word partisanship.

When, for whatever reason, party comes before country, then partisanship has gone too far.  Regardless of which party you cheer for.

When partisanship compromises principles and ethics, it has gone too far.  Attempting to make it an all or nothing discussion is typical of cheap partisan tactics.

I don't disagree with any point you make...and maybe I am interpreting some of your feedback incorrectly; if so, let me know...but you seem to imply this is a relatively new phenomenom...it's not...it's human nature and has always been with us...Jefferson openly colluded with the French to undermine Washington's foreign policy directives while Sec of State...and wrote openly in the press under various pseudonym's calling Washington just about every name in the book... and went so far as to call him senile...and he deeply disagreed with Hamilton on just about everything...to the point of founding the 1st US political party...thus inventing US partisan politics...now I personally think committing treason while Sec of State; and calling half the population the "chosen people of God" and wishing economic ruin on the other half is going too far...and is putting party before country....

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, japantiger said:

I don't disagree with any point you make...and maybe I am interpreting some of your feedback incorrectly; if so, let me know...but you seem to imply this is a relatively new phenomenom...it's not...it's human nature and has always been with us...Jefferson openly colluded with the French to undermine Washington's foreign policy directives while Sec of State...and wrote openly in the press under various pseudonym's calling Washington just about every name in the book... and went so far as to call him senile...and he deeply disagreed with Hamilton on just about everything...to the point of founding the 1st US political party...thus inventing US partisan politics...now I personally think committing treason while Sec of State; and calling half the population the "chosen people of God" and wishing economic ruin on the other half is going too far...and is putting party before country....

Jefferson also undermined those in his own party who he felt were self-serving and corrupt.  So did Hamilton.  Intentions are key to full understanding.

Let's not attempt to justify extreme partisanship by refusing to acknowledge degrees and the relative context.

I would be less worried about the partisanship of the politicians and, more worried about how partisanship is used to manipulate the electorate.

[japantiger 4,051]

14 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Jefferson also undermined those in his own party who he felt were self-serving and corrupt.  So did Hamilton.  Intentions are key to full understanding.

Let's not attempt to justify extreme partisanship by refusing to acknowledge degrees and the relative context.

I would be less worried about the partisanship of the politicians and, more worried about how partisanship is used to manipulate the electorate.

Not sure I follow the point of your last sentence...I think maybe you and I just have a fundamental difference in our view of human nature.  This is what politicians do...they manipulate their constituents and the electorate...it's the nature of getting elected and driving policy...sometimes it just happens to turn out to be good...sometimes it's not...I think most of the time it's not...but it's no different than marketing which is just manipulating demand....I think the only think that makes sense it to limit how much damage they can do.

[homersapien 11,447]

What I find interesting is that people's ability to discern fact from fiction is so dependent on their political point of view.  You would think that with the universe of information that is available the simple distinction between true and false is simply one of a little effort in researching.  

But information is primarily used to reinforce preconceptions one already has.  I find it amazing how much rationalization is employed to make something true that is objectively false and vice-versa.

Emotions rule.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just now, japantiger said:

Not sure I follow the point of your last sentence...I think maybe you and I just have a fundamental difference in our view of human nature.  This is what politicians do...they manipulate their constituents and the electorate...it's the nature of getting elected and driving policy...sometimes it just happens to turn out to be good...sometimes it's not...I think most of the time it's not...but it's no different than marketing which is just manipulating demand....I think the only think that makes sense it to limit how much damage they can do.

Sounds like you understand perfectly.  Tail wagging the dog.  Fundamental corruption of the government of the people.

I agree.  We need to limit the potential for damage.  However, we have to recognize the imperfections, corruption, ulterior motives of all of them, not just those who happen to be on "our" side.  Therein lies the danger of extreme partisanship and the cheer leading.  We only see half of the problem.   Solutions aren't possible because, truth is obscured and political will compromised.

I don't believe the solution lies in "limited government".  I believe the solution lies in removing money from the political process, especially "dark money".  The problems is not inherent in government.  The problem is inherent in the corruption of openly allowing money to influence (outright purchase) policy.  I believe the political divide is perfect cover for the parties to continue to consolidate power and their corrupt practices.  

I think the election of Trump is related.  Certainly some of his rhetoric is.  "Drain the swamp" has very broad appeal.

[homersapien 11,447]

Government "service" has become a sure-fire career path to becoming very wealthy.  

I don't think that is what the founders envisioned.