Kennedy Kolluded With Kommies

So says an alleged letter to the KGB:

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.

This Kengor fellow has a book to sell, which diminishes the credibility somewhat, but if he’s got a genuine letter, he’s got a genuine letter. Someone keen to sell books and telling the truth would cleverly post a scan of this letter to see if it can be de-Ratherized or confirmed.

So while you have to take it with a grain of salt, it sure fits the facts. The “lion of the Democratic party” has never found a depth to which he would not sink in pursuit of his own interests. *CoughChappaquiddickCough*

Update

More on this letter from Bryan at Hot Air.
Found at Ace O Spades.

Possibly Related
  • Cool Stuff Roundup
  • The First Stroke of Fascism?
  • 25 Attacks Thwarted Annually
  • Filed in: Politics at 8:28 pm on Friday, October 20, 2006 TrackBack Speak Up

    Room at the Raging RINO Inn?

    I have been proud to be associated (however slightly) with the Raging RINOs blog collective. It’s a group of thoughtful and intelligent people who are generally far more articulate than I.

    But I find myself agreeing with the others less and less these days. The general mood seems to be one of punishing the Republicans in the November election for corruption and mismanagement.

    However, the Democrats in 2006 are not Bill Clinton’s party. While vexing, the Clinton presidency charted calmer, pre-911 waters. I also believe that had Clinton truly understood the threat of Islamic terror, he would have acted.

    I voted for Al Gore in 2000. While Bush was more likeable, I figured Gore would continue the economic good times. I was wrong. While everyone slept at the “End of History”, our enemies continued their 21-year-old war against us.

    Because terrorists and their masters in Damascus and Tehran are at war with the United States, Democratic control of Congress would be an unmitigated disaster.

    The right strategy, poorly implemented, is still light-years ahead of an inapt strategy perfectly executed. John Murtha’s proposal for fighting the war on terror from Okinawa is a perfect example of this.

    In 2006, Democrats do not believe the nation is under threat. They’ve expelled Sen. Joe Lieberman from the party. Lieberman, a far-left liberal, understands that Western liberal values are threatened by Islamofascism.

    It’s not that the Republicans have much going for them. The party is apalling. The proven corruption, while bi-partisan, indicts the ruling party far more heavily than the opposition. Congressional Republicans by-and-large do not deserve re-election.

    But what have Democrats done to earn power? All they do is bash Republicans. If the war on terror, controlling illegal immigration, and continued economic expansion through sound tax policy are less important than tossing out one batch of corrupt bumblers and replacing them with another equally inept and corrupt group, then by all means, let’s turn the electoral map blue on election day.

    But the act will have massive consequences. Premature withdrawal from Iraq and repudiation of the Bush doctrine could lead to a world war scale confrontation.

    So the question is, in a nation divided, is there room for a Raging RINO that strongly prefers the Republican Party Kool-Aid to Democratic nihilism?

    Join the Victory Wing of the Republican Party

    Possibly Related
  • RINO Sightings
  • RINO Sightings
  • RINO Sightings
  • Filed in: Politics, Gone Wobbly, War on Terror at 9:26 am on Monday, October 16, 2006 TrackBack 2 Comments | view comments »

    Most Believe 9/11 Truther Stories

    Who you gonna believe, Charlie Sheen or your lyin’ eyes?

    Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

    So despite the heavy scorn heaped on 9/11 government conspiracy theories by this week’s South Park, we are still to believe most people think the government was behind 9/11?

    Um, no. The context explains everything.

    Here’s the polling question:

    When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

    “Hiding something” scored 65% in March, 2002. But the lesson here is that no matter what the reports say the poll says, if you can’t see the underlying data, disbelieve it. Especially NY Times and CBS polls.

    Possibly Related
  • RINO Sightings: Crime and Punishment Edition
  • Take Back the 9/11 Memorial
  • Rats! X’d Out Again!
  • Filed in: Politics, War on Terror at 9:45 am on Sunday, October 15, 2006 TrackBack Speak Up

    Raging RINO no more?

    I’m sorry to say that The Commissar has lost his marbles.

    I have understood and respected his opinions in the past- even when I did not agree as in his throwing in the towel on Iraq a while back- but to say that the Democrats are a viable electoral option is to embrace nihilism.

    His words:

    I have decided to vote Democratic this fall.

    I am a conservative and a Republican party member. I believe in small government, free markets, strong defense, etc., but Bush’s snafu in Iraq is just too much. It overwhelms those issues which for 30 years have made me vote GOP. In addition to screwing up so far, there is zero evidence that he’s changed, or that he “gets it,” or anything.

    There is another aspect that makes this easier for me. Bush has not followed a conservative agenda (not that the Democrats would); he has increased the spending, size, and reach of government, mostly in the name of fighting terror. Historically, there has been a conservative philosophy. Today, most people & media use “conservative” as shorthand for “loyal Bush supporter.” But, as many have observed, Bush is no conservative. No need to remind me of Bush’s support for Intelligent Design, and other anti-science actions of the administration.

    As a voter (twice for Bush) and as a blogger who supported this nonsense, I have a hard time at this point, saying, “Yes, this war has been horribly executed and there is no prospect for improvement, let me pull the lever for more of the same.”

    Even if you accept Stephen’s assertion that the war has been horribly executed, the war in Iraq has achieved one key goal:

    This war on terror arrived on our shores on September the 11th, 2001. Since that day, the terrorists have continued to kill — in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, Baghdad, London, and elsewhere. The enemy remains determined to do more harm. The terrorists kill indiscriminately, but with a clear purpose — they’re trying to shake our will. They want to force free nations to retreat so they can topple governments across the Middle East, establish Taliban-like regimes in their place, and turn the Middle East into a launching pad for attacks against free people.

    The terrorists will fail. Because we are fighting a murderous ideology with a clear strategy, we’re staying on the offensive in Iraq, Afghanistan and other fronts in the war on terror, fighting terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. When terrorists spend their days and nights struggling to avoid death or capture, they’re less capable of arming and training and plotting new attacks on America.

    We’re also spreading the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East, because free societies are peaceful societies. By offering a hopeful alternative to the terrorists’ ideology of hatred and fear, we are laying the foundations of peace for our children and grandchildren.

    This is George W. Bush, August 2005. The man has doggedly stayed on message, hoping that somehow his words would seep through all the fear, uncertainty, and doubt spread by those who would have the war end in failure; the mission incomplete.

    War sucks. I’m against it, in general. But when the enemy insists, as he has repeatedly since 1979- we must stand firm until the battle is won. Bush’s three paragraphs above ARE the plan for Iraq, the Middle East, and the War on Terror.

    Even if the effort in Iraq fails- and there’s no indisputable indication that it will- each day our soldiers spend training Iraqis, rebuilding the country, and killing terrorists, is another day the country does not fall into the Islamofascist shadow. The odds are increasing, even if in tiny measure, that the U.S. will be successful in Iraq and the War on Terror.

    My God! That this nation is fighting two wars simultaneously with an all-volunteer military, while growing its economy- that is the real miracle.

    We can debate tactics all day- and surely the administration has made many tactical errors, and even some minor strategic errors. But the grand strategy in place is sound, and as long as Bush is president, he will carry it out.

    If seeing women throw off their burkhas of oppression left you teary-eyed and hopeful for the future, and now you want to vote for the party of ‘brutal Afghan winter’ and ‘quagmire’, you’re a hypocrite.

    If you were jubilant when Baghdad fell, and now you want to vote for those who call liberating 50 million people a disaster, you’re a hypocrite.

    If those who have supported this war in the past, turn and vote for the party of nothingness- the party where Joe Lieberman is no longer welcome- you’re a hypocrite.

    If you rejoiced at the Cedar Revolution, but are unwilling to support Middle Eastern democracy with American blood and treasure, you’re a hypocrite.

    I do not argue that the Bush administration or the Republican Congress is superior or even above-average. I fairly despise Congress- there’s only one or two weasels worth their seats in the whole building. Bush has been appalling on many issues other than the War on Terror.

    But if you think retreating back to the safe shores of America and ignoring the fight that’s going on for the freedom of hundreds of millions is a wise policy- please relent and remove your head from the sand.

    Hold your nose. Wince while you do it. Whine and complain. But vote Republican in November.

    Democrats stand for nothing but their own power. And this election is just too important to ’send a message’.

    Update: Heh, and Amen.

    Possibly Related
  • RINO Sightings
  • RINO Sightings
  • RINO Sightings
  • Filed in: Gone Wobbly at 10:19 pm on Monday, October 2, 2006 TrackBack Speak Up

    Insecure Religion



    Protests in Egypt

    Protests in India

    The Pope’s comments were poorly-chosen, not because they were untrue, but because they show a lack of understanding of the immaturity of many of the world’s Muslims:

    Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict’s remarks on Islam and jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that many fear could burst into violent protests like those that followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

    By citing an obscure Medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam’s founder as “evil and inhuman,” Benedict inflamed Muslim passions and aggravated fears of a new outbreak of anti-Western protests.

    The last outpouring of Islamic anger at the West came in February over the prophet cartoons first published in a Danish newspaper. The drawings sparked protests - some of them deadly - in almost every Muslim nation in the world.

    This post is not about Islam, which truly is one of the world’s great religions. The problem is in the insecurity and immaturity of some of its adherents. How could hissy fits, burning effigies, and death threats possibly entice non-believers into Dar al-Islam? The explosions of anger and violence are not exactly learned and thoughtful entreaties to accept Koranic doctrine. Most people who are not already Muslim will head the other way when subjected to these outbursts.

    So, then, for Islam to spread peacefully, this uproar and protest is actually counter-productive. Muslim clerics say inflammatory things about Judaism and Christianity all the time. While these statements cause a lot of angst on Little Green Footballs and similar communities, most of the time, regular people’s reaction is a shrug. Does it diminish one’s religion to let such comments go? Hardly.

    If I were a physicist, I would not riot when Larry the Cable guy makes ignorant remarks. Sure, it’s annoying, but instead of burning things because my religion was accused of being violent, the physicist in me would be educating people with the truth.

    The Pope’s statement about Islam could be easily discredited as he is not Muslim. However, by some of the ummah responding to the Pope’s allegations about violence in Islam with riots only proves the point. It would be far better for Islam if some Muslims would grow a thicker skin.

    After all, since when does the Pope speak for Islam?

    Possibly Related
  • “Islamic Scholar” Gets Life
  • Teaching Theory in School
  • Irrationality Could Decide War on Terror
  • Filed in: Politics, War on Terror at 10:31 am on Saturday, September 16, 2006 TrackBack 6 Comments | view comments »

    Hit and Run in San Francisco

    No, no, it’s not some new naughty term…

    A San Francisco driver, a male (that’s all the description we’re getting so far), has been taken into custody after injuring 13 people, three critically in what appear to be deliberate incidents.

    More here.

    A reader emails to say there’s no way this suspect is a non-Muslim. Based on the coverage noted above, it’s hard to argue. Thoughts?

    Update 3:

    The Mercury News is not helping matters, suggesting Popal was suffering “wedding jitters.” As Bookworm Room says, “Some of us deal with our jitters with ice cream, some with therapy, some with alcohol, and some with attempted mass murder. It’s all clear to me now.”

    More links from Bookworm: Witnesses say Popal claimed he was a terrorist, though police deny it.

    Update 2: MEC at The Art of Politics has more on the suspect Omeed Aziz Popal, and notes a chilling possibility.

    Update: AJ at the Strata-Sphere has this story and notes an article claiming:

    The driver was in police custody. His name was not immediately released, but Department of Motor Vehicles records show the license plate on the SUV is registered to Omeed A. Popal of Fremont.

    AJ leaps to compare this “attack” (as described in AJ’s linked article) to the Muslim running over people in Chapel Hill, NC this spring.

    I condemn this stereotyping in the strongest possible… oh, who am I kidding? Did anyone really think this was not going to link back to irrational hatred?

    Possibly Related
  • No related posts
  • Filed in: Politics, War on Terror at 8:14 pm on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 TrackBack 8 Comments | view comments »

    Kerry The Kidder

    Ohio was stolen!

    The AP story nails it in the lede:

    Sen. John Kerry didn’t contest the results at the time, but now that he’s considering another run for the White House, he’s alleging election improprieties by the Ohio Republican who oversaw the deciding vote in 2004.

    OK, that’s one motivation for him to decide to whine, 22 months later. Any more?

    An e-mail from Kerry will be sent to 100,000 Democratic donors Tuesday asking them to support U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland for governor of Ohio. The bulk of the e-mail criticizes Strickland’s opponent, GOP Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, for his dual role in 2004 as President Bush’s honorary Ohio campaign co-chairman and the state’s top election official.

    “He used the power of his state office to try to intimidate Ohioans and suppress the Democratic vote,” Kerry says in the e-mail, according to a copy provided in advance.

    Kerry, D-Massachusetts, conceded the election when he lost Ohio and its 20 electoral votes. A recount requested by minor-party candidates showed Bush won by about 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million cast. But Kerry’s e-mail says Blackwell “used his office to abuse our democracy and threaten basic voting rights.”

    Wow, that’s frightening. Chilling, even. Blackwell intimidated more than 118,000 voters, trying to suppress the Democratic vote.

    What about this court ruling from the 2004 elections- that I noted in July 2005:

    16 party operatives have been convicted of electoral law violations over the past 7 months. Another operative is going on trial in October for plotting the murder of one of the witnesses.

    The operative plotting murder got 10 years- sentenced on July 31, 2006.

    This blockbuster, vote-buying, murder-plotting story must have been national news that escaped attention somehow. Wait a tic:

    Charles Powell, head of the Democratic Party in East St. Louis, got a sentence earlier this year of 21 months and a fine of $2,500. The punishment for some precinct committeemen ranged from probation to 18 months in prison.

    The federal investigation showed that party workers gave $5 to $10 apiece to individuals they thought were unlikely to vote otherwise in the fall 2004 election.

    East St. Louis politicians got more than $70,000 from the St. Clair County Democratic Party for a get-out-the-vote effort. The county party was not accused of wrongdoing. Most of the money was used for legitimate purposes, Judge Murphy said at Ellis’ sentencing in February.

    Oh, so it was DEMOCRATIC operatives buying votes and plotting murder. That must be why Kerry’s baseless accusation is front page news at CNN, and few have ever heard about the Democratic corruption in East St. Louis.

    Possibly Related
  • Defending John Kerry
  • Kerry Demands Roberts Documents
  • The Elephant in the Room
  • Filed in: Politics at 10:57 am on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 TrackBack 7 Comments | view comments »

    Nagin the Nitwit

    Nagin Compares Katrina to 9/11:

    New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin criticized efforts to redevelop the World Trade Center site when confronted in a television interview about delays in rebuilding his city after Hurricane Katrina.

    During the “60 minutes” interview, a correspondent pointed out flood-damaged cars still on the streets of New Orleans’ devastated Ninth Ward. Nagin replied, “You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed, and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair,” according to CBS.

    Actually, Ray-Ray, NYC is doing a lot. WTC 7 is rebuilt and opened a couple months back.

    You’ve still got cars in the 9th Ward, and $110 billion later, you haven’t hooked ‘em up to your standard type tow truck.

    I’d even guess that your school busses are still in that flooded lot, given your sorry performance.

    Of course it’s all still the federal government’s fault… Pathetic.

    Possibly Related
  • Afternoon Adventures
  • Shattered!
  • RINO Sightings: Crime and Punishment Edition
  • Filed in: Politics, War on Terror at 9:23 am on Friday, August 25, 2006 TrackBack 2 Comments | view comments »

    Patriotism in Doubt

    Woman Attempts Small Explosive Device at White House- via the Strata-Sphere. AJ says he saw it on Fox News, and assuming this isn’t a literal firecracker type story, it’s a figurative firecracker story.

    This CNN story is completely devoid of context like- was this woman arrested with the 13″ machete part of a group, why was she there, what were her intentions, etc. It’s also totally unclear if this is AJ Strata’s “bomber”.

    The only thing to go on is the thin gruel of CNN’s story. Had it been a lone white male no shortage of detail and innuendo would exist. Therefore, I’ll make an educated guess that this chick was a Code Pink type in opposition to Chimpy McBushHitlerBurton’s policies and existence.

    Update: Here’s a 13″ machete…


    Oh, and from the CNN article- I censored it- the woman’s name:

    Spokeswoman Kim Bruce said Ashwak Saleh was taken into custody and charged with possession of a prohibited weapon after she displayed a 13-inch machete on the sidewalk outside the White House.

    Isolated incident, I’m sure. Or was she in DC attending yesterday’s Hezbollah rally at the White House?

    Either way, I think it’s safe to doubt the patriotism of those at the Hezbollah rally and those who sharpen machetes on the curb in front of the White House.

    Possibly Related
  • Super Bore
  • Happy Birthday, America!
  • Zarqawi is Angry!
  • Filed in: Politics at 4:47 pm on Sunday, August 13, 2006 TrackBack 10 Comments | view comments »

    The World is Insane

    Sorry for the inadvertent hiatus, but the blog world is just insane lately. Between Goldstein frisching some dumb lib “professor”, Ace (and others) outing a sock puppeteer, and folks getting their panties in a wad about Mel “I’m a big moron and my butt smells like moron” Gibson.

    And it’s not just the blogs. The MSM covers the Israel/Hezbollah conflict like a high school newspaper gossip column. “Ooh, did you hear what they did to so-and-so’s mom’s car?” And they are like, so not friends of Israel. Not that each side in an armed conflict shouldn’t be critiqued, but just as the “peace” movement only wants one side to stop fighting, so too the media only has critical words for Israel.

    Who can make sense of this? The Lileks-man can:

    Of course, he’s right. Without the steady, respected hand of Iran on the Middle Eastern helm, the Syrian regime might be replaced by pragmatic elements of the military unwilling to enjoy the boon of Persian dominance. One can excuse the occasional, inexplicable acts of Iranian mischief; the mullahs no doubt are busy destabilizing Iraq today, for example, but only to achieve a more stable future (Would that our leaders had such foresight!)

    Read it all, as always. Lileks gets all disproportionate.

    Possibly Related
  • The Iranian Worm Turns
  • Ahmadinejad- Crazy?
  • The Liminal State
  • Filed in: Politics, War on Terror at 10:18 am on Thursday, August 3, 2006 TrackBack Speak Up
    Next Page »
     
    Never Forget
    ThinkGeek

    Speak Now!

    Biggest Change with a Democratic Congress?

    View Results



    Tracking