New book on Reagan sheds light on the "real" Chappaquiddick Kennedy

Veritas1204

Veritas1204

CAGiversary!
Feedback
8 (100%)
A new book by Paul Kengor entitled "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" unearths evidence of documents showing Democratic golden boy Teddie "I don't know how she drowned in the passenger seat with no one around, honest!" Kennedy engaging in talks with the KGB during the cold war era in which he expressed his desire to help America's sworn enemy unseat the POTUS.

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.

but wait, there's more! (from the book)

"If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y. V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and the television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side."

Now, while there is still a lot that hasn't been found out yet (as in wtf Kennedy was doing letting his partisan hatred for Regan lead him to trying to help the USSR), nothing has come of this information, and probably never will.

Why?

because the MSM is too busy focusing on making Bush look bad to take time and shed light on a nothing story like Kennedy's treasonous acts.

What do you guys think? Does this kind of behavior represent the democratic party, or is the utter lack of interest in this story by the MSM yet another in a long line of partisan attempts to defend the left, no matter what?
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']What do you guys think?[/QUOTE]

That this thread is evidence of the ranting of an insane, incompetent, inveterate rightard.
 
[quote name='Msut77']That this thread is evidence of the ranting of an insane, incompetent, inveterate rightard.[/quote]

I knew I could count on you for informed debate.

Let me know when you want to stop being a fucking 5 year old with the namecalling and explore the world outside your partisan talking points.

And, for those of you viewing this, Msutt's retarded one line putdowns don't count as a response to the OP, but thanks for trying , Msutt.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']I knew I could count on you for informed debate.

Let me know when you want to stop being a fucking 5 year old with the namecalling and explore the world outside your partisan talking points.

And, for those of you viewing this, Msutt's retarded one line putdowns don't count as a response to the OP, but thanks for trying , Msutt.[/QUOTE]

You honestly think you are not a partisan you slackjawed 'tard?

BTW his name is spelled Reagan you moron. I let the one in the title slide thinking it was a typo, but you seem to think that it is spelled regen.

And even after all that all you seem to be saying is that Kennedy let Cronkite visit Moscow?
 
[quote name='Msut77']You honestly think you are not a partisan you slackjawed 'tard?

BTW his name is spelled Reagan you moron. I let the one in the title slide thinking it was a typo, but you seem to think that it is spelled regen.

And even after all that all you seem to be saying is that Kennedy let Cronkite visit Moscow?[/quote]

No, if you would take half the time you do looking for spelling errors in posts to fucking comprehend the content, you would realize that Kennedy reached out to the KGB during the Cold war era in an attempt to collude to unseat a sitting president.

Seriously man, how else can I spell it out for you? there is a memo written by kennedy's campaign reaching out directly to the KGB. Where you got the whole Cronkite thing from is beyond me.

Now, I await your nuanced response which looks to be full of more spelling corrections and disjointed putdowns for my supposed rightard ways.

If it's all the same to you Msutt, I'll rely on someone with a few less barking moonbat one line spins to actually provide a coherent response to this information.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']No, if you would take half the time you do looking for spelling errors in posts to fucking comprehend the content, you would realize that Kennedy reached out to the KGB during the Cold war era in an attempt to collude to unseat a sitting president.[/QUOTE]

So do we get to see the letter? Or do we have to take your (worthless) word for it??

And since you seem to have purposely avoided this part, do you consider yourself non partisan?
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']
because the MSM is too busy focusing on making Bush look bad to take time and ....[/QUOTE]

Bah Bush is doing that on his own..

as far as the MSM defending the left...plu-leeeeeze. I haven't seen the MSM mention the light water nuke reactors that Rumsfeld's company sold to North Korea either.

and spare us the mock outrage.
 
I'm not going the bash the OP and what he posted sounds like an interesting read. I never considered Edward Kennedy to be a moral man. I dont consider Bush to a moral man either though and MSM has a right to focus on him because he is the president. He should be under intense scrutiny.

There was a recent poll in which the majority of Americans thought Congress was corrupt. I think that corruption is going along both party lines.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I would be very interested to find out what sources he was tapping for this information.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much my reaction too. If you plan on reading it, or have already, please share its validity with us.
 
The only thing I feel comfortable commenting about is the 1980s were not the height of the Cold War. The USSR was already headed toward the end in the early 80s and Reagan sped that clock up.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']The only thing I feel comfortable commenting about is the 1980s were not the height of the Cold War. The USSR was already headed toward the end in the early 80s and Reagan sped that clock up.[/QUOTE]

Conservatives don't like to consider that they were economically unstable by the time Reagan was in office; he dealt the death blow in the sense that he was in office when it fell, but to give any one person solitary credit for toppling the USSR is foolish.

On the other hand, the cultrual bridges he built with Gorbachev run quite contrary to the guiding philosophy of modern conservatives when it comes to international diplomacy.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Conservatives don't like to consider that they were economically unstable by the time Reagan was in office; he dealt the death blow in the sense that he was in office when it fell, but to give any one person solitary credit for toppling the USSR is foolish.

On the other hand, the cultrual bridges he built with Gorbachev run quite contrary to the guiding philosophy of modern conservatives when it comes to international diplomacy.[/QUOTE]

One really interesting thing I've noticed lately in relation to Reagan's presidency is conservatives are eager to link in the retreat from Beirut in 1983 with al Qaeda attacks on U.S.-related targets in the 1990s and ultimately 9/11.

The defeat of the USSR was a very long-term battle. We fought them ideologically (and sometimes militarily, albeit indirectly) for 45 years, through Republican and Democratic administrations. Fortunately, both parties saw the need for a more or less consistent policy when it came to resisting their totalitarian aims. Hopefully when Democrats gain power again, whether it be in 2006/8 or whenever, they will see the need for a vigorous war on terror to continue.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Hopefully when Democrats gain power again, whether it be in 2006/8 or whenever, they will see the need for a vigorous war on terror to continue.[/QUOTE]

Quite true. Hopefully, though, the Democrats won't fight terrorism by throwing darts at a map to pick which country to invade.
 
Is this not equal to the allegation that Reagan arranged for Khomeini to delay releasing the hostages until after the election, in exchange for money and weapons he would deliver as President?

Kengor is partisan and a Reagan cheerleader, he'd better have irrefutable proof before anyone takes this seriously. I find both allegations to be baseless. Also, what does Chappaquiddick have to do with this specific allegation?

The suggestion that Kennedy put himself and his cause above the country itself, is a charge that I've levied against some far right Christians. There are some that don't care about (or for) the constitution, or about democracy. They see themselves as carrying out god's will, and they'll do whatever it takes, with no regard for the constitution, freedom, or the democratic process. Katherine Harris, for example, scares the hell out of me. When she says things like, "God is the one who chooses our rulers.", after she was in a position to rig an election... I think some of these people would rig an election, with the justification that its god's will. And that would be perfectly OK with them. I find this to be anti-American and treasonous.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Also, what does Chappaquiddick have to do with this specific allegation?[/QUOTE]

Well, it IS a helpful flag that the person discussing the issue is a partisiant nut obsessed with a case that was legally settled decades ago (yet who I would bet any amount of money one would say that the question of why we invaded Iraq shouldn't be raised because its 'old news')
 
[quote name='Drocket']Well, it IS a helpful flag that the person discussing the issue is a partisiant nut obsessed with a case that was legally settled decades ago (yet who I would bet any amount of money one would say that the question of why we invaded Iraq shouldn't be raised because its 'old news')[/QUOTE]

Apparently Verit views himself as nonpartisan.
Just ya know FYI.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Quite true. Hopefully, though, the Democrats won't fight terrorism by throwing darts at a map to pick which country to invade.[/QUOTE]

That would be even worse than the current selection method!

[quote name='Drocket']Well, it IS a helpful flag that the person discussing the issue is a partisiant nut obsessed with a case that was legally settled decades ago (yet who I would bet any amount of money one would say that the question of why we invaded Iraq shouldn't be raised because its 'old news')[/QUOTE]

The OJ case was legally settled quite some time ago as well, but that hardly means justice was served, does it?
 
[quote name='Drocket']Well, it IS a helpful flag that the person discussing the issue is a partisiant nut obsessed with a case that was legally settled decades ago (yet who I would bet any amount of money one would say that the question of why we invaded Iraq shouldn't be raised because its 'old news')[/QUOTE]

The OJ case was legally settled quite some time ago as well, but that hardly means justice was served, does it?
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']I find it funny how its ok the be partisan to the left, but not the right. :D[/QUOTE]

Not the topic of conversation. Thanks for coming, though.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Not the topic of conversation. Thanks for coming, though.[/QUOTE]

To a certain extent it is true here, though.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']To a certain extent it is true here, though.[/QUOTE]

Only as a result of who it is that participates in these forums, I'd argue. It's overwhelmingly liberal in bias, sure, and those people who fart up these threads with empty "gotcha!"-laden one liners tend to be liberal (or, rather, MSut77 posts them with greater frequency than schuerm26).

I don't think it's indicative of what bias is preferred that people ask for sources, or chide the use of a phrase like "Chappaquiddick" as immature and irrelevant. If anything else, I take this approach: I'll challenge right-wing comments like that, and put liberal commenters like that on my ignore list. I'm ashamed of people who represent the majority of views I hold, and engage in the "pro wrestling of politics" in that regard; I've no vested interest in changing their views on anything (that's a big sticking point, clearly), and I don't want to see what they have to say. On the other hand, I do have an interest in changing a conservative/republican's mind, so even if it is something like "Nancy Pelosi is a sea hag," I'll still inquire about that - why is she a sea hag? What bills/proposals don't you like of hers? What has she said that you are opposed to?

Not that I'm entirely above name-calling, of course. I do try, though.
 
I don't see how its a liberal bias to ask for sources for such a serious allegation. I also don't see how comparing the allegation with an equally baseless allegation against the man the book is about, is being biased.

All I see here is someone wanting to take their little Chappaquiddick shot at Kennedy while repeating an allegation that they don't know is true. No one really does, theres little evidence to support the claim, other than one KGB memo which has not been proven to be authentic. Didn't a "liberal" newscaster get fired over making allegations based on a memo which may not have been authentic?

This charge is nothing new, its been floating around for years, as has the Reagan allegation about Khomeini. Neither has much proof to back it up, and both are routinely "unearthed" by people with an agenda.

It is not being biased to call a spade a spade - Kengor is partisan. Look at what he's written, God and Ronald Reagan, God and George W. Bush. He's also the director of The Center for Vision and Values, a Christian Conservative group that argues that the statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident" in the Declaration of Independence refers strictly to biblical truth. Sorry, Cochese, he's partisan, and pointing that out doesn't make me a liberal.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']a Christian Conservative group that argues that the statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident" in the Declaration of Independence refers strictly to biblical truth.[/QUOTE]

:whistle2:s
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:whistle2:s[/QUOTE]
I.e. a conservative christian organization... A cursory glance at their about page mentions mostly that, and how freedom can only come through biblical truth.

I don't think I need to make much of a case for this being a christian conservative organization with an agenda.
 
[quote name='dafoomie'] Sorry, Cochese, he's partisan, and pointing that out doesn't make me a liberal.[/QUOTE]


My point wasn't a specific one, but general. Usually if you blubbering in a liberal fashion you get far less flak over it than if you were in a conservative fashion.

Point being, we need more people on here that don't see something as conservative or liberal bullshit, but just bullshit. It's my problem with politics today.

Jack Cafferty had an excellent idea: vote out anyone who is an incumbent. Nothing may get done for two years, but it would send the message we aren't happy at all with the way our government is handling [insert policy here].

Is anyone proven themselves worthy of keeping their job?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']My point wasn't a specific one, but general. Usually if you blubbering in a liberal fashion you get far less flak over it than if you were in a conservative fashion.

Point being, we need more people on here that don't see something as conservative or liberal bullshit, but just bullshit. It's my problem with politics today.

Jack Cafferty had an excellent idea: vote out anyone who is an incumbent. Nothing may get done for two years, but it would send the message we aren't happy at all with the way our government is handling [insert policy here].

Is anyone proven themselves worthy of keeping their job?[/QUOTE]
Cafferty and Lou Dobbs are probably the only 2 people on CNN I like. It would certainly send a message that if you're not doing your job, you're out.

A major problem with congress is the gerrymandering that goes on at the state level. There are districts that aren't even congruous. Just about everybody except Iowa does it, they've got a system for determining districts that works pretty well.

Ultimately I think the solution is to put an end to the 2 party system. Other parties need to become players before theres any real change.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']To a certain extent it is true here, though.[/QUOTE]

Ill admit im partisan, Veritas wont.

I dont remember seeing a liberal poster here charge someone with the same and imply that they arent.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']A major problem with congress is the gerrymandering that goes on at the state level. There are districts that aren't even congruous. Just about everybody except Iowa does it, they've got a system for determining districts that works pretty well.

Ultimately I think the solution is to put an end to the 2 party system. Other parties need to become players before theres any real change.[/QUOTE]

These two issues are related. There's a good reason that there are only about 25-30 competitive House seats anymore: the two major parties collude to produce safe districts for one another whenever possible. It's happened in my area (really, who's going to beat Moran, Wolf or Davis in their districts unless they fuck up badly?) and it's most likely happened in yours. What we really need is a Supreme Court case that throws out all the bullshit gerrymandering and political CYA that goes on, instigated by the root of all that's wrong with our system, the Republican and Democratic parties.
 
I don't see why they don't just let a computer do it. I mean, when you think about it, wouldn't it be relatively simple to just get someone to write a program that draws the most sensible districts based on population density?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ill admit im partisan, Veritas wont.

I dont remember seeing a liberal poster here charge someone with the same and imply that they arent.[/quote]

Msutt, when exactly did I deny partisan ties to the conservative line of thinking?

You were the one who responded to my OP with a one-line ad hominem attack referring my supposed insane rantings, and when I sarcastically praised you for your dedication to informed debate, you go into a song and dance routine about me not wanting to admit I am partisan? (I believe your words were: slackjawed rightard; as if anyone is going to say "yeah, you got me").

Now, I have to admit to some mea culpa on my part, as my OP was a little over the top in the area of taking cheap shots. (you were right myke). That being said, and without throwing the thread WAAAY o/t, it is obvious to anyone who even passively reads threads here that the tenor of debate is usually so liberal that anyone posing anything close to a conservative view is normally denounced as crazy within five comments. And while there are some here who actually at least pretend to give respect to the other sides opinion, it is mostly made up of one-line trash whose only purpose is to chide the other side.

Be that as it may, all of you know full well that even the most civil debater here (being mykevermin) has had his share of sardonically witty threads, so lets not go around pretending like we are all angels who never engage in partisan bashing. Anyone with a brain cell can see that conservative thinking is not either welcome or appriciated here, and yes, to whomever said it first, it is blatantly obvious that it is much more accepted to be of the raging liberal variety (evanft, Msutt, metal boss) than of the conservative mind; and that is fine.

In the end, I think myke's attitude is the best; some people here only have the mental capicaty to think up one-line gotcha! responses that were old when I was in grade school. Those people are best left ignored. And while everyone is susceptible to dragging down the tenor of debate, the thing that makes the difference between say a guy like myke and a hack like Msutt is your ability to at least pretend that you believe in the humanity of your political opponent.
 
With that in mind, Veritas, any chance you'll change your signature? ;)

The book just came out last Tuesday, so I won't expect you to be an expert on it. That having been said, please let us know if you intend on reading the book (his "God and..." books were immensely popular), because I'd like to see how he verifies the authenticity of this document.

I often attack the messenger, which is a logical fallacy (methinks); it's not as if nothing a person with an agenda says is correct. Liberal books/magazines/blogs and the like (think of the anti-corporate book market - the kind that expose to you how third-world labor is exploited by Coke, or Nike, or whomever), while written with an agenda, aren't entirely made up out of thin air. They are based, in many ways, on the truth. The same can be said for books that I disagree with, so it's wrong for me to say "dude's a partisan shitneck, he can't be right!" because that's just avoiding the topic of discussing whether or not it is a real document.

Anyway, that's my position. Someone has to read this book, I suppose. I just don't think it will be me.
 
[quote name='evanft']I don't see why they don't just let a computer do it. I mean, when you think about it, wouldn't it be relatively simple to just get someone to write a program that draws the most sensible districts based on population density?[/QUOTE]

They did that in Georgia and people bitched that it was racist. Not the programmers, but the computer was racist. Yeah, that's the kind of stupid shit we have to deal with daily around here. These were the same people who decided a congressional district from Savannah to Decatur was a good idea.


If you'd like to appreciate how fucked up that is, look at this map:
http://www.house.gov/deal/9thdistrict/img/map_10th.jpg

Savannah is the very eastern tip of Georgia in blue, and Decatur is roughly where '004' is typed near Atlanta. This district was no more than 4 miles wide in places. It was a 'black' district. What's worse is that the feds actually thought it was a good idea.


>Found a pic:
currentCD.small.jpg
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']Msutt, when exactly did I deny partisan ties to the conservative line of thinking?[/QUOTE]

You ignored a direct question what twice, thrice?
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']"If you'll excuse me, I have to go take a cheese"

-Veritas1204[/QUOTE]

It's really awesome that in your sig you quote yourself, from (if I remember correctly) a thread where you were caught blatantly lying. I am honored.

Sorry to inturupt, I'm sure you have some HOT CHICKS TO fuck.

Your assumption that anyone right of center is called out as a loon is untrue, Cochese and el principle tend to lean more to the right then say myself or Mykevermin, and are treated (for the most part) rather fairly.

It's not your beliefs, it's you. You lie, get caught in a lie, insult, bluster, run away, come back like you were never caught lying, lie some more, get caught in the lie, insult, bluster, run away, come back like you were never caught lying, lie some more, get caught in the lie, insult, bluster, run away, etc. ad infinitum. You've not once said anything that would make anyone respect you or your views. Learn how to act like a grown up and maybe someone will treat you like one.
 
[quote name='Cheese']It's really awesome that in your sig you quote yourself, from (if I remember correctly) a thread where you were caught blatantly lying. I am honored.

Sorry to inturupt, I'm sure you have some HOT CHICKS TO fuck.

Your assumption that anyone right of center is called out as a loon is untrue, Cochese and el principle tend to lean more to the right then say myself or Mykevermin, and are treated (for the most part) rather fairly.

It's not your beliefs, it's you. You lie, get caught in a lie, insult, bluster, run away, come back like you were never caught lying, lie some more, get caught in the lie, insult, bluster, run away, come back like you were never caught lying, lie some more, get caught in the lie, insult, bluster, run away, etc. ad infinitum. You've not once said anything that would make anyone respect you or your views. Learn how to act like a grown up and maybe someone will treat you like one.[/QUOTE]
i'm gonna go ahead and call ownage on this one
pwnt-31487.jpg
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']They did that in Georgia and people bitched that it was racist. Not the programmers, but the computer was racist. Yeah, that's the kind of stupid shit we have to deal with daily around here. These were the same people who decided a congressional district from Savannah to Decatur was a good idea.


If you'd like to appreciate how fucked up that is, look at this map:
http://www.house.gov/deal/9thdistrict/img/map_10th.jpg

Savannah is the very eastern tip of Georgia in blue, and Decatur is roughly where '004' is typed near Atlanta. This district was no more than 4 miles wide in places. It was a 'black' district. What's worse is that the feds actually thought it was a good idea.[/QUOTE]

That is crazy. The current one is just as crazy. Look at the 13th District! That is the worst offender, but you can plainly see EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT is gerrymandered in some way.

Now let's take a look at my state:

pagecgd109_va2.gif


So there you have it. Not as blatant as Georgia, but take a gander at the 8th District, my district.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top