Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kennedy’s Comrade: Hunting a KGB Mole in the Democratic Party
Original FReeper research | 10/23/2006 | Fedora

Posted on 10/23/2006 2:07:13 PM PDT by Fedora

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-263 next last
To: Fedora

So as well as being a drunk and an arrogant fool, Kennedy is a damned traitor. Why do the idiots in Massachusetts keep this guy in office.


51 posted on 10/23/2006 3:13:11 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pbear8

Bookmarked !!


52 posted on 10/23/2006 3:14:04 PM PDT by pbear8 (Which senators were recruited by the KGB in the 1970's???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fedora; Clintonfatigued; calcowgirl; BlackElk; JohnnyZ; Kuksool; AuH2ORepublican; AntiGuv; ...

*ping*

Bone-chilling stuff.


53 posted on 10/23/2006 3:15:37 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

"Tunney also told the KGB that Kennedy was planning to run for President in the 1988 elections."

Kennedy ran in 1980 and finished second to Carter, of all people. What made this arrogant fool think he was going to be elected President. Truly, the Kennedy family is like the Bonapartes of France. They think they are born to rule by virtue of their name.


54 posted on 10/23/2006 3:17:11 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead

IIRC, during the '76 campaign Carter used W. Averell Harriman as a back channel to the Soviets. I'd have to dig through my notes to find my references on that, but I believe it's discussed briefly in Rudy Abramson's Harriman biography.


55 posted on 10/23/2006 3:21:01 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

"I don't really understand what would have led Teddy Kennedy to become a Communist patsy"

He's a dumb, arrogant b_st_rd. Just like his dad, Joe, who was a Nazi patsy.


56 posted on 10/23/2006 3:22:17 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dgallo51

Thanks for sharing your theory--hadn't heard that line of thought before. I will check into that.


57 posted on 10/23/2006 3:22:56 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

enemies among us ping


58 posted on 10/23/2006 3:25:40 PM PDT by USMCVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

Maybe it's NOT a guy. Perhaps it's Jodie Evans, Millionaire Marxist.


59 posted on 10/23/2006 3:26:08 PM PDT by Doctor Raoul (Difference between the CIA and the Free Clinic is that the Free Clinic knows how to stop a leak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

Fascinating! Bookmarking.

Thanks for all the time and effort you've put into this.


60 posted on 10/23/2006 3:27:41 PM PDT by Diver Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

"Huh? Civil War period?"

Jack, most of the leadership of the Confederacy was made up of southern Democrats. The Democratic Party in New York was sympathetic to the South. See also the history of the "Copperheads", northern Democrats who the Confederates actually tried to recruit into some sort of a coup.


61 posted on 10/23/2006 3:30:48 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
In other words, The times really were a changin' and the Kennedy's wanted to crawl on board.

I think that was the gist of it, and the '68 election was a big part of the motivation. Robert had started to break with LBJ on Vietnam a couple years before that, but didn't really publicly commit himself to an antiwar stance until about the time he entered the '68 campaign, after he saw that Eugene McCarthy seemed to have a shot running on an antiwar ticket.

62 posted on 10/23/2006 3:41:29 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

We will eventually come to an Indonesian solution of this problem...


63 posted on 10/23/2006 3:42:10 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Some moron brought a cougar to a party, and it went berserk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joylyn

Dellums was another one. But his involvement with CPUSA was pretty blatant and not much of a secret to the intelligence community, I think. The year he was elected he went to a World Peace Council function which was monitored by US intelligence and was noted in a Congressional report on the antiwar movement's CP/SWP ties c. 1970, IIRC.


64 posted on 10/23/2006 3:44:28 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

Excellent work, Fedora.


65 posted on 10/23/2006 3:44:32 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmeriBrit
Clinton's visit to Czecho and the USSR was most unusual.

For US Senators, there was an overt reason to go (in addition, there may have been covert reasons, of course).

But for a footloose college boy to be hosted behind the Iron Curtain, months after the tanks rolled into Prague, would have been very, very unusual.

There had to be more to the story.

66 posted on 10/23/2006 3:45:01 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Some moron brought a cougar to a party, and it went berserk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

Interesting idea.


67 posted on 10/23/2006 3:48:33 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
Occidental Oil head Armand Hammer

| Can you say algore???
68 posted on 10/23/2006 3:53:10 PM PDT by acsrp38 (Found: WMD Saddam didn't have before he didn't have them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Yes, footloose and broke too but he "somehow" went anyway.


69 posted on 10/23/2006 4:00:02 PM PDT by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

it was more than one mole


70 posted on 10/23/2006 4:01:42 PM PDT by advertising guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

Yes - exactly so.

Here's a timeline of 1968

http://www.nyu.edu/library/bobst/collections/exhibits/arch/1968/Index.html

You can almost make yourself believe that there was a concerted effort on the part of the USSR and their minions to change the world order in this year.

Tet Offensive
Paris Riots
Riots in US after MLK assasinated
Riots in Chicago during DNC convention
Invasion of Czecho
Various other SDS shenanigans

I lived through 1968 (although only 12 years old). I was aware of all these events but probably not their global significance. Truly they were "Interesting Times". Not good.


71 posted on 10/23/2006 4:02:23 PM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead

I got a chance to look just now, and Abramson does discuss Harriman performing that function for Carter on pp. 688-691. There's another recent book on Carter that discusses this, but I don't recall the title offhand. I don't know if Carter used Tunney this way. Kennedy would've been aware Tunney was talking to the Soviets, but I don't know if he knew he was working for them. Kennedy and Tunney may well have been arrogant enough to think they were clever enough to play this game and use the Soviets instead of being used by them--I would not be surprised if they don't see themselves as traitors because in their eyes they're "above the law" that binds non-Kennedys.


72 posted on 10/23/2006 4:05:27 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Ann Coulter's excellent book "Treason" is a great place to start..."

Ditto that!


73 posted on 10/23/2006 4:06:04 PM PDT by FMBass (“Now that I’m sober I watch a lot of news” – Garofalo: From “Treason” by Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

Please ping me if you should discover anything enlightening on the subject.


74 posted on 10/23/2006 4:09:44 PM PDT by dgallo51 (DEMAND IMMEDIATE, OPEN INVESTIGATIONS OF U.S. COMPLICITY IN RWANDAN GENOCIDE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

Didn't Carter approach the Soviets during the 80 and 84 races to "warn" them about Reagan and to get "help" to defeat them? That would put it during the same campaign as the Kennedy - Tunney contact.


75 posted on 10/23/2006 4:13:02 PM PDT by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

At present, Tunney is President of the Museum Board of Armand Hammer Museum of Art and Cultural Center at UCLA.


76 posted on 10/23/2006 4:15:45 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Oxford University and Rhodes scholarship are a breeding ground for communism. On visits to my birth place across the pond, and friends who have influence at my request, have spent hours going through the archived micro-fish records at the newspaper and have come up zilch on any mention of Clinton ever being a Rhodes scholar, his expulsion, his rapid departure in disgrace, or the rape of Eileen Weldon. For some reason all reference to him and his activities during that period have been sealed. Very few are aware of his flag burning episode, but I saw that with my own eyes and is why I first became interested in the antics of WJC. When it became known that he'd left Oxford and headed to Moscow, when it was against the law for anyone crossing the border into the USSR that held a U.S. passport, it just made things more interesting. It's just my opinion, but I would bet money he's involved in this somewhere, somehow.
77 posted on 10/23/2006 4:20:50 PM PDT by AmeriBrit (Soros and Clinton's for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington = SCREW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead

Yes, I'm pretty sure I remember reading about Carter doing that during the '80 election. I think he used a different intermediary than Tunney, though I don't remember who it was offhand.


78 posted on 10/23/2006 4:21:45 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

Yes. Everything seems to revolve around Hammer.


79 posted on 10/23/2006 4:22:34 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: AmeriBrit; Jim Noble
Here's some discussion of what Clinton was up to during that period. The link is from Thomas, so it may or may not work; if not you can access this through their search engine.

"CLINTON IN ENGLAND (House of Representatives - September 15, 1992", [Page: H8445]

Clinton's Early Dovecote Updated

Bill Clinton's draft record has dogged him since serious questions were first raised in the Wall Street Journal last February. After a hollow attempt (in the name of `full disclosure') by his friend and fellow Rhodes Scholar, Strobe Talbott, to put the charges to rest in the April issue of Time, a series of new revelations has raised more questions about Mr. Clinton's truthfulness in reporting his record.

But there is a more fundamental dimension of Mr. Clinton's anti-war activities during his Oxford days that neither he nor Mr. Talbott has yet addressed. This new information raises questions that are just as troubling as whether Mr. Clinton dodged the draft then and whether he is lying now.

To learn this story, we turn to the Rev. Richard McSorley, a Jesuit priest and professor of peace studies who has taught at Georgetown University since Bill Clinton's undergraduate days there. Father McSorley's memoir about his international travels with the pacifist movement, Peace eyes, was published in 1977 and is now out of print. Peace Eyes begins: `When I got off the train in Oslo, Norway, I met Bill Clinton of Georgetown University. He asked if he could go with me visiting peace people. We visited the Oslo Peace Institute, talked with conscientious objectors, with peace groups, and with university students. At the end of the day as Bill was preparing to leave, he commented, `This is a great way to see a country.' '

Father McSorley was so impressed with Bill Clinton that he wrote in his Foreword, `I thought at the time that this his [Mr. Clinton's] words summarized what I wanted to say in this book. To see a country with a peace focus, through the eyes of peace people is a good way to travel, a good way to see a country and the world.'

As a Rhodes Scholar in England, Bill Clinton learned to see the world, including his native America, through the eyes of the international peace movement. The details of this perspective, and its influence on Bill Clinton's worldview, have received no attention. The record should be set straight for all voters, regardless of how they feel about his response to service in the U.S. armed forces.

Father McSorley recalls that on `Nov. 15, 1969, I participated in the British moratorium against the Vietnam War in front of the U.S. Embassy at Grosvenor Square in London. Even the appearance of the Embassy stressed the over-exaggerated nature of America's power. * * * The total effect of architecture and decor says to the passer-by, `America is the biggest and greatest power on the globe' * * * That day in November about 500 Britons and Americans were meeting to express their sorrow at America's misuse of power in Vietnam * * * Most of them carried signs which said, Americans out of Vietnam.'

Father McSorely goes on to describe vividly the demonstration, which ended with a chorus of `We shall overcome.'

`The activities in London supporting the second stage of the moratorium and the March of Death in Washington, were initiated by Group 68 [Americans in Britain],' wrote Father McSorely. `This group had the support of British peace organizations, including the Committee on Nuclear Disarmament, the British Peace Council, and the International Committee for Disarmament and Peace.'

Then comes this revelation: `The next day I joined with about 500 other people for the interdenominational service. Most of them were young, and many of them were Americans. As I was waiting for the ceremony to begin, Bill Clinton of Georgetown, then studying as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, came up and welcomed me. He was one of the organizers. * * * After the service Bill introduced me to some of his friends. With them, we paraded over to the American Embassy, carrying white crosses made of wood about 1 foot high. There we left the crosses as an indication of our desire to end the agony of Vietnam.'

Father McSorely can hardly be called a tool of the opponents to Bill Clinton's candidacy for president. Yet his prosaic, thorough depiction of those events, puts Bill Clinton squarely in the lead of a series of demonstrations with the public support of the British Peace Council, an affiliate of the World Peace Council and as obvious a front group for the Soviet KGB's international department as any that ever was.

Now, Bill Clinton at Oxford was no naif. He was a calculating political analyst, already confirmed in his ambition as a leader of his generation. By his own testimony, in his letter to ROTC Director Col. Eugene Holmes, Bill Clinton was taking great care to preserve what he considered his `political viability.' In this letter, Mr. Clinton also maintained that `not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did.'

With this in mind, cooperation alone in anti-American demonstrations abroad would raise eyebrows. But Bill Clinton did more that cooperate; Bill Clinton was a leader of a movement under the direct aegis and support of one of the most notorious communist front organizations in Europe.

Further, it was at Oxford that Mr. Clinton gathered around him the advisors who still constitute some of the senior leadership of his campaign. The American people deserve a full accounting, now, of Bill Clinton's contacts in and coordination with the World Peace Council's British leadership.

Spare us Strobe Talbott's `full disclosure' and your own pussyfooting, Governor. Tell us everything, tell us yourself, and tell us now.

80 posted on 10/23/2006 4:32:08 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

Dang, where is Mr. Clark (aka Kelly), and his decompression chamber, when we need them?


81 posted on 10/23/2006 4:39:38 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

Excellent work, Fedora, the MSM/DBM is rapidly losing it's power to protect these traitors from public exposure.


82 posted on 10/23/2006 4:49:27 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: potlatch; grandpa jones; Fedora; Grampa Dave; PhilDragoo; ntnychik; MeekOneGOP; dixiechick2000; ...







83 posted on 10/23/2006 4:56:11 PM PDT by devolve ( STAY_HOME?-CNN/CBS is KILLING your KIDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

get the news out bump


84 posted on 10/23/2006 4:56:47 PM PDT by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

I was hoping, really hoping, that it was Waxman.


85 posted on 10/23/2006 5:05:40 PM PDT by Pete from Shawnee Mission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

BUMP!


86 posted on 10/23/2006 5:10:31 PM PDT by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
I couldn't get anything to come up with your link but I put the heading in the ling in Google and came up with all kinds of good stuff. Even questions being asked about clintons connection to the KGB.....

See if this will work:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r102:@FIELD(FLD003+h)+@FIELD(DDATE+19920915)
87 posted on 10/23/2006 5:15:55 PM PDT by AmeriBrit (Soros and Clinton's for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington = SCREW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

To: Buckhead
Here are some details on that, indicating that in 1980 Carter's intermediary was Armand Hammer, and in 1984 Carter went straight to the Soviet ambassador himself:

Carter, Democrats Asked Soviets to Stop Reagan

Peter Schweizer, a Hoover Institution research fellow, has just written a new book, "Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism."

SNIP

Soviet diplomatic accounts and material from the archives show that in January 1984 former President Jimmy Carter dropped by Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin's residence for a private meeting.

Carter expressed his concern about and opposition to Reagan's defense buildup. He boldly told Dobrynin that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."

Using the Russians to influence the presidential election was nothing new for Carter.

Schweizer reveals Russian documents that show that in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched businessman Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy.

Hammer was a longtime Soviet-phile, and he explained to the Soviet ambassador that Carter was "clearly alarmed" at the prospect of losing to Reagan.

Hammer pleaded with the Russians for help. He asked if the Kremlin could expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter's standing in the polls.

SNIP

Carter was not the only Democrat to make clear to the Russians where their loyalty lay. As the election neared in 1984, Dobrynin recalls meetings with Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill. This article also has some interesting stuff on how Kennedy was in turn going behind Carter's back to the Soviets in 1980 via Tunney and Peter Edelman:

Vasiliy Mitrokhin, "THE KGB IN AFGHANISTAN"

Detailed information on the results of a visit by Bahr154 to the USA at the request of Chancellor Schmidt155 were received from a source in government circles in the FRG. During his ten days there Egon Bahr, the Federal Secretary of the Social Democrats, met Benson, Brzezinski,156 Kissinger,157 Shulman158 and the lawyer Peter Edelman159 who was a confidante of Senator Edward Kennedy.160 He found out their ideas about the new situation in the Middle East. From his short trip to the USA, Bahr gained the impression that three factors governed the situation: uncertainty, the desire for strong leadership and a growing fear of war with the Soviet Union The reason for this was "the general loss of faith in the power of America politically, economically and militarily." This feeling was strengthened by the failure of the administration to react in a sensible and decisive way to the events in Afghanistan and Iran. From his conversations in the USA, Bahr was convinced that the actions of the Washington administration were dictated primarily by "Carter's pathological wish to be elected for a second term" and were a consequence of the lack of a united view of the key contemporary problems among the President's advisers.

SNIP

Summarizing his impressions from his American meetings, Bahr noted that "Carter is incurable with his inconsistency and flawed decisions which he takes on the spur of the moment for reasons of prestige." Bahr was convinced that it would become increasingly difficult to work with the American administration. For this reason he said that it was essential to support those forces in the USA which opposed Carter, meaning primarily the pretender to the post of head of the White House, Senator E. Kennedy. When the senator learned that Bahr was in the USA, he telephoned lum to express his regret that he could not meet him because of an election trip to Iowa and said that he could fly to Europe at a later date to meet him personally. He sent Bahr his confidante, Peter Edelman. In his talks with Bahr, Edelman was very open and on the instructions of the Senator gave Kennedy's analysis of events. According to the Senator, the protracted character of the Iranian conflict increased Carter's chances of re-election as it enabled him to demonstrate his firmness. The events in Afghanistan, which were overshadowing this conflict were also favorable to Carter. Kennedy was sure, however, that the public interest in Afghanistan, which had been fuelled by the American authorities, would soon wane and that it would return to Iran. The question "Who started this conflict by hiding the Shah in America?" would be asked which would be awkward for the present administration. Edelman said that this would enable Kennedy to campaign "for the normalization of relations with the Soviet Union and other countries in the interests of peace." A trump card for Kennedy would be his involvement in some form in settling the problem of the American hostages in Tehran. Edelman said bluntly to Bahr that "if Moscow were able to help Kennedy in this way it could count on a very positive development in Soviet-American relations."

On 5 March an American politician, John V. Tunney,163 was in Moscow on behalf of E. Kennedy to relay the latter's ideas on ways to lessen international tension to the Soviet leadership. The Senator considered that the foreign Policy part of Brezhnez's speech to voters in the Bauman district reflected the consistency and steadfastness of the USSR to the policy of détente and created a real basis for a settlement of the Afghan question. At the same time the Carter administration was trying to distort the peace-loving ideas behind Brezhnev's proposals. The White House was feeding the public opinion with nonsense about "the Soviet military threat" and Soviet ambitions for military expansion in the Persian Gulf. The atmosphere of tension and hostility towards the whole Soviet people was being fuelled by Carter, Brzezinski, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex. All the Republican presidential candidates were whippmg up anti-Soviet hysteria and prophesying that "the Russians will be stained with Afghan blood as the Americans were in Vietnam and that the standing of the USSR will decrease, particularly in the Islamic countries."

But there were other groups in the USA who were also represented inside the administration (Vance, Christopher,164 and others) who considered that Carter's policies were against the interests of the US and that the tension could be lessened through negotiations with Brezhnev. Having considered all these points, Kennedy had come to the conclusion that, in spite of the negative consequences for him personally, it was his duty to take action himself, which could force the Carter administration to act to de-escalate the crisis. He had to act immediately as inaction by the peace-loving forces in the USA would make it impossible for Carter, if he won his re-election, to change course. He would be bound to continue his policies of aggravating Soviet-American relations. If the Republicans were to win, the situation could only be worse. Kemedy thought it essential to make a speech on 16 to 18 March on the events in Afghanistan. He intended to call on the White House to guarantee that it would not interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and to use all the means it could to ensure that China and Pakistan would stop interfering in the country. He would call on the government of Babrak Karmal to announce a policy of nonalignment and [to declare] that it would not join a military alliance or allow the presence of foreign troops. He would also urge him to make the Afghan government more democratic and to include in it members of other parties and the clergy. He wanted to call on the governments of the USA and the USSR to start negotiations on concrete measures to guarantee non- interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and to draw up mutually acceptable forms of these guarantees with the participation of the UN. He would ask the Soviet government, if the outcome of the Soviet-American talks were favorable, to demonstrate its goodwill and, in agreement with the Afghan authorities, withdraw some troops (10,000 to 20,000) from Afghanistan and fix a date for the withdrawal of the remaining troops in 1980-81. He thought that some of his proposals would be acceptable to the Soviet government and would be grateful if Brehinev could express his approval if this were the case as this would give a powerful boost to the peace-loving forces.

Tunney stressed the basic difference between Kennedy's proposals and those of the USA administration. The White House was actually demanding the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, in other words an acknowledgement that they were unlawftilly sent into the country, whereas Kennedy, not touching the question of the legality of the presence of the Soviet troops, considered that their withdrawal should be linked with measures to guarantee non-interference from outside in the internal affairs of Afghanistan.

The KGB reported this infon-nation to the top together with its own comments. "Although not all Kennedy's proposals are acceptable to us they are worth considering as they contradict the line taken by Carter and other politicians."

On 14 May confidential remarks by the American Ambassador in Moscow, T. Watson,165 and Senators R. Byrd166 and A. Cranston167 became known. They had said that at the forthcoming meeting in Vienna the Americans intended to discuss a wide range of questions relating to Soviet-American relations, such as security problems in Europe and trade and economic cooperation including grain sales to the USSR., as well as Afghanistan. In this way the acuteness of the Afghan problem would be less apparent.

89 posted on 10/23/2006 5:25:14 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: AmeriBrit

Your link works for me; thanks.

The way Thomas' archive and search engine works makes it hard to link directly to them sometimes, but usually if you type the key terms in Google you can find a path to the page. In any case, the details I posted give the names of the antiwar groups Clinton was involved with in the UK. I came across some of these same groups when I was researching Kerry and the VVAW's dissemination of the "war crimes" propaganda put out by Bertrand Russell's International War Crimes Tribunal, which like Clinton's group in the UK was working in coordination with the Soviet-directed World Peace Council.


90 posted on 10/23/2006 5:33:45 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

Cranston was a good guess :-) He had a longer history with the antiwar movement than Tunney and brushed shoulders with CPUSA pretty often, but I haven't been able to document him actually working for the KGB. He and Tunney did work closely with the VVAW in the early 70s, though.


91 posted on 10/23/2006 5:36:27 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
Immediately preceding in the same article you posted:

CLINTON IN ENGLAND (House of Representatives - September 15, 1992) [Page: H8445]

(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Washington Times ran a column that raises alarming questions about Bill Clinton's antiwar activities as a student in England.

Entitled `Clinton's Early Dovecote Updated,' this column exposes the Democratic Presidential nominee's relationship with activists in Great Britain who opposed America's involvement in Vietnam.

One of these activities wrote a book which, according to the column,

* * * puts Bill Clinton squarely in the lead of a series of demonstrations with public support of the British Peace Council, an affiliate of the World Peace Council and as obvious a front group for the Soviet KGB's international department as any that ever was.

There have been questions raised about Mr. Clinton's various positions on draft dodging. But there have been few inquiries into his actual activities while he was in Europe.

Mr. Speaker, the question of whether Mr. Clinton dodged the draft is one thing. But is it true that Bill Clinton spent his time in England working as a dupe for a KGB front group?

I urge Mr. Clinton to answer these charges immediately. If these allegations are true, Bill Clinton is not fit to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, for the Record I include the newspaper article referred to.



Then follows what you posted.
92 posted on 10/23/2006 5:39:04 PM PDT by AmeriBrit (Soros and Clinton's for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington = SCREW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

It helps if you cuss quietly sometimes....LOL


93 posted on 10/23/2006 5:42:03 PM PDT by AmeriBrit (Soros and Clinton's for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington = SCREW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: AmeriBrit; Fedora
This is the closest link I can get to the article Fedora cited on "Clinton in England." It was the 5th article on that page H8445 - so click on item 5.
94 posted on 10/23/2006 5:53:46 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: devolve
Did someone mention hunting?

jfk.jpg

95 posted on 10/23/2006 6:12:27 PM PDT by grandpa jones (Responding To The Epic Threat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
There's all kinds of 'Stuff' about clinton in my link in post #87. I think it's an extended list of what you've posted.
96 posted on 10/23/2006 6:13:24 PM PDT by AmeriBrit (Soros and Clinton's for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington = SCREW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
B Job Clinton was in Russia about this time I believe. Kerry may have slipped in during the time of his suck up of the Viet Cong delegation.
97 posted on 10/23/2006 6:13:59 PM PDT by Lewite (Praise YAHWEH and Proclaim His Wonderful Name! Islam, the end time Beast-the harlot of Babylon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

Thanks - very interesting stuff.


98 posted on 10/23/2006 6:14:50 PM PDT by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Fedora

Brillant. Thank you.


99 posted on 10/23/2006 6:15:34 PM PDT by alarm rider (Casting a large net for new, shiny tag lines...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

"We will eventually come to an Indonesian solution of this problem..."

Could you explain that please?

Thnks.


100 posted on 10/23/2006 6:17:19 PM PDT by alarm rider (Casting a large net for new, shiny tag lines...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-263 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson