Editor’s note: Last week Paul Kengor wrote a WND column entitled “Russia skullduggery: Trump Jr. vs. Ted Kennedy” in which he explained the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s connections to the Kremlin. In this column, Kengor responds to a piece at PolitiFact.com casting aspersions on his claims.
PolitiFact is correct in asserting that Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld is indeed incorrect in claiming that the 1983 memo from KGB head Victor Chebrikov to Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov states that Kennedy met with the KGB. The memo never said that. However, the memo does state that Kennedy offered to go to Moscow to meet with Andropov and the Soviet leadership, which surely would have included the KGB’s Chebrikov, the author of the memo who relayed this information/offer to Andropov. That was the intent. PolitiFact doesn’t mention that crucial fact.
Specifically, the memo says this:
Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.
But worse, none of us will ever know the rest of the story, namely, whether Kennedy or the Soviets took any such follow-up steps. Why won’t we ever know? Because the same liberal press that now doggedly digs into this memo in order to defend Kennedy never bothered to ask Kennedy about this memo/episode when he was alive.
The double standard here is breathtaking. Liberal journalists in America showed total silence toward Kennedy when it was first reported by the London Times in February 1992 and when I published the full document in a book published by HarperCollins in 2006. But now, they’re like Joseph Pulitzer and Sherlock Holmes when it comes to defending Kennedy or going after Donald Trump Jr. They couldn’t have a single reporter call Kennedy’s office, but now they have entire newsrooms and news organizations tasked to find emails from Donald Trump Jr.
It honestly sickens me. I need to walk away from it. I can’t stand it. The hypocrisy truly, literally turns my stomach. It really does. I sit here now, typing, with a sick feeling in my stomach.
I hate double standards and dishonesty. And I say all of this as a vocal Never Trumper.
Also, a crucial point: Aside from Gutfeld’s assertion being not to-the-exact-letter accurate about the memo, the PolitiFact reporter (Jon Greenberg) makes this claim in his piece:
The memo does mention Kennedy’s interest in the presidency, but the idea was for Kennedy to run in 1988. (Kennedy never ran and supported then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis.)
The memo said, “Because he (Kennedy) formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988.”
Having served two terms, Reagan would not be on the ballot in 1988.
Whoa, wait a second …
That’s not quite right – or, at least, leaves out crucial information. That’s not what I recall in the memo. Maybe Greenberg is using an incomplete translation of the document that I’m not aware of?
Well, I clicked the hyperlink Greenberg-PolitiFact included for the memo, which oddly links to some small website called Sweetness & Light, which publishes the memo. And there, the memo correctly states this:
Because he [Kennedy] formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.
Kennedy was, in fact, considering running in both 1984 and 1988, as not only the memo suggests but as everyone remembers. I lived through that period. I was a dopey, clueless, non-political ’80s punker/stoner in high school, but I recall Kennedy always being on everyone’s short-list to run for the presidency at any moment: 1980, 1984, 1988. The memo says that Kennedy wasn’t discounting in 1984 that the Democratic Party might “officially turn to him to lead the fight” against Reagan and the Republicans in the 1984 campaign. Isn’t that the point here? Isn’t that the context? And isn’t that bad enough? Does this really suggest that Kennedy is somehow neutral in 1984, or won’t possibly consider a run in 1984? Give me a break.
This was purely political from start to finish.
The back-flips to dismiss or shrug off what Kennedy did here would be hilarious if not so outrageous.
I could say much, much more about this PolitiFact piece, but I’m finding that what I say and report utterly does not matter to these people. It’s futile.
To sum up, this part of what PolitiFact says is accurate:
So even if you take the memo from KGB agent as gospel, there was no actual meeting between Kennedy and the KGB.
Not that we know of. Correct, the KGB memo reports no meeting that had (as yet) taken place.
But this part of what PolitiFact says is, to the contrary – and to borrow Jon Greenberg’s own language – much “murkier”:
But what about the rest of the details and the memo? Was Kennedy looking to undermine Reagan? That’s murkier than you might expect.
Hogwash. Of course, Kennedy was looking to undermine Reagan.
I don’t understand why liberals won’t criticize their own. I criticize Trump constantly. Can’t they allow their heroes to occasionally take their falls? Why not? Ted Kennedy was an enormously flawed human being. Ask Jimmy Carter, who couldn’t stand him! (Ironically, Ronald Reagan was far nicer, kinder and more charitable to Kennedy than Carter was. But that’s another story.)
