Wednesday, October 25, 2006


Kennedy’s Comrade: Hunting a KGB Mole in the Democratic Party

Subversion, Democrat Party Style

Have you read this in the MSM? This has earned little to no attention in the MSM. But there absence of attention leaves little doubt of there consonance of such behavior by themselves and the referenced politicians below. Bear with me, this is a long read and much longer following the links. Especially long are the article by Fedora at Free Republic and all the comments. It is well worth the time, especially the comments.

I do not think I have given this justice. The entire read in intriguing and stunning.

Kennedy’s Comrade: Hunting a KGB Mole in the Democratic Party

Profile of an Agent

In 1999, espionage author Christopher Andrew revealed that Soviet archives smuggled by defector Vasili Mitrokhin described an unnamed KGB agent recruited from California Democratic Party circles in the 1970s:

Though [Gus] Hall tended to overstate the influence of undeclared members of the CPUSA within the Democratic Party, there was at least one to whom the [KGB’s] Centre attached real importance during the 1970s: a Democratic activist in California recruited as a KGB agent during a visit to Russia. The agent, who is not identified by name in the reports noted by Mitrokhin, had a wide circle of influential contacts in the Democratic Party: among them Governor Jerry Brown of California, Senator Alan Cranston, Senator Eugene McCarthy, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Abraham Ribicoff, Senator J. William Fulbright and Congressman John Conyers, Jr. During the 1976 Presidential campaign the agent was able to provide inside information from within the Carter camp and a profile of Carter himself, which were particularly highly valued by the Centre since it had so few high-level American sources. On one occasion he spent three hours discussing the progress of the campaign at a meeting with Carter, Brown and Cranston in Carter's room at the Pacific Hotel. His report was forwarded to the Politburo. During the final stages of the campaign the agent had what the KGB claimed were 'direct and prolonged conversations' with Carter, Governor Brown and Senators Cranston, Kennedy, Ribicoff and Jacob Javits. Andropov attached such importance to the report on these conversations that he forwarded it under his signature to the Politburo immediately after Carter's election. . .Mitrokhin had access only to reports in FCD files based on intelligence provided by the agent, not to the agent's file itself--probably because he had been recruited by the Second (rather than the First) Chief Directorate during a visit to the Soviet Union. Within the United States he seems to have been run from the San Francisco residency.1

Narrowing Down the Suspects

In the process of trying to collect details on the “Pacific Hotel” meeting with Jimmy Carter, Jerry Brown, and Alan Cranston, I learned that Los Angeles Times reporter Tyler Marshall had questioned Cranston about the meeting without success:

Asked about the account Thursday, Cranston said he was unaware whom the Soviet mole might be.

"I have no idea who this guy is," Cranston said. The former senator said that he recalled a Carter campaign event at the Pacific Hotel but remembered no meeting between the three Democrats as described by Mitrokhin.

"It's not logical such a meeting would have occurred," Cranston said. "I don't believe it happened. Sounds like this agent [was] trying to build up his own reputation."2

Jamie Dettmer also questioned Cranston, as well as Jerry Brown and Jimmy Carter, with similar results. As Dettmer reported on an intelligence community discussion forum:

I talked to Cranston and Brown and Carter about the 1970s spy--all recalled the meeting but not who was in the room. We also tried the hotel but their records did not go back that far. We also tried the Carter library but they could not help either.3

Andrew Young is known to have been under the influence of Communist Party operative Jack “Hunter Pitts” O’Dell.7 However researchers considering Young as a suspect have pointed out that in the same passage where Christopher Andrew discusses the Carter campaign’s KGB mole, he mentions that the KGB met obstacles when attempting to recruit Young.8 This alone does not necessarily exclude Young from consideration, but when other details are considered, a better suspect emerges.

That individual is a known KGB asset mentioned in the Los Angeles Times article: California Senator John Tunney.

Fitting the Profile

Tunney’s relationship with the KGB was first revealed in 1992 after Soviet archives came into Western possession, and has recently received renewed publicity from reviews of Paul Kengor’s 2006 book The Crusader9 The documents publicized in 1992 and 2006 focused on Tunney’s mediation between Soviet officials and Ted Kennedy from 1978 to 1983. But Tunney also seems to be the best fit for the profile of the unnamed agent the KGB had placed in Jimmy Carter’s circles during the 1976 Presidential campaign.

Like the unnamed agent, Tunney had been in the Soviet Union. His business trips there after 1978 are easily documented from the public record. I found it more difficult to determine exactly when he first visited the USSR, but it was apparently before October 1974. At that time his soon-to-be-ex-wife Mieke wrote an article for Ladies’ Home Journal describing her relationship with Senator Edward Kennedy’s husband Joan, whom she had known since 1958 when their future husbands were attending law school together.10 Mieke mentioned “days in Moscow” with Joan during the past 16 years:

Both Joan and I take great pride in looking well. . .Our faces have a few more wrinkles despite the creams that we faithfully apply, but if one were to ask us to give back any of those 16 years, the stimulating yet hectic life, the action-packed days in Boston or Washington or Moscow, the answer would be never.11

It proved easier to find confirmation that Tunney fit some of the other items in the unnamed agent’s profile remarkably well. His circle of contacts coincided significantly with those attributed to the agent: “Governor Jerry Brown of California, Senator Alan Cranston, Senator Eugene McCarthy, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Abraham Ribicoff, Senator J. William Fulbright and Congressman John Conyers, Jr.”

Tunney’s political contacts stemmed partly from his close relationship with Senator Kennedy. Tunney had been Kennedy’s college roommate in law school and was an usher at Kennedy’s wedding to Joan. Joan Kennedy and Mieke Tunney became best friends over the course of the 1960s. Meanwhile their husbands travelled together and were frequently seen together in extramarital couplings with other women.16 In addition to such social contact, Kennedy and Tunney worked together politically. For instance, while Tunney was still a Congressman in 1966, he and Kennedy and their wives travelled to the Middle East on a fact-finding trip to develop an Arab-Israeli peace plan.17 Also in 1966, Joan Kennedy and her sister Candy travelled to California to stump for the re-election of Tunney and Governor Pat Brown.18 Tunney helped Jess Unruh organize Robert Kennedy’s Presidential campaign in California in 1968,19 and early that same year Tunney and Edward Kennedy both made fact-finding trips to Vietnam.20 After Tunney was elected Senator in 1970, he and Kennedy served on the Senate Judiciary Committee together.21 They joined forces against the Nixon administration and California Governor Ed Reinecke during the Watergate investigation.22 In late 1974 and early 1975 they joined Senators Alan Cranston and Dick Clark in leading a drive to sever US aid to anti-Communist forces in Angola.23

Tunney’s close relationship with Kennedy placed him in Kennedy’s circle of contacts, intersecting with at least three of the other politicians from the unnamed KGB agent’s list of contacts: Senators Abraham Ribicoff and Jacob Javits and Congressman John Conyers, Jr.

John Conyers, Jr. served on the House Judiciary Committee while Tunney was on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Tunney and his committee listened to a statement Conyers gave opposing the Supreme Court nomination of Lewis Powell.30 Tunney also supported the efforts of Conyers and his Democratic colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee to impeach Richard Nixon, an effort in which Senator Kennedy played a large behind-the-scenes role.31

As a Democratic Senator from California, Tunney also worked closely with two of the unnamed KGB agent’s other contacts: Senator Cranston and Governor Brown. Cranston, who was Tunney’s senior as California Senator, was quoted in a 1971 article describing the growth of his relationship with Tunney, and in he supported Tunney’s efforts to cut off US aid to Angola.32 At the 1976 Democratic National Convention, where Jerry Brown was one of Carter’s leading rivals, Tunney and Cranston attended a private unity meeting between Brown’s camp and the Carter camp.33 Carter’s California campaign was aided by Brown, Cranston, Tunney, and Democratic State Chairman Charles Manatt, who had guided Tunney’s 1970 Senate campaign and later became Tunney’s law partner when the former Senator joined the firm of Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg & Tunney (now Manatt, Phelps & Phillips).34

In addition to being present during Carter’s Los Angeles visit on August 22, 1976, Tunney also had good opportunity for the later contact with Carter and his supporters attributed to the unnamed KGB agent: “During the final stages of the campaign the agent had what the KGB claimed were 'direct and prolonged conversations' with Carter, Governor Brown and Senators Cranston, Kennedy, Ribicoff and Jacob Javits.”

Historical Implications

If Tunney was the unnamed KGB agent, what are the implications for history? If Tunney had already been recruited by the KGB before his 1976 Senate campaign, it could shed significant light on his activity during the Nixon-Ford administration. The precise date of the unnamed agent’s recruitment is unclear from Andrew’s summary, but his account makes it sound as if the agent had already been recruited during a visit to Russia sometime prior to the 1976 Presidential campaign. As mentioned above, Senator Kennedy had visited Russia in April 1974, and Mieke Tunney recorded reminiscences of “days in Moscow” with Joan Kennedy in an October 1974 article. During this period, as Kennedy sized up his odds in the next Presidential election and Tunney prepared to run for re-election to the Senate, both men were actively involved in promoting the Watergate prosecution.40 In late 1974, Tunney initiated the Congressional antiwar bloc’s effort to cut off US aid to Angola. Soviet archives record the KGB’s enthusiastic reviews of New York Times coverage of Congress’ attack on President Ford’s Angola policy.41

While Tunney’s relationship to the KGB before the 1976 election remains only a hypothesis supported by circumstantial evidence, there is more direct evidence available after the 1976 election, when Tunney joined the law firm of his friend Charles Manatt, who would serve as the Democratic National Committee Chairman from 1981 to 1985. Soviet archives indicate that another firm Tunney was linked to, Agritech, had a relationship to a French-American company called Finatech, which was run by David Karr—a KGB agent associated with Armand Hammer—and served as an intermediary between the KGB and Ted Kennedy between 1978 and 1980. KBG reports also mention Tunney carrying messages between Kennedy and Moscow in 1983. As summarized by Herbert Romerstein:

One of the documents, a KGB report to bosses in the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee, revealed that "In 1978, American Sen. Edward Kennedy requested the assistance of the KGB to establish a relationship" between the Soviet apparatus and a firm owned by former Sen. John Tunney (D.-Calif.). KGB recommended that they be permitted to do this because Tunney's firm was already connected with a KGB agent in France named David Karr. This document was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow's Izvestia in June 1992.

Another KGB report to their bosses revealed that on March 5, 1980, John Tunney met with the KGB in Moscow on behalf of Sen. Kennedy. Tunney expressed Kennedy's opinion that "nonsense about 'the Soviet military threat' and Soviet ambitions for military expansion in the Persian Gulf. . .was being fueled by [President Jimmy] Carter, [National Security Advisor Zbigniew] Brzezinski, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex.". . .

In May 1983, the KGB again reported to their bosses on a discussion in Moscow with former Sen. John Tunney. Kennedy had instructed Tunney, according to the KGB, to carry a message to Yuri Andropov, the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, expressing Kennedy's concern about the anti-Soviet activities of President Ronald Reagan. The KGB reported "in Kennedy's opinion the opposition to Reagan remains weak. Speeches of the President's opponents are not well-coordinated and not effective enough, and Reagan has the chance to use successful counterpropaganda." Kennedy offered to "undertake some additional steps to counter the militaristic, policy of Reagan and his campaign of psychological pressure on the American population." Kennedy asked for a meeting with Andropov for the purpose of "arming himself with the Soviet leader's explanations of arms control policy so he can use them later for more convincing speeches in the U.S." He also offered to help get Soviet views on the major U.S. networks and suggested inviting "Elton Rule, ABC chairman of the board, or observers Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters to Moscow."

Tunney also told the KGB that Kennedy was planning to run for President in the 1988 elections. "At that time, he will be 56 years old, and personal problems that have weakened his position will have been resolved [Kennedy quietly settled a divorce suit and soon plans to remarry]." Of course the Russians understood his problem with Chappaquiddick. While Kennedy did not intend to run in 1984, he did not exclude the possibility that the Democratic Party would draft him because "not a single one of the current Democratic hopefuls has a real chance of beating Reagan."

This document was first discovered in the Soviet archives by London Times reporter Tim Sebastian and a report on it was published in that newspaper in February 1992.42

So from 1978 to 1983, there is direct evidence from Soviet archives that Tunney was acting as a middleman between Senator Kennedy and the Soviet Union. Circumstantial evidence indicates that Tunney may have begun playing this role as early as.

Tunney’s role as courier to the Soviets was not limited to delivering messages from Kennedy. A review of Paul Kengor’s Crusader adds:

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.

"There's a lot more to be found here," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "This was a shocking revelation."43

There is indeed a lot more to be found—or from the perspective of some, perhaps, a lot more to be covered up.

Select Noteworthy Comments from Readers

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."


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.


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.


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. 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.

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.

And finally, read here about the death of Dave Karr.

From Sigmund, Cark & Alfred:

If Democrat luminaries such as Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, et al, had no trouble looking outside the US for political help and campaign money, why on earth should we not assume that some Dems are dealing with Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, Hizbollah and Hamas, to further their political aims and ambitions?

See Dr. Sanity here and Powerline here,

The world’s thugs, socialist and communist have come accustomed to the Democrat Party being in their favor.

The bottom line is; this entire lot are communist sympathizers, and makes one certainly wonder how much damage was perpetrated by William J. Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States. How many more are in our midst?

Very scary s*it, indeed!


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?