American Thinker: Kennedy and the KGB
The subject head, carried under the words, “Special Importance,” read: “Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Y. V. Andropov.” According to the memo, Senator Kennedy was “very troubled” by U.S.-Soviet relations, which Kennedy attributed not to the murderous tyrant running the USSR but to President Reagan. The problem was Reagan’s “belligerence.”
This was allegedly made worse by Reagan’s stubbornness. “According to Kennedy,” reported Chebrikov, “the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification to his politics.” That refusal, said the memo, was exacerbated by Reagan’s political success, which made the president surer of his course, and more obstinate — and, worst of all, re-electable.
On that, the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Chebrikov’s memo got to the thrust of Kennedy’s offer: The senator was apparently clinging to hope that President Reagan’s 1984 reelection bid could be thwarted. Of course, this seemed unlikely, given Reagan’s undeniable popularity. So, where was the president vulnerable?
Alas, Kennedy had an answer, and suggestion, for his Soviet friends: In Chebrikov’s words, “The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
Therein, Chebrikov got to the heart of the U.S. senator’s offer to the USSR’s general secretary: “Kennedy believes that, given the state of current affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan.”
Of these, step one would be for Andropov to invite the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting. Said Chebrikov: “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 would be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.”
The second step, the KGB head informed Andropov, was a Kennedy strategy to help the Soviets “influence Americans.” Chebrikov explained: “Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year [1983], televised interviews with Y. V. Andropov in the USA.” The media savvy Massachusetts senator recommended to the Soviet dictator that he seek a “direct appeal” to the American people. And, on that, “Kennedy and his friends,” explained Chebrikov, were willing to help, listing Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters (both listed by name in the memo) as good candidates for sit-down interviews with the dictator.
Kennedy concluded that the Soviets needed, in effect, some PR help, given that Reagan was good at “propaganda” (the word used in the memo). The senator wanted them to know he was more than eager to lend a hand.
Edward Kennedy was a traitor to his country. His own brother, Bobby, would have jailed any other man who did this sort of thing.
Of course, liberals never regard treason against America by their own as a crime. For them, it is merely an effort to serve a higher purpose - the destruction of liberty and the imposition of their own liberal fascist tyranny.
For our own good.


True - fortunately for Teddy-Boy The Swimmer (and unfortunately for the rest of us), brother Bobby was long-dead when this little tete a tete with the KGB took place, of course.
It’s readily observable that, for left-liberal “thinkers” like Kennedy was, the term “treason” can only be applied to those who do not think the way they do - for them, the desired end (the destruction of the right, and the defeat of rampant capitalism) easily justifies utilizing any means; even collaboration with a supposed “enemy” can be used - after all, they sincerely want only what’s best for “the greater good of all.”
How could there possibly be any “treason” involved? They have, you see, the very best of intentions for us all!!
And what act - no matter how those who do not believe may view it; no matter how it may seem (to “unbelievers”) to be a betrayal - cannot be justified by that?