|
Post by Don on Dec 13, 2016 11:52:12 GMT -5
First, the article has this direct quote from Tunney:
Then the article goes on to describe him handling a contact with Andropov!
"...well, except for that one time..."
So I guess the whole "that idea is preposterous" was just a slip of the tongue.
I have a hard time swallowing his denial after this performance.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 13, 2016 12:03:31 GMT -5
I think Limbaugh's claim--that Kennedy sent Andropov a secret letter--is most definitely bs, pure Politifact. But I don't think it's a given that the rest is bs. Tunney denies it, but that's not surprising. And it could be KGB bs, but it seems like a very minor thing, sticking in a phony memo that reveals what, exactly? A friend of Kennedy's suggesting that some positive PR for the Soviets would help them and help the Dems beat Reagan? If the KGB wanted to set someone up, they'd do much better. And you know this how exactly? A vast personal knowledge base you've compiled of the myriad methods the KGB employs to spew agitprop for the consumption of "useful idiots" on the Right? The burden of proof wasn't on Sen. Tunney to prove he wasn't playing footsie with the Russkies. The burden of proof was on the KGB to prove he was. Absent evidence to the contrary, Politifact has it right and the carping critics of All Things Ted Kennedy got it wrong. I didn't say I knew it was true. I said I thought it could be true. It could also be bs. The memo does exist. Whether or not it is accurate is an open question. And to be fair, there's also the issue of translation. Here's some more on it: www.providencejournal.com/article/20150426/opinion/150429489From the last: That suggests--to me--that Tunney was "playing footsie" with the Soviets. The issue is over what that "footsie" amounted to. But my overall point was that there's not much here. The supposed "collusion" is just not noteworthy, imo, especially as compared to what it being alleged about the Russians and the current election.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 13, 2016 12:08:22 GMT -5
Tunney denied handling contacts with Andropov. That is not inconsistent with him arranging a deal with the Soviet government at another time.
There is a non-trivial difference between "Hey, can you talk to some of your business contacts in Russia?" and personally arranging clandestine meetings with the Soviet leader himself.
Of course, if Tunney really did have that meeting, he would deny it, but his words are not contradictory the way you claim they are.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 13, 2016 12:19:19 GMT -5
I'm assuming you're talking to Don?
Regardless, I'm trying to find the original article from '92. Not having any luck, so far. It was once on Scrbd, but has been taken down. That article supposedly has quotes from Tunney about the memo and the meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 13, 2016 12:25:13 GMT -5
Yes, I meant Don.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 13, 2016 15:50:02 GMT -5
As I see it, we've got two issues, the content of the hacked emails/Clinton's flaws as a candidate, and the fact Russia likely deliberately tried to sway our election towards Trump. The first issue is no longer relevant. Clinton lost. The content of her emails, whatever happened with Brazille -- all that shit is moot. But the second issue is still very relevant indeed, and should concern all Americans. And our president elect should not be dissing and scoffing at our own intelligence. I totally agree, on all counts. Also, though it makes for an interesting debate (and when I say interesting, I mean * click here*), what happened or didn't with Roosevelt and the Soviet Union is also moot. I should like for all of the smart people here to at some point discuss Russia's attempts to sway election toward Trump, why that is, what it means, should we care, etc. (Of course, I never get what I want.)
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 13, 2016 16:40:25 GMT -5
I think the comparison is between Kennedy colluding with the Russians and Trump colluding with the Russians. Both would be pretty damning, but both appear to be largely unsubstantiated claims. At most, they both were opportunistic enough to take advantage of Russian political interests intersecting with their own. Trump concerns me more, though, because Kennedy is dead and Trump is actually President. Seriously, Russia is a threat. People don't get that, because they think "the Cold War is over." Some people have been saying it for awhile. And brought it up during the last presidential election. www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2a44F5TgMMaybe President Obama should send a basket of muffins to someone with a note saying, my bad.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 13, 2016 18:38:00 GMT -5
Obama thought Russia was enough of a threat to impose sanctions.
That said, Romney wasn't wrong, apparently.
God, I miss Romney.
*this post will self-destruct in 3...2...1*
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 14, 2016 9:20:33 GMT -5
Some people have been saying it for awhile. And brought it up during the last presidential election. www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2a44F5TgMMaybe President Obama should send a basket of muffins to someone with a note saying, my bad. Obama wasn't wrong. And he imposed sanctions on Russia. The fact that he dismissed Romney's proposal of a return to the Cold War doesn't mean he wasn't aware of the threat. It's not exactly the same threat - Russia is no longer trying to take over the world and probably not envisioning scenarios where they launch a nuclear first strike - but they are certainly a threat that Donald Trump does not seem to be taking seriously.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 14, 2016 10:00:18 GMT -5
Disagree. He was wrong, imo. Romney was right regarding Russia: they were and are the biggest geopolitical foe for the U.S. ( he never actually said threat) I can't see how anyone can--at this moment--argue otherwise. The imposed sanctions haven't stopped Russia from expanding it's influence, at all. This doesn't need to be the Cold War all over again, true. But I think it obvious that the way the Russians have been handled is not really working out so well. Doesn't mean Trump's approach will be better, that's for sure. But Romney's take was far more correct than Obama's, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 14, 2016 11:28:33 GMT -5
I've read mixed opinions on how Obama's actions are perceived inside Russia - some believe he's done nothing to slow Putin's roll (Gary Kasparov, whose book I mentioned earlier, is one of those), others think that Putin considered Obama a serious threat which was why he hated him so much. Overall, I have not been terribly impressed by Obama's dealings with Russia, as I think he should have gone either hard or soft, but not try to do both.
About Russia being our greatest geopolitical foe - maybe, though I wouldn't place China far behind, depending on whether or not their economy implodes in the next few years.
I don't think Romney would have done better handling Russia, but Vince seemed to be expressing the opinion that Obama dismissed Russia as a threat.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 14, 2016 11:45:13 GMT -5
Obama pretty much mocked Romney's concern, and dismissed it. There was no real exchange on how it was the same or different than the 80's. Obama might have understood it better than he let on, as he was running as the incumbent and like not saying the word Terror, thought to minimize much of the turmoil in the world.
Having said that, Obama has been the one at the helm of the world stage from the US POV, and so all this nastiness that's happening that the Dems are up in arms about came about on his watch.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 14, 2016 11:46:57 GMT -5
To be clear, my response was b4 I saw Amandan's response. I do think Obama dismissed the threat of Russia, within the debate to be sure. And I don't think he fully recognized how much of a threat they were after he won.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 15, 2016 13:36:35 GMT -5
So there's this. www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/14/intelligence-officials-refuse-brief-house-panel-russian-hacking/95453412/House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes on Wednesday blasted as "unacceptable" the refusal of the FBI, CIA and National Intelligence directors to brief his panel on the Russian cyber attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign. Nunes had requested that National Intelligence Director James Clapper, with participation from FBI Director James Comey and CIA Director John Brennan, brief committee members in a closed session on Thursday. That briefing has now been cancelled. The California Republican, in a letter sent to Clapper on Monday, said he wanted clarification about why the CIA is now saying that Russian hacks of political campaign committees earlier this year appeared to be aimed at helping President-elect Donald Trump and hurting Democrat Hillary Clinton. Nunes pointed to testimony from Clapper in a public hearing in November that the Intelligence Community lacked the evidence to draw such a conclusion. "It is unacceptable that the Intelligence Community directors would not fulfill the House Intelligence Committee’s request to be briefed tomorrow on the cyber-attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign," Nunes said in a statement released Wednesday night. "The legislative branch is constitutionally vested with oversight responsibility of executive branch agencies, which are obligated to comply with our requests." Not sure what to make of it.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 15, 2016 13:47:52 GMT -5
It sounds like the committee basically wanted to call the intelligence directors onto the carpet and give them a spanking, and they said "Nope."
It is true that the legislative branch has oversight authority, but that doesn't mean any committee has the authority to summon the directors of national intelligence on command.
Not unreasonable. "We'll give you the report when it's ready, not right now so you can cherry-pick the work in progress and make half-baked accusations."
|
|