Posted on 01/25/2007 1:44:08 PM PST by knighthawk
Citgo, the American oil company, has a public relations problem. It is the U.S.-based subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, which in turn is funding President Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution. Chavez might just be the world's leading anti-American (there being so many in contention, it's difficult to say), so selling his oil in the United States at high prices is a delicate matter for all concerned. Citgo has therefore announced a program whereby it sets aside some 10% of its American refining capacity so that it may sell discounted fuel from Venezuela to hospitals, nursing homes and agencies helping the poor.
One of the latter agencies is Citizens' Energy Corp. Citizens' is run by Joseph Kennedy III, the former congressman and son of the late RFK. In return, Joseph Kennedy is publicly thanking "our Venezuelan friends" for the deal.
USA Today has editorialized against this unseemly cozying up to America's enemies. Mr. Kennedy replies, not without merit, that Americans buy oil from all sorts of unsavoury regimes, beginning with Saudi Arabia; and if Mr. Chavez wants to score propaganda points in the United States with some discounted oil, only a fool would reject it.
What caught my eye was the additional accusation USA Today leveled at Joe Kennedy; that he was lending the prestige of the Kennedy family name to the Chavez regime.
Prestige? It's been a long time since the heady days of the early 1960s, and one would have thought such prestige had long been lost as the scandals piled one on top of the other. More to the point, on the question of Kennedys and foreign regimes hostile to the United States, there is scandalous history that is much more recent than Camelot.
John O'Sullivan, who edited these pages when the Post was first launched, has just written a splendid book on the 1980s: The President, The Pope and The Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World. It tells the great tale of Ronald Reagan, John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher, and how they won the Cold War. But along the way, Mr. O'Sullivan reports new material gleaned from the archives of the former Soviet Union.
After the first Reagan-Gorbachev summit in Geneva in 1985, Senator Edward Kennedy met with Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow in February, 1986. The essence of the meeting, Mr. O'Sullivan reports, was that Senator Kennedy was concerned about Reagan's popularity in the United States and that the president might use that strength to the detriment of the Soviets. After meeting with Mr. Gorbachev, the senator briefed Soviet officials on how to outmaneouvre Reagan in future negotiations.
"You should put more pressure, and firmer pressure, on Reagan," said Kennedy, according to notes of his meeting with Vadim Zagladin, a Soviet foreign official who organized his meeting with Gorbachev. "And, of course, I shall think over what can be done on my side, the Senate's side. At the Congress session, I shall report on my meeting with Mr. Gorbachev. I will speak in the country as many times as ?necessary."
It's one thing to disagree with Mr. Reagan's policy; it's quite another, with the Cold War still on, to undermine his policies by advising and making common cause with the Soviet communists. (O'Sullivan reveals that Kennedy had made previous overtures to Yuri Andropov, but was rebuffed.)
The news about Senator Kennedy, some of it previously reported and some of it original to Mr. O'Sullivan, should be devastating to a still-sitting senator. Imagine a senator trotting off to apartheid-era South Africa to advise the regime on how to avoid diplomatic pressure. Perhaps the senator's long history of scandal (Chappaquiddick, the debauchery of Good Friday 1991, which resulted in rape charges against his nephew, etc.) immunizes him from reports that have him merely cavorting with the Soviets. Whatever the reason, the revelations have not created a stir.
And why should they, when the nephew is happy to shill for Hugo Chavez today, not 20 years ago, and openly, not in secret?
USA Today had it almost right: Joseph Kennedy III is lending the Kennedy name to Mr. Chavez's anti-American regime, but it is not prestige he is offering. He is living down to the name his uncle has already tarnished.
---------
Another disgrace to the Kennedy name
Ping
did not the Kennedy's get all their wealth from opium or cocaine way back when?
It was from an illegal substance, yes - whiskey, which was illegal in this country at the time. Supposedly.
Alcohol, during Prohibition. When one of the current generation died of a drug overdose, some called it chickens coming home to roost.
Old Joe was rum-runner during prohibition (among other things).
"did not the Kennedy's get all their wealth from opium or cocaine way back when"?
...the Senior Kennedy made huge fortunes in boot legging during prohibition. Teddy continues this fine Kennedy tradition. (drinking liquor, I mean.)
Liquor.
Joe also supported HITLER.
No. It was mostly from old Joe manipulating Wall Street with tactics that would send you to jail for 100 years today. But that was before there was an SEC. Then he got into Hollywood early (mostly so he could screw young starlets) and added more to his fortune there by laundering profits. He then bought some oil companies which the family trust still owns.
None of his kids or grandkids have ever had to work for a living.
No, Joseph P., the patriarch, was a rum runner in the 20's That's where he got his money.
Ironic, since alcohol is slowly killing Ted.
The Kerry family got rich by trading with opium.
"Joe also supported HITLER."
He sure did. He was removed as ambassador to the Court of St. James for his pro-NAZI sentiments although references to it are hard to find. Wikipedia even has a heading in his bio for "liquor importer". LOL!
Recall that Uncle Teddy helped the bad guys slaughter a couple million innocent people in Southeast Asia - not all that easy a mark to surpass.
I question whether it's remotely possible to disgrace a name attached to that fat drunken blob from Massachusettes who is animated disgrace to the quintessential degree.
Another member of the brotherhood.
I'm with you...I think they're way past disgracing their name. That was done last generation.
As I've long said about the Kennedy's:
Its a shame that Joseph Kennedy Sr's great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great Grandfather wasn't STERILE!
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.