Biden Sold Out Soviet Dissidents

November 22, 2011 has published a troubling article concerning Joe Biden’s diplomatic priorities by Vladimir Bukovsky, the renowned human rights activist and former 12-year political prisoner in the Soviet Union, and Pavel Stroilov, a Russian exile and translator living in London.
Titled Biden’s Secret Diplomacy, it is a report about a secret document, first uncovered at the Gorbachev Foundation Archive in Moscow three years ago, that provides insight into Senator Joe Biden’s true priorities and proclivity towards political double-speak during one of the most tense periods of relations between the United States and the Soviet Union – and who Biden thought was expendable.
According to the article and the document, Senator Biden led a delegation of Senators to Moscow for discussions about arms control issues in 1979. During that meeting, Biden told his Communist hosts “off the record” that in his esteemed opinion, the internal persecution of Soviet dissidents and the overall suppression of human rights was of no real concern and that bringing it up would only impede other, more important negotiations. Senator Biden did, however, request that his Soviet hosts put on a bit of a show for him – he indicated that it would help with his constituents back home if the Soviets publicly acknowledged that the current Vice-Presidential candidate did bring up human rights and the plight of the dissidents – particularly the Jewish refuseniks.
Remember hearing and reading about gulags, psikhushkas, and Soviet prisons? Remember the name Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? Those are the horrific practices, and the type of people, that Joe Biden was willing to ignore.
Via the article and from the original document:

The delegation did not officially raise the issue of human rights during the negotiations. Biden said they did not want ‘to spoil the atmosphere with problems which are bound to cause distrust in our relations.’ However, during the breaks between the sessions the senators passed to us several letters concerning these or those ‘refuseniks’.
Unofficially, Biden and [Senator Richard] Lugar said that, in the end of the day, they were not so much concerned with having a problem of this or that citizen solved as with showing to the American public that they do care for ‘human rights’. They must prove to their voters that they are ‘effective in fulfilling their wishes’. In other words, the collocutors directly admitted that what is happening is a kind of a show, that they absolutely do not care for the fate of most so-called dissidents.
In the same conversation, Biden asked us to ensure that senators’ appeals on those issues are not left unanswered – even if we just reply that the letter is received but we cannot do anything.

No wonder the Soviet Union thought they were beating us in 1979.
It was Ronald Reagan’s laser-like focus on human rights in the “evil empire” – the Eastern Bloc controlled by the Soviet Union – that led to the popular uprisings throughout Eastern Europe and broke the back of Communism. The Soviet Union as it existed from after World War II to its fall was an empty vessel – the West was vastly superior to the East economically, militarily, and above all concerning the issue of human rights. What was needed to give hundreds of millions of people their freedom and hope back was for a courageous leader of a strong nation to confront the Soviets with those facts.
Documents show that Joe Biden was not one of those courageous leaders. In fact, he opposed Ronald Reagan every step of the way.
Joe Biden is knowledgeable about foreign policy “facts”, but the true measure of foreign policy effectiveness is how one turns knowledge of those facts into successful policies. Senator Biden has been, in the end, on the wrong side of every major foreign policy issue since he has been in politics. Having said that, I am still surprised by this story. His cowardice in the face of true evil is despicable.
And this is the person who is supposedly giving Barack Obama foreign policy credibility? God help us all, especially those currently persecuted around the world.


Kissinger called American Jews "self-serving…bastards"

November 20, 2011

(EOZ) AP has picked up on YNet’s story late last week about newly-released State Department historical documents where Henry Kissinger complained about the Jewish community who were trying to help get Soviet Jews released.
Here is the entire section of the released document that deals with this. Besides Kissinger’s remarks, it is interesting to anyone who wants to know more about the history of American involvement in the Soviet Jewry issue.

On August 30, 1972, Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Haig wrote Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Kissinger: “Earlier yesterday, I had talked to Len Garment, Special Consultant to the President on Minorities and the Arts, about the problem of Soviet Jewry which is apparently growing and which McGovern hopes to exploit. This was complicated yesterday by a letter sent out of the Soviet Union by a group of Soviet Jewish leaders, a copy of which was furnished to McGovern.” Referring to Senator George McGovern, the Democratic candidate for President, Haig wrote that he understood that “McGovern will try to exploit the letter.” Haig had asked Garment to contact Senator Jacob Javits (R–NY) to discuss the matter. Haig informed Kissinger: “I insisted to Garment yesterday and again late last night to tell Javits to reaffirm strongly his conviction that the President and the White House are very concerned about the plight of the Soviet Jews, to reassure him that this matter was discussed during the summit and on his own to urge the Jewish leaders to understand that quiet diplomacy has accomplished far more than an extensive trumpeting so far. Javits, of course, can go much farther on this issue that can any White House official and especially the President.” (National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 995, Alexander M. Haig Chronological Files)
On August 31, Haig forwarded Kissinger the text of a letter from Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, received that day, in which she asked President Nixon to send “a direct confidential message to the people in the Kremlin expressing your reaction to the outrage” of the Soviet exit fees for emigrants. Haig wrote Kissinger in a covering memorandum: “Now that the Prime Minister has formally raised this issue in a direct communication with the President, we will have to consider very carefully the best means by which to proceed. Sometimes our Jewish friends know just what not to do at the right moment.” (Ibid.)
On September 6, Garment phoned Kissinger regarding the Soviet exit fee issue. He told Kissinger that “the Russian issue is flooding my desk and phone at this point and I need some guidance.” The relevant portion of the transcript of their telephone conversation continues as follows:
“K[issinger]: Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?
“G[arment]: None in the world.
“K: I have not seen it. What the hell do they think they are accomplishing?
“G: Well, I don’t know.
“K: You can’t even tell the bastards anything in confidence because they’ll leak it to all their
“G: Right. Very briefly, what seems to be coming through just dozens of conversations is basically this, and there are political as well as some other dangers involved—that the intellectuals and Jewish community in the Soviet Union are just saying that in a sense they will have their position compromised by the Soviets through a trick of timing and that the Russians feel secure until November in going ahead with the attacks because of the concern on our part of . . .
“K: They’re dead wrong. After November they’re even safer.
“G: That may well be. I think then in any event . . .
“K: You can say—well, what we are doing, we’ve talked in a low key way to Dobrynin. Next week, we’ll call him into the State Department. If the Jewish community doesn’t mind, after I’ve been in the Soviet Union and have done some national business, so we’ll do it on Wednesday [September 13] or Thursday [September 14] next week. Don’t tell them that.
“G: No, I won’t tell them anything.
“K: But next Thursday, we’ll call them in.
“G: And defer any meetings between any of our people and the Jewish groups until after Wednesday.
“K: That’s right. After Wednesday you’ll be able to say that the issue has been raised both with Dobrynin and with the Minister.

“G: I think between now and November a certain amount of theater is needed to keep the lid on. That’s basically what seems to come through to me. After that I just don’t know; there are various people that are talking about forming committees to raise the money and doing a variety of things.
“K: They ought to remember what this Administration has done . . .
“G: Yes, all of that can be pointed out, but nevertheless, here they are subject to presses [pressures?] of this sort and I’m simply asking.
“K: No, no, you’ve been great on it.
“G: Well, I’m doing a job and all I want to know is how to handle it.
“K: Our game plan is that we cannot possibly make a formal protest while I’m on the way to Russia.
“G: Right. I understand that.” (Ibid., Kissinger Telephone Conversations (Telcons), Box 14, Chronological File)
Secretary of Commerce Peterson also raised the issue of Jewish emigration with Kissinger during a telephone conversation on September 7. He told Kissinger that he had heard “from three different sources that there’s a strong movement on the Hill to tie the Soviet Jewry issue with anything that has anything to do with the Soviet Union.” The relevant portion of the transcript of their telephone conversation continues as follows:
“K[issinger]: But that won’t be effective until after the election.
“P[eterson]: Well there’s strong pressure in this one group that I met with that’s been confirmed since then to submit MFN legislation, but to tie the issue to that and then to use the submission of the bill to get extremely vocal about it. Javits and a number of others are very active on it.
“K: Yeah, but they’ll subside after the election.
“P: Yeah, now I don’t know how much it hurts you, however, to do it prior to the election because that’s what they’re going to do. Okay, I just wanted you to know about it.
“K: No, I didn’t know about it; it will hurt me but . . . It will hurt, but what can we do? There’s no sense; you can’t make a deal with Javits on things like this. Don’t you think?
“P: Well, you know him much better than I do. I don’t know what he’d . . . he’s got great respect for you. I don’t know. I’ll tell you what I can do if we can be helpful. I can find out who the Senators and Congressmen are beside him, and if in your absence, you want anybody to try to pacify them so they don’t get out on the floor and create problems for you while you’re over there, that might help. Or I can drop it, whatever you wish.
“K: No, if you could find out in a way that doesn’t draw too much attention to it, that would be very helpful.
“P: All right, you’ll get it in the morning.” (Ibid.)

It the Jewish community’s noisiness about the Soviet Jews – mass rallies on the White House lawn, recruiting senators to the cause, and especially the Jackson-Vanik amendment – that pressured the Kremlin to allow millions of them to leave, not the “quiet diplomacy” that Kissinger advocated.
UPDATE: Alex points me to an NYT article from last year on newly released Nixon tapes:

An indication of Nixon’s complex relationship with Jews came the afternoon Golda Meir, the Israeli prime minister, came to visit on March 1, 1973. The tapes capture Meir offering warm and effusive thanks to Nixon for the way he had treated her and Israel.
But moments after she left, Nixon and Mr. Kissinger were brutally dismissive in response to requests that the United States press the Soviet Union to permit Jews to emigrate and escape persecution there.
“The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy,” Mr. Kissinger said. “And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.
I know,” Nixon responded. “We can’t blow up the world because of it.”
In his discussion with Ms. Woods, Nixon laid down clear rules about who would be permitted to attend the state dinner for Meir — he called it “the Jewish dinner” — after learning that the White House was being besieged with requests to attend.
“I don’t want any Jew at that dinner who didn’t support us in that campaign,” he said. “Is that clear? No Jew who did not support us.”
Nixon listed many of his top Jewish advisers — among them, Mr. Kissinger and William Safire, who went on to become a columnist at The New York Times — and argued that they shared a common trait, of needing to compensate for an inferiority complex.
“What it is, is it’s the insecurity,” he said. “It’s the latent insecurity. Most Jewish people are insecure. And that’s why they have to prove things.”
Nixon also strongly hinted that his reluctance to even consider amnesty for young Americans who went to Canada to avoid being drafted during the Vietnam War was because, he told Mr. Colson, so many of them were Jewish.
“I didn’t notice many Jewish names coming back from Vietnam on any of those lists; I don’t know how the hell they avoid it,” he said, adding: “If you look at the Canadian-Swedish contingent, they were very disproportionately Jewish. The deserters.”

(h/t Alec)

You can’t say Kissinger was just another Jew with loyalty to Jews

Eisenhower threatened to use the Treasury to destroy the British Pound.

November 13, 2011

On 26 July 1956, in retaliation for the loss of funding and to help pay for the Aswan project, Nasser gave a speech in Alexandria where he denounced Western influence in the Arab world and announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company.

The British tried to stage a phony crisis in order to send in peacekeeping troops that was aborted when Eisenhower threatened to use the Treasury to destroy the British Pound. Eisenhower would later go on to regret it, but the deed was done.

(SULTAN KNISH) Eisenhower’s intervention on behalf of Nasser’s seizure of the Suez Canal, and against England, (despite Nasser being a Soviet ally) demonstrated that America would rather turn on its allies, than risk alienating Arab and Muslim states. When the Saudis nationalized ARAMCO, they were confident that America would do nothing. And they were only partially wrong. America did something, it used taxpayer money to compensate shareholders for the nationalized by our “Saudi” friends.

Vladimir Putin’s Plan to Create a Eurasian Union Is about Reclaiming the Russian Empire

October 5, 2011

(Libra Bunda / THE DAILY TELEGRAPH): Vladimir Putin is on a roll. Last month, he revealed he was all set to return to the Russian presidency next year, possibly for as long as twelve years. And on Tuesday, he disclosed he was in the process of creating a new global power bloc, the ‘Eurasian Union,’ on the bones of what used to be the Soviet Union. His dream would see Russia again dominating about one fifth of the earth’s surface with an internal market of almost 300 million people. The new union would include authoritarian Kazakhstan and Belarus to begin with before expanding to take in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and then, Mr Putin hopes, other former Soviet republics. Mr Putin did not say so but it is known that he would dearly like to see Ukraine sign up to his master plan. His is a bold idea and one that immediately and unsurprisingly drew admiration from Russian nationalists. Older Russians, who hark after the paternalism and stability of the defunct Soviet Union, are also likely to appreciate the plan. Mr Putin was at pains to say however that his mission was not to recreate the Soviet Union …other countries ruled by strong men like Mr Putin may well see the idea as a good one. They will of course fight to minimise Russian dominance in the new union. But ultimately they may see the new power bloc as a way of enhancing their marginal voices on the global stage and as a mechanism to shore up their authoritarian regimes at a time when dictators are nervously looking over their shoulders. (MORE PAIN)

I feel less threatened and more pity for any confederation of countries that centralize. It might help tyrannical governments feel less threatened by their own populations, but in a time when there is so much economic instability, It’s about the worst thing one can do for one’s economy… no wait… correct that… it is the worst thing for the richer countries economy… the country of deadbeats gets bailed out. Russia has nothing to gain by bringing potential equivalents of Greece into their sphere. Sure… they might be rich in resources, but a centralized structure will quickly abuse those resources. I don’t feel threatened… I feel bad for them. It has not worked for Europe. It is too bad these totalitarian countries can not bring some proportion of human rights into their government because a stable democracy built on natural resources and a healthy amount of cultural guiding through media public relations to push ideas like equal dignity for genders and tolerance for those who don’t threaten to kick your ass would be ideal. Russia seems ok in the gender department, but many of their former satellite states are Muslim.  Good luck with that. While America and Europe are starting to understand that Democracy is not Democracy because someone says so, but rather Democracy is Democracy because government is kept in check, Russia is figuring out a new way to obscure a dictatorship. G-d help them.

Liz Taylor Stood up to Those Boycotting Israel

April 7, 2011

Mainstream American media reporting on the passing of Elizabeth Taylor, the famous movie star, generally ignored her support for Israel which had resulted in animosity from the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish crowd. Obituaries and reports generally completely omitted or barely mentioned Ms. Taylor’s warm relationship with Israel including standing up to the boycotters of Israel. A notable exception was a March 27 Washington Post (Outlook section) commentary which noted that Ms. Taylor “was also a supporter of Israel to a degree that largely went unmentioned this past week.”

Eliz.Taylor.bmpA Partial list of Elizabeth Taylor’s Israel-related activities:
• In 1959 Ms. Taylor bought $100,000 in Israeli bonds. As a result, The United Arab Republic (Egypt and Syria) officially banned all her motion pictures.
• In 1962 Ms. Taylor was barred from entering Egypt as she was blacklisted as Jewish. As a result, the movie production “Cleopatra” filming had to be removed from Egypt. The Jerusalem Post (April 6, 2011) noted that: “Gen. Essam Elmasri, head of the Cairo regional bureau of the Israel Boycott Office, [in 1962] said in the Egyptian capital that Miss Taylor will not be allowed to come to Egypt because she has adopted the Jewish faith and supports Israeli causes.”
• In 1976 Ms. Taylor offered herself as a hostage for the more than 100 Air France hijack victims held by terrorists at Entebbe Airport in Uganda during the tense days before the Israeli rescue raid.
• Ms. Taylor raised over 2 million dollars for the State of Israel.
• In 1967 Ms. Taylor canceled plans to attend the July Moscow Film Festival because of opposition to the Soviet diplomatic offensive against Israel.
• In 1982 Ms. Taylor signed a letter denouncing the United Nations’ racist “Zionism is racism” resolution.
• In 1987 Ms. Taylor helped launch an appeal to free Soviet Jewish refusenik Ida Nudel.
The Washington Post story pointed out that Elizabeth Taylor’s support of Israel is in sharp contrast to a number of celebrities who have gone along with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) crowd –– “an international activist network that sees Israel as an oppressor and seeks its isolation in virtually every realm” –– and cut ties with Israel. “The same artists usually have nothing in particular to say about China, Russia or repressive Muslim regimes,” it noted.

image via

she was beautiful!

West’s Fears over Spectre of al-Qaeda among Rebels

March 30, 2011

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: It should come as no surprise to the West that intelligence officials have identified “flickers” of al-Qaeda among the Libyan rebels seeking to overthrow the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
Since widespread anti-government protests erupted in Libya last month Col Gaddafi has repeatedly claimed that al-Qaeda was actively involved in stirring up the unrest. At the start of the uprising he even made the bizarre claim that al-Qaeda had supplied Libyans with pills that induced them to revolt. “Our children have been manipulated by al-Qaeda,” he declared.
Saif al-Islam, his second eldest son and heir apparent, has also made much of al-Qaeda’s role in the revolt, warning the West that it has made a “terrible mistake” in backing the rebels. “Believe me, one day when you wake up, you will find that you support the wrong people,” he said after French warplanes had bombed Libya’s air defences. “You’ve made a terrible mistake.”
While the Gaddafi regime has undoubtedly exaggerated the extent of al-Qaeda’s influence in their country, there is nevertheless disturbing evidence that the Islamist terror group is seeking to turn the current political unrest to its advantage.
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a militant Islamist group committed to the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Libya, was set up in 1995 by groups of Libyan jihadi fighters who had returned home after fighting with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.
The LIFG later established ties with like-minded organisations, particularly al-Qaeda’s North African wing, which is predominantly based in Algeria and has claimed responsibility for a number of terrorist attacks against European targets. » | Con Coughlin | Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Hoax of the Russian Consulate

March 26, 2011
Five months later, in May 1982, the police happened to mention the consulate duty in a report. “What booth?” asked a bewildered intelligence official. It turned out that Officer Cowans and Inspector Whitmore did not exist; the police had been guarding an empty building around the clock for five months, right through Christmas, for no reason.

Media_httpfarm3static_bcjudFor several years during the Cold War, New York police guarded the Soviet consulate at 9 East 91st Street in Manhattan. Officers manned a pale blue guard post 24 hours a day. “It’s like being a prisoner of war stuck in a telephone booth,” one said.
The Soviets left in 1980, and the police department accordingly canceled the guard, but two months later the 23rd precinct received a call from an Officer Cowans who said that Inspector Whitmore of police intelligence had ordered the guard to be reactivated. So the police resumed their vigil over the now-disused building.
They closed up shop and removed the booth. “Whoever did this was someone who wanted to break chops or who stood to gain from it,” Lt. Robert McEntire told the New York Times. “We’re not sure which, and we probably never will be.”

Police taking away pickets from Soviet consulate. via

and consulate today image via andrei deev