April 2014
« Jan    


Check out this article by former Romanian spymaster Ion Mihai Pacepa:

As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take orders from the Soviet KGB, it is perfectly obvious to me that Russia is behind the evanescence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place. The Soviet Union and all its bloc states always had a standard operating procedure for deep sixing weapons of mass destruction ? in Romanian it was codenamed “Sarindar, meaning “emergency exit.”Implemented it in Libya. It was for ridding Third World despots of all trace of their chemical weapons if the Western imperialists ever got near them. We wanted to make sure they would never be traced back to us, and we also wanted to frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with…

The plan included an elaborate propaganda routine. Anyone accusing Moammar Gadhafi of possessing chemical weapons would be ridiculed. Lies, all lies! Come to Libya and see! Our Western left-wing organizations, like the World Peace Council, existed for sole purpose of spreading the propaganda we gave them. These very same groups bray the exact same themes to this day. We always relied on their expertise at organizing large street demonstrations in Western Europe over America’s war-mongering whenever we wanted to distract world attention from the crimes of the vicious regimes we sponsored.

Read it all. It’s damn troubling.

I’ve read this guy’s stuff before, and he seems quite a bit like the real deal. The whole thing sounds Ludlum-esque, but I believe him. The problem is that none of it surprises me.

6 comments to Ion-ized!

  • I am suspicious of whatever a Romanian has to say about Russia. In general, Romanians do not hold favorable attitudes towards their former conquerors, neither before nor after 1989. Ceausescu was a paranoid madman who was probably well into his mania when he “confided” in Pacepa. I never read Ludlum, but I’ve been to the movies, and Pacepa’s plot sounds as far fetched as Sean Connery playing Alan Quartermain like a spring chicken. One question: WHY would Russia help Baghdad now? What do they have to gain? I don’t buy the “return to superpower status” reason. Russia is in big trouble economically. Internally, they have major political struggles and are fighting a vietnam in Chechnya. I don’t think Russia has anything to gain by perpetrating such deception. They risk the ire of their neighbors, including the United States (just a stone’s throw from Alaska), with whom they will depend on quite a long time for economic support. Pacepa must’ve been drinking palinka a little too much.

  • Well, BOBO…

    I trust that Ion, being the top guy in the intelligence organization, was able to tell when Ceaucescu was simply raving and when he was talking rationally.

    As for Russia not having anything to gain by screwing with the U.S., I must say that I disagree. This is a country with whom we were at (cold) war for decades, and it doesn’t seem off-base to me that they’d still want to keep America’s power in check. After all, the number of countries out there that would like us to remain on top is pretty limited, you’d have to admit. Time and again, Russia has risked our ire since 1989 and has suffered no consequences from it, the most recent example being its refusal to do anything but carp and undermine our efforts in liberating Iraq.

    Russia has been involved in some pretty appalling things in its recent history, and it makes sense that they’d want to keep the truth from the rest of the world how truly evil and fucked up they were since the rise of Communism.

  • Russia, the United States, Mexico, France, Germany, Liberia, Romania, Italy, and a host of other countries have done “some pretty appalling things in [their] recent history,” whether it be to their own people or to other countries. The common thread; while nobody is happy the U.S. of A. is the only superpower, all of them are happy that the U.S. of A. is strong economically. They all depend, in one way or another, on our economic capacity. They like that we are the front runners of capitalism and they like that we have political stability because if they fail, for one reason or another, they know the U.S. of A. will bail them out. Russia has nothing to gain by alienating their economic lifeline. And no, Ceaucescu was a paranoid madman who only listened to and confided in his maniac wife. A high ranking “intelligence officer” in Romania is probably, at best, a thug, and not necessarily a confidant of Ceaucescu. Russia has a lot of truths to keep… just like the USA, Bobo.

  • I’ll have to respectfully disagree here, especially on the credibility of Ion Pacepa. You don’t know what he did in Romania. I don’t. Any opinions on his responsibilities must be subjective.

    In addition, I honestly don’t understand how you can make the statement that countries such as France and Germany depend on the U.S. economically insofar as they will shape their own policies to accomodate capitalism. Many of them do not, and are aggressively socialist. The entire purpose of the E.U. is to compete with the U.S. economically through the implementation of socialist policy and thought, not a strict free-enterprise system. If they do want the U.S. to prosper economically, they’ve got a damn funny way of showing it. Russia included.

    Which brings me to my final point: it’s not about the U.S. or Mexico being blameless in its history, recent or otherwise. It’s about Russia, during the reign of communism, providing the enemies of the free west with chemical and biological weaponry. There’s no equivalence here; Russia never gave aid to other countries that weren’t actively against the west, and that aid always came in the form of weapons. It’s not unusual that they’d want to keep the worst of it secret, now that they’re the world’s friends, and all.

  • O Bobo, where art thou?

    Think of it this way: If France had a recession, how would America be affected? Hardly at all. If America had a recession, how would France be affected? Quite a bit, considering how much money American corporations have invested in France (and everywhere else), how many French businesses have their bases in America, etc. Don’t believe me? Consider this message from the U.S. Dept of State:

    U.S. Leadership Abroad and American Business

    America’s trade and commercial competitiveness are integral to our economic and national security. A primary goal of our foreign policy is to use our unique leverage and diplomacy to create new opportunities for American companies and workers.

    Unique leverage? Why would they say “unique leverage?” Because America is the engine that drives the capitalist world with no close second.

    Consider this tidbit:

    US companies turn off investments in France – 24th May 2003

    According to official Frence figures, foreign investment in France fell last year to its lowest level since 1995. The main reason was that fewer American businesses decided to set up operations. This result do not take into account and repercussions from the rift in Franco-American diplomatic relations earlier this year. The 2002 data shows that US companies created 26.4 per cent fewer jobs in France last year than in 2001.

    Coupled with this bad news Francis Mer, the French finance minister, said that the country risked following Germany into recession if strikes over plans to reform the pension system continued to paralyse the country. Observors believe that the full impact of the 35-hour week introduced by the former socialist government has also yet to be reflected in investment figures.

    Clara Gaymard, France’s ambassador for foreign investors and head of the national agency AFII, confirmed that foreign investment accounted for 23,000 new jobs last year, a relatively small number given that 9.1 per cent of the French workforce is unemployed. This compared with 35,000 in 2000 and 25,480 in 2001. Mrs Gaymard stressed that this figure represented more than one in three of all new jobs created in France last year.

    The E.U. is a weak sister compared to the US. Only recently has the Euro been better than the dollar, but just about every big corporation in the Western world has its investments in U.S. dollars, and the not the Euro. They may not like it, but the U.S. has the capitalist world over the barrel, pants at the ankles, begging for KY.

    As for the Romanian “intelligence” officer: Remember the story a few months back that alleged that France handed out fake passports to Baathist party officials so they could defect to Iran, Jordan, etc? What happened to that story? There’s a lot of crap that gets reported out there and the truth is very hard to find. I think my reasons for suspicion are fairly valid.

    You Bobo lover, you.

  • Bilbo

    If I get it right the point is weather Pacepa?s opinion about Russian and Sadam is acceptable or not. Here is my suggestion. Although Pacepa has been ?isolated? from his role in the development of the ?golden era? for more than 20 years this is not a reason to discredit his views. Argument: his ?predictions? in the past came true (that is why the CIA decided a long term collaboration with Pacepa), not because the man shows prophetic potential, but because he knows how the ideology of some people works (he is one of them), an ideology that changed people into something almost unchangeable. In fact, that is what gives Pacepa the courage to make such affirmations, he is convinced that the point of view he once embraced (maybe still does, but not in an harmful way), is still at work through his ?old friends?, that only through death will change their attitudes. Did you ever ask yourself why so many want him dead? He is one who uses their weapons against them. Pacepa knows that it will take at least a (his) generation to see some small changes and as long as many of his colleagues from the school of life are directly or indirectly showing their contribution to the !cause of this world! he can predict with certainty. He knows that these people lack tremendous amount of creativity, that is why they were ?chosen? in the first place, and will always act in conformity with their indoctrination.
    I could easily continue, but I think I made my point. Following with attention the Pacepa?s books and articles, in my opinion, all his political and economical affirmations are based on his historical experience and psychological analysis of an ideology that took different forms in different cultural contexts. Even more, that ideology become itself culture, and to put that aside it is even more complicated.

    So, in conclusion, unless you know your history of communism and the shape it took in Russian, Romania, and so on, do not try to understand Pacepa, even you may thing that changes tool place in the ?east block? do not forget that in many places are the same people.

    As for the economical dependency of Europe to the USA, is obvious. Many Europeans would like to believe the other way around, but most do it because of pride. (I am an European).