In Defense of Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa

pacDisinformation, a new book by Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the one-time Romanian spy chief turned highest Soviet-Bloc official ever to defect to the United States, was subject to a bizarre attack in the National Catholic Register.  The author of the article, Victor Gaetan, writes what amounts to a rehash of the criticisms of Pacepa’s 2007 article, “Moscow’s Assault on the Vatican,” combines it with the latest slanders against Pacepa from the remnants of Nicolae Ceausescu’s entourage, and presents it as a review of the book.

Disinformation is an account of how the Soviet Union used lies to attack its enemies, a tactic known as dezinformatsiya.  A key part of this is “framing,” the practice of changing someone or something’s past to suit the present (an example given in the book was the Washington Post‘s fake Mitt Romney hair-cutting bully story, which was meant to frame the former presidential candidate as a nasty homophobe).  The primary case study provided in the book is the campaign to discredit Pope Pius XII – providing not only a well-documented defense of the wartime Pope, but an equally well-documented exposé of his accusers (a trail of lies leading right back to the Kremlin).

Gaetan, however, writes:

An oddity about Disinformation is its authorship. Two authors are listed, but only one narrates. Pacepa is an intensely controversial former communist official whose defection to the United States in 1978 is still not well understood. Pacepa, 84, never appears in public, won’t answer questions by phone and responds to email through third parties, one of whom told me, “I don’t know if he even exists!”

I can confirm that Pacepa is indeed elusive. Why? Because there are people trying to hunt him down. After his defection, Pacepa’s assassination became top priority, with death squads deployed and figures like Carlos the Jackal, Yassir Arafat and Muammar Qaddafi routinely being discovered as trying to locate him.  Lt. Gen Iulian Vlad – who Ceausescu placed in charge of assassinating Pacepa – is still a free man in Romania and walks the streets with impunity.  And yes, Pacepa does exist – see, for example, Congressman Frank Wolf’s autobiograghy Prisoner of Conscience.

Gaetan then goes on to attack Pacepa’s 2007 article:

In the article “Moscow’s Assault on the Vatican,” published in 2007, Pacepa claimed he convinced legendary Vatican diplomat Msgr. Agostino Casaroli — later cardinal and secretary of state under Pope John Paul II — to let three Romanian agents, posing as priests, peruse the papal archives.

Under scrutiny, Pacepa’s story began to unravel, with doubts expressed by historians and Vatican experts.

Then the reason Pacepa claimed to have credibility with the Vatican collapsed: He said he had engineered a “spy trade” in 1959, exchanging jailed Romanian Archbishop Augustin Pacha for two spies caught in West Germany. But Archbishop Ioan Robu of Bucharest showed photos of the bishop’s 1954 crypt, explaining the heroic man was already dead when Pacepa claimed to have liberated him.

He left out that many of the errors the article was criticized for have been corrected in the book.  For example, it is noted that: “In his NRO article, Moscow’s Assault on the Vatican, Pacepa mistakenly stated that Archbishop Augustin Pacha was exchanged for the two DIE officers. In fact, Archbishop Pacha was released from jail but died in Romania shortly thereafter.” And he names the four Catholics who were swapped: Msgr. Josef Nischback, rector of the Catholic Cathedral in Timisoara; Dr. theol. Franz Kräuter, archivist of the Catholic diocese of Timisoara; Sr. Hildegardis Wulff, co-founder of the Benedictine order of St. Lioba, who had dedicated her life to working with Volksdeutsche women in Romania; and Sr. Patricia Zimmermann.

Gaetan then really drops the ball:

One of the most startling claims Pacepa makes, in the article and the book, is that, in a one-on-one meeting in Geneva, Msgr. Casaroli agreed “in principle” to give Romania a $1-billion, interest-free loan in exchange for restoring full diplomatic relations with the Vatican — relations that had dramatically ruptured in 1950, when Romania expelled the apostolic nuncio.

He then spends the next few paragraphs attacking this claim.  There is one problem – the book never says that. Gaetan just built a straw man, and proceeded to attack it.  Here is what the book actually says about the topic:

I had arranged a spy exchange the year before, but now the Soviet bloc needed a new cover story. It was decided that if Romania were to seek a loan from the Vatican, that would provide a possible explanation for why that nation was changing its position vis-à-vis the Holy See.  I was instructed to tell Casaroli that Romania was ready to restore diplomatic relations with the Holy See in exchange for access to its archives and a one-billion-dollar, interest-free loan.  I was also instructed to tell the Vatican that Romania needed access to the archives in order to find historical roots that would help the Romanian government publicly justify its change of heart toward the Holy See. Of course, this was simply a ploy. Ceausescu had no intention of restoring diplomatic relations with the Holy See.

The loan would, of course, have been welcome, but it was never a true aim. Moscow just wanted to open Vatican doors for a few DIE [Romanian Intelligence] agents. Suggesting that Romania needed money provided a “cover” motivation for the proposal. The Vatican did agree to discuss the loan—although it was never made—and also agreed to what seemed a simple request: to allow three Romanian priests to do some research in Vatican archives. With that agreement, I had accomplished my part of the plan. …

[For the operation], the DIE chose three priests who were also co-opted agents. There they were given access to certain Vatican archives. … The DIE agents secretly photographed some unimportant documents, and the DIE sent the films to the KGB via special courier.  The documents were not incriminating; they were mainly things like press reports and transcripts of unclassified meetings and speeches, couched in the routine kind of diplomatic language one would expect to find in such material. Nevertheless, the KGB kept asking for more. Even if these documents did not actually provide any compromising information on Pius XII, the insinuation that his new image was based on “original Vatican documents” would dramatically improve the credibility of the whole framing operation.

Pacepa writes that after his 2007 article was published, researchers in the archives of the Communist-era Romanian Secret Police were able to identify one of the three spies: Fr. Francisc Iosif Pal, SJ.  “Nothing that Pal or the other DIE agents found in Vatican archives could be used as a basis for fabricating believable evidence that made Pius seem sympathetic to Hitler’s regime or unconcerned about the Jews.”

Gaetan complains: “Overall, Disinformation is aggressively anti-Russian. Pacepa makes no distinction between the Soviet era and the post-communist one. Pacepa’s caustic description of Russia and the Orthodox Church today directly contradicts Vatican policy.”  Pacepa, of coarse, has good reason to be distrustful of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. Upon taking power, Putin appointed his “former” KGB comrades to the most government posts. Russia today is nothing short of a KGB empire. And the patriarch of the Church is “Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk (a secret member of the KGB codenamed ‘Mikhaylov’).” His background:  “In 1971, the KGB had sent Kirill to Geneva as a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to that Soviet propaganda machine, the World Council of Churches. In 1975, the KGB infiltrated him into the Central Committee of the WCC, which had become a Kremlin pawn. In 1989 the KGB appointed him chairman of the Russian patriarchate’s foreign relations as well. He still held those positions when he was elected patriarch.”

But the most bizarre part of the review is what is used to attack Pacepa himself. Gaetan writes:

Larry Watts, an American historian and intelligence expert who advised the post-communist Romanian government on how to assert civilian control over its spy agencies (and bring them into NATO compliance), published a major study of the Romanian-Soviet relationship, With Friends Like These: The Soviet Bloc’s Clandestine War Against Romania, in 2010 based on extensive research in the East German, Soviet and Romanian archives.

Watts concludes that Pacepa must have been a KGB spy, in large part for the ways he tried to disrupt the U.S.-Romanian relationship when he defected to the United States in 1978, peddling the line that Romania was a Trojan horse for Soviet interests.

Watts’ hypothesis about Pacepa was received as a bombshell in Romania, mainly because it means he is a traitor: A Soviet agent working in Romania, especially after 1958, would be directing events against Romania’s preferences and interests.

Mr. Gaetan is not telling the truth about who Larry Watts is and how he functions.

Watts, an American, traveled to Romania in 1980 and, for unknown reasons, began working with Ceausescu’s regime.  Not long after Ceausescu was overthrown in December 1989, Watts became an advisor to the director of foreign intelligence for the government of Ion Illiescu. According to Romanian media reports in the 1990s, Iliescu was recruited into the KGB by “Professor” Igor Botnarichuk while a student at the Moscow Engineering Institute in the 1950s, his code name was IANCU and his code number was D-KGB-90519. Furthermore, according to documentation obtained by Russian dissidents Vlatimir Bukovsky and Pavel Stroilov and Polish historian Adam Burakowski, Iliescu acted on Moscow’s behalf to hijack the popular anti-communist Romanian revolution of 1989 and kept Romania functioning as a Kremlin satellite until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

It was during this time that Watts wrote Romanian Cassandra: Ion Antonescu and the Struggle for Reform, 1916–1941 (1993).  This book was part of a semi-official campaign to rehabilitate the Nazi-puppet dictator Ion Antonescu. Watts’ way of approaching his topic is not only to ignore every smoking gun document proving Antonescu’s participation in the Holocaust, but to obscure the facts with a mass of irrelevant documents. Irina Livezeanu of the University of Pittsburgh aptly explains Watts’ modus operandi: “[He operates] less by means of clear, logical arguments and a judicious use of evidence, than through bold revisionist assertions and a bewildering, almost haphazard, array of partial and inconclusive evidence. … In support of his theses, he deploys what appears to be thick documentation, but much of this turns out to be undigested or irrelevant material in terms of the main lines of argument, which are themselves less than clear.” [Slavic Review, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 673-674.]

Thus, like in Romanian Cassandra, in With Friends Like These, Watts drones on endlessly, sighting a multitude of confusing documents, then tells the bewildered reader that it somehow proves his point.  Innuendo, however, is not the same as truth.  There is nothing in that book showing Pacepa had been a KGB agent.  And the claims of a pro-American, anti-Soviet Ceausescu are easily refutable by simply referring to an extraordinary well-written and researched – and very readable – 68-page 2010 thesis of Georgetown University student Rodica Eliza Gheorghe titled “The Romanian Intelligence Services During The Cold War: How Small Powers Can Sometimes Be Strong,” available at repository.library.georgetown.edu.  Ironic, isn’t it – the stooge of a KGB stooge is calling a man who risked his life to fight the KGB’s stooges a KGB stooge.  To reiterate Chico Marx’s question: “Who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

I don’t know what drove Mr. Gaetan to write this attack, but it is very misguided.  I hope he will reconsider his view of Pacepa’s extraordinary book.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Larry L. Watts

    Mr. Mitsotakis,

    First, repeating Mr. Pacepa’s libel that Larry Watts was “working with Ceausescu’s regime” in the 1980s makes it no less untrue. My visits abroad and my U.S. affiliations (U.S. Fulbright Foundation, IREX, RAND Corporation, Woodrow Wilson Center, UCLA and Universities of Washington and Denver, Radio Free Europe, etc.) are documented at http://www.larrylwatts.com and can be verified directly with those institutions.

    Second, I began advising the director of Romania’s post-communist foreign intelligence on democratic control and parliamentary oversight four years after Ceausescu’s fall. I worked with him in his previous incarnations as presidential counselor for military affairs and chief counselor to the defense ministry on the reform of the Romanian military into a NATO compatible army, again focusing on democratic civilian control. Some of my work is documented in Problems of Post-Communism, Armed Forces and Society, European Security, etc.

    Third, Mr. Mitsotakis’ reliance on the “Romanian media” as authority is hazardous. For years that same media insisted I was CIA station chief (“the CIA’s antenna”), despite my repeated written protestations. Romania did not function “as a Kremlin satellite until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.” It came very close to collapse and dissolution while Moscow showed hostility towards it. (See e.g. Janusz Bugajski, Cold Peace: Russia’s New Imperialism, 2004)

    Fourth, although my 1993 book Romanian Cassandra has little to do with the topic at hand, I would note that there were other reviewers than that cited by Mr. Mitsokandis’ who judged the work “admirable,” including Sherman David Spector in the American Historical Review (Vol. 99, No. 4 (October 1994): 1357-1358) and Dennis Deletant, who called it “one of the most penetrating views in English of inter-war Romanian politics,” in The Slavonic and East European Review (Vol. 74, No. 1 (January 1996): 174-175).

    Fifth, Mr. Mitsotakis insists that there is “nothing in [Watts’] book showing Pacepa had been a KGB agent.” Yet I cite the 04/24/2004 edition of this magazine quoting Mr. Pacepa that “I spent 27 years of my life working for the KGB,” and he insists in “Disinformation” that the head of KGB intelligence was his “boss and mentor.” (pages 45, 90, 150, 191, 281, 375)

    Finally, I welcome comparison of the thesis cited with my work – both “With Friends Like These ‘ and its sequel ‘Extorting Peace: Romania and the End of the Cold War ‘ (excerpts available on my website under “Excerpts” and “Other Publications.”) The author of the thesis cited later began doctoral studies at the Oxford University, where the founder of the Oxford Intelligence Group and former secretary of British Joint Intelligence Committee has characterized my book as a “must” for understanding “Romania’s rift with the Soviet Union and its satellites” during the Cold War. (See “Commentary” at http://www.larrylwatts.com) Ironic, isn’t it.

    • reader

      “Yet I cite the 04/24/2004 edition of this magazine quoting Mr. Pacepa that “I spent 27 years of my life working for the KGB,” and he insists in “Disinformation” that the head of KGB intelligence was his “boss and mentor.” (pages 45, 90, 150, 191, 281, 375)”

      Mr. Watts, isn’t it blatantly obvious that the mentioned Ion Pacepa’s quote refers to his DIE years, when he was subordinate to General Sakharovsky of PGU KGB and not to the time after his defection?

      • Larry L. Watts

        Mr. Pacepa’s subordination to the KGB was approved by his Romanian superiors only until 1963-1964 at the latest. The breakdown in collaboration by 1964 was repeatedly confirmed by other Soviet bloc intelligence defectors. (See the Senate hearings in 1972 “Communist Bloc Intelligence Activities in the United State” (27-28) and 1985 “Foreign Mission Act and Espionage Activities in the United States.” (133-34, 138) It is now also confirmed by Stasi records and KGB annual reports. (Cold War International History Project Bulletin, no. 10 (March 1998): 215, 218) According to an ex-KGB foreign counter-intelligence chief, even formal contacts were broken off by 1971. (http://hir.harvard.edu/intelligence/window-of-opportunity)
        I could also cite evidence from Soviet-Romanian meetings, Bulgarian intelligence, Hungarian intelligence, etc.

        Second, the “27 years of his life” that Mr. Pacepa admits serving the KGB covers the entire period of his Securitate career, including the 14-year span from 1964 to 1978. What appears “blatantly obvious” is that he was a Soviet agent in the top ranks of the DIE – a Romanian Philby, Felfe or Ames – when he came to America. For details on why I suspect a continuing Soviet bloc connection see “The Pacepa Defection” in “Other Publications,” at http://www.larrylwatts.com).

        • reader

          It appears to be utterly irrational for the KGB to send off “a Romanian Philby, Felfe or Ames” to America, where he would be completely cut off from the DIE he had presumably spied on.

          • Larry L. Watts

            An astute observation. The answer lies in Pacepa’s motivation for leaving Romania, which is not my particular area of interest. For the record, I do not conclude that Pacepa was on a KGB mission when he defected to the United States in 1978. I affirm that Mr. Pacepa insisted Romanian independence was a Soviet-orchestrated facade although he knew the claim to be false, and that this line conformed completely to KGB disinformation in the West. I remain agnostic on Mr. Pacepa’s post-defection Soviet agency for reasons which I discuss in “The Mysterious Mr. Pacepa,” larrylwatts.blogspot.com.

          • reader

            Right, but the point is how credible his account of the KGB activities is. And if his motivation comes from being a KGB spy, why would he implicate KGB in Kennedy assassination, for example? It does not make any sense.

          • Larry L. Watts

            I believe that the main themes of “Disinformation” – that the Kremlin ran operations against the Vatican, spread anti – Semitism and anti-Americanism, especially in the Middle East, and sponsored terrorism – are both credible and supported by the evidence. The problem lies with Mr. Pacepa’s insistence that Romanian foreign policy and behavior were almost the opposite of what virtually all of the evidence indicates. That doesn’t make any sense. However, I am less concerned with his motivations than with the impact of his allegations on U.S. policy and interests.

          • monostor

            I have ordered this book and I still have to read it so I cannot say anything related to its content. But, if what Pacepa says now about the Romanian foreign policy is the same with what he said in his first book “Red Horizons” then you rest assure that it is true. It is easily verifiable. The Romanian regime was in a way different from some of its “peer” regimes in Europe, it took cues from Moscow only when it was forced to do so.

          • Larry L. Watts

            “Red Horizons” is full of claims, beginning with its central premise that Romanian independence from Moscow was false and that it acted as a Soviet Trojan horse against the West, that have been debunked through verification. Mr. Pacepa’s specific allegations regarding anti- Americanism, technology theft from the U.S., and anti- Israeli operations are analyzed in “The Pacepa Defection,” at my website (“Other Publications” and then the “Excerpts” for “Extorting Peace”). Not one proved true. Ceausescu was a repressive dictator. And communism proved a blight upon the Romanian people, who still suffer from its consequences. That should not blind us to the fact that internationally, even before Ceausescu, Romania pursued a policy of mediation and of containing Soviet military power for which Romanians can be proud, and which often benefited U.S. interests. Consider, for example, the U.S.-North Vietnamese, U.S.-Chinese and Egyptian-Israeli mediations.

  • emptorpreempted

    Pacepa is out to make money by telling scary exaggerated stories about communism. That’s his market niche.

    • SoCalMike

      How exactly does one exaggerate scary stories about an evil system that murdered well over 100 million victims?
      Such drivel has the ring of Stockholm syndrome or perhaps even disinformation.

      • monostor

        Methinks likewise. Look what’s happening to Diana West for mainly the same reason. The anti-anti-communism as she defines the politico’s position, it is still strong, so strong that very few dare to criticize the communists. Those who do, the “apostates”, are facing extinction.

      • emptorpreempted

        These statistics seem to include every unnatural death that ever took place in any country governed by a regime calling itself “communist.” In other words, a hideous abstraction that cannot but obscure the truth and distort moral judgement. My opinion on Pacepa comes from reading a few of his articles. He seems to think that everything bad that happens in the world is the result of Soviet disinformation and “communism.”

        • monostor

          I seem to think that you don’t seem to have much knowledge about the fact that the communist regimes around the world were not only seemingly but de facto the most atrocious regimes world history can account for. In par with islam.

        • reader

          Obviously, numbers don’t make any sense or reasonable impression on you, as a typical lefty. What about this: you seem to think that the world looks like a Hollywood movie with Mat Damon in it – a very stupid state of mind to be in.

          • Seek

            So “Elysium” was a Leftist movie? I didn’t quite get that when I saw it.

          • reader

            How many times did you watch it? But, seriously, I don’t watch Mat Damon movies and I certainly don’t try to learn anything watching Mat Damon movies. I know for a fact that Mat Damon is an ignorant moron pretending to be an educated statesman. He may be a good pretender by trade, but it did not take me longer than 30 seconds to figure out the density between his ears.

    • Aizino Smith

      I have heard too many stories of Communism from my spouse. So i do not think your remarks are cute or erudite in the least.

  • From the right of Center

    Mr. Mitsotakis, help us understand, please, as what your contribution to this debate is.

    I could only see an ad libitum assembly of citations from Mr. Gaetan’s article, one citation from Mrs. Livezeanu and a most generic reference to Mrs. Gheorghe thesis.

    Firstly, you could do better to inform your readers about the ensuing conversation in the comments section following Gaetan’s article.

    Secondly, Livezeanu’s statements read like those book reviews that blur the distinction between editorial signaling and advertising, that is, included without any proof or peer-review.

    Thirdly, regardless of how short and readable Gheorghe’s thesis is, a serious historian would most probably pick one statement from it and contrast it to another one coming from Watts and then proceed with some level of analysis of the respective sources and such. Yes, this is also to be expected from a 2013 graduate in History from NY College.

    Looking through this site for readers’ reactions to your articles, I including here an excerpt from Vince’s comment to another article of yours, from 3 months ago:

    “This is seriously, and I’m not saying this just to be mean, the
    dumbest, most simian line of drivel I have ever had the discomfort to
    read. The author of this article clearly has no education concerning the
    feminist movement, or of politics in general. Frankly, I would be
    astounded to learn that he carries any burden of education whatsoever.
    To the author, you have, in this article managed to attach a sack to the
    desiccated bowels of the American public opinion, and filled it to the
    breaking point, and posted it on the internet for all to see, when it
    should have been flushed long ago.

    And please, don’t misinterpret what I’m saying to mean that I’m angry
    at you. I’m not. I’m not even angry about your article. What I am angry
    about however is that our education system has failed you so thoroughly
    and completely. It’s not too late to educate yourself, there is hope
    for you. Please, for the sake of the future of our nation, read a damn
    book.”

    Mr. Mitsotakis, please do understand, you are doing a disservice to your cause, whatever that may be, in addition to the larger shadow cast over the American conservatism/libertarianism, or the understanding of communism, here and elsewhere.

    • Reaganite

      What exactly is your point?

      • From the right of Center

        Reaganite, unless you are not the author, you have not lost much by not understanding my points.

        In any case, is there a point of your own you’d like to share?

        • Reaganite

          Whether or not I am the author, the article is an attempted rebuttal to a book review the author disagrees with by pointing out that much of the reviewer’s criticisms can be addressed directly by doing a closer reading of the book (which really is a great book, by the way).

          As such, other then the article not being done the way you would like it to have been done, I’m curious as to what you are trying to say

          • From the right of Center

            “the article is an attempted rebuttal,” yup, a failed attempt at that. When the whole thing starts targeting Mr. Watts, it becomes a hatchet job. Quite unbecoming for the aspiring historian.

            No, this is not about likes and dislikes, but the rigor required by such reviews.

  • darnellecheri

    I always welcome someone issuing a defense on behalf of Ion Mihai Pacepa. Thank you, Mr. Mitsotakis for taking the initiative to defend General Pacepa. It is stimulating to see an author engage in the debate of its readers, but not necessary. I have read people bloviate about General Pacepa’s lack of credibility for over 25 years. I have never read General Pacepa attack someone with honest credentials or who was truly innocent of grave misdeeds. General Pacepa could have remained silent all these years and lived a life somewhat free of visceral hatred by those harmed by his revelations. But he did not remain silent and he has not remained silent. I, for one, am grateful that General Pacepa has revealed the truth as he knows it, as it has benefited us all. Under Ceausescu, average Romanians were conditioned to believe they were powerless against their oppressors until General Pacepa’s expose’ “Red Horizons” convinced them otherwise. I bear witness to the remarkable effects of “Red Horizons” on ordinary Romanians, as I was on Romanian ground during those years. They began their rise of empowerment. The truth does that. I loathe all the incredible hateful things that are spoken about General Pacepa, but nothing said on this planet will change my mind on the positive, powerful and beneficial effects he has wrought by his sacrifice in deeds and his words of truth.

    • monostor

      I second you. May I repeat what I said earlier that the anti-communists’ bashing is still very much in fashion…

  • From the right of Center

    Dear FrontPage Editors,

    The following comment was deleted, without any explanation. Is this the result of a mechanical error, or someone’s intention to censor the conversation? If the latter is the case, I wonder how much better we are than those we criticize.

    Mr. Mitsotakis, help us understand, please, as what your contribution to this debate is.

    I could only see an ad libitum assembly of citations from Mr. Gaetan’s
    article, one citation from Mrs. Livezeanu and a most generic reference
    to Mrs. Gheorghe thesis.

    Firstly, you could do better to inform your readers about the ensuing
    conversation in the comments section following Gaetan’s article.

    Secondly, Livezeanu’s statements read like those book reviews that blur
    the distinction between editorial signaling and advertising, that is,
    included without any proof or peer-review.

    Thirdly, regardless of how short and readable Gheorghe’s thesis is, a
    serious historian would most probably pick one statement from it and
    contrast it to another one coming from Watts and then proceed with some
    level of analysis of the respective sources and such. Yes, this is also
    to be expected from a 2013 graduate in History from NY College.

    Looking through this site for other readers’ reactions to your articles, I am including here an excerpt from Vince’s comment to another article of yours, from 3 months ago:

    “This is seriously, and I’m not saying this just to be mean, the

    dumbest, most simian line of drivel I have ever had the discomfort to
    read. The author of this article clearly has no education concerning the
    feminist movement, or of politics in general. Frankly, I would be

    astounded to learn that he carries any burden of education whatsoever.
    To the author, you have, in this article managed to attach a sack to the
    desiccated bowels of the American public opinion, and filled it to the

    breaking point, and posted it on the internet for all to see, when it
    should have been flushed long ago.

    And please, don’t misinterpret what I’m saying to mean that I’m angry
    at you. I’m not. I’m not even angry about your article. What I am angry
    about however is that our education system has failed you so thoroughly

    and completely. It’s not too late to educate yourself, there is hope
    for you. Please, for the sake of the future of our nation, read a damn
    book.”

    Mr. Mitsotakis, please do understand, you are doing a disservice to your
    cause, whatever that may be, in addition to the larger shadow cast over
    the American conservatism/libertarianism, or the understanding of
    communism, here and elsewhere.

  • Juliana

    Anyone who knows Victor Gaetan’s history will not be surprised at his attack against Pacepa.

  • SDN

    It’s true that Ion Mihai Pacepa gave a great service to the West by defecting from the dreaded communist dictatorship in Rumania. But now that the Cold War is over and that the Eastern bloc has crumbled I wonder why does he has to continue to be secretive. Carlos the Jackal is in prison for the rest of his life for the crimes he committed, Yasser Arafat, Muammar Qaddafi and Nicolae Ceaucescu are all dead who could really do him harm ? True, Iulian Vlad is still in Rumania but is he in a position to assassinate him ? I don’t think so. In fact the wikipedia page of Gen. Pacepa indicates that the Supreme Court in his country cancelled his death sentence in 1999 but as a former Securitate agent he’s unwelcome in Rumania.

    The KGB did run a disinformation campaign against the Pope. The Mitrokhin Archive are here to prove it, but it is ludicrous that qualify post-communist Russia as a “KGB empire” ! FrontPage does a very good job to reinform the people about things that the liberal medias will never talk about like the jihad threat but it serve no purpose to parrot the ‘editorial line’ of the Western mass media to constantly demonize Putin, this has been a constant accusation from the 1999 bombing attacks in Moscow, the assassination of Mrs. Politkovskaya, the poisoning of Litvinenko, the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the attack of the Georgian government in South Ossetia and finally the imprisonment of the hysterical Pussy Riots. All of these cases have been exploited to charge him in every possible way. I don’t buy that rhetoric anymore.

  • Janet Campbell

    Glad to see you pick apart the crazy attack. A man being hunted even at his age would never show his face, and he would need help at his age to write it. Further, it is completely plausible a friar in the Catholic Church could have been involved. When has that church ever not been involved in politics?

  • gomask

    Pacepa IS a counter-information agent. He worked for the KGB not for Romanian people he did not defected he went on a mission of propaganda against Romania and Western world FOR KGB. He did not risk a thing coming here as US protected him and KGB also did the same as he is working for them. He did more damage to Romania that USSR ever did in the communist era. To trust this guy is revealing the truth is like jumping of a building and hope some miracle happens on the way down.
    Read “With friends like this” written by Larry Watts an American and you will find out what this Pacepa guy is, is hard to accuse an American that worked as a CIA consultant that is pro KGB as you do in your article with other people.

    I grow up hating Ceausescu and I am still no fan of that guy but just because this guy Pacepa speak against him does not mean he is telling the truth.
    Propaganda works when you sustain a lie with 1000 truths but the lie is what you try to achieve there.
    Traitor, Counter-Information KGB Agent Not a Romanian but a worm!

  • gomask

    Let’s assume for a moment that all Pacepa tells the truth and Ceausescu WAS working with the Russians as a Trojan Horse.

    Cui bono?

    What would be the goal of this disclosure? As a result Romania would be disqualified as a trusting partner for the West thus rendering the Trojan impossible to be effective. Why would a person (that worked FOR Romania as a spy thus a being a Patriot) concern FOR the Romania and wanting the country to succeed in any relevant way disclose this? It would serve no purpose but affect Romania’s interests in the West thus leaving the country to the mercy of their BIG friend and ally USSR.

    Which good spy of any country would do that for the altruistic purpose of JUST telling the truth?

    Bogus
    Romania and Russian empire had never been friends. Every time they “helped” us we ended up with a part of the territory of the country missing.
    Why would any Romanian at any political affiliation would want to ally with Russia? Ceausecu was not dumb.Pacepa worked for KGB he came to US do take from Romania the only power it had at the time as partnering with the West as a balance against the Russians thus leaving the country with no ally: USSR hated Romania the West did not trusted it we were again alone as many time in our history.

  • gomask

    Also any person commenting here should take some time and read Romanian history to understand WHY we never worked for the Russians.

  • gomask

    To Larry L. Watts thank you for your books. A Romanian would have a hard time exposing the truth as you can see only the KGB counter-information agents had any successes to be heard here.
    I grow up in Romania in the 80ies and it was a very hard time Ceausescu was hated across the country. However I never understood why in our schools we were learning English and German but no Russian…It was probably because of the big love Ceausescu had for the USSR.
    Cind o face plopu mere si rachita micsunele!

  • Lea

    Islam is communism with a god, the two operate so similarly. It seems that Gaetan is an agent for the marxist/masonic muslim agenda to destroy true christianity. Here he writes about Islam in Turkey and he appears to have a personal opinion and relish on the subject.

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140941/victor-gaetan/the-muslim-martin-luther