to Richard Perle, there exists a "cozy
relationship" between French president Jacques Chirac and Saddam
Hussein. In fact, they're
even friends. Of course, such silly accusations represent nothing
new. In the Neocons' ongoing campaign against all things French, apparently
not even the lowly
French fry is safe.
the riposte was rather surreal. After all, Washington's warmonger-in-chief
does enjoy frolicking at his vacation chateau – in the balmy
south of France.
Misuse of Power: the Hersh Exposé
amusing discrepancy came to light in a recent investigation by veteran
muckraker Seymour Hersh, in the New Yorker. Yet the French
connection, while embarrassing enough, was merely symbolic in comparison
to other conflicting involvements mentioned, regarding Richard Perle's
financial and political motivations for demanding war on Iraq.
questioned whether Perle has abused his prominent position as chief
of the Defense Policy Review Board, not only for financial gain, but
also for advancing an unpopular war with Iraq at the behest of Israel.
2001, says Hersh, Mr. Perle set up a company called Trireme Partners,
to cater to the fast-growing "homeland security" market. His
board members included other Defense Department advisors, as well as
close associate Gerald Hillman and even Henry Kissinger. Shortly before
bloviating against Chirac, Perle was (on 3 January) in Marseilles trying
to shake down potential Saudi investors in Trireme, alleges Hersh. Apparently,
Perle "peddled influence" in an attempt to win $100 million
in investments for Trireme. The Saudis, who allegedly were hoping to
trade the investment for a peaceful solution to Iraq, are well aware
that Perle has expressed continuous and unrelenting hatred for their
country, its government and its Wahabbist branch of Islam. That a US
anti-Saudi campaign should be executed more, er, robustly has been a
central theme for Perle and some of his appointed lackeys.
recalls, Perle himself arranged for a Defense Policy Board briefing
(on 10 July 2002) from a Rand Corporation analyst named Laurent Murawiec,
Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that
the Bush Administration give the Saudi government an ultimatum to stop
backing terrorism or face seizure of its financial assets in the United
States and its oil fields."
the government hurriedly moved to disavow this as not representing
its official policy, Hersh believes that the Administration's failure
to at least discipline Perle unnerved the Saudis. Although no Saudi
investments have yet been made in Trireme, and the whole case is fraught
with vigorous denials and counter-accusations, serious ethical questions
about Mr. Perle have been raised.
New Yorker piece caused an immediate retaliation from Richard
Perle. He defamed Seymour Hersh as "the closest thing American
journalism has to a terrorist" on
CNN, and again through the medium of the Neocon-controlled New
York Sun (Perle invests in this rag through his directorship of
a company called Hollinger International).
Sun, Perle declared he would sue – in
an English court. Apparently, American liberty and justice just
aren't good enough for him. Or, perhaps, he fears that Hersh's well-researched,
carefully written article is legally unassailable.
the story has less to do with patriotism than pragmatism. Perle wants
to sue in England because libel suits are easier to win there. This
pecuniary proclivity is probably the same motive that led him to register
Trireme in tax-lenient Delaware – a state that, as members of the gilded
East Coast aristocracy have long known, is a great place to register
it remains to be seen whether the case will be allowed, as Slate
has pointed out. Avers Jack
a public figure and government official, Perle would be laughed out
of court in the United States. If he got a settlement in the U.K.,
he could raid the substantial British assets of the New Yorker's
parent company, Condé Nast.
libel law, of course, is completely un-American! 'While both American
and British law preclude liability if the statement is true, American
law places the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show the statement
is false," write media lawyers Laura
R. Handman and Robert D. Balin of Davis Wright Tremaine. "By
contrast, British law imposes the burden on defendant to prove truth
or 'justification' and permits aggravated damages if defendant tries
but fails.' Maybe Hersh should be grateful Perle isn't filing where
Sharia is observed."
concludes Shafer, there is a good chance that Perle will be rebuffed:
Perle file against Hersh, or is he just shooting his mouth off? Handman
and Balin write that British courts have begun "turning back"
blatant cases of venue-shopping by litigants who think the British
courts are a soft touch. The two judges who preside over libel cases
in London recently rejected a pair of libel suits against Forbes
because no discussion of the litigants' English interests could be
found in the articles. File your case in the United States, the judges
essentially said. They have a wonderful legal system."
most troubling contention to emerge from the Hersh investigation is
that Richard Perle may profit directly from the war on terror and the
war on Iraq.
it seems, struck while the iron was hot, getting into the homeland security
"game" soon after September 11th. Aided by mass paranoia,
Perle and many others – from retailers of goods to crafters of Imperialist
prose – were happy to help create what is likely to be the 21st century's
most potent industry. Since 9/11, shameless opportunists have sprung
up across the country and across
the Internet, ready to take advantage of the American people's newfound
spirit of impending doom. While such exploitation is reprehensible,
we can assume that many of these snake-oil salesmen are just hapless,
would-be entrepreneurs. Richard Perle, on the other hand, frequently
brags about his great influence on the formulation of the White House's
foreign affairs and homeland security policies. The bellicose rumblings
of Perle and his Neocon peers have caused reverberations of panic around
the country (especially whenever they shout about the unlikely "threat"
of Iraqi terrorism), reverberations that must in the end sound, to Homeland
Security purveyors, something like the ringing of cash registers.
here is that Perle and Co. can ratchet up the paranoia level at will,
and frequently have done so – especially when it comes to elucidating
threats to the real homeland.
First – and Forever?
sick it may be to think that Richard Perle is deliberately trying to
profit from spreading paranoia, the far worse thing is his allegiance
to Israel. His personal profits, after all, do little direct damage
to any of us. His primary political allegiances to a foreign country,
is a melting pot for people of all colors and creeds. Our problem
today is, as George Washington ominously predicted over 200 years ago,
that some of them have principle loyalties to foreign causes or countries.
Indeed, for every one of the world's regional conflicts, there are right
now lobbyists and agitators hard at work on steering American foreign
policy in wayward directions. One of the most dangerous (for Europeans,
at least) is the Albanian-American lobby,
enabled in part by the good Tom
now, most foreign lobbies are relatively unimportant. In the overwhelmingly
dominant context of Iraq, there is only one lobby that is threatening
the security of the entire world – and that is Israel's lobby in Washington.
this lobby has a built-in self-defense mechanism, one that bigoted
conspiracy theorists ruinously validate with their own paranoid musings.
Nobody, excepting racists, sets out to criticize people on the basis
of their religion. However, historically exploited sensitivities mean
that in today's empathetic, politically correct United States of America,
those who put the needs of the state of Israel first and foremost
– whether they be Jewish or not – can instantly immolate
any critic as a raving anti-Semite. Almost always, the benefit of
the doubt is conceded to the former. However, in criticizing specific
lobbyists for a specific foreign state, we have absolutely no interest
in, and make no reference to, their religious orientation –
but merely to the unneeded security dangers that their allegiance
brings on the United States.
unquestionable that the Israel-first foreign policy advocated by Richard
Perle and the Neocon chorus has hijacked the entire foreign policy
of the Bush Administration. That it has not already exploded into
their long-desired apocalyptic cultural showdown has a lot to do with
the diplomatic concerns of Colin Powell, and the Cancerian caution
of George Bush. However, far more powerful than these men are the
Super-hawks such as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Perle. And their
belligerence is firmly rooted in a devotion to the state of Israel
and its apparent best interests.
Perle: Subjugating American Interests to Israel for Four Decades
article by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski covers the details and ramifications
of this entire issue. Among other things, it brings up the fact that
Richard Perle has been putting Israel first for four decades:
the 1970s, Perle gained notice as a top aide to Senator Henry 'Scoop'
Jackson (Democrat, Washington), who was one of the Senate's most anti-Communist
and pro-Israeli members. During the 1980s, Perle served as deputy
secretary of defense under Reagan, where his hardline anti-Soviet
positions, especially his opposition to any form of arms control,
earned him the moniker 'Prince of Darkness' from his enemies.
is not only an exponent of pro-Zionist views, but has had close connections
with Israel, being a personal friend of Ariel Sharon's, a board member
of the Jerusalem
Post, and an ex-employee of the Israeli weapon manufacturer Soltam.
According to author Seymour
M. Hersh, while Perle was a congressional aide for Jackson, FBI
wiretaps had picked up Perle providing classified information from
the National Security Council to the Israeli embassy."
article came out in 1982. The next year, as Hersh reminds us now, Perle
was the subject of a New York Times investigation regarding his
recommendation that the Army buy weapons from a certain Israeli company
that had paid him a $50,000 fee in 1981. And the list goes on.
are two very clear indicators that Richard Perle – and the Neocons
around him – have been planning for years to depose Saddam for
the sake of Israel, whether or not he poses a threat or is involved
with terror, and to hell with all other concerns. First of all was
a Perle-endorsed 1996 policy paper called, "A clean break: a
new strategy for securing the realm," which advised the incoming
Netanyahu government to ignore the Oslo Peace Accords and take over
the West Bank and Gaza. The stated greater goal was to overthrow Saddam,
and presumably afterwards install pro-Western governments in countries
such as Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Second, in an open
letter to President Clinton (19 February, 1998), Perle and Co. demanded
the opportunity to "bring down" Saddam Hussein. The letter
was signed by all of the usual suspects, including Robert Kagan, Bill
Kristol and a more
than up for it Donald Rumsfeld.
Rule of Traitors and Thieves
in 1998 Clinton deigned to comply, under the Bush Administration it
seems the Israel-first militants have finally won. But at what cost?
As the uncertainties of war once again grip the world, and the safety
of its population remains unknown, it is necessary to realize going
in that this is not America's war. When the reckoning comes – and it
will – we should remember who brought it to us. Richard Perle and rest,
perhaps, have ceased to be Americans. Their overweening hubris, their
overseas allegiances are bound to bring ruin upon the already
all that gloom, at least there is a silver lining: we may purchase
to our hearts' content, even from the safety of our own homes, Richard
Perle's tastefully packaged and soon to be useful homeland security
looks like Mr. Perle will have a bumpy ride in store for him, however,
as new investigations are being made about various other jobs he has
acquired through his chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board. The
New York Times is looking into Perle's current advisory role
to the bankrupt telecommunications company Global Crossing, in the process
of being sold to Asian investors. Apparently, the influential Perle
is being eyed as someone who can "
help overcome Defense Department
resistance to its proposed sale." According to the Times,
to be paid $725,000 by the company, including $600,000 if the government
approves the sale of the company to a joint venture of Hutchison
Whampoa, controlled by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, and
Singapore Technologies Telemedia, a phone company controlled by the
government of Singapore."
interesting piece, it should be noted, ends with a remarkable disclosure,
one that implies some of our countrymen know more than us regarding
where the dust will finally settle:
Perle, who as chairman of the Defense Policy Board has been a leading
advocate of the United States' invasion of Iraq, spoke on Wednesday
in a conference call sponsored by Goldman
Sachs, in which he advised participants on possible investment opportunities
arising from the war. The conference's title was "Implications
of an Imminent War: Iraq Now. North Korea Next?"