Suing in England, Vacationing in France: the Misplaced Patriotism of Richard Perle

According 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.

Yet 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.

A Brazen Misuse of Power: the Hersh Exposé

This 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.

Hersh 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.

In November 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.

As Hersh recalls, Perle himself arranged for a Defense Policy Board briefing (on 10 July 2002) from a Rand Corporation analyst named Laurent Murawiec, who:

"…depicted 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."

Although 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.

J'accuse!

The 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).

In the 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.

Indeed, 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 one's yacht.

However, it remains to be seen whether the case will be allowed, as Slate has pointed out. Avers Jack Shafer:

"…as 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.

British 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."

However, concludes Shafer, there is a good chance that Perle will be rebuffed:

"…will 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."

Perle: War Profiteering?

The 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.

Perle, 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.

The point 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.

Israel First – and Forever?

However 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, however, do.

America 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 Lantos.

Yet right 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.

However, 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.

It is 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.

Richard Perle: Subjugating American Interests to Israel for Four Decades

An indispensable 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:

"During 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.

…Perle 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."

The last 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.

There 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.

The Rule of Traitors and Thieves

Although 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 dying Republic.

But through 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 products.

Loose Ends

It 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, Perle:

"…is 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."

This very 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:

"Mr. 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?"