http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnacmemberoftheweek.htm After graduating college and a short stint in working for the fiercely anti-Communist Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson he went to work for a private military-consulting firm. The following year he was appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense in the presidential administration of Ronald Reagan. During the presidential campaign of George W. Bush, Perle served as a foreign policy advisor.
A veteran Washington insider, Perle has on occasion been accused of being an Israeli agent of influence. It has been reported that, while he was working for Jackson, "An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy," writes Paul Findley (They Dare To Speak Out, Chicago, Ill, Lawrence Hill Books 1989)."He came under fire in 1983 when newspapers reported he received substantial payments to represent the interests of an Israeli weapons company. Perle denied conflict of interest, insisting that, although he received payment for these services after he had assumed his position in the Defense Department, he was between government jobs when he worked for the Israeli firm." (1)
Like many of Bush's top whitehouse and pentagon officials, he's a war profiteer who consulted for the very companies that profited from the illegal invasion of Iraq and was one of the most ardent supporters of the invasion. Rummy consulted for Bechtel, Cheney, of course, had Halliburton. The Carlyle Group had Bush Sr. on their board and Perle worked for Trireme, a venture capital firm and defense contractor similar to The Carlyle Group. As pentagon adviser, Richard N. Perle coauthored an opinion piece this summer praising a Pentagon plan to lease tanker aircraft -- which had the potential to steer billions of dollars to Boeing Co. -- 16 months after Boeing committed to invest $20 million with Trireme.
Perle also serves on the board of directors of Hollinger International Inc., the media company whose chief executive, Conrad Black, resigned last month after disclosures that he and other executives collected millions of dollars payments the company's audit committee determined were unauthorized. Hollinger disclosed last month that it has invested $2.5 million in Trireme Associates. A special committee of Hollinger's board is examining that investment and others involving company insiders, a source close to Hollinger said. (2)
Trireme also created International Advisors Inc., a lobbying firm whose main client is Turkey. Henry Kissinger is a Trireme adviser, and Perle is a managing partner. (3) Kissinger, who was forced to resign as head of the independent commission to investigate the 9/11 attacks, has been using his influence to try to keep the Saudis calm during the buildup to war. New Yorker investigative journalist, Sy Hersh, criticized Perle's relationship with Trireme. The award winning journalist wrote in the March 17th issue of the New Yorker: "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war." (4) In response, Perle equated columnist Sy Hersh with Osama bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. "Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist," Perle told Wolf Blitzer. (5)
Like many of Bush's top whitehouse and pentagon officials Perle is involved with the Iran-Contra felons who lied to congress, and betrayed the country with impunity.
John Poindexter, Elliott Abrams, Otto Reich, Richard Armitage, John Negroponte, and Mitch Daniels are all Iran-Contra alumni who have been appointed to high level government jobs by Bush Jr. Where does Perle fit in? Meet Adnan Khashoggi. During the Reagan Administration, Khashoggi was one of the middlemen between Oliver North, in the White House, and the mullahs in Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Khashoggi is still brokering. In January of this year, he arranged a private lunch, in France, to bring together Harb Saleh al-Zuhair, a Saudi industrialist whose family fortune includes extensive holdings in construction, electronics, and engineering companies throughout the Middle East, and Richard N. Perle, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board.
As stated before, Perle is a managing partner in the venture-capital company called Trireme Partners L.P. Trireme’s main business, according to a two-page letter that one of its representatives sent to Khashoggi last November, is to invest in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defense. (6)
Four members of the Defense Policy Board told me that the board, which met most recently on February 27th and 28th, had not been informed of Perle’s involvement in Trireme. One board member, upon being told of Trireme and Perle’s meeting with Khashoggi, exclaimed, “Oh, get out of here. He’s the chairman! If you had a story about me setting up a company for homeland security, and I’ve put people on the board with whom I’m doing that business, I’d be had” (7)
The wide-ranging Perle even finds himself involved in Total Information Awareness technology. He was listed as a speaker at a March 13 Washington press briefing on 'data mining,' the use of computer technology to sift out patterns from electronic communications. A fellow Pentagon official, Admiral John M. Poindexter an Iran-Contra felon, spurred a political firestorm with his TIA plans. Congress forbade such technology to be used against Americans.
Perle's tentacles reached into the press, too, which he manipulated through careful leaks of sensitive information. He was said to frequently use Evans and Novak's column to push his agenda and to punish his foes. Later, Perle would add George Will and the Wall Street Journal's Robert Bartley to his list of friends in the media. Could Perle have been the "high ranking official" who leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame to Novak in retaliation for her husband's public disproval of Bush's lies leading us to invade Iraq? (8)
"Basically, Perle is serving as the ventriloquist's dummy and is making the administration's case publicly but in a deniable fashion," says John Pike, a defense policy expert and an old Perle foe. "Donald Rumsfeld adamantly refuses to talk about blowing up Iraq. Richard Perle talks about very little else."
BLITZER: Welcome back. There are sharp divisions among U.N. Security Council members about going to war with Iraq and strong anti- war sentiment around the world.
Joining us now are two guests with very different points of view. Richard Perle served as the assistant U.S. defense secretary during the Reagan administration. Tom Andrews is the founder of the organization Win Without War. He's also a former Democratic congressman from Maine.
Gentlemen, welcome to LATE EDITION.
And Richard, let me begin with you. Why can't the U.S. wait a few more months, if necessary, to bring France, Germany, Russia, China potentially on board?
RICHARD PERLE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Because in those months the capability that we've now amassed in the region would deteriorate rapidly. We'd, as a practical matter, have to bring the forces home, and it would amount to a decision not to enforce the U.N. resolutions.
BLITZER: You mean to say the U.S. military doesn't have the flexibility to stand down, wait, maybe rotate troops if necessary?
PERLE: As a practical matter, we do not have, in my view, the capability to sustain months of waiting around while we hope that France, whose interests are quite different from ours, will change its mind.
The French are not going to change their mind. President Chirac has a good relationship with Saddam Hussein. He is actually called Saddam his friend. They have commercial and other relationships and it is foolish to believe that France is going to change its attitude and France will continue to have the ability to veto any United Nations resolution.
BLITZER: All right. Tom, what do you say about that?
TOM ANDREWS, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Wolf, you don't go to war just because you're there. You go to war when it's absolutely necessary. And if we take a look at what's happening right now in that region, we've boxed Saddam Hussein in. He is contained. He is being disarmed.
We're at the very point when this weapons inspection process of seeking out and destroying weapons are at its most successful point. The weapons inspections -- weapons inspectors are telling us, "Give us the time to complete the job, we're doing the job. We are being successful."
Why not give them the job to say, I'm sorry, we're going to go in and we're going to invade and occupy Iraq even though it may not be necessary because we're there is simply unacceptable.
PERLE: I'm sorry. I didn't say it may not be necessary. I happen to believe it is absolutely necessary. There's a practical consideration about whether you can move forces back and forth and undertake a necessary action.
And I think it's quite wrong to say the inspectors are disarming Iraq. They're not disarming Iraq at all. Saddam has inventories of chemical and biological weapons that he's hidden, that he's not revealed to the inspectors. What the inspectors are doing is minor gestures and that's all it is. They're playing Saddam's game.
ANDREWS: Wolf, we've heard lots of allegations of what is there or wasn't -- or what is not there. What I'm trying to do is figure out, what are the facts? What are the things that we know?
Well, we know that, in the last few days, Saddam Hussein has been forced to destroy 40 Al-Samoud 2 weapons, missiles. We know that he has destroyed weapons, mustard gas. We know that he is now in the process of revealing documents, hitherto not provided, that will give us a chance to be able to find any of the stockpiles of weapons that were not revealed before.
And we know that we are going to go in and we're going to be inspecting with very sophisticated technology those disposal facilities in which he allegedly destroyed these materials. Now, that is highly significant. That is progress.
BLITZER: Yes, but let's let Richard respond.
PERLE: It's a good point. Saddam Hussein was required by the United Nations under its last resolution, 1441, to make a full, final and complete account of what happened to the weapons of mass destruction and the chemical weapons, the biological weapons, the existence of which was recorded and documented by the previous U.N. inspectors.
He didn't do that. He lied. He failed to provide any information that could be verified by the inspectors.
ANDREWS: But, Mr. Perle...
PERLE: Now you're telling me, five months later, that we should trust Saddam Hussein and that he is now going to tell us what he did with the things he denies he has. It's preposterous.
ANDREWS: No, no one is saying that we trust Saddam Hussein.
PERLE: But that's exactly what you're saying.
ANDREWS: And you don't -- no, but of course we're not. Of course we're not.
PERLE: You're saying -- but see...
ANDREWS: Listen. No, no, no, that's not implied at all. I'm being very clear. You don't trust Saddam Hussein. You look him right in the eye and you say we're going to take out any and all weapons of mass destruction. We're going to force you to dismantle them, and if you don't, we will dismantle them ourselves.
This is not a matter of trust, and it's very, very important for people to understand that we're not appeasing, we're not stepping back from Saddam Hussein, we're standing up to Saddam Hussein.
BLITZER: But...
ANDREWS: But you don't invade a country, sir, when it's on the basis of a lie or a deception.
BLITZER: All right. Hold your thought for one second, Richard. We're just getting started. This debate is just getting under way. We have a lot more to go through point by point by point.
Stand by. We're going to take a quick break.
Coming up in the next hour of LATE EDITION, more on our debate between Richard Perle and Tom Andrews. We'll also explore the prospect of chemical warfare. Are U.S. military personnel really prepared? Plus, the activist Bianca Jagger and the actor Ron Silver square off on the possibility of war.
All that, plus your phone calls. LATE EDITION will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION. We'll continue our discussion with the former U.S. assistant defense secretary Richard Perle and Win Without War founder Tom Andrews shortly.
In the first hour of LATE EDITION, the secretary of state, Colin Powell, insisted President Bush has not yet made a final decision on whether to go to war against Iraq, but he also said time is quickly running out.
Joining us now from the White House with the latest, our White House correspondent, Dana Bash.
(NEWSBREAK)
BLITZER: Let's check some other news that's going on. CNN's Fredricka Whitfield is in Atlanta with a quick CNN news alert.
(NEWSBREAK)
BLITZER: Is now the time to go to war with Iraq? We're talking with the former assistant U.S. defense secretary, Richard Perle, and Win Without War founder, the former congressman, Tom Andrews.
Richard, there's a lot of concern that there are so many unpredictables out there -- that the Iraqis could use chemical or biological warfare, terrorism could be unleashed, you don't know if there will be instability for a long time to come inside Iraq, the neighborhood could disintegrate, if you will -- is it worth it right now to do this effectively with Britain, Australia, some other allies, without getting the international coalition that existed in '91 together?
PERLE: We're not going to be able to get that coalition from 1991 together, so the question is, should we do this or should we not do it?
And while there are great uncertainties, as you indicate, there are no certainties if we fail to take this action, if we turn around and come home and leave Saddam in place, leave him to continue with his weapons of mass destruction, leave him to continue to brutalize the people of Iraq.
BLITZER: But can't he be contained with that -- he's encircled right now by a lot of U.S. troops, he's got inspectors with these intrusive inspections, they're actually destroying missiles.
Can't he be contained, at least in the short term?
PERLE: The concept of containment is a geographic concept. As long as he's in his own country, people argue that he is contained. But the fact is, he is working away, as he has been, at weapons of mass destruction. He has significant concealed inventories, and he can break out at any moment.
What is the future policy supposed to be? Are we to continue sanctions forever against Saddam Hussein?
BLITZER: All right, what about that, Tom?
ANDREWS: Well, first of all, Wolf, we do have the 1991 coalition. It is in place. It is working right now on the policy of disarming and containing Saddam Hussein, using the United Nations Security Council, and using this weapons inspection process that we know does work. So that's very, very important.
And the question is, do we keep this coalition together? Do we keep putting the pressure on Saddam Hussein? And do we use that coalition to find out whether claims that are being made by Mr. Perle, for example, are substantiated or not? We don't know that unless we go in, we inspect and we find the truth.
PERLE: I'm sorry. You keep repeating, Congressman, that the inspection process is working.
ANDREWS: Well, it is.
PERLE: Well, I don't see how you can say it's working since...
ANDREWS: Well, those missiles are being destroyed as we speak.
PERLE: That is not the inspection process.
ANDREWS: They're being destroyed.
PERLE: The anthrax, the botulism, the sarin, the VX, that is all hidden. You are clinging at straws. You are hoping that this...
ANDREWS: That's...
PERLE: Forgive me. You are hoping that the symbolic gesture of destroying a few missiles, which he's not even supposed to have, which he's not entitled to, which he denied having, that the destruction of a few missiles in order to protect and preserve the rest of his weapons of mass destruction suggests that this system is working? It is not working.
ANDREWS: Wolf, Wolf, a few missiles. We destroyed 95 percent of the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had during the 1990s. That's more weapons of mass...
PERLE: What do you base that on?
ANDREWS: That's more weapons of mass destruction than we destroyed in the entire Gulf War. The fact of the matter is...
BLITZER: Well, let me just pick up there.
Do you dispute that?
PERLE: No, I'm asking what the evidence is.
BLITZER: What's the evidence of that?
ANDREWS: The evidence is independent reports, the United Nations inspections teams and every piece of tangible evidence that is on the record.
Now, there may be things that aren't on the record, information that you might have that we don't know, and we'd -- I'd love to see it...
PERLE: No, no. I'm, I'm...
ANDREWS: But as far as what we know, we know that enormous amounts -- for example...
BLITZER: Hold on a second. There was extensive destruction. After the son-in-law defected to Jordan, he came back, he provided a wealth of information.
PERLE: No, no. I'm pleased to accept, for purposes of this argument, that the 95 percent figure, which is a figure offered by the previous inspectors, is correct.
But the previous inspectors also identified large quantities of the weapons that remain hidden. So if you're going to accept the correctness of the previous inspectors, then you must acknowledge, surely, that the inspectors now have not found any of the things that the previous inspectors, in the same report you're referring to...
ANDREWS: Not true.
PERLE: ... said Saddam had.
ANDREWS: Not true, not true.
BLITZER: But Richard Butler, in his final report, Richard Butler, when he was the UNSCOM -- the chief weapons inspector, in that report that came out after '98, after the withdrawal in early '99, he did say there is a ton of stuff that's unaccounted for, and is still unaccounted for.
ANDREWS: That's exactly right, Wolf. And that's why it is so important that right now, we are going into those disposal facilities that Saddam Hussein has alleged are the facilities in which they destroyed the VX and the anthrax and other materials -- go in and inspect those facilities. Use sophisticated technology, which is available, and determine whether or not it's been destroyed. So that process is going on right now.
PERLE: Did Saddam, did Saddam document the destruction in the full, final and complete report that he delivered on December 7?
ANDREWS: You know, Saddam Hussein -- no, of course, he didn't. Why? Why? Because he's Saddam Hussein. And do we trust anything that he reports in a final report? No, we don't.
PERLE: Look, on the one hand...
ANDREWS: We verify. And that, Mr. Perle...
PERLE: But you cannot...
ANDREWS: ... is exactly what we're doing as we speak.
PERLE: That's, in fact, the point about these inspections. These inspections were intended to verify claims made by Iraq about the disposition of the weapons of mass destruction. But he lied about the disposition. He said he didn't have any of these weapons. There was no practical mission for the inspectors because there was nothing to verify. They are going -- they are going from one empty facility to another empty facility. You've seen the evidence from the secretary of state. Iraqis talking to one another about moving things before the inspectors arrive.
I think you are hopelessly naive if you believe that 100 inspectors on the ground in Iraq, that territory controlled entirely by Saddam Hussein are going to disarm them.
ANDREWS: Well, Mr. Perle, you, yourself, just a few minutes ago, accepted the 95 percent figure -- 95 percent destruction back in the 1990s.
Now, let's look at how those 95 percent of those weapons were destroyed. They weren't destroyed because Saddam Hussein came forward and said, "Gosh, I made a big mistake. Here they are. Verify them."
No. They did it by taking investigative techniques, looking at all the information available, finding reports that otherwise were not available and putting those together, finding them and destroying them.
That's their role. That's what we should allow them to continue to do. We shouldn't be going to war while this process is reaping the results that it is.
PERLE: The inspectors were thrown out in 1998 because Saddam Hussein wanted to relocate, wanted to hide his remaining weapons of mass destruction, which he has 'til this day and he will have available for his use if we allow him to continue in this manner.
ANDREWS: And why was that? It was not because of a failure of weapons inspections, Wolf. It was a failure of political will. And certainly if the results, the net results, of this confrontation is that the international community has the backbone and the stamina to stand up to Saddam Hussein, look him in the eye and require him to disarm, this will have been a success but we don't have to invade...
BLITZER: But the critics...
ANDREWS: ... and occupy.
BLITZER: Your critics suggest that by your speaking out the way you are, in effect what you're doing is sending a mixed message to Saddam Hussein and giving him some comfort in suspecting that if he plays out this game, he's going to be able to get his way.
ANDREWS: Absolutely not, Wolf. If you listen to what the majority of Americans are saying, they're saying that we want to have the full cooperation, support and coordination with the Security Council of the United Nations before we go in.
We want to be able to take out Saddam Hussein without unnecessarily -- that is, take out his weapons of mass destruction -- without unnecessarily putting our own men and women at risk.
BLITZER: Basically, Richard...
ANDREWS: That's what we're doing.
BLITZER: ... what the congressman is suggesting, the former congressman, is that he wants the same objective -- he has the same goal you have but he thinks it can be done through containment and inspections. You don't believe that.
PERLE: I'm quite sure that it's not possible. And while he talks about being tough with Saddam, the real message is that we're not prepared to take military action. That is the only thing Saddam Hussein understands and I think it's naive to think otherwise.
ANDREWS: We are prepared to take military action...
PERLE: We won't be prepared if we listen to you.
ANDREWS: ... but if it is necessary. And...
PERLE: It is necessary (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
ANDREWS: For example, Wolf, you know, if they have some weapons of mass destruction that they're not willing to destroy, we take them out on a surgical strike. But that's different than invading and occupying for five to 10 years an Arab country...
BLITZER: All right.
ANDREWS: ... in one of the most volatile...
PERLE: Forgive me.
ANDREWS: ... regions of the world.
PERLE: Forgive me. No one is talking about occupying Iraq for five to 10 years. Let's be a little more careful about the statements you make.
ANDREWS: The State Department...
PERLE: I'm sorry.
ANDREWS: The State Department official said two weeks ago that it could be five years.
PERLE: I'm sorry. There is no U.S. plan for anything like that...
ANDREWS: But we don't know the plan. We don't know the plan.
PERLE: ... and let me just suggest to you that your recipe would leave the people of Iraq subject to the continuing murder, rape and brutality of this vicious regime.
ANDREWS: Absolutely not. PERLE: I see no sensitivity in your argument to the plight of the Iraqi people, none whatsoever. And it's tragic, because Iraqis are (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
BLITZER: Go ahead and respond.
ANDREWS: We feel very strongly that Saddam Hussein has to be contained, disarmed and that the people of Iraq must be protected. You don't have to invade and occupy to protect innocent men, women and children. We have seen this time and again.
We're calling for...
PERLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
ANDREWS: Please, if you will. Some of our members have stood up just two days ago and said "We'd like to have Saddam Hussein indicted as a war criminal." We're talking about placing human rights monitors throughout Iraq so that he can't continue to create the havoc inside of Iraq.
There are whole series of things, Wolf, that we can...
BLITZER: We're almost out of time. Richard, go ahead and respond to that.
PERLE: Well, I think it's just hopelessly impractical. I don't think this is a serious approach to the protection of the people of Iraq who have been murdered in substantial numbers by Saddam Hussein and who will continue to be murdered by him as long as he's in power.
BLITZER: All right. Tom, hold on a minute. You know, we are basically all out of time for this segment. But before you go, Richard, I want to give you a chance to respond.
There's an article in the New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh that's just coming out today in which he makes a serious accusation against you that you have a conflict of interest in this because you're involved in some business that deals with homeland security, you potentially could make some money if, in fact, there is this kind of climate that he accuses you of proposing.
Let me read a quote from the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just out now. "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."
PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've said this over and over again, will diminish the threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about is investments in homeland defense, which I think are vital and are necessary.
Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.
BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say that? A terrorist?
PERLE: Because he's widely irresponsible. If you read the article, it's first of all, impossible to find any consistent theme in it. But the suggestion that my views are somehow related for the potential for investments in homeland defense is complete nonsense.
BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you accuse him of being a terrorist?
PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a serious piece since Maylie (ph).
BLITZER: All right. We're going to leave it right there.
Richard Perle, thank you very much.
Tom Andrews, thanks for a good debate. I appreciate it very much to you, as well.
ANDREWS: Wolf, thank you.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/09/le.00.htmlLUNCH WITH THE CHAIRMAN
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Why was Richard Perle meeting with Adnan Khashoggi?
Perle served as a foreign-policy adviser in George W. Bush’s Presidential campaign—he had been an Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan—but he chose not to take a senior position in the Administration. In mid-2001, however, he accepted an offer from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to chair the Defense Policy Board, a then obscure group that had been created by the Defense Department in 1985. Its members (there are around thirty of them) may be outside the government, but they have access to classified information and to senior policymakers, and give advice not only on strategic policy but also on such matters as weapons procurement. Most of the board’s proceedings are confidential.
As chairman of the board, Perle is considered to be a special government employee and therefore subject to a federal Code of Conduct. Those rules bar a special employee from participating in an official capacity in any matter in which he has a financial interest. “One of the general rules is that you don’t take advantage of your federal position to help yourself financially in any way,” a former government attorney who helped formulate the Code of Conduct told me. The point, the attorney added, is to “protect government processes from actual or apparent conflicts.”
Advisory groups like the Defense Policy Board enable knowledgeable people outside government to bring their skills and expertise to bear, in confidence, on key policy issues. Because such experts are often tied to the defense industry, however, there are inevitable conflicts. One board member told me that most members are active in finance and business, and on at least one occasion a member has left a meeting when a military or an intelligence product in which he has an active interest has come under discussion.
Four members of the Defense Policy Board told me that the board, which met most recently on February 27th and 28th, had not been informed of Perle’s involvement in Trireme. One board member, upon being told of Trireme and Perle’s meeting with Khashoggi, exclaimed, “Oh, get out of here. He’s the chairman! If you had a story about me setting up a company for homeland security, and I’ve put people on the board with whom I’m doing that business, I’d be had”—a reference to Gerald Hillman, who had almost no senior policy or military experience in government before being offered a post on the policy board. “Seems to me this is at the edge of or off the ethical charts. I think it would stink to high heaven.”
more
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030317fa_fact
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
