The Daily Grasshopper

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal (3/31/03) gave us Richard Perle's "For the Record," in which one of the Bush administration's leading hawks tries to set the record straight on his resignation as chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Some of you will recall that Perle is a charter member of the "Project for a New American Century" (or, as I prefer to call it, "Plan for the Next American Conquests"), and has come under intense scrutiny lately in the mainstream press for his business dealings and apparent conflicts of interest. Foremost among his critics has been Seymour Hersh, who wrote about Perle's Trireme Investments in an article that appeared in last week's "New Yorker" magazine. I wrote about Perle and the Hersh story soon after it appeared (you might want to read this for background, if you haven't already): http://www.netway.com/~pkeaney/031403typo.html.

There was also the revelation in the New York Times "Business Day" section on Friday, March 21, that Perle was advising the failed telecom giant Global Crossing as it attempted to secure permission from the Pentagon to complete a multimillion dollar sale of the company and its technology to Asian investors. Here's part of the Times report from last week on Perle's resignation:

"Though the Pentagon advisory board does not pay its members and is technically not a government agency, it wields tremendous influence in policy circles. And its chairman is considered a 'special government employee,' subject to federal ethics rules, including one that bars anyone from using public office for private gain.

In response to criticism of Mr. Perle's fee arrangement with the communications company, Global Crossing, under which he was to receive $600,000 if the Pentagon approved the company's sale, Mr. Perle reversed course and said he would not accept any compensation resulting from completion of the deal. He also said that 'any fee for past service would be donated to the families of American forces killed or injured in Iraq.'

In a brief telephone conversation with a reporter today before the Defense Department announcement, Mr. Perle sounded angry. Asked whether he had resigned, he replied: 'Let me just tell you something. If I had, you'd be the last person in the world I'd want to talk to.' He then hung up.

Mr. Rumsfeld issued a statement tonight praising Mr. Perle's service and his 'willingness to continue to serve' on the influential board.

'Richard Perle has a deep understanding of our national security process and an abiding interest in preserving America's strength and freedom,' Mr. Rumsfeld said. 'He has been an excellent chairman and has led the Defense Policy Board during an important time in our history.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/politics/27CND-PERLE.html

Not only do the editors of the Journal devote a fair number of column inches to Perle's rationalization for his insider trading, they themselves offer their own apologia for a system that allows high-ranking members of the administration to profit directly (or, in some cases, indirectly) from their influence over foreign policy decisions. They do this in part by attacking a Washington-based watchdog group, the Center for Public Integrity, that had the audacity to point out the blatant conflicts of interest that are visible with the merest glance at the composition of the Defense Policy Board.

We'll start with the editorial, which is imaginatively titled "Center for Public Ignorance." The editors accuse Perle of crossing the line by getting in bed with Global Crossing, which he should have known was "politically toxic." In other words, he blew it for himself by getting too greedy and pimping himself out to a corporation that has become synonymous even among average Americans with the rampant culture of corporate greed. They fail to address Hersh's allegations, which is standard operating procedure for many mainstream commentators: inconvenient facts are best ignored.

What really concerns the Journal's editors is that Perle's overreach may have brought the rest of the board's members, including former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, under unwanted scrutiny. They write that "you can tell something else is going on here because the ethics attack is now extending to the rest of the Board."

You can read the CPI report here:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=513&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0

Here are some of its findings:

"Of the 30 members of the Defense Policy Board, the government-appointed group that advises the Pentagon, at least nine have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. Four members are registered lobbyists, one of whom represents two of the three largest defense contractors...

The board, whose list of members reads like a who’s who of former high-level government and military officials, focuses on long-term policy issues such as the strategic implications of defense policies and tactical considerations, including what types of weapons the military should develop...

Richard Perle, who has been a very public advocate of the war in Iraq, resigned the chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board after being criticized in recent weeks because of his involvement in companies that have significant business before the Defense Department. He did not return the Center’s phone calls."

The best the Wall Street Journal can do to deflect these charges is dismiss them as "transparently silly," and engage in the time-honored (among sophists, that is) "reductio ad absurdum" argument. Here's what they wrote:

"We have reached the state of ethics in Washington in which Madonna could presumably serve as a Pentagon adviser but people who actually know something about national security cannot."

The reality is that we have reached the state of ethics in Washington in which the "military-industrial complex," of whose intentions we were warned by President Eisenhower in 1960, openly claims its own interests to be those of the entire nation. We watch giant C-130s fly overseas, full of tanks, choppers, computers, and the young men and women to run them all, and wonder why we're facing such drastic cutbacks here at home. There is a direct correlation between the billions of dollars being spent on war in Iraq and the billions of dollars being slashed from much-needed programs here at home. Is anyone truly surprised when the policies pursued in the name of "preserving America's strength and freedom," in Rumsfeld's words, happen to coincide so neatly with the self-interest of those who lobby for those policies?

As for Perle's own offering, it's much longer, but not much more convincing than the Journal's editorial. Though you can't link to Wall Street Journal articles, the American Enterprise Institute features Perle's op-ed on its homepage:

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.16817,filter./news_detail.asp

Perle begins by noting that he "resigned [his] position as chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board after news stories, rich in innuendo, suggested that I had acted improperly." You'll note right away that Perle only resigned his chairmanship. He's still a member of the board.

And that little dodge sets the tone for the rest of the piece. He dutifully informs us that there are two rules for those who offer advice to the government, and both "flow from a familiar principle: that public office should not be used for private gain." Here are the rules:

"The first rule is full disclosure of the financial interests of the adviser. This is accomplished by annual filings of the board members' business interests, sources of income, clients, share holdings and the like. The second rule is straightforward: If the discussions or advice of the board should involve matters that have a direct and predictable effect on an adviser's financial interests, he is recused from taking part."

The part about "full disclosure" of "financial interests" is noteworthy, especially when we consider that Perle's colleague on the Board, Henry Kissinger, turned down an opportunity to head up the Sept. 11 investigation because doing so would have required him to publish the list of clients he serves as chairman of Kissinger Associates. More on Henry K. in a moment...

As for recusals, one has to wonder what they're worth. As Perle himself points out later in the piece, giving the lie to his own formula for remaining free from taint:

"Everybody I work with knows who I am and what I have done, whether I attach my resume to the paperwork or not. Those who serve without any compensation on these boards do so as a civic responsibility."

Are we expected to believe that by merely recusing himself from the proceedings, Perle has removed his influence from them? For those out there who think that the U.S. is truly interested in "liberating" the Iraqi people, or that "free trade" benefits the rich and the poor nations of the world equally, the idea that extremely powerful individuals "serve without any compensation" and "do so as a civic responsbility" may have the ring of truth. Why not? It sounds good.

Here's a more honest assessment of the influence that people like Perle can exert, from an article that was published in the Austin Chronicle in March of 2000. Henry Kissinger had just flown to Jakarta, the capital of Idonesia, to inquire about the future of a mining corporation, Freeport McMoRan, on whose board he sits. His request to the new president of Indonesia was that he honor the old government's contracts - or else. Anyone familiar with Kissinger's record in Indonesia knows that this would not be interpreted as an idle threat. Kissinger's position at the top of the roster of U.S. foreign policy heavyweights, including his seat on the Defense Policy Board, is well-known to those in the business world - and in the halls of power around the globe. Hence the lucrative deals, like the quarter million Kissinger gets each year as a member of the Freeport Board. Jim Bob Moffett was quoted in Kissinger's biography as saying:

"Henry can definitely cut the red tape for you. He always has somebody he can call."

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-03-03/pols_naked8.html

More info is available from the International Campaign Against Impunity, whose "Kissinger Watch" section is full of interesting information. Here's a sample:

http://www.icai-online.org/72533,46136.html

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the "Old Boy Network," alive and well and operating as Eisenhower warned us it would in his farewell address to the nation over 40 years ago, when he said:

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

PK
http://www.dailygrasshopper.com