I was thinking about two former American government employees this weekend, and how the differences between them tell us a lot about why the United States is in so much trouble today.

The first person is Eugene Kranz, the legendary NASA flight director immortalized in the film Apollo 13. I watched a rerun of the film on Friday night, and was struck again by his remarkable leadership of the team that improvised the astronauts' rescue after an in-flight explosion crippled their spacecraft and placed their lives in peril. Many readers probably remember the moment in the film when Kranz tells his colleagues: "Failure is not an option." This line may have been apocryphal, but when I survey the landscape of problems we face at home and abroad, I wish we had more people like Kranz in key leadership positions.

Yes I know, it's just a movie, but Ed Harris's portrayal is consistent with what we know about Kranz himself. Above all, Kranz was a leader who took full responsibility for his actions. Here's what he told his colleagues after the tragic fire on the launching pad of Apollo 1, a fire that killed astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee:

Spaceflight will never tolerate carelessness, incapacity, and neglect. Somewhere, somehow, we screwed up. It could have been in design, build, or test. Whatever it was, we should have caught it. We were too gung ho about the schedule and we locked out all of the problems we saw each day in our work. Every element of the program was in trouble and so were we... Not one of us stood up and said, 'Dammit, stop!'...We are the cause! We were not ready! We did not do our job. ... From this day forward, Flight Control will be known by two words: 'Tough' and 'Competent.' Tough means we are forever accountable for what we do or what we fail to do...Competent means we will never take anything for granted...When you leave this meeting today you will go to your office and the first thing you will do there is to write 'Tough and Competent' on your blackboards. It will never be erased. Each day when you enter the room these words will remind you of the price paid by Grissom, White, and Chaffee. These words are the price of admission to the ranks of Mission Control."

That is the kind of attitude that lands men on the moon, builds a healthy economy, and when necessary, wins wars.

Now compare that frank and honest statement with the behavior of another former government employee: Richard Perle. In a recent article in The National Interest and a public appearance at the Nixon Center, Perle has tried to sell the story that neither he nor his fellow neoconservatives had any significant influence on the foreign policy of the Bush administration, and especially the decision to invade Iraq. Specifically, he denounces the supposedly "false claim that the decision to remove Saddam, and Bush policies generally, were made or significantly influenced by a few neoconservative 'ideologues.'" He suggests that no one has ever documented this claim, either conveniently ignoring the many books and articles that did exactly that, or misrepresenting what these works actually say.

Given that Iraq turned into a debacle that the United States is having trouble escaping, it is hardly surprising that Perle is denying his role now. But that's not what he said back when the war looked more promising. In an interview with journalist George Packer, recounted in the latter's book The Assassins' Gate, Perle described the key role that the neoconservatives played in making the Iraq War happen.

If Bush had staffed his administration with a group of people selected by Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker, which might well have happened, then it could have been different, because they would not have carried into the ideas that the people who wound up in important positions brought to it."

The "people who wound up in important positions" were key neoconservatives like Douglas Feith, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and others, who had been openly calling for regime change in Iraq since the late 1990s and who used their positions in the Bush administration to make the case for war after 9/11, aided by a chorus of sympathetic pundits at places like the American Enterprise Institute, and the Weekly Standard. The neocons were hardly some secret cabal or conspiracy, as they were making their case loudly and in public, and no serious scholar claims that they "bamboozled" Bush and Cheney into a war. Rather, numerous accounts have documented that they had been openly pushing for war since 1998 and they continued to do so after 9/11. As neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan later admitted, he and his fellow neoconservatives were successful in part because they had a "ready-made approach to the world" that seemed to provide an answer to the challenges the U.S. faced after 9/11.

The bottom line is simple: Richard Perle is lying. What is disturbing about this case is is not that a former official is trying to falsify the record in such a brazen fashion; Perle is hardly the first policymaker to kick up dust about his record and he certainly won't be the last. The real cause for concern is that there are hardly any consequences for the critical role that Perle and the neoconservatives played for their pivotal role in causing one of the great foreign policy disasters in American history. If somebody can help engineer a foolish war and remain a respected Washington insider -- as is the case with Perle -- what harm is likely to befall them if they lie about it later?

Let's keep a few facts in mind. Perle and his neoconservative buddies helped develop and sell a policy that has left over 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead and more than 30,000 wounded, was directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and will end up costing the United States more than a trillion dollars. Yet instead of having the integrity and courage to acknowlege his role and admit his mistakes -- as an honest man like Gene Kranz would -- Perle now offers us a squid's ink cloud of lies and prevarications. Although his absurd claims have been promptly and properly challenged, does anyone seriously think he will pay a larger price? The National Interest was all-too-willing to publish his rewriting of the historical record, and no doubt prestigious organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations will be happy to give him a platform at future meetings. Look for him on the Lehrer Newshour and CNN too; heck, he could even end up with his own show on Fox News.

Let's face it: there is little or no accountability in Washington, where being wrong means never having to say you're sorry; indeed, you don't even have to admit responsibility for past mistakes, no matter how serious. It's just the American taxpayer who ends up footing the bill, along with the soldiers who fought and died for these blunders.

As Frank Rich and others have figured out, we are in trouble today because we have allowed a culture of corruption and dishonesty to permeate our institutions and pollute our public discourse. Until that changes -- until our public institutions contain a lot more truth-tellers like Gene Kranz and fewer liars like Richard Perle -- we are not going to know where we stand, where we are headed, or whom to trust.

Stephen M. Walt |

Richard Perle was and is a traitor and a war profiteer. He spends summers in his villa in the south of France. A villa he purchased with his war profits.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/our-man-in-france-the-norman-conquest-in-reverse-578686html

Who profited from the Iraq War?

Richard Perle

Richard N. Perle

War Profits: Perle's Conniving

Published on Thursday, April 3, 2003 by The Charleston Gazette

Editorial

The most sensational war profits dispute forced Richard Perle to resign as chairman of a Pentagon board that sets war policies. Here’s the story:

Perle, who was assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan, is a militant “hawk” allied to the Bush family in Republican politics. Washington enemies call him “the Prince of Darkness.” In the late 1990s, while Democrat Bill Clinton still was president, Perle joined Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and other far-right figures in an outfit called the Project for the New American Century. PNAC issued a strategic plan calling for America’s awesome military superiority to be used to impose U.S. sway over the entire planet.

After Bush was awarded the presidency, most of the PNAC members got top administration posts. Rumsfeld became defense secretary. Wolfowitz became his deputy. Perle headed the Pentagon’s war policy board. Variously, they helped draft the “Bush Doctrine,” which says the White House may unleash a pre-emptive military attack on any nation it thinks might pose a future danger to America. Perle became a top advocate of war against Iraq.

The clamor to attack the Arab nation caused The Economist of London to observe that Perle, Wolfowitz and some other Bush military planners are Jewish, which raises suspicion that they might be “more concerned with protecting Israel than they are with advancing America’s national interest.” But the British journal said such fears are rooted in America’s former anti-Semitism.

Just as the Iraq war was launched, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh revealed in The New Yorker that Perle met in France with notorious Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi to discuss “the future of Iraq” and to invite another wealthy Saudi to invest in Perle’s national security firm, Trireme Partners. Khashoggi became famous in the 1980s because he helped Oliver North and other conspirators in the Reagan White House arrange illegal arms sales to Iran and use the profits to arm Contras who attacked Nicaraguans.

Meanwhile, it came to light that Global Crossing, the bankrupt telecommunications giant, hired Perle to overcome Pentagon objections to the firm’s takeover by Asian owners. Perle was paid a $125,000 fee, plus a promise of $600,000 more if he succeeded in changing the Pentagon’s view.

It was a brazen conflict of interest for a Bush insider holding a high Pentagon post to take money to influence Pentagon policy — especially since the money came from a sleaze-tainted firm. Newspapers around America raised a protest.

Also, Perle participated in a Goldman Sachs conference call advising investors how to reap war profits. The session was titled “Implications of an Imminent War: Iraq Now, North Korea Next?”

An Idaho Mountain Express columnist sneered: “Perle is a man who obviously believes in making hay while others fight the war he promoted.” Columnist Arianna Huffington commented on the Global Crossing deal:

“Perle’s windfall is coming from the coffers of a disgraced company that was among the worst of the corporate crooks. He’s lining his pockets at the expense of the 10,000 laid-off Global employees, who collectively saw $32 million in severance pay wiped out, and the shareholders, who lost $57 billion in equity when the company declared bankruptcy.”

Amid this uproar, Perle declared that he had done nothing wrong. He called Hersh “the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist.” He threatened to sue Hersh. Finally, Perle was forced to step down as chairman of the Pentagon board — but he remains a member.

This sorry mess shows how some members of the boardroom elite who are entwined in Republican politics hope to profit from the tragedy of the Iraq war. It’s a disturbing picture.

Top Pentagon adviser resigns under fire

CNN
Friday, March 28, 2003 Posted: 7:34 AM EST (1234 GMT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One of the Pentagon's top civilian advisers resigned Thursday, saying he wanted to defuse a controversy over charges he stood to profit from the war in Iraq.

Richard Perle resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an independent group that advises Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Critics said Perle had a conflict of interest because he took a consulting job for the bankrupt telecommunications firm Global Crossing Ltd., which is trying to get the government to approve its purchase by a joint venture of two Asian firms.

The AP reported that according to lawyers and others involved in the bankruptcy case, Perle would receive $600,000 if the deal is approved, in addition to a $125,000 fee.

Perle Told Investors How They Could Profit From War

May 7, 2003

Pentagon adviser Richard Perle briefed an investment seminar on ways to profit from conflicts in Iraq and North Korea just weeks after he received a top-secret government briefing on the crises in the two countries.

Perle, who until March was chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a group of outside advisers to the Pentagon, also serves on the board of several defense contractors. His actions raise concerns about conflicts of interest.

Perle attended a Defense Intelligence Agency briefing in February and three weeks later participated in a Goldman Sachs conference call in which he advised investors in a talk titled Implications of an Imminent War: Iraq Now. North Korea Next?

A financial advisor who participated in the conference call told Capitol Hill Blue that Perle offered "advice on how to cash if war broke out in Iraq and/or North Korea."

Perle did not return phone calls or e-mails seeking comment.

One of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's closest advisers, Perle was a vocal advocate of going to war against Iraq and publicly questioned the reliability of some longtime U.S. allies, including France and Saudi Arabia.

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

March 25, 2003

by Christopher Deliso

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

Christopher Deliso is a Balkan-based journalist, travel writer and critic of interventionist foreign policy. Over the past few years, Mr. Deliso's writing for Antiwar.com, UPI, various American newspapers, websites and European strategic analysis firms has taken him everywhere from the shores of the Adriatic to the top of the Caucasus Mountains. Mr Deliso holds a master's degree with distinction in Byzantine Studies from Oxford University, and also manages the Balkan-interest news and analysis website, Balkanalysis.com

Hollinger executives indicted for fraud

Federal prosecutors have indicted four Hollinger executives, including former chairman and CEO Conrad Black, on fraud charges related to the abuse of company perks and the $2.1 billion sale of several hundred Canadian newspapers.

The executives were also charged with illegally diverting $32 million from the company through a series of complex transactions and another $51.8 million in relation to the sale of CanWestGlobal Communications Corp.

"Officers and directors of publicly traded companies who steer shareholders' money into their pockets should not lie to the board of directors to get permission to do so," said U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in a statement. He added that insiders "whose job it was to safeguard the shareholders made it their job to steal and conceal."

Hollinger's board of directors also came under heavy criticism in that report. In addition to Kissinger, the board had several other politically connected directors: Robert S. Strauss, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and ambassador to the Soviet Union; Richard R. Burt, a former United States ambassador to Germany; former Illinois Governor James Thompson (who chaired the company's audit committee, and was described by the report as "ineffective and careless") and Richard N. Perle, assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan the former chairman of a Pentagon advisory board. Perle was heavily scolded in the report, which says that Perle "repeatedly breached his fiduciary duties" a member of the board's executive committee.

According to the report, Perle signed papers that allowed Black and Radler to loot the company without even bothering to look at what he was signing. "It is difficult to imagine a more flagrant abdication of duty than a director rubber-stamping transactions that directly benefit a controlling shareholder without any thought, comprehension or analysis," the committee report says. "In fact, many of the consents that Perle signed as an executive committee member approved related-party transactions that unfairly benefited Black and Radler, and cost Hollinger millions."

Perle also ran an Internet investment arm of the company for Black, which, despite losing money, netted Perle $3.1 million in bonuses. A special board panel said that Perle should return $5.4 million in pay after "putting his own interests above those of Hollinger's shareholders."

An unsavory character on Bush team

THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE

September 13, 2004

Richard Perle, a foreign policy guru who has oozed his way through Republican administrations for two decades making a fortune as he went, has met his match in Conrad Black, the former head of Hollinger International, the U.S.-based newspaper conglomerate. Black stepped down as Hollinger CEO after being accused by shareholders of being a crook.

As Black goes down, Perle, who worked for the Bush administration and deserves as much credit for the Iraq war as anyone, is going with him. A special committee investigating Hollinger's financial losses accuses both men of corruption.

Perle is an important figure for he stands at the nexus of power and money. More than most, he has advocated policies that would make him money.

Perle, along with Henry Kissinger, serves on the Hollinger board of directors, as well as on the board of the Jerusalem Post, part of Black's newspaper empire.

Perle is paid because of his working knowledge of Pentagon strategy.

Payments for Perle

Federal laws place restrictions on the behavior of SGEs like Perle. Regulations Code 5 CFR 2635.702--barring the use of public office for private gain--also warns of the "appearance of government sanction," and cautions against using public standing "in a manner that could be reasonably construed to imply that his agency or the Government sanctions or endorses his personal activities." Section 5 CFR 2635.807 bans SGEs from receiving money for speaking on matters in which the SGE "has participated or is participating personally and substantially" for the government. "Experts have to make a livelihood," a government ethics specialist explained, "but they're prohibited...if there's a nexus between public and private."

Perle's high-profile articulation of Administration strategy blurs this line. Before the Iraq war, members of the Defense Policy Board acted as unofficial spokesmen for the Pentagon, with Perle charging networks while aggressively promoting the DOD stance. "It's misleading to be charging money [for] selling policy," says Bill Allison of the Center for Public Integrity. "It creates the problem of asking to profit off of your government connection."

Has Richard Perle Committed Treason?

March 31, 2003

By ANTHONY GANCARSKI

Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution defines treason as giving aid and comfort, or "adhering" to our enemies. I believe "adhering" sums up Richard Perle's job description pretty well. The controversy surrounding Perle which occasioned his resignation from the Chair of the Defense Policy Board should not be quelled because he took that preemptive measure. Rather, it should force a deeper, public inquiry into what has motivated Perle to encourage the US to make aggressive foreign policy decisions inconsistent with both our overt national interest and historical precedent.

In a letter Perle wrote to Rumsfeld on Wednesday announcing his decision to resign the chairmanship, his language rang with the unctuous tones of a feigned self-flagellation for public consumption. "With our nation at war and American troops risking their lives to protect our freedom and liberate Iraq, I am dismayed that your valuable time, and that of others in the Department of Defense and the administration might be burdened by the controversy surrounding my chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board."

Controversy? What could be controversial about this scenario, neutrally described by UPI in the following manner.

"Perle, one of George W. Bush's foreign policy advisers during the 2000 presidential campaign, was hired last week by the bankrupt Global Crossing telecommunications company to help it restructure a deal to sell a majority holding in the company to Hutchison Telecommunications and government-run Singapore Technologies Telemedia. The United States government -- particularly the Defense Department and the FBI -- has national security concerns about the deal, according to The New York Times. It would put Global Crossing's fiber optics network -- which the military uses -- under Chinese ownership."

They are absolutely right to have "national security concerns" about the deal. How is it possible for the Pentagon to talk of "full-spectrum dominance" when moves are afoot to create a situation in which the US leases its military's fiber optics network from what will be our most formidable global competitor in the coming decades?

Richard Perle represents a threat to our National Security as tangible as that posed by Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. His actions throughout his public life require a thorough Congressional investigation, centering on answering the question whether or not Richard Perle has committed treason, whether in the incident described above or in any of his other dealings for which ample documentation already exists.