How Vampires Get Rich

[Gary Sisco]

I wonder how much he'll make off the next Bushist war? Certainly, Mr Moral will get a significant "bonus" for his efforts.

Perle's Plunder Blunder

March 23, 2003
By MAUREEN DOWD






WASHINGTON

It's Richard Perle's world. We're just fighting in it.


The Prince of Darkness, a man who whips up revelatory
soufflés and revolutionary pre-emption doctrines with equal
ease, took a victory lap at the American Enterprise
Institute on Friday morning.

The critical battle for Baghdad was yet to come and "Shock
and Awe" was still a few hours away. (The hawks, who are
trying to send a message to the world not to mess with
America, might have preferred an even more intimidating
bombing campaign title, like "Operation Who's Your Daddy?")


Yet Mr. Perle, an adviser to Donald Rumsfeld, could not
resist a little pre-emptive crowing about pre-emption,
predicting "a general recognition that high moral purpose
has been achieved here. Millions of people have been
liberated."

His conservative audience at the Reagan shrine's "black
coffee briefing" (they're too macho for milk and sugar) was
buzzed that their cherished dream of saving Iraq by bombing
it was under way.

The chesty "you repent, we decide" Bush doctrine was cooked
up pre-Bush, fashioned over the last 12 years by
conservatives like Mr. Perle, Mr. Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney,
Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith and Bill
Kristol.

The pre-emption doctrine prefers ad hoc coalitions,
allowing an unfettered America to strike at threats and
potential threats. At A.E.I., Mr. Perle boasted that far
from going it alone, the Bush administration had a
coalition of "more than 40 countries and . . . growing."
(Including Micronesia, Mongolia and the Marshall Islands,
all of them.)

And he was already looking forward to giving makeovers to
other rogue regimes. "I'm rather optimistic that we will
see regime change in Iran without any use of military power
by the United States," he said.

Michael Ledeen, an A.E.I. scholar on the same panel, called
Iraq "just one battle in a broader war. Iran is . . . the
mother of modern terrorism."

As Bush 41 learned, waging holy wars can be dicey. After
pressing the morality of Desert Storm, he faced questions
about his postwar conduct. Critics excoriated Mr. Bush, who
had labeled Saddam another Hitler, for turning his back as
Saddam laid waste to Kurdish refugees and to Kurds and
Shiite Muslims rising up against him after the war.

Now Mr. Perle, who urged America to war with moral
certitude, finds himself subject to questions about his own
standards of right and wrong.

Stephen Labaton wrote in The Times on Friday that Mr. Perle
was advising the Pentagon on war even as he was retained by
Global Crossing, the bankrupt telecommunications company,
to help overcome Pentagon resistance to its proposed sale
to a joint venture involving a Hong Kong billionaire.

The confidant of Rummy and Wolfy serves as the chairman of
the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory
panel. That's why Global Crossing agreed to pay Mr. Perle a
fat fee: $725,000. The fee structure is especially smelly
because $600,000 of the windfall is contingent on
government approval of the sale. (In his original
agreement, Mr. Perle also asked the company to shell out
for "working meals," which could add up, given his status
as a gourmand from the Potomac to Provence, where he keeps
a vacation home among the feckless French.)

Although his position on the Defense Policy Board is not
paid, Mr. Perle is still bound by government ethics rules
that forbid officials from reaping financial benefit from
their government positions. He and his lawyer told Mr.
Labaton that his work for Global Crossing did not violate
the rules because he did not lobby for the company and was
serving in an advisory capacity to its lawyers.

But that distinction is silly because Global Crossing has
so many other big names on its roster of influence-peddlers
that it doesn't need Mr. Perle's Guccis for actual lobbying
footwork or advice on the process. His name alone could be
worth the $725,000 if it helps win the Pentagon's seal of
approval.

His convictions of right and wrong extend to the right and
wrong investments. On Wednesday he participated in a
Goldman Sachs conference call to advise clients on
investment opportunities arising from the war, titled,
"Implications of an Imminent War: Iraq Now. North Korea
Next?"

Maybe Mr. Perle should remove the laurel wreath from his
head and replace it with a paper bag.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/opinion/23DOWD.html?ex=1049435574&ei=1&en=a6ecc87c69bd887e

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Ari Fleischer was asked about this specific ethics violation at one of his press briefings, and Ari attacked the reporter verbally, asking him if he'd finished with his "speech". The reporter came back and asked, once again, for Fleischer to answer the question, and Ari once more challenged him, without ever answering the question, "have you made your speech?" The reporter is identified only as "Russell".

Official transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030313-13.html

Scroll down near the bottom and you will see:

Q: Ari, Richard Perle is the Chairman...

[tippy]

For the reporter to ask such a question is anti-American, hence Fleischer's indignation.

How about the 70% approval ratings, one for Bush and one for the war. Do you think that's a real statistic? I'm noticing that people are extremely reluctant to even say the word "war". There's a tendency to avoid talking about it at all. I get the feeling that people are discouraged beyond words.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Dear Tippy...

If I had a huge war- and PR- machine to coordinate, I guess I'd make up poll and approval ratings and flaunt them.

I was raised in the 60's, so I've been called paranoid by close friends who object to my expressions of doubt over this war, this administration, and our slow erosion of rights.

I've repeated over and over what one particular JC colleague has labeled me as for being against this WAR..."naive".

In the "Separating arts from artists" thread in the old Speakeasy, most posters without fail mentioned that they would walk out on a performance by a jazz musician who decided to use the bandstand as a soapbox. In the days of Mingus he was appluaded for his political activism, and for "telling it like it is." In these times however, we have neither the patience nor the vision to understand what is so glaringly happening around us.

[tippy]

fwiw, Dennis, I don't tacitly disregard anyone's political statements. Yeah, an artist has a stage and so I guess people think that's an unfair advantage and opinions should not be expressed by people who study music or whatever rather than having immersed themselves in political studies. My response being: "Whatever" :)

Artists generally advocate solving problems without force and I don't see what could be offensive about that. What's the difference between an artist expressing his/her personal beliefs on the stage and controlling the entire media to obtain your particular objective? The latter has an unfair advantage that dwarfs the single, smaller voice many million times over.

It's hard right now to discuss anything I think because everybody just counters with their own propaganda. Who knows what the truth about anything is these days. Well-formed assertions that speak to what people want to believe wield a lot of power.

I think the propaganda that we are seeing on television is what makes people feel conflicted about their views on the current U.S. action. They feel guilty. And so they are silent as they grapple with events that are profoundly changing their world.

[patricia]

Originally posted by Dennis Gonzalez
Dear Tippy...

If I had a huge war- and PR- machine to coordinate, I guess I'd make up poll and approval ratings and flaunt them.

I was raised in the 60's, so I've been called paranoid by close friends who object to my expressions of doubt over this war, this administration, and our slow erosion of rights.

I've repeated over and over what one particular JC colleague has labeled me as for being against this WAR..."naive".

In the "Separating arts from artists" thread in the old Speakeasy, most posters without fail mentioned that they would walk out on a performance by a jazz musician who decided to use the bandstand as a soapbox. In the days of Mingus he was appluaded for his political activism, and for "telling it like it is." In these times however, we have neither the patience nor the vision to understand what is so glaringly happening around us.

I wouldn't walk out of an jazz artist' performance, if they chose to use their platform to oppose the war, or to extol the virtuous intent of these obscene attacks. I fear that the venue would be more ineffective than one in which they were speaking as a citizen, rather than to an audience which may not be receptive to their thoughts, because they came for the music.
I agree, however, that as citizens, musicians are entitled to voice their views, just as any other citizens are. It's a choice they make and any fallout is expected by them, as it is when anyone airs their views. As far as I know, free speech is not YET illegal. Who knows whether it will become so, if only because the views may be unpopular.
You and I, Dennis, still remember that speaking out during the Vietnam years wasn't popular either. Still, we did it.

[Gary Sisco]

Once, at an Odetta concert I attended, a guy heckled her between songs asking "Is this a concert or a political rally." "It's both," she responded, to loud guffaws and prolonged applause. The heckler didn't respond to the response.

These guys never like talking about how they made their fortunes. Richard Cheney, for instance, made *mucho* megabucks out of Gulf War I. He wasn't even in the megarich ranks before that. Now he's long established as one of the club. Someone ought to look into his holdings, as well.

Very interestingly, though it has been reported in passing a couple of times (without headlines and in the back pages), for all the talk of French and German corporations (as if any multinational has national allegiance, duh) having done with business all along with Saddam Hussein, going all the way back to the beginning and continuing on through the post-Sept 11 period, there has been precious little talk of the many "American" corporations that have done the same -- many no doubt with well-established connections to the Bushists.

It doesn't get regularly reported that the Bush admin seized the original famous 12,000 page report from the inspectors and censored 75% of it before any other state's functionaries were allowed to read it.

But there was an article on the wires at the time, as some of the censored thousands of pages made their way into the public domain (as they always do, eventually) in Europe, where it was reported that many of the censored pages had to do with precisely this subject -- all of the corporations who could, regardless of nationality and including "American" corps -- had been and continued to do business with Hussein all through the "sanctions" and post-Sept 11 were still doing so, including much militarily required technological sales, including those necessary for WMD.

Buncha vampires and liars and always were.

[patricia]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
Once, at an Odetta concert I attended, a guy heckled her between songs asking "Is this a concert or a political rally." "It's both," she responded, to loud guffaws and prolonged applause. The heckler didn't respond to the response.

These guys never like talking about how they made their fortunes. Richard Cheney, for instance, made *mucho* megabucks out of Gulf War I. He wasn't even in the megarich ranks before that. Now he's long established as one of the club. Someone ought to look into his holdings, as well.

Very interestingly, though it has been reported in passing a couple of times (without headlines and in the back pages), for all the talk of French and German corporations (as if any multinational has national allegiance, duh) having done with business all along with Saddam Hussein, going all the way back to the beginning and continuing on through the post-Sept 11 period, there has been precious little talk of the many "American" corporations that have done the same -- many no doubt with well-established connections to the Bushists.

It doesn't get regularly reported that the Bush admin seized the original famous 12,000 page report from the inspectors and censored 75% of it before any other state's functionaries were allowed to read it.

But there was an article on the wires at the time, as some of the censored thousands of pages made their way into the public domain (as they always do, eventually) in Europe, where it was reported that many of the censored pages had to do with precisely this subject -- all of the corporations who could, regardless of nationality and including "American" corps -- had been and continued to do business with Hussein all through the "sanctions" and post-Sept 11 were still doing so, including much militarily required technological sales, including those necessary for WMD.

Buncha vampires and liars and always were.

I have found it very interesting that the world press seems to see fit to reveal more information than the citizens of the U.S. are being allowed to see and hear.
The term "propaganda" is uttered by U.S. Government officials with the attitude that it only exists in repressive countries and that we have a free press. I see a paternalistic control of information and am disturbed by it. Freedom is not freedom to see and hear what the administration of the time sees fit to show. It's true free access to the facts. So, where is that freedom in this situation? Considering that the citizens of the U.S.' children are risking their lives, surely better than this is deserved.

[Gary Sisco]

Thing is, Pat, all the info's out there and available in the US to anyone interested in reading it. The foreign press can easily be read on the internet, no problem. And bookstores like B&N carry the major foreign papers.

What's interesting about it is the ideological self-censorship that goes on in the press, and, more interesting still, to me, the amazing American national characteristic, being proud and loud about what you don't know and don't care to know. As if there's virtue in ignorance and stupidity. I mean, you wouldn't want to be an "egghead," now, would you?

So, I don't make excuses for the people anymore. This is the most open society that has ever existed. We can know anything we want to know, about anything, with very little effort involved, and less effort all the time, thanks to the net.

Whoever doesn't know American history or present, doesn't want to know. That's about it.

[patricia]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
Thing is, Pat, all the info's out there and available in the US to anyone interested in reading it. The foreign press can easily be read on the internet, no problem. And bookstores like B&N carry the major foreign papers.

What's interesting about it is the ideological self-censorship that goes on in the press, and, more interesting still, to me, the amazing American national characteristic, being proud and loud about what you don't know and don't care to know. As if there's virtue in ignorance and stupidity. I mean, you wouldn't want to be an "egghead," now, would you?

So, I don't make excuses for the people anymore. This is the most open society that has ever existed. We can know anything we want to know, about anything, with very little effort involved, and less effort all the time, thanks to the net.

Whoever doesn't know American history or present, doesn't want to know. That's about it.

Gary,
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think that the information isn't there if citizens want to find it. I suppose I meant that considering that the vast majority seem to get their news from television and, perhaps, their local paper, the omitted, though not necessarily unavailable information doesn't get to most people. There is also, as you say, a certain tunnelvision, as a defense mechanism more than an indication of forced ignorance. Most people just don't want to see the whole picture and that is truly sad and dangerous.

[Gary Sisco]

Pat -- True enough. But people make their choice to be lazy and to get "news" from tv, which in the best of cases, gives one a headline and lead paragraph -- an "in-depth" look perhaps the same number of words as an average-length newspaper article, but not that of a feature. This is a chosen laziness, a purposeful one.

Indeed, I'm beginning to wonder what is the practical difference between a population that is illiterate because it can't read and one that is illiterate because it won't read. None, that I can think of offhand.

Anyway: Here's the choice facing Mr Moral:

(From NYT today):

Richard Perle's Conflict
s chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle has been an influential architect of the Bush administration's Iraq policy and war plans. At the same time, it turns out, he has signed on to represent a major telecommunications company that has a strong financial interest in lobbying the Defense Department. This is a conflict pure and simple, and Mr. Perle should immediately drop one of his two roles.

Mr. Perle, who served as an assistant defense secretary under President Reagan, is indisputably an important part of the current Defense Department. His position as chairman of the policy board, to which he was appointed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is unpaid. But he is nevertheless considered a "special government employee" and is subject to federal ethics rules.

Global Crossing, the telecommunications giant, is now in bankruptcy. It has retained Mr. Perle to help persuade the Defense Department to drop its objections to a proposed sale to foreign buyers in Hong Kong and Singapore. The deal has been opposed by the Defense Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a threat to national security because it would put Global Crossing's fiber optics network, which is used by the United States government, under foreign control. Mr. Perle stands to make up to $725,000 from his work for Global Crossing.

Mr. Perle insists that there is no conflict in his case because the Defense Policy Board is not involved in approving the Global Crossing deal. But that is not the right test. Global Crossing's fee is clearly payment, at least in part, for the influence Mr. Perle exerts through his Defense Department post, and federal ethics rules prohibit using public office for private gain. To remove the conflict, Mr. Perle will have to choose between the gain and the office.

[Gary Sisco]

He'll keep both, of course, and also leverage his office into future unearned income-cum-capital.

That's the American way. Anything for a buck. Including financing Saddam Hussein and selling him WMD potential technology, post-911.

[patricia]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
He'll keep both, of course, and also leverage his office into future unearned income-cum-capital.

That's the American way. Anything for a buck. Including financing Saddam Hussein and selling him WMD potential technology, post-911.

"War Profiteering" used to be said, with a twist of the lip. Now, it seems to be almost accepted. How times change and how impervious to human suffering we seem to have become.
Being a child of the sixties, I dared to hope that wars, especially unwinnable wars were a thing of the unenlightened past. Sadly, I was wrong.

[Gary Sisco]

It used to be gauche to be a war profiteer. Now it's gauche to mention it, that's all. Being it is taken for granted almost, in those circles. We're just to pretend it's otherwise, I guess.

[patricia]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
It used to be gauche to be a war profiteer. Now it's gauche to mention it, that's all. Being it is taken for granted almost, in those circles. We're just to pretend it's otherwise, I guess.

I think that we're already seeing a preview of the jockeying for position for contracts to rebuild Iraq, once the destruction is completed. That's going to be very interesting, in that the Iraqis are going to be in no position to do it.

[Gary Sisco]

One thing's for sure. Bechtel (George Shultz) will be in there with some huge contracts.

[Gary Sisco]

I note our superpatriots have nothing much to say in defense of Mr Moral. But of course, why would they? He's just pursuing the American way, is all.

[patricia]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
I note our superpatriots have nothing much to say in defense of Mr Moral. But of course, why would they? He's just pursuing the American way, is all.

It's almost amusing, in a macabre way, that a perfectly beautiful country is being destroyed and the vultures are already circling to get their chunk of the billions being allocated for rebuilding what didn't need to be destroyed in the first place. Whatever replaces the original structures will be like the gentrification of the older citiies, having no history and no soul.
I know I'm rambling, but these are cities which are hundreds and hundreds of years old, buildings levelled by this fiasco. The Bush gang clearly has no sense of the importance of preserving history. I'm thinking of the outrage expressed by them after the destruction of the ancient art and the Buddas in Afghanistan, How is this different?

[Uli]

fweiw, following a little debate from the foreign policy magazine(in two bits,because it's too long):

Blessed Are the Warmakers?

The United States and the European Union both want peace in the Middle East—but that’s
about all they agree upon. While Washington believes that regime change in Iraq will usher in
an era of regional peace and stability, Brussels worries that U.S. adventurism will make the
clash of civilizations a self-fulfilling prophecy. Will war in Iraq prove to be an act of creative
destruction, or simply destruction? Two outspoken thinkers from opposite sides of the Atlantic—Richard Perle, a key
national security advisor to the Pentagon, and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leader of the European Parliament’s Green
Party—traded views and barbs at a recent debate in Washington, D.C., at the invitation of Helga Flores Trejo, the new
Director of the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit: If I could sit down with the president of the United States, I would say, “Mr. Bush, I am no pacifist,
and I know military intervention can be absolutely necessary. When the Allies landed in Normandy in 1944, my parents
took the first opportunity to conceive a child as a celebration of their new freedom.”

Richard Perle: I never imagined we owe you to
former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower.

Cohn-Bendit: That’s life. But recently, your
government has been behaving like the Bolsheviks in
the Russian Revolution. You want to change the
whole world! Like them, you claim that history will
show that truth is on your side. You want the world
to follow the American dream, and you believe that
you know what is best for Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia,
North Korea, Africa, Liberia, Yemen, and all other
countries. Like every revolutionary, you have good
ideas, but your problem lies in the means you want
to use to realize them. Suddenly you want to bring
democracy to the world, starting with Iraq. What
happened to this administration, which began with
promises and plans for a humble foreign policy and
nonintervention?

Perle: A fair question. We are interested in
democracy in Iraq because we are, in the first
place, interested in disarming Saddam Hussein.
Now, if we are going to remove Saddam to get rid of
his weapons of mass destruction, consider
democracy as an added benefit. The Middle East is
unstable, and, in many ways, it is becoming more unstable. Democracies do not wage aggressive wars. We want to
bring real stability to the region. That’s why we want to change the political system in Iraq.

Cohn-Bendit: I do not question the value of democracy. On the contrary, I am asking how best to achieve democracy.
First of all, remember former French General and later President Charles de Gaulle, who insisted to Dwight Eisenhower
in 1944 that he, as a French leader, had to enter liberated Paris, however weak he was. The point was that only the
French themselves—not an American general—could remake France after the shame of the country’s collaboration with
the Nazis. Second, you are making a mistake as you try to lead the region down the path toward democracy. The key to
a peaceful and stable Middle East is Iran. In contrast to Iraq, Iran has a strong, organized civil society that is already very
close to making a breakthrough toward democratization. Or, in a different category, we should really solve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel does not comply with U.N. resolutions any more than does Iraq. You will say that I
cannot compare the two. But the Arab population makes this comparison. And as long as many people do not believe in
you, you will have a difficult time in Iraq.

Perle: You are imagining a U.S. general riding roughshod over Iraqis and confirming the worst fears of Muslims around
the world that we are an aggressive, imperialist power. I have another view. We have Ahmed Chalabi, chief of the
opposition Iraqi National Congress, to enter Baghdad. Ending the current Iraqi regime will liberate the Iraqis. We will leave
both governance and oil in their hands. We will hand over power quickly—not in years, maybe not even in months—to
give Iraqis a chance to shape their own destiny. The whole world will see this. And I expect the Iraqis to be at least as
thankful as French President Jacques Chirac was for France’s liberation.

Cohn-Bendit: Oh, come on. It’s not true.

Perle: Nobody has to say, “Thank you.” It is quite sufficient for us to know that people in Iraq will no longer live in abject
fear.

Cohn-Bendit: With Iraq, you are talking about nation building. Yet we have not finished our job in Afghanistan. We see a
backlash against women and deteriorating security. We have barely secured the capital, Kabul. It is my biggest fear that
Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar will take over Kabul while you are fighting in Iraq. After the war, you will neglect
Iraq and shift your attention to Syria, then Saudi Arabia. Because you are Americans, you have the biggest army in the
world—you can do anything you want. This is revolutionary hubris.

Perle: I do not know that this is any American official’s view.

[Uli]

Cohn-Bendit: Don’t say that. After the war in Iraq, you will adopt this view. Syria is financing the Hamas terrorist
organization, right?

Perle: Yes, and Syria is not alone. But I think we will have a very good opportunity to persuade Syria to stop sponsoring
terrorism. I promise we will be more effective in that if we remove Hussein, rather than crawling back from where we
are today, throwing up our hands, and saying, “It’s too hard. We couldn’t do it, we had too little support.” Would you
rather talk with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad about terrorism before or after the liberation of Iraq?

Cohn-Bendit: Before.

Perle: You think you would achieve anything?

Cohn-Bendit: That’s why I am saying. Let’s change the agenda together! Europe and America have to agree on means
and ends if we want to trigger a peaceful domino effect in the Middle East. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be
part of this agenda. I accept wars that are necessary, but I still believe that war against Iraq is not necessary. I have
proposed to contain Saddam Hussein with U.S. troops in the Gulf, and to convene a summit like the Helsinki Conference
for Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975. The U.N. should declare a Palestinian state, and, with an international
mandate, we should secure Israel and Palestine. This is where we could reach a mutual understanding! And if you put
this project on the agenda, the whole region will look at America with different eyes.

Perle: The chances for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will improve as soon as Saddam is gone. Iraqi
opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi and his people have confirmed that they want a real peace process, and that they
would recognize the state of Israel. There is no doubt about that if they come to power. We cannot expect the peace
process to be any more promising than it is now as long as Saddam Hussein actively works against it—including raining
rockets on Israel as he did during the 1991 Gulf War. President George W. Bush presented his vision for the Middle East
on June 24, 2002. Yet his plan has not received the attention it deserves. Bush said, if the Palestinians establish
themselves as interlocutors who operate without corruption and terrorism, then the United States will support the
creation of a Palestinian state. Yet the Europeans are supporting Arafat and sending checks from Brussels. We have
reached a dead end. The checks are standing in the way of the kind of democratic reform needed in the Palestinian
National Authority that can open the door for peace.

Cohn-Bendit: This difference of opinion is not limited to Arafat. America has to learn that, after a war with Iraq, the
trans-Atlantic relationship will change. Hitherto, it has been like a traditional male-female relationship: Man calls, woman
follows. Then, there was emancipation. I do want something new in Europe, and not the French way—anti-Americanism
no matter what. Europe can take on responsibilities, and I dream that it will be able to handle alone something like Bosnia
in the future. This new relationship is not against America, but it is not for America either. It is for Europe. European
interests are not equal to American interests. You Americans did not believe in Europe before, with the euro. You
laughed at us. We did it, and it is not so bad. And you will see, we will do much more. We have differing views on the
Kyoto Protocol, and on the International Criminal Court. I understand the American position, because the two continents
have completely different understandings of sovereignty.

Perle: If my prediction—that everything will go well with Iraq—becomes reality, then the damage recently done to
trans-Atlantic relations will rapidly be repaired. We will still have the problem of French ambitions to build a Europe in
opposition to the United States. And if the French are indeed creating a counterweight, do not call their relationship with
the United States an alliance anymore. In that case we, as Americans, will have to consider how we deal with this
European departure from the trans-Atlantic axis.