Holy crap, Perle resigns!!!!

This is huge. Perle is so deeply entrenched in Washington foreign policy circles (Defense Policy Board, Project for a New American Century) that this is tantamount to an assistant secretary of defense resigning.
I think we're going to be hearing the phrase "conflict of interest" as one reason for his resignation, especially since he is apparently linked to Global Crossing as well.
I wonder if the timing could also be related to the fact that the US is now struggling in an operation in Iraq that Perle not only backed but told Jamie Rubin on a PBS interview would be a relatively easy victory.

 

I'm thinking it's more the "conflict" issue, as this has been getting more and more press lately.

Anyway, good riddance. Just looking at Perle made me feel dirty.

 

He's still on the Board, just no longer chairman. It's only to avoid drawing unnecessary fire.

This is non-news ... unless it is the first step for Perle to join the Admin in an official capacity.

 

He's an anti-UN guy.

Is Bush thinking UN still useful?

 

Jeez. Good call. I missed that in skimming over the article first time. This seems like a cosmetic move to me. Hopefully, an investigation into his conflict of interest will still go forward.

 

His government "job" is purely cosmetic to begin with. Just something to toss on the resume.

 

In today's Guardian, they note that a report to be published today by the Center for Public Integrity,will detail that at least 10 out of 30 members of the Pentagon committee are executives or lobbyists with companies that have tens of billions of dollars' worth of contracts with the US defence department and other government agencies. Plus it also notes

So, it may really be the first blow in the fight re: control of post-war Iraq-and Perle does indeed have conflict of interest issues.

And to the first point, if Hersh and others are digging this stuff up with consquences, god bless them. At least it shows the press hasn't atrophied to the point of total flab.

 

Global Crossing is in line for huge contracts in Iraq. This is why Perle resigned. He'll still have as much influence as before. Read the New Yorker article on him from March 10 (?). The guy profits off of military action and is in between the sheets with the Saudis.

 

But Perle said Seymour Hersh -- the author of the New Yorker piece -- is a terrorist. I don't believe anything terrorists say.

 

Hersh has another terrorist screed in the New Yorker this week. Something about the British forging documents about Iraq and African uranium. And the US using them as proof that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.


Terrorist.

 

>>American moves to hand over the running of Iraq's largest port to a company which has a history of bad industrial relations and has faced accusations of union-busting.

The firm, Stevedoring Services of American, has been awarded a £3m contract to manage Umm Qasr by the Bush administration. <<

Technically correct, I suppose.

SSA did not want to pay ILWU wages ($80,000 a year, zero cost for health benefits to the employees, don't get me started on their pensions) to someone to make up Excel spreadsheets all day in an nice cozy office.

 

It's so much better when workers are paid the minimum it takes to keep them alive, while the owner of the company was born to wealth and has a family fortune of over $3 billion.

SSA is absolutely legendary for its union-busting, especially for setting up front companies to avoid dealing with unions.

 

SSA's nonunion workers here in Utah are paid more than minimum wage.

For the time being until they are laid off and their jobs are taken by ILWU members as part of the most recent labor agreement with the PMA.

While most people consider having to live in Utah to be a form of inhuman cruelty, I don't think that any federal labor code actually states that in writing.

Take it up with Elaine Chao.

 

I have mixed feelings about this guy. And in part I don't know a whole lot about him. A couple of things I have read and heard are this. He was never in favor of the US supporting Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. He was always critical of the Reagan/Bush administrations for their support of Iraq. I can at least say that he is consistent unlike many, i.e. Rumsfeld about the evil that is S.H. What really pissed me off about this guy is his belief, which he clearly outlined in a interview some 4-5 months ago, that toppling Hussein could easily be done with fewer then 100k troops. He was one of the main guys who was pushing this administration to go to war. He really thought we would just walk in there and the Iraqi people would fall over themselves trying to kiss our feet that we saved them from Hussein. Maybe they would be or they will at some point, but didn't he and the rest of the hawks in this administration understand that even if a decent percentage of them decided to fight it would complicate the whole war effort that much more. I believe the media is making it appear that we are struggling more then we really are. I think the military has accomplished a great deal in a short time, but I do feel that the administration didn't follow the doctrin of Overwhelming Force. They didn't plan for the worst and hope for the best. It's evident when they have to call up 130,000 additional troops. Troops that should already be in Iraq. We will win this war, but our boys and girls may suffer more then they would have had to because of the complete arrogance of men like Rumsfeld & Perle. I think even fair minded Republicans need to concede this point at least on the war plan. Again I'm not attacking the commitment to war, I'm stricktly talking about the plan of attack.

 

I say it's big not because of the consequences of this particular act, which as many have said is largely just for PR, but because of where it could lead. I've never even heard Perle's name mentioned on mainstream national news like NBC's nightly news until last time. And regardless of whether Perle or anyone else faces any serious repercussions, this story is now out there as part of the background of the war officially acknowledged by the mainstream press, which had said little or nothing about Perle's influence in Washington.
It's kind of a domino theory of sorts -- one shoe falls, then another, then another. Don't know how far it will go or if it will lead to anything, but now it's out there. Before this, people like Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. were only to a minority who follow the administration, foreign policy, think tanks, etc. closely.
And let's face it -- with the war not going largely as expected/planned (despite Gen. Myers spin to the contrary), there is more light being shined on this adminstration's war plans than ever before, which puts Perle and some other previously unhead of people more into the spotlight.

 

Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Richard Perle

http://foreignpolicy.com/issue_mayjune_2003/debate.html

Here's a debate/discussion between Perle and former student leader of the Paris '68 uprisings (and current leader of the European Green Party) Daniel Cohn-Bendit (aka, formerly, as Danny le Rouge, and now probably Danny le... vert?)

Pretty interesting.