Real History, Israel, dual loyalties, and war: "Whose War? A neo-conservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in Americas interest. by Patrick J. Buchanan | The American Conservative New York, March 24, 2003
The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged.
IN a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: Can you assure American viewers ... that were in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?
Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neo-conservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group."
Sunday, March 23, 2003
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
What happened to Richard Perle's big, bad, libel stick?
Richard Perle Libel Watch, Week 9 - What happened to Richard Perle's big, bad, libel stick? By Jack�Shafer: By Jack Shafer | Posted Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 3:26 PM PT
Where, oh, where has Richard Perle put his big, bad, libel stick? In the middle of March, Perle informed the New York Sun of his intention to sue Seymour Hersh for libel over Hersh's March 17 New Yorker feature, which explored the conflicts of interest posed by Perle's business dealings and his chairmanship of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board.
[The latest individual to cross Khashoggi's [Saudi arms dealer] path is America's leading Iraq hawk, Richard Perle. In the March 17 issue of The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh suggests that Perle is cashing in on his position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential group of nongovernment advisers to the Pentagon. Slate March 12, 2003]
Now, as we reach Week 9 of the Richard Perle Libel Watch, it's more evident than ever that Perle was just trash-talking. To begin with, the Hersh piece contained no libel. Yes, the scrutiny may have bruised Perle's ego. But hurting somebody's feelings isn't against the law, even in Britain, where Perle said he would file his suit, on account of its liberal libel laws. Why did Perle lodge the threat in the first place? Perhaps he surmised that by intimidating Hersh he could impede the rest of the journalist pack from inspecting his oscillations from business to government to business again.
If so, Perle was wrong. Crazy wrong. Call it a coincidence, but after he issued his libel threat the press mobbed him. The New York Times came first with a similar conflict-of-interest investigation, asking Nosy Parker questions about Perle's advisory work for the bankrupt telecom company Global Crossing...
...
He has no case. He can't take the heat. It's time for him to get out of the DPB kitchen.
[Perle was subsequently forced to resign. ed]
Where, oh, where has Richard Perle put his big, bad, libel stick? In the middle of March, Perle informed the New York Sun of his intention to sue Seymour Hersh for libel over Hersh's March 17 New Yorker feature, which explored the conflicts of interest posed by Perle's business dealings and his chairmanship of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board.
[The latest individual to cross Khashoggi's [Saudi arms dealer] path is America's leading Iraq hawk, Richard Perle. In the March 17 issue of The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh suggests that Perle is cashing in on his position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential group of nongovernment advisers to the Pentagon. Slate March 12, 2003]
Now, as we reach Week 9 of the Richard Perle Libel Watch, it's more evident than ever that Perle was just trash-talking. To begin with, the Hersh piece contained no libel. Yes, the scrutiny may have bruised Perle's ego. But hurting somebody's feelings isn't against the law, even in Britain, where Perle said he would file his suit, on account of its liberal libel laws. Why did Perle lodge the threat in the first place? Perhaps he surmised that by intimidating Hersh he could impede the rest of the journalist pack from inspecting his oscillations from business to government to business again.
If so, Perle was wrong. Crazy wrong. Call it a coincidence, but after he issued his libel threat the press mobbed him. The New York Times came first with a similar conflict-of-interest investigation, asking Nosy Parker questions about Perle's advisory work for the bankrupt telecom company Global Crossing...
...
He has no case. He can't take the heat. It's time for him to get out of the DPB kitchen.
[Perle was subsequently forced to resign. ed]