Re: French Join In on Anti-France Bandwagon

RICHARD PERLE ????.........going, going, gone!!!

The gathering storm around Richard Perle

D.C.'s "Prince of Darkness" has prospered in the shadows between the 
Beltway and big business -- but the latest scandal threatens to bring 
him down.

By Eric Boehlert
Salon.com, Nov. 26, 2003
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/26/perle/print.html


Storm clouds are gathering around Washington's "Prince of Darkness," 
Richard Perle.

An influential über-hawk who enjoys close ties to the top of the 
Pentagon's civilian leadership, Perle got his wish earlier this year 
when the United States launched the preemptive war against Saddam 
Hussein that he'd spent a decade lobbying for. (The "Prince of
Darkness"
nickname stems from Perle's apparent dislike of nuclear arms treaties 
and Middle East peace accords.) A private businessman who once worked 
for an Israeli arms manufacturer, Perle maintains a public platform 
through the Defense Policy Board, a civilian advisory group stacked
with
hawks -- including James Woolsey, Newt Gingrich and Henry Kissinger --
who supported a war with Iraq.

Though he was forced to give up the board's chairmanship when some of 
his private defense-contracting clients were revealed, Perle maintains
a
unique position as a shadowy Beltway operator who blurs the line
between
private business and foreign policy. He's been making lots of noise --
and news -- lately, and his critics are asking questions about his 
intentions.

It's too early to tell how the accumulating controversies will affect 
Perle's role as a pro-war spokesman. In the past though, despite a 
history of missteps, Perle has managed to prosper. Or more important,
to
maintain the loyalty of senior administration officials ("the string
of
Perles"), many of whom he's cultivated for years and who find his 
pro-war bravado helpful.

Still, virtually none of Perle's predictions about the surprisingly 
messy war with Iraq have proven true. ("Support for Saddam, including 
within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of 
gunpowder," he told PBS in 2002.) Moreover, Perle recently found
himself
involved in a controversial story about how, on the eve of war, the
Bush
administration rebuffed a last-minute back-channel offer from Saddam 
Hussein that could have averted an invasion. And last week he raised 
hackles when he ventured away from the White House talking points and 
conceded that the war itself, however justified, was illegal under 
international law.

"That's a startling admission for him," says Vince Cannistraro, former
CIA counter-terrorism chief.

But more ominous for Perle than questions about his foreign policy 
meddling are those regarding his business dealings, as he suddenly
finds
himself at the center of a boardroom scandal that's likely to claim
Lord
Conrad Black's $1 billion media empire. Up until last week, Black
served
as CEO of Hollinger International, whose key assets include the
Chicago
Sun-Times, the London Daily Telegraph and the Jerusalem Post.

The company's implosion was sparked when an audit by outsiders, lead
by
former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Richard Breeden, 
discovered $32 million in questionable payments to key company 
executives, including $7.2 million directly to Black and $16.55
million
to Hollinger's Canadian parent company. The generous payments were
made
while Hollinger's handpicked board of directors apparently looked the 
other way as the CEO allegedly used the public company as his private 
piggy bank.

Perle serves on Hollinger's board with Henry Kissinger and Black's
wife,
conservative columnist Barbara Amiel, among others.

Drawing shareholder scrutiny, as well, are investments Hollinger made
in
companies run by its board members. Hollinger Digital, headed by
Perle,
invested $2.5 million in Trireme Partners, the venture capital firm
that
invests in technology, goods and services related to homeland security
and defense. Trireme Partners is co-managed by Perle.

According to the Financial Times: "Also under review is a $14 million 
investment the company made under Mr. Perle's direction through
Hillman
Capital, a venture capital group controlled by Gerald Hillman -- who
has
since become a partner at Trireme and, like Mr. Perle, is a member of 
the U.S. Defense Policy Board."

"It's typical of the problems many boards of directors face, but this 
seemed to be a case of board problems on steroids," says Nell Minow, 
editor of Capitol Library, which covers corporate governance. "The CEO
had voting control, so there was not even pretense that shareholders
had
a role. He gets access to capital you only get through going public,
yet
he gets to control it as if it were a private company. For investors, 
it's the worst of both worlds."

Last Monday, Black, a member of Britain's House of Lords, resigned as 
CEO from Hollinger. By week's end the Security and Exchange Commission
began issuing subpoenas for its investigation into Hollinger's board.
It
appears Black's company, which he built over 33 years, will now be
sold
off, piece by piece; the investment bank Lazard has been hired to
search
for interested buyers.

The usually ubiquitous Perle, who has been a pro-war staple on TV talk
shows and Op-Ed pages this year, has been uncharacteristically quiet 
since the Hollinger story broke. He was traveling out of the country
and
could not be reached for comment.

"The situation for the [Hollinger] directors involved is quite
serious,"
warns Herbert Denton, a shareholder advocate who has represented other
investors in Hollinger. "I am certain additional legal action will be 
taken. And the focus will be the board of directors. It's got to go
there."

That means Perle and others will soon be facing some "ugly depositions
and headaches," says Minow. "The directors should start putting their 
assets in their wife's name," she quips.

The idea that as a board member Perle could face punitive damages for 
allegedly not fulfilling his duty to shareholders is not entirely out
of
the question. This May, a Delaware judge stunned the corporate world 
when he ruled that the Disney board members who OK'd an extravagant
$140
million severance package for exiting executive Michael Ovitz (who 
worked at Disney for 15 months), might be forced to pay the money back
themselves since they so dramatically failed in their duties.

Judge William Chandler wrote that the plaintiff's complaint "suggests 
that the Disney directors failed to exercise any business judgment and
failed to make any good-faith attempt to fulfill their fiduciary
duties
to Disney and its stockholders."

The ruling breaks with decades of corporate-friendly Delaware
decisions,
which maintained a hands-off approach toward board members, absent any
criminal activity. The Disney shareholder trial is scheduled for early
2004.

The Hollinger revelations follow the accusations of last spring that 
Perle was representing companies that had business pending before the 
Department of Defense, while at the same time he was advising the DOD
in
a semi-official capacity. In March, Perle was forced to give up his 
unpaid position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board after 
conflict-of-interest allegations were made in the press, most notably 
the New Yorker and the New York Times. (At Defense Secretary Donald 
Rumsfeld's request, Perle remained on the board itself, but not as 
chairman.)

This month the Department of Defense's inspector general pronounced 
Perle innocent of any ethics violations, although the ruling was based
mostly on a technicality. The inquiry determined that through his role
with the Defense Policy Board, Perle works for the Pentagon only eight
days a year, so he is therefore not subject to its stringent 
conflict-of-interest regulations.

But neither Perle, nor the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, which
called for apologies from reporters who publicly questioned Perle's 
integrity, had much time to savor the vindication; soon the Hollinger 
scandal became Page One news on two continents.

Beyond the damage the scandal may cause to Perle, the pending collapse
of Hollinger carries with it additional political ramifications.
Because
while Black's media empire has been shrinking in recent years -- in
2000
he unloaded most of his Canadian newspapers for $1.8 billion -- it has
remained a consistent outlet for conservative voices.

It's too early to say who might buy up Hollinger's highest-profile 
properties, but it's questionable whether the new owners would
maintain
the dailies' conservative slant. Of particular interest to hard-liners
is Hollinger's Jerusalem Post. As the Jewish Forward newspaper in New 
York City noted last week, "The Post was historically known as a 
left-wing newspaper, until its acquisition by Hollinger in 1989. Since
then it has become a leading conservative outlet for opponents of the 
peace process throughout the world."

The sale of the Jerusalem Post would also rob Perle of one of his most
reliable media outlets, where -- being tossed softball questions --
he's
often interviewed at length about current events. ("How does Bush 
compare with your idol Ronald Reagan in defending the free world?")
The
paper though, rarely informs readers that Perle sits on the board of 
directors of the company that publishes the Post. In fact, just last 
week, the Post conducted a lengthy sit-down with Perle, but failed to 
ask him about the key role he may have played in the burgeoning 
Hollinger scandal. In fact, the issue was never addressed.

Perle's Hollinger woes come on the heels of other public missteps. For
instance, last summer he embarrassed the Pentagon when he invited 
Laurent Murawiec, a former follower of political extremist Lyndon 
LaRouche, to brief the Defense Policy Board about Saudi Arabia. The 
emphasis of Murawiec's presentation was that Saudi Arabia should be 
counted among "our enemies," and that, if necessary, the United States
should threaten Islam's two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, located 
inside Saudi Arabia. Following press inquiries, Perle claimed
ignorance,
insisting he didn't know what Murawiec was going to say.

Earlier this year when the New Yorker's Sy Hersh detailed Perle's 
possible conflicts of interest, Perle went on CNN and labeled the 
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist a "terrorist" and threatened to sue 
for libel. (Perle has yet to take any legal action.)

This summer the Nation magazine reported Perle often charged foreign
TV
news organizations up to $900 for on-camera interviews with him.

On Nov. 6, the New York Times reported Perle had met for two hours at
a
London hotel with a mysterious Lebanese businessman who, allegedly on 
behalf of the Baathist regime, was offering to hold monitored
elections
and allow U.S. troops to search for WMDs, in exchange for leaving
Saddam
in power. In the end, the offer was essentially dismissed by the CIA
and
the Pentagon. Perle told the Guardian newspaper that he had been told
by
the CIA not to pursue the contacts.

Cannistraro, who also received back-channel feelers from Iraqis on the
eve of war, which he relayed to the State Department, says Perle was 
"disingenuous" about the meetings, since administration hawks, their 
minds set on war, were not eager to consider last-minute peace 
initiatives. "He didn't do it with an open heart," says Cannistraro.

Most recently, while Bush was visiting Britain last week, Perle
conceded
to a London lecture crowd that the war with Iraq, based on
international
law, was likely illegal. "I think in this case international law stood
in the way of doing the right thing," he said.

Just prior to the war, British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith gave 
prime minister Tony Blair crucial political cover when he ruled the
war,
even without a second United Nations resolution authorizing the use of
force, would be legal.

"It's hard to figure out what [Perle] was trying to do as a tactical 
matter," says Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University and
a
columnist for FindLaw.com. He notes Perle's argument would have made 
more sense if caches of weapons of mass destruction had been seized in
Iraq. "That way, he could say, 'Technically the war was illegal but 
aren't you glad we did it?'" But without the WMDs, the argument falls
flat.

Now, instead of worrying about missing WMDs, Perle has to contend with
angry Hollinger shareholders, at a time when the courts and the SEC
are
taking a new hard-line approach with boards accused of negligence.
Says
Minow: "This is just a plain case of fingers getting caught in the 
cookie jar."




"CB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Wednesday, November 26, 2003
> By Greg Palkot
> 
> PARIS  - France's opposition to military action in Iraq sparked a backlash
> around the globe, but criticism of the country is now coming from an
> unlikely source - the French themselves.
> 
> In the last few months, there have been a slew of books published in the
> country slamming French policy with titles that translate to: "The Arrogant
> French," "The French in Disarray," and "France in Free-Fall."
> 
> "France has a great obstructive power, destructive power and this is very
> dangerous for France itself," said Andre Glucksmann, author of "West Versus
> West."
> 
> Readers are snapping up books that question whether or not the policies of
> French president Jacques Chirac (search) are hurting their homeland.
> 
> "A great many French officials hoped that we would fail in Iraq," said
> Richard Perle (search), former chairman of the Defense Policy Board
> (search).
> 
> "With the help from the United Nations and the European Union, Chirac wants
> to revive France's glory days, an effort that some wonder if he's
> overreaching."
> 
> France's policies on war aren't the country's only controversial decisions
> these days. Protests by workers are frequent and a worrying wave of
> anti-Semitism is spreading.
> 
> "There are a number of challenges," said Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, author of "An
> Alliance at Risk: The United States and Europe Since September 11." "The
> question is whether the government is going to wake up to those challenges."