The New York Times article says
``federal ethics rules prohibit using public office for private
gain.... Mr. Perle will have to choose between the gain [his
$725,000 payment from telecommunications giant Global Crossing,]
and the office [Defense Policy Board].''

In case you missed it, the Times repeats, ``This is conflict
pure and simple, and Mr. Perle should immediately drop one of his two roles.''

The Times asserts, ``Global Crossing's fee is
clearly payment, at least in part for the influence Mr. Perle
exerts.'' Influence peddling? Conflict of Interest? It goes on.

This is the third major scandal currently against Perle:

First, there was the March 17 New Yorker magazine where
Seymour Hersh exposed Perle's $100 million attempted
``sheikhdown'' of the Saudi princes through his Trireme company,
which is getting contracts from the U.S. government.

Second, there is the March 19 investment conference call for
Goldman Sachs that Perle ran under the title of ``Implications of
an Imminent War ... North Korea Next?'' This was exposed by
columnist Maureen Dowd as ``Perle's Plunder Blunder.''

Stay tuned.