[Source: WaPo, 3/28, by Walter Pincus and Christopher Lee]

PERLE'S TROUBLES NOT OVER. Rep. Conyers (D-Michigan), who
had requested the Defense Department's Inspector General to
investigate Perle's business dealings, called his resignation as
Chairman, "a small step in the right direction."

But he will press on with his request for the investigation.

"If he is continuing as a member of the board,
that continues to be a problem," said Conyers.

On Wednesday, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking
Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Commitee, wrote Rumsfeld
that Perle's business dealings create "the appearance that he is
using public office for private gain, and [undermine] public
confidence that important decisions of the department will be
made on the merits."

Levin called on Perle to resign from the board
"or make a commitment not to have any formal contact with
[defense] officials on behalf of a client." Levin declined to
comment on Perle's remaining on the board.

[Source: NYT, Mar 21, by Stephen Labaton, and EIR files]

PERLE'S CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ARE MANIFOLD -- from Trireme's
efforts to get $100 million from Saudi princes (described by one
Saudi prince as attempted blackmail, to neutralize the U.S.
government attacks on Saudi Arabia as a supporter of terrorism),
to the latest scandal involving the bankrupt Global Crossing,
which wants to be bought out by Hutchinson Whampoa.

Hutchinson Whampoa,
which is a Chinese-linked shipping container company,
that got the contract to administer the port at the Panama Canal,
was a big target of the neo-cons, and former Sen. Trent Lott,
during the Clinton Administration.

Recall the neo-con "red scare,"
that said that Chinese Communists had taken over the Panama Canal.

It appears the Perle's service to Global Crossing
would be to "call off the dogs" that would have to approve the
purchase by Hutchinson Whampoa.

That sale would have to be
approved by the CFIUS (Commission on Foreign Investment in the
US) of Cabinet level officials, including Perle's pet Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

Not only that, the NY Times' Stephen Labaton and others have
written that the opposition to the merger comes from the Defense
Department and the FBI.

That is, the $600,000 that Hutchison Whampoa was to pay Perle
only if their deal went through, was a pay-off to influence
the Donald Rumsfeld who has always listened so attentively to Perle's advice.

No wonder that the public attention has now forced Perle
to back out of this contract, just as he was forced to resign
his chairmanship of the DPB.

[Source: Wall St Journal, Thursday, 3/27, by Tom Hamburger and Dennis K. Berman]

MORE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST COME TO LIGHT AMONG DEFENSE
POLICY BOARD MEMBERS. A forthcoming report from the Center for
Public Integrity, points out that board member and former CIA
chief James Woolsey, is a senior executive at consultancy Booz
Allen Hamilton Inc., which received $688 million in Pentagon
contracts in 2002.

He is also one of three principals in a
venture-capital firm that has been soliciting investment in
homeland security-realted firms.

Another board member, retired Adm. David Jeremiah, sits on
boards of five corporations that received more than $10 billion
in Pentagon contracts in 2002. Retired Air Force Gen. Ronald
Fogleman sits on the boards of five defense firms that received
more than a billion dollars of defense contracts in 2002.

Bill Moyers is hosting a documentary about the Defense
Policy Board tonight on the PBS television network, featuring
Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity.
More will probably come out then.

[Source: Guardian, Mar.28,2003]

RUMSFELD BEING BLAMED FOR MISCALCULATION. The {Guardian} has
a feature, reporting on how Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"micromanaged" the Iraq war plans from his "lectern" and really
screwed up. They report that in the beginning of February, Gen.
Tommy Franks wanted permission to deploy the 1st Cavalry and the
1st Armored Divisions, but Rumsfeld refused to allow it because
he said it was not necessary. Now these divisions are being
ordered to deploy along with the 4th Infrantry Division that
began leaving Texas yesterday.

The {Guardian} writes that there is widespread belief that
the Bush Administration was overly optimistic and did not believe
that the Iraqis would put up a resistance. They quote retired
Col. Bob Killebrew saying, "It's always bad to build plans based
on the cooperation of the enemy."

It then quotes Anthony Cordesman saying,"I think one of the
problems here was that so many people in the administration had a
very strong political agenda which was inspired by the Iraqi
opposition, and by western mirror-imaging, assuming they want what we want."

The article says that Rumsfeld's orders only to deploy the
3rd Infantry Division, and two Marine divisions was a "political"
deployment and not militarily competent. It is now coming up
against reality with all the logistical and military problems
coming to the surface.

Killebrew is then quoted again, suggesting
the U.S. forces could experience a collapse of their supply lines.

"In military terminology, attackers reach their
culminating point when their supplies and enegy are depleted to
the point that they can no longer overcome the resistance. The
question now is when do General Franks' forces reach their
culminating point." The worst outcome, he argues, will be for the
troops in the field to "go on and on until they run out of steam
and then face defeat."