In the American Journal of Public Health, "The impact of the economic crisis and the US embargo on health in Cuba," R Garfield and S Santana, Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, NY 10032, USA:
OBJECTIVES: This paper examines the combined effects of a severe economic decline since 1989 and a tightening of the US embargo in 1992 on health and health care in Cuba.
METHODS: Data from surveillance systems for nutrition, reportable diseases, and hospital diagnoses were reviewed. These sources were supplemented with utilization data from the national health system and interviews with health leaders.
RESULTS: Changes in Cuba include declining nutritional levels, rising rates of infectious diseases and violent death, and a deteriorating public health infrastructure. But despite these threats, mortality levels for children and women remain low. Instead, much of the health impact of the economic decline of Cuba has fallen on adult men and the elderly.
CONCLUSIONS: To be consistent with international humanitarian law, embargoes must not impede access to essential humanitarian goods. Yet this embargo has raised the cost of medical supplies and food rationing, universal access to primary health services, a highly educated population, and preferential access to scarce goods for women and children help protect most Cubans from what otherwise might have been a health disaster.
Sunday, December 31, 2000
In the American Journal of Public Health, "The impact of the economic crisis and the US embargo on health in Cuba," R Garfield and S Santana, Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, NY 10032, USA:
Tuesday, October 3, 2000
Excerpt from the book by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose:
Young political reporters are always told there are three ways to judge a politician. The first is to look at the record. The second is to look at the record. And third, look at the record.
The method is tried, true, time-tested, and pretty much infallible. In politics, the past is prologue. If a politician is left, right, weak, strong, given to the waffle or the flip-flop, or, as sometimes happens, an able soul who performs well under pressure, all that will be in the record.
So here we are, with a record about property-tax abatement and tort reform, and if that's not a by-God recipe for bestsellerdom, you can cut off our legs and call us Shorty. Can't you see it now, poor ol' Random House touting this book: "Read all about George W Bush's thrilling adventures with the school-equalization formula, his amazing reversals on the sales tax, and most exciting of all, his tragic failure to take a stand on the matter of 150 versus 200 percent for the CHIP program."
The political career of W Bush is a fairly funny yarn, on account of being the son of a former president is not ... how to put this ... not actually sufficient job training for the governance of a large state. Fortunately, in Texas, this makes no difference.
Unqualified to govern Texas? No problem! The single most common misconception about George W is that he has been running a large state for the past six years. Texas has what is known in political science circles as "the weak-governor system." You may think this is just a Texas brag, but our weak-governor system is a lot weaker than anybody else's.* Although the governor does have the power to call out the militia in case of an Indian uprising, by constitutional arrangement, the governor of Texas is actually the fifth most powerful statewide office: behind lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller, and land commissioner but ahead of agriculture commissioner and railroad commissioner. Which is not to say it's a piddly office. For one thing, it's a bully pulpit. Although truly effective governors are rare in Texas history, a few have made deep impressions and major changes. Besides, people think you're important if you're the governor, and in politics, perception rules. Of course Texans still think their attorney general, the state's civil lawyer, has something to do with law enforcement too.
During Bush's first term, the lieutenant governor was a wily old trout named Bob Bullock. By virtue of the constitution and the Senate rules, plus knowing where all the bodies were buried and outworking everyone else, Bullock was the major player in state government. Dubya got along just fine by doing pretty much what Bullock told him to; Bullock became Dubya's mentor, almost a father-son deal. The day Bullock announced his retirement, Bush stood in the back of the room with tears running down his face. Bullock, after a lifetime in the Democratic Party, endorsed Bush for reelection in 1998. Bullock died in June 1999, to mixed emotions from many. At his funeral, one fatuous commentator said of the rainy weather, "The skies of Texas are weeping because we bury Bob Bullock today." This caused a state senator to inquire sotto voce, "So what did Bullock have on the weather god?"
A political record is a flexible creature, and by custom the pol is permitted to burnish his own and to denigrate his opponent's. The record is often used to fool voters. You say your man was for a certain bill, but was he for it before the amendments or after the amendments? Did the amendments gut the bill or strengthen it? In the case of an executive, you can say your man favors such-and-such a measure, but if he does nothing to help it pass-no phone calls, no face-to-face, no threats, no promises, no pleading about how we really, really need to win this one for the Gipper or the greater good; indeed, if the pol quietly lets it be known that no mourning will ensue in his office should the thing die a premature death-then of what merit is his public statement of support?
It's not easy to find the point at which the acceptable stretcher becomes a flat-out whopper, or when emphasizing the positive goes so far it becomes a hopeless distortion of reality. In Bush's case, largely because of the weakness of his office, the hardest task is to find any footprints at all. He has walked most lightly on the political life of the state. And where one can find his mark on a bill or a policy, it often turns out to have been more strongly shaped by others.
What does emerge from Bush's record is that he has real political skills, and those are not to be despised. Politicians rank so low in the public esteem these days, practically the easiest way to get elected is by claiming you are not a politician. "I'm an undertaker! I know dog about politics! Vote for me! " Bush's resume in office may be slim, but he has worked in and around campaigns for years, knows a lot about the political side of politics, and is good at it. The extent to which credit for his performance should actually go to Karl Rove, the political consultant known as "Bush's brain," is simply unknowable.
Bush's shrewdest political stroke has been a careful wooing of the Hispanic vote. Texas becomes majority minority (now, there's a phrase) in 2008, meaning that blacks and Chicanos combined will outnumber Anglos, according to the demographers at Texas A&M. So wooing the Hispanic vote may seem like a no-brainer, but as you know, Republicans have not, traditionally, bothered much with people of hue. And as that doofus Pete Wilson proved in California, not all Republican governors are bright enough to see the opportunity there.
Bush's second masterstroke has been to straddle the divide between the Christian right and the economic conservatives in the Republican Party, and that is a doozy of a split. In Texas, the Republican Party is owned by the Christian right: the party chair, the vice chairs, and everybody on down. When they won in 1994 they kicked out all the old-guard Texas Republicans, those in the school of George Bush the Elder-somewhat patrician, WASP, faintly elitist or Eastern. On the Christian right, such folks are known sneeringly as "country club Republicans." Republicans don't like to talk about class, but there's clearly a class subtext to their internal fights.
W. Bush is himself a born-again Christian who wants a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, although he seldom mentions that in front of a general audience. During his father's presidential campaigns, W. Bush was detailed to handle the Christian right, so he has years of experience in working with them. In addition, Rove has positioned him carefully toward the Christian right on a series of nasty but largely symbolic issues in the Texas Legislature.
On the other hand, if Bush were perceived as being a creature of the Christian right, he'd have a hard time in a general election, so the masterful straddle has been keeping a moderate face on the Texas Republican Party while keeping the Christian right happy. Bush's record is actually more to the right on social issues than his image suggests, and that includes some of his more eye-popping appointees to what would be a cabinet if we had a cabinet form of government in Texas, which we don't.
Of Bush's credentials as an economic conservative, there is no question at all-he owes his political life to big corporate money; he's a CEO's wet dream. He carries their water, he's stumpbroke-however you put it, George W. Bush is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. We don't think this is a consequence of political calculation; it is more a consequence of his life experience, political thinking, and party affiliation. We can find no evidence that it has ever do what occurred to him to question whether it wise to big business wants. He is perfectly comfortable, perfectly at home, doing the bidding of big bidness. These are his friends, and he takes care of his friends-sign of a smart politician. That this matches up nicely with his major campaign contributions is a happy synergy for Governor Bush.
Where Bush is weak is on the governance side of politics. From the record, it appears that he doesn't know much, doesn't do much, and doesn't care much about governing. The exception is a sustained effort on education, with only mixed results. In fact, given his record, it's kind of hard to figure out why he wants a job where he's expected to govern. It's not just that he has no ideas about what to do with government-if you think his daddy had trouble with "the vision thing," wait till you meet this one. For a Republican, not wanting to do much with government is practically a vision in itself. Trouble is, when you aren't particularly interested in the nuts and bolts of governing, you end up with staff-driven policy. When someone comes in to see you about the gory details of home health-care payments or jobtraining outreach, it's all very well to give a disarming gesture of "I give up," as Bush is wont to do, and announce, "I don't know a thing about it; you'll have to talk to So-and-So on my staff." Delegation is a many-splendored thing for any executive, but it only works if old So-and-So understands the problem himself and has any idea what you expect him to do about it.
To this end, it is helpful if you, the chief executive officer of the political entity, do not, as a regular thing, take a couple of hours off in the middle of the day to work out and play video games.
Wednesday, August 23, 2000
The Clinton administration official who oversees the troubled White House e-mail system testified Wednesday he never told President Clinton about the computer problem that prevented thousands of White House e-mails from being properly stored and archived.
Mark Lindsay, the assistant to the president for Management and Administration, also told a court he did not threaten White House workers with jail if they went public with the problem that arose at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Lindsay's comments came in testimony before U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who is holding hearings into allegations of obstruction of justice by White House officials concerning the computer problem and the delayed reconstruction of the missing e-mails.
The e-mails, many of which were captured on back-up tapes, might be covered by subpoenas issued by the Office of the Independent Counsel, congressional committees and Judge Lamberth. Thousands of other messages, including those from the office of Vice President Al Gore, were not captured on tape and are irretrievable.
Lamberth is hearing a case brought by the conservative legal group Judicial Watch. The group is suing the White House in a related matter concerning a batch of errant FBI files found inside the Clinton White House.
Lindsay -- who invoked executive privilege Tuesday when asked if he discussed the problem with President Clinton -- said Wednesday he had discussed the problem as high as then-Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta and White House Counsel Charles Ruff, but never brought it directly to the attention of the president.
Lindsay also said he did not tell Hillary Rodham Clinton about the computer failure.
Lindsay described the White House computer system as "antiquated" and "unstable." He said his job required him to lurch from one computer crisis to the next while using the time in between to beg for more money from Congress to upgrade the system.
Lindsay said he did not understand the magnitude of the e-mail problem when he first learned of it, and his mischaracterization of the problem may have led others to inaccurately portray the situation to investigators.
But, as he did when he testified before Congress earlier this summer, Lindsay maintained that he had "absolutely not" threatened contracted White House computer technician Betty Lambuth when the problem surfaced in June 1998. He said he only spoke to Lambuth for a few seconds and never told her to keep the issue to herself.
Lambuth testified before Congress earlier this year that she and other Northrop Grumman technicians feared for their jobs because of the problem and held secret meetings in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House to discuss their situation.
Lindsay did testify that he wanted the extent of the problem limited to those working to fix it but he said that group could have included "5, 50, or 5,000" people so long as the problem was fixed.
Thursday, April 27, 2000
The BBC reports:
Ever since his arrival in the US, Elian Gonzalez - the six-year old Cuban boy at the centre of an international custody battle - has been stuck in a war of words over whether it is better to live in Florida or Cuba.
So what does await him on the island?
In Cuba, the island's defenders say, Elian will have free education and healthcare.
Now 73, Fidel Castro may not be in charge when Elian grows up
He is highly unlikely to get attacked, abducted or shot on his way home from school, although rising crime rates mean that it is now quite likely that his house would get burgled or his bicycle would get stolen.
Almost all Cuban teenagers go to boarding schools in the countryside where they have to do some farm work.
The education system does not encourage free thought outside the framework of Cuba's Communist system.
However, in practice the influence of the latest US fashions from peers is as strong as revolutionary politics.
Nike trainers and the Back Street Boys dominate many teenagers' tastes.
Boarding school can only be avoided by getting into a local arts school.
Many parents push their children to learn music so they will not have to go away.
The difficulties start when it comes to earning a living.
Elian's father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, works in Cuba's lucrative tourism industry
Since circulation of the dollar was legalised in 1994, Cuba has had two economies.
A minimum food ration, gas, electricity, water and housing are massively subsidised in Cuban pesos.
However, many other basic products like cooking oil and soap are offered at US prices and charged in dollars.
The average Cuban peso salary converts to less than $10 a month, which buys very little.
So Cubans spend a great deal of their time trying to "resolve" their shortages.
Many Cubans get dollars sent by family abroad, usually Florida. The division in Elian's family is the exception, not the rule.
Careers in tourism
The state is finding it harder to attract Cuban students to become doctors, teachers or other professionals with peso salaries.
Instead many want to work in jobs with access to dollars - especially tourism. Elian's father worked in a tourist resort.
A day's tips for a waiter can be many times a doctor's monthly salary.
Only a limited number of self-employed trades are allowed.
No private businesses are permitted where one Cuban employs another.
There are strict controls against Cubans moving from one province to another.
Many looking for work in tourist areas marry a local for convenience, to get around the rules.
If Elian were to decide one day that he wants to change Cuba's politics, his options are limited.
Opposition parties are banned and organising public protest is illegal.
Fidel Castro is, of course, now 73-years-old. His opponents hope that by the time Elian grows up, there will be a new, more open, leadership.
Saturday, January 1, 2000
Richard Perle is widely considered a core representative of the neoconservative political faction; he played a central role in championing the war in Iraq and an aggressive war on terror centered on the Middle East in the wake of 9/11. Once dubbed the “Prince of Darkness” because of his advocacy of extremely hawkish anti-Soviet policies while in Ronald Reagan's Department of Defense, Perle's former post as chairman of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld' s Defense Policy Board (DPB) in the years leading up to the Iraq War gave him a privileged perch from which he helped shape Bush administration foreign policies.
Echoing the efforts of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a leading neoconservative advocacy group with which Perle was closely associated, and former Pentagon number two Paul Wolfowitz, who was the most vocal administration proponent for attacking Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Perle convened a meeting of the DPB shortly after the attacks to produce policy alternatives for the administration. Perle invited as a guest to the classified meeting Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who was a longtime confidant of Perle's and served as the head of the Iraqi National Congress, which had for years been pushing for regime change in Iraq. Commenting on this apparent coordination in and outside the administration, Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn wrote: “It appears that after 9/11, the network of hawks and neoconservatives that had coalesced around PNAC's founding agenda had mobilized in a highly coordinated way to fashion the administration's response to the terrorist attacks and rally the public behind their new agenda” (see “The Rise and Decline of the Neoconservatives,” Right Web Analysis, November 17, 2006).
In late 2006, however, Perle split with many of his neocon cohorts and began expressing a change of heart regarding the policies he had vociferously championed. In a widely noted interview with Vanity Fair in late 2006, Perle argued that the war in Iraq had turned out to be a mistake. He said: “I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' ... I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have.”
Responding to Perle's change of heart, Gary Schmitt, a founder of PNAC and a Perle colleague at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), told the BBC: “I do not agree with Richard Perle that we should never have gone in. I do argue that the execution should have been better. In fact, I argued in late 2003 that we needed more troops and a proper counterinsurgency policy” (BBC, December 21, 2006).
Also in seeming opposition to most neoconservatives, Perle gave an equivocal reaction to the controversial decision by President George W. Bush in early 2007 to “surge” the number of troops in Iraq. While most neoconservatives were supportive of the surge plan, though eager for a larger commitment than 20,000 additional troops, Perle expressed doubt that more troops was the answer. He told the New York Sun (January 11, 2007): “I don't think the additional troops are the key to the strategy [Bush] has announced, it is how effectively those troops are managed.” He added: “The big question in my mind is whether we can implement some practical and prudent measures. I don't know if we can. It will depend significantly on the command in the country.”
Perle's pessimism on Iraq stands in stark contrast to his trademark hard-nosed militarism, which has been a staple of his rhetoric for more than two decades. Reflecting core aspects of what many regard as the neoconservative worldview, Perle's discourse typically reflects a combination of warrior worship, existential conflict, and extreme moral righteousness. As the Australian journalist John Pilger reported shortly before the war in Iraq: “One of George W. Bush's 'thinkers' is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about 'total war,' I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's 'war on terror.' 'No stages,' he said. 'This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq ... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now'” (December 12, 2002).
Like many neoconservatives, Perle seems to have been particularly influenced by his views of the Holocaust, a theme that has repeatedly popped up in his rhetoric. Said Perle in a 2003 interview with BBC: “For those of us who are involved in foreign and defense policy today, my generation, the defining moment of our history was certainly the Holocaust. It was the destruction, the genocide of a whole people, and it was the failure to respond in a timely fashion to a threat that was clearly gathering. We don't want that to happen again; when we have the ability to stop totalitarian regimes we should do so, because when we fail to do so, the results are catastrophic” (Jim Lobe, “Moral Clarity of Moral Abdication?” TomPaine.com, May 11, 2005). Similarly, in his 2004 book An End to Evil , he and coauthor David Frum argued: “For us, terrorism remains the great evil of our time, and the war against this evil, our generation's great cause ... There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust” (Jim Lobe, “From Holocaust to Hyperpower,” Inter Press Service, January 26, 2005).
This radical outlook on foreign affairs deeply influenced both Perle's reaction to 9/11 and his initial response to the growing turmoil in the Middle East in the wake of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. For example, despite the growing violence in Iraq by late 2005, Perle remained committed to a larger “regime change” strategy for the Middle East that included both Syria and Iran. On Syria, Perle hosted meetings in late 2005 between Chalabi and Syrian exile Farid Ghadry, who was head of the Syrian Reform Party. Ghadry told the Wall Street Journal: “[Chalabi] paved the way in Iraq for what we want to do in Syria.” Said Perle: “There's no reason to think engagement with Syria will bring about any change,” adding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “has never been weaker, and we should take advantage of that” (cited in H.D.S. Greenway, “The Return of the Neocons,” Boston Globe, December 13, 2005).
On Iran, Perle lambasted the State Department and Condoleezza Rice for being weak on the “mullahs.” In a July 21, 2006 piece for AEI (a version of which appeared in the June 25, 2006 Washington Post) titled “Why Did Bush Blink on Iran? (Ask Condi),” Perle contended that the offer of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program amounted to “appeasement.” He wrote: “Proximity is critical in politics and policy. And the geography of this administration has changed. Condoleezza Rice has moved from the White House to Foggy Bottom, a mere mile or so away. What matters is not that she is further removed from the Oval Office; Rice's influence on the president is undiminished. It is, rather, that she is now in the midst of—and increasingly represents—a diplomatic establishment that is driven to accommodate its allies even when (or, it seems, especially when) such allies counsel the appeasement of our adversaries.”
During the summer 2006 conflict in Lebanon, Perle also remained on message, arguing that Israel was involved in an “existential struggle” with Hezbollah. In an op-ed for the New York Times, Perle wrote: “Israel must now deal a blow of such magnitude to those who would destroy it as to leave no doubt that its earlier policy of acquiescence is over. This means precise military action against Hezbollah and its infrastructure in Lebanon and Syria, for as long as it takes and without regard to mindless diplomatic blather about proportionality. For what appears to some to be a disproportionate response to small incursions and kidnappings is, in fact, an entirely appropriate response to the existential struggle in which Israel is now engaged” (New York Times, July 22, 2006).
Perle has for decades supported the work of a number of hardline think tanks and advocacy groups, including the Committee on the Present Danger, PNAC, AEI, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Hudson Institute, and the Center for Security Policy.
In 1996, Perle participated in a study group that produced a report for the incoming Likud-led government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel that urged the country to break off then-ongoing peace initiatives and suggested strategies for reshaping the Middle East. Among the group's arguments was the idea that “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq [was] an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.” The report—titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” and coauthored by Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser—also recommended working closely with “Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll back” regional threats and using “Israeli proxy forces” based in Lebanon for “striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon.” If that should “prove insufficient, [Israel should strike] at select targets in Syria proper.” Further, “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, even rolling back Syria.” This would create a “natural axis” between Israel, Jordan, a Hashemite Iraq, and Turkey that “would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula.” This “could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East, which could threaten Syria's territorial integrity.”
In 1998, Perle signed a PNAC letter to President Bill Clinton that argued, “Current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.” The threat from Iraq was characterized as being of such a magnitude that the “only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.” Other signatories included future Bush administration officials Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter Rodman, Robert Zoellick, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.
In 2001, Perle also signed the now notorious post-9/11 PNAC letter to President Bush arguing that “even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a 'safe zone' in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.”
Perle has been heavily criticized for his abrasive tone and sometimes questionable business interests, which have been the focus of several investigative reports by journalists. When the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh documented Perle's business dealings in the Middle East with the venture capital firm Trireme, Perle threatened to sue the journalist, saying that he was the “the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist” (Extra!, May/June 2003).
Hersh's article, “Lunch with the Chairman,” discussed possible conflicts of interest resulting from Perle's dual role as chairman of the Defense Policy Board and as a partner for Trireme, a company that invests in homeland security and defense-related industries. Hersh recounted how Perle met with Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi arms dealer, and another Saudi businessman in early 2003. Various people interviewed by Hersh, including Khashoggi, indicated that Perle and Trireme seemed to be sending the message that in return for Saudi investment backing, the “Chairman” would use his Pentagon connections to influence U.S. policy (New Yorker, November 4, 2003).
Soon after the Hersh piece was published, columnist Maureen Dowd and other journalists documented Perle's relationship to Global Crossings, a bankrupt communications giant and defense contractor that was seeking Pentagon permission to be sold to the Asian company Hutchinson Wampoa (the same Hutchinson Wampoa whose interests in Panama sparked an anguished round of right-wing hand-wringing about a Chinese attempt to take control of the Panama Canal). Although Perle denied any wrongdoing, he admitted through his attorney that he was hired by Global Crossings to consult with a reluctant Department of Defense about the deal (Newsmax.com, March 24, 2003).
In late March 2003, Perle announced that he was stepping down from his post as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, writing in his resignation letter to Rumsfeld: “I have seen controversies like this before and I know that this one will inevitably distract from the urgent challenge in which you are now engaged. I would not wish to cause even a moment's distraction from that challenge. As I cannot quickly or easily quell criticism of me based on errors of fact concerning my activities, the least I can do under these circumstances is to ask you to accept my resignation as chairman of the Defense Policy Board” (Newsmax.com, March 24, 2003).
American Enterprise Institute: Resident Fellow
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: Member, Board of Advisers
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: Member, Board of Advisers
Hudson Institute: Member, Board of Trustees
Center for Security Policy: Member, National Security Advisory Council
U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon: Golden Circle Supporter
Council on Foreign Relations: Chairman, Study Group on Nonlethal Options in Overseas Contingencies (report published in 1995)
Project for the New American Century: Letter Signatory
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: Member
Committee on the Present Danger: Member
Middle East Forum/U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon: Signed 2000 document sponsored by both groups calling on the United States to force Syria from Lebanon
American Committee for Peace in Chechnya: Member
Department of Defense: Former member, Defense Policy Board (Chairman until 2003); Assistant Secretary of Defense (1981-1987)
U.S. Senate: Staff (1969-1980); served on the staffs of Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, the Senate Committee on Government Operations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Arms Control Subcommittee
Hollinger International: Former Co-Chairman
Trireme Partners L.P.: Managing Partner
Global Crossings: Consultant
Morgan Crucible: Co-Chairman
Jerusalem Post: Former Co-Chairman
Princeton University: M.A., Political Science (1967)
University of Southern California: B.A., International Relations (1964)
London School of Economics: Honors Examinations (1962-1963)
American Enterprise Institute, Biography of Richard Perle, www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.49,filter./scholar.asp.
Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn, “The Rise and Decline of the Neoconservatives,” Right Web Analysis, November 17, 2006.
David Rose, “Neo Culpa,” Vanity Fair, November 3, 2006.
Paul Reynolds, “End of the Neocon Dream,” BBC, December 21, 2006.
Eli Lake, “Bush Warns Iranians,” New York Sun, January 11, 2007.
John Pilger, “Two Years Ago a Project Set up by the Men Who Now Surround George W. Bush Said What America Needed Was 'A New Pearl Harbor,'” December 12, 2002.
Jim Lobe, “Moral Clarity of Moral Abdication?” TomPaine.com, May 11, 2005.
Jim Lobe, “From Holocaust to Hyperpower,” Inter Press Service, January 26, 2005.
H.D.S. Greenway, “The Return of the Neocons,” Boston Globe, December 13, 2005.
Richard Perle, “Why Did Bush Blink on Iran? (Ask Condi),” American Enterprise Institute, July 21, 2006.
Richard Perle, “An Appropriate Response,” New York Times, July 22, 2006.
Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm.
Richard Ryan, “When Journalism Becomes 'Terrorism,'” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Extra!, May/June 2003.
Seymour Hersh, “Lunch with the Chairman,” New Yorker, November 4, 2003.
Charles R. Smith, “Perle Responds to Dowd and Other Critics,” Newsmax.com, March 24, 2003.