The Wall Street Journal REVIEW & OUTLOOK Perle's Vindication November 17, 2003
One obligation of editors is to distinguish phony political scandal from the genuine article. On that standard, any number of writers and editors owe Richard Perle an apology. The noted defense intellectual voluntarily resigned in March as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee after his enemies pumped up a few anecdotes into allegations about "conflicts of interest." The Pentagon's Inspector General has been investigating those charges and last week issued a report absolving Mr. Perle of even the "appearance" of impropriety. The accusations, fanned by Michigan Democrat John Conyers, had received especially prominent coverage in the New Yorker magazine and the New York Times. They boiled down to the all-purpose Washington smear that Mr. Perle has exploited his position for personal financial gain. But Pentagon investigator Donald Horstman concluded in a letter to Mr. Perle that "all of your activities with respect to those private entities complied with statutory and regulatory standards." There were no "quid pro" offers or attempts to leverage his (unpaid) Pentagon access. In Washington, of course, people are often run out of office merely for the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. But Mr. Horstman says he also examined that "more elusive issue" and concluded that Mr. Perle's "activities did not create such an appearance" under the "perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts." Mr. Perle's accusers knew all the facts, so the only conclusion is that they are not "reasonable persons," which will not come as news to most of our readers. Mr. Conyers is now trying to compound his political felony by proposing to close what he claims is a "loophole" that requires someone to work more than 60 days a year before certain, more stringent Pentagon ethics rules apply. But this would essentially bar anyone with private expertise from advising Defense officials even in a voluntary, unpaid capacity. How this would enhance U.S. national security is not obvious. Then again, U.S. security was the last thing on the mind of Mr. Perle's critics.
