Drats! There I go again, giving Mr. Perle too much credit. In my last post I told you how Richard Perle is in another controversy after giving a speech at a fundraiser for an organization the United States government classes as a terrorist group.
But a reader just pointed out to me that I seem to have gotten one detail a bit off.
I said that Perle had told the Post that his speaking fee was going to the Red Cross, and that Perle was surprised when the Post reporter told him that the Red Cross had decided not to accept any monies from the event.
But that’s not quite what it says he said. The article quotes Perle telling the Post that “all of the proceeds [from the fundraiser] will go to the Red Cross.”
But he says nothing about his speaking fee going to the Red Cross.
In fact, the article doesn’t say explicitly that Perle even received a speaking fee, though it clearly implies that he did.
The article reports that “Perle declined to say how much he received.” Later, the article has Perle explaining that the speech was arranged by something called the Premiere Speakers Bureau. Now, speakers’ bureaus generally set up paid speeches. Not always, I suppose. But it’s a good indication. Also, if he did the speech gratis why would he decline to say how much he got? Why not say he did it gratis and avoid any question or controversy?
As I say, we don’t know, but the logic of the Post’s piece points strongly toward the conclusion that Perle was paid to give this speech at a fundraiser for a terrorist organization. And if he got one, there’s no indication he’s given that fee back or given it to some other charity.
Should an advisor to the Pentagon be pocketing a fee for helping to raise money for a terrorist organization?
- -Hiring More Journalists
- -Providing free memberships to those who cannot afford them
- -Supporting independent, non-corporate journalism