On The Subject of Sy Hersh and "Word Terrorism"

While surfing "hersh" returns, I found this fantastic exchange between Wolf Blitzer, Richard Perle, and former congressman Tom Andrews:

ANDREWS: For example, Wolf, you know, if they have some weapons of mass destruction that they're not willing to destroy, we take them out on a surgical strike. But that's different than invading and occupying for five to 10 years an Arab country...

BLITZER: All right.

ANDREWS: ... in one of the most volatile...

PERLE: Forgive me.

ANDREWS: ... regions of the world.

PERLE: Forgive me. No one is talking about occupying Iraq for five to 10 years. Let's be a little more careful about the statements you make.

ANDREWS: The State Department...

PERLE: I'm sorry.

ANDREWS: The State Department official said two weeks ago that it could be five years.

PERLE: I'm sorry. There is no U.S. plan for anything like that...

------------------------------------------------------------------


BLITZER: All right. Tom, hold on a minute. You know, we are basically all out of time for this segment. But before you go, Richard, I want to give you a chance to respond.

There's an article in the New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh that's just coming out today in which he makes a serious accusation against you that you have a conflict of interest in this because you're involved in some business that deals with homeland security, you potentially could make some money if, in fact, there is this kind of climate that he accuses you of proposing.

Let me read a quote from the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just out now. "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."

PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've said this over and over again, will diminish the threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about is investments in homeland defense, which I think are vital and are necessary.

Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.

BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say that? A terrorist?

PERLE: Because he's widely irresponsible. If you read the article, it's first of all, impossible to find any consistent theme in it. But the suggestion that my views are somehow related for the potential for investments in homeland defense is complete nonsense.

BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you accuse him of being a terrorist?

PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a serious piece since Maylie (ph).

"I was initially hurt by his words" --- Saul Rosenburg (Hurt at Work, 1993)