As Tim notes, Richard Perle is suing Sy Hersh for libel—in Great Britain. My favorite reaction to this comes from Joshua Micah Marshall: "As long as Perle is getting knocked around—unfairly, I think—for alleged dual loyalties, this doesn't exactly seem like a step in the right direction. Does it? I suppose it may be some sort of clever loyalty triangulation strategy, but still…"

NEXT: Perle Suing Hersh

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I love the line: “Most of the many hours he works each day are pro bono to help the administration with its policy on Iraq”. Well, that justifies it then.

    Prez: We need someone to help with our Iraq policy.

    Vice Prez: I know someone at one of my companies.

    Prez: Is he good?

    Vice Prez: He’s cheap.

    Prez: Good enough for government work!

    Prez & VP: (laugh together)

  2. The implication that Perle’s actions are justified because he’s working pro bono is akin to the arguments often used by the left to bolster folks like Nadar. I learned long ago that there are other motivating factors than money, and just because someone is working hard for a cause without pay doesn’t make that person’s cause right or his motivations noble.

  3. IMHO the fact that he’s not getting paid by the people he’s supposedly working for is suspicious. I mean, who is paying him, and for what?

  4. So let me get this straight: We don’t mind going to war without Great Britain, but we’d hate to have to file libel suits without ’em. Good thing no one’s put a cap on damages in the U.K.

  5. So what was that conservative jazz about tort reform?

  6. Could Hersh just threaten a UK countersuit, based on
    Perle calling him a terrorist?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.