Gender Discount

Something we hear mentioned from time to time, but seems to be accepted... the gender pay gap in America. Since the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the disparity has been reduced by less than a penny a year, from 58 cents on the dollar, to 77 cents (for every dollar a man earns) today.


Women are the co-bread winner, or primary breadwinner in half of American homes... showing how many homes are affected by such a significant "discount" in pay. In a life time, a woman who graduates from college will earn $1.2 million less than her male counterparts. This isn't a trend for the United States, but one the world over. Earlier this year, the World Economic Forum released a new report (click here) showing that occupational gender equality is not a reality, and there is still a lot to do in the way of progress.



The report shows that a lot of women still struggle with moving out of entry and mid-level positions. Some say it deals with motherhood, and leaving the workforce, that it has nothing to do with sexism. But, in the case of female MBA's... from the moment they first enter the workforce, they're making $4600 less per year (click here) than their male counterparts.



It is said that the problem is... simply put... culture... culture... culture. The male dominated office culture, with its defined roles and views of each gender.

Just recently, there was a federal appeals court ruling that said a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart for pay inequality for women was allowed to go to trial (click here). So some people are fighting back. Perhaps lawsuits are the only way to force employers towards true economic equality. We'll see if this forces Wal-Mart's hand. We'll see if other companies are mindful of this, and try to curb disparities to avoid lawsuits and bad publicity themselves. We shall see

10 Major Reforms to American Healthcare

1. Your Kids are Covered

Starting this year, if you have an adult child who cannot get health insurance from his or her employer and is to some degree dependent on you financially, your child can stay on your insurance policy until he or she is 26 years old. Currently, many insurance companies do not allow adult children to remain on their parents' plan once they reach 19 or leave school.

2. You Can't be Dropped

Starting this fall, your health insurance company will no longer be allowed to "drop" you (cancel your policy) if you get sick. In 2009, "rescission" was revealed to be a relatively common cost-cutting practice by several insurance companies. The practice proved to be common enough to spur several lawsuits; for example, in 2008 and 2009, California's largest insurers were made to pay out more than $19 million in fines for dropping policyholders who fell ill.

3. You Can't be Denied Insurance

Starting this year your child (or children) cannot be denied coverage simply because they have a pre-existing health condition. Health insurance companies will also be barred from denying adults applying for coverage if they have a pre-existing condition, but not until 2014.

4. You Can Spend What You Need to

Prior to the new law, health insurance companies set a maximum limit on the monetary amount of benefits that a policyholder could receive. This meant that those who developed expensive or long-lasting medical conditions could run out of coverage. Starting this year, companies will be barred from instituting caps on coverage.

5. You Don't Have to Wait

If you currently have pre-existing conditions that have prevented you from being able to qualify for health insurance for at least six months you will have coverage options before 2014. Starting this fall, you will be able to purchase insurance through a state-run "high-risk pool", which will cap your personal out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare. You will not be required to pay more than $5,950 of your own money for medical expenses; families will not have to pay any more than $11,900.

6. You Must be Insured

Under the new law starting in 2014, you will have to purchase health insurance or risk being fined. If your employer does not offer health insurance as a benefit or if you do not earn enough money to purchase a plan, you may get assistance from the government. The fines for not purchasing insurance will be levied according to a sliding scale based on income. Starting in 2014, the lowest fine would be $95 or 1% of a person's income (whichever is greater) and then increase to a high of $695 or 2.5% of an individual's taxable income by 2016. There will be a maximum cap on fines.

7. You'll Have More Options

Starting in 2014 (when you will be required by law to have health insurance), states will operate new insurance marketplaces - called "exchanges" - that will provide you with more options for buying an individual policy if you can't get, or afford, insurance from your workplace and you earn too much income to qualify for Medicaid. In addition, millions of low- and middle-income families (earning up to $88,200 annually) will be able to qualify for financial assistance from the federal government to purchase insurance through their state exchange.

8. Flexible Spending Accounts Will Become Less Flexible

Three years from now, flexible spending accounts (FSAs) will have lower contribution limits - meaning you won't be able to have as much money deducted from your paycheck pre-tax and deposited into an FSA for medical expenses as is currently allowed. The new maximum amount allowed will be $2,500. In addition, fewer expenses will qualify for FSA spending. For example, you will no longer be able to use your FSA to help defray the cost of over-the-counter drugs.

9. If You Earn More, You'll Pay More

Starting in 2018, if your combined family income exceeds $250,000 you are going to be taking less money home each pay period. That's because you will have more money deducted from your paycheck to go toward increased Medicare payroll taxes. In addition to higher payroll taxes you will also have to pay 3.8% tax on any unearned income, which is currently tax-exempt.

10. Medicare May Cover More or Less of Your Expenses

Starting this year, if Medicare is your primary form of health insurance you will no longer have to pay for preventive care such as an annual physical, screenings for treatable conditions or routine laboratory work. In addition, you will get a $250 check from the federal government to help pay for prescription drugs currently not covered as a result of the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole".

However, if you are a high-income individual or couple (making more than $85,000 individually or $170,000 jointly), your prescription drug subsidy will be reduced. In addition, if you are one of the more than 10 million people currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan you may be facing higher premiums because your insurance company's subsidy from the federal government is going to be dramatically reduced.

Papal Priestly Pedophilia Protection

Pope Benedict XVI has a serious problem... and it seems to be growing. Once seen as an American problem, the media has taken notice of new stories of child sexual abuse in the Catholic church in Western Europe. This isn't about randomly attacking the Catholic church, an organization I openly view with much disdain. This isn't about attacking whoever happens to be the leader of the organization at the time the story breaks.


To be clear... this is about the man, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, BEFORE HE BECAME Pope Benedict XVI... and his PERSONAL role in various cases of alleged child molestation... what he knew... when he knew it... and what he chose to do, or not do... and why. Were decisions made for the good of the rank-and-file Catholic... or for the protection of the institution that is: the Catholic Church? While Cardinal in Germany in 1980, Ratzinger was involved in the decision to send (then accused sex offender) Reverend Peter Hullermann to therapy. He was relieved of priestly duties, but immediately reinstated as he BEGAN his therapy. Pope Benedict claims he was unaware of the reinstatement. Hullermann would later be convicted of child molestation in 1986.


But the most damaging problem is Pope Benedict's time as head of the Vatican's doctrinal and disciplinary office. At the time, Pope Benedict XVI was THE guy in charge of (among other things) investigating allegations against priests and determining whether or not a priest should be "defrocked." So, this entire discussion is about HIS decisions. Not a predecessor. Not a different organization within the Catholic church. The office he led, and while he was leading it. When complaints are made against a priest, they went to his department. In many cases, priests wound up relocated. Just moved from one parish to another, with no information or warning to those new members, even though Cardinal Ratzinger was well-aware of the charges of child molestation raised against the incoming priests. In the example of some of the worst offenders, the "punishments" were leading a retired life of prayer and only being allowed to accept Mass in private. Is this how the Catholic church treats pedophilia? In the Wisconsin deaf children abuse case, the accused priest sent a plea directly to Ratzinger and the investigation was halted. His punishments were restrictions on Mass and being told to stay away from the deaf.


"Go somewhere private and pray." Is this how Catholicism views justice? Or do the rules of justice differ when pertaining to a priest. Have they been in favor or jail? Or do priests who commit the same actions as other men not deserve prison? A regular man sexually assaults one boy... one time... and he's going to do multiple years in prison. A priest... who acknowledges it... with many boys... on many occasions... over decades? The future Pope tells him to go pray?


And finally... what does this say about the position of Pope? how does it affect your view? The Vicar of Christ? He who binds and looses on Earth? He who has "the keys of Peter"? The person who controls the "treasury of the merits of the Saints"... dispensing grace on those who fulfill the Holy Sacraments? Did God appoint a man who sided with repeat sex offenders over children? A man that put the protection of the legacy of the institution of his church... over the safety of his parishioners?

79% INTEREST ?!!!

Since the early 1990's... there has been a new lending strategy adopted by some in the finance industry to target low income Americans as their business model. Where once certain types of people had been seen as unfinanceable under traditional lending, "creative financing" paved the way for poorer Americans to have the opportunity to get lines of credit... lines that proved far more lucrative for lenders than the industry had ever imagined.



There was a time when such things would have only been needed by a small invisible portion of the population. Back when people felt comfortable saying things like... "you're only poor because you want to be" or "noone looking to help themselves goes without." But who... among those who have seen economic statistical trends in America... can say that with a straight face today? Wages in America have been virtually unchanged in America for 35 years. Working people are finding it harder and harder to pay bills and relying more on credit cards and other loans to make ends meet. Ask yourself why there has not been a SIGNIFICANT increase in household income, even though SIGNIFICANTLY more women work today, compared to 1965.


This is what you get with "conservatism." Government stays out of the way, lets business do what it feels it must... and we all live with the results. My personal opinion... I think Republicans want this kind of society: that this is the natural order of economics and (idealistic) liberals should stop trying to intercede. Indeed, world history does not provide a long list of nations with large robust middle classes (usually just small upper and large lower class), so, there may be some truth to that... and I fear that truth is coming nearer to our shores.



Over the last 18 months, I've been astonished as storefront businesses have closed and been replaced by small payday and car title loan companies. Has the market boomed this much? Are there that many Americans hurting to the point of needing these high interest loans to survive day to day? Nothing... and I mean... nothing happens in the business world without reason. They wouldn't keep cropping up if they wasn't a market, and they wouldn't stay open (AND FILLED WITH PEOPLE) if they weren't turning a large profit.



Next time you're near one of these places, even if you dont need their services. Check out their interest rates. They make so much money, because people have a hard time paying off these loans. For those that finally do, the (real) interest on the principle is staggering. DID YOU KNOW PAYDAY LOANS ARE ILLEGAL IN 15 STATES... PREDATORY? USURIOUS? What is happening to America?

• Arkansas

• Connecticut

• Georgia

• Maine

• Maryland

• Massachusetts

• New Hampshire

• New Jersey

• New York

• North Carolina

• Ohio

• Oregon

• Pennsylvania

• Vermont

• West Virginia

And now reports of a credit card with a 79.9% interest rate (click here). You may be surprised (like me) to know that there are no limits on the interest rate a credit card company can charge. Though the word usury is part of the American vocabulary, powerful banking lobbyists have fought hard on Capital Hill to make sure that it never becomes part of the credit card industry's lexicon. There have been attempts to put a cap on interest rates, but they are fought hard in Congress. God bless the markets... left on their own, look how they work for the good of the American people.



The bold interest rate is in response to the new credit card law going into effect on February 22nd, limiting the amount of upfront fees that can be charged to a new card holder. In essence, a cost shift. Big business does not believe in taking on new cost... once they get use to eating, they will merely find a new way to partake. So, instead of getting the fees upfront, they will get it on the backend with higher interest rates.



Its hard for me to fathom that people out there would need a credit card with a $300 limit... which means that, for that person... there are payments that need to be made, I'm presuming... REGULARLY... and they can't make them without a loan. Not only that... but, there are ENOUGH people living this way, as to have an extremely lucrative multi-million dollar industry. The idea that there are more than just 10,000 people interested in credit cards that max out at less than $500... let alone more than a million people... what is the state of the American dream? Is that phrase antiquated?



The fact that there are states that don't allow payday loans should tell you that there is something going terribly wrong. More and more people who can't get by... saving face only by relying on credit. And people wonder why there have been so many foreclosures. Considering that the top 10% of Americans own 72% of all the wealth (not income)... consider that one fifth of Americans make 22k/yr or less. That's one in five households. What is one fifth of 300 million? And that is the rationale the credit card companies give. These people are risky. They are soooooo risky... that they need to give interest rates high enough to show they will turn a profit.


Beware that loan shark!!! Dont shake his hand! He is not your friend! He will bite you!

Corporatocracy Redux: Banking Reform

A year and a half after the 2nd most devastating financial calamity in the history of the United States... we are still waiting on a first piece of legislation as a response to prevent it from happening again. Especially when considering populist anger at the bailouts of big banks and the ensuing doubling of the unemployment rate in America... what seemed like a sure thing as swift and effectual reform has been unable to get out of the Senate Banking Committee.


Friday, Reuters reported (click here) that Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd (see above) said that financial reform legislation is currently at an impasse. This isn't a bill being debated on the floor of the Senate... they have yet to get out of committee! Last August... a year after the financial crash, Democrat Senator Dick Durbin... frustrated with a lack of progress on reform... when referring to the Congress, said that the banks "frankly own the place." Behind the scenes, the same banks that caused the chaos and needed government intervention are now heavily lobbying Congress to block reform or keep "teeth" out of anything passed. If we study the history of the Great Depression, we know that a lot of legislative reforms emanated from it. Not sure what the future holds on the subject of reform for this crisis... but we are off to a dubious start.



In the meantime... the bank fat cats... continue to roll around in the money.

Corporatocracy

A story broke Friday that the media monkeys didn't pay much attention to...


Just more confirmation that the "news" media outlets give people what they think the people want, rather than what they need. The United States Supreme Court ruled that corporations should no longer have financial limits on what they are allowed to give to political parties . Its now legal for corporations to give UNLIMITED amounts of money to government.



The rationale... corporate entities... should have a voice... just like any other person. Like any other person? Yes, the topic of corporate "personhood." (click here) A corporation is considered a "legal person" apart from the persons that make up its workforce. Corporations have legal rights they can fight for in court... just like a person... and they have their own debt, separate from personal debts. Some businesses will require a "personal guarantee" from a business they're working with because of it. But are corporations people? Should they have the right to petition the government like an individual?



The question you should ask yourself... how loud do you currently feel your voice is... as the amount of lobbying money pouring into Washington has increased steadily over the last 25 years. Now that corporations have no limit on giving... do you expect the voice of the average man to increase? And when giant corporations pour millions of dollars into Washington... do they have your best interest at heart? Does the $8/hr employee at Wal-Mart think he will be better off if Wal-Mart has more influence in Washington?

Who is Michael Shipster? Part 2

Pressure from Washington had some CIA managers saying that Habbush should give up some of his Iraqi foreign agents before he could be viewed as credible. Those working with Richer's Near East division were outraged that the source would be asked to do more by sacrificing some of his people. They were frustrated with those in the main office who (apparently) didn't understand how intelligence gathering goes. A seasoned MI-6 agent, Shipster heard the request and ignored it completely. He wasn't going to let some stupid loyalty test from Bush and Cheney close the best "window" into Iraq and the mind of Saddam. In addition to regular phone conversations, Shipster continued to have direct meetings with Habbush on a weekly basis through January and February 2003 where he repeatedly pressed him on the WMD issue. But how do you prove a negative? How do you PROVE you don't have something?



In February (more than a month before the Invasion), England prepared a report for Washington. MI-6 director Sir Richard Dearlove flew to Washington to present George Tenet with the report that Britain worked very hard to complete. The Michael Shipster meetings were so secretive to Dearlove, he wanted to deliver their conclusions to the director of the CIA face to face. Shipster's report stated that Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991 and destroyed his chemical weapons stockpiles the same year. Habbush told Michael that Iraq had no intention of restarting either program. The Iraqi Intelligence service, of which Habbush was the director, was in charge of biological weapons... and since 1996, there had been no biological weapons program. As soon as Tenet read the report, he called in Richer and told him "They're not going to like this downtown." Tenet would soon brief Bush and Condoleeza Rice. Rice responded "What the hell are we supposed to do with this?" and Tenet informed her that the CIA gathers information and the White House determines what to do with it. Tenet would also comment about all the other intelligence the US had, and how it contradicted Habbush's accounts. Habbush also gave interesting insight into the mind of Saddam Hussein. Habbush said that Saddam was isolated and diminished, not fully aware of what was even going on inside his country. He was worried about others finding out he didn't have WMD, especially the (hated) Iranians. He viewed Bush as bluffing, thinking... why would the Americans want to take over this country? It made no sense to Hussein.



The White House buried the report. It was given to Bush a month before the first troop set foot in Iraq. They infuriated the Brits by telling them they had no more interest in keeping the channel to Habbush open. An intelligence director willing to play ball would be useful, even if you are going in. Britain was upset but felt they did all they could do to prevent war. It was clear that avoiding war... this was never what Bush and Cheney wanted. So the US no longer wanted Habbush's information. What about Habbush, himself? When the war started on March 19th, with the help of US intelligence, he slipped back into Amman, Jordan. By the summer of 2003, America had still found no WMD. This was the time when the CIA worked out specific arrangements with the former Iraqi Intelligence chief. They agreed to pay Habbush $5 million out of CIA accounts. Simultaneously, Habbush was now on Bush's famous blacklist of Iraqi war crminals on a deck of playing cards. As one of these Iraqi officials were captured or killed, Bush would mark an X across the face of the card. (click here for the DoD site showing those still wanted, including Habbush, who was designated the Jack of Diamonds) It would give the impression, that America didn't know where Habbush was, and that we were out looking for him. Not only were we not looking for him, we weren't trying to get any advice out of him when occupying Iraq. On October 2nd, after three months of searching, the Iraq Survey Group gave an initial findings report to Congress that weapons inspectors had not found any evidence of WMD. By that time, the White House had already figured out a way to use Tahir Jalil Habbush.



In late September, Tenet returned from a White House meeting with instructions he had been given for the CIA. Richer recalls being called into Tenet's office and being told: "Well, Marine, I've got a job for you, through you may not like it." The Bush White House had created a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam. It was to be backdated to July 1, 2001. It was to say (among other things including WMD) that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta did in fact train in Iraq (thus showing a link to Al Quaeda). Cheney had always been convinced of a 9/11 connection to Iraq and... to date... there is still no proof of such. The idea was to take the letter to Habbush in Jordan [I thought we were out looking for him? says so on Bush's playing cards] and have him write it in his own handwriting on Iraqi government stationary so that it looked legitimate. The CIA would then take it the letter to Baghdad and have someone release it to the media. Rob Richer was stunned. He felt the Vice President's office was always bugging them... pressing them over and over to find evidence backing up their preconcieved notions, but this was different. Bush and Cheney were explicitly asking him to create a deception... to purposely mislead. Richer passed the info on to his Iraq Operations Group (IOG). They were just as shocked. Not just because of the gaul... or the legalities... but even the rationale. The idea that one guy would answer all the questions the US had. Just one guy. And that he would do so all in the same one letter. Not only was that illogical to those in the clandestine community, but the IOG didn't believe Habbush (now hiding in Jordan) would sign such a letter. Why would he? This was going to be made public. Habbush knew there will be an insurgency, and that anyone helping the US would be targeted... not only they, but their families... and Tahir Jalil Habbush still had extended family in Iraq. He would not sign on board. America would make the letter without him.



The plan B letter (without Habbush) was released and the media ate it up. Reported in print and television: from NBC's Meet the Press to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly to London newspaper The Daily Telegraph. It would get 4 days of unquestioned coverage, planting seeds in the hearts of people, before Newsweek started to question the story for various reasons; not least of which: the FBI's evidence of Mohammed Atta's whereabouts during that time period. Mid-level people inside the CIA began to hear rumors that it was a forgery... and that it originated within the agency. Some didn't want to know. "I'm better off not knowing." one official was quoted as saying, because he felt he would then be forced to resign his post. The reason is... the CIA has engaged in deception, but it is illegal for the CIA to engage in covert action "intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media." Some in the CIA claim that it was for the Iraqi's, but whose people were interested in WMD and Al-Quaeda links? Would the Iraqi people have been more inviting of American occupation if Saddam had chemical weapons caches?



The answer is no. The misinformation was clearly to sway the American people. Clearly illegal, yet clearly purposeful. The legacy of the Bush administration has... like many political things... become very partisan. Those on the right defending, while those on the left disparaging. This should be viewed differently. This isn't about someone having sex in the Oval Office. This is about much more. An administration that was hellbent on "restoring honor and integrity." Well, they were hellbent on something. And, for those of us who keep up with politics... not just when there is upheavel, it was clear that the Bush administration (from the very first days of their administration) had an idea of war with Iraq. Part of their vision of how the world should be... if only there was an American leader with the guts to do what was necessary. The rationale... the explanation to the people... was beside the point. The British could see it (downing street memo) a year before war broke out. The decision was already made. America had made its mind up long ago. We were working backwards from that starting point. And not only did the President of the United Stated ignore intelligence contrary to his point of view... intelligence that would have saved lives and money (how many people around the world have been directly or indirectly affected by the war in Iraq?)... but when the facts on the ground... his public rationale for war... were different than anticipated, he and his White House didn't admit to conducting an illegal war. They went even further by PURPOSELY lying to the American people through misinformation originating from the White House, disseminated by the CIA.


While Habbush was on a wanted deck of cards... giving the American people the impression the Bush administration was out looking for this guy who, to be clear, has committed many crimes while part of the Saddam regime, they not only knew where he was... had not only paid him off... but were able to get in contact with him, and when he refused to be part of the White House lie... they forged a document with his name on it... with the express purpose of lying to the American people in order to influence political opinion about the war. Is that what Bush means by spreading freedom and democracy? How is this guy not in jail? This will just be another stain... on the legacy... of one of the worst... one of the most criminal Presidential Administrations in United States history.

Who is Michael Shipster? Part 1

In the summer of 2002, the United States was looking for evidence regarding Saddam Hussein's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. We had already received information from a German intelligence source by the name of Rafid Ahmed... an Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball." He would be the source for Colin Powell's now infamous United Nations presentation about mobile biological weapons facilities. But, Germany never allowed American intelligence the chance to talk to Curveball directly and his information would prove to be falsified. In the summer of 2002, we came across more evidence in the form of a Saddam's last foreign minister... Naji Sabri. Mr. Sabri had spent more than 10 years living in Europe working on behalf of the Iraqi government, and established a relationship with French intelligence... as a paid spy. Bill Murry was the CIA Paris station chief at the time. He was trusted and respected by French intelligence and they put him onto Sabri that summer. Bush, Cheney and Rice were briefed and agreed things should move forward. The only question... how to arrange a meeting?



Sabri would not be able to leave Iraq without a good reason. As the foreign minister, he was working on negotiating the return of UN weapons inspectors and was due to travel to New York to address the UN General Assembly. The CIA couldn't contact him directly, so they made arrangements for Iraq's foreign minister to communicate through an intermediary... a Lebanese journalist trusted by both sides. The Lebanese journalist would pose questions on behalf of the CIA then follow up with Bill Murray. Murray debriefed the journalist after the meeting and Sabri (in a show of good faith) even wore a specific type of suit to the UN General Assembly at the request of Murray. Sabri told the journalist that Saddam didn't have WMD and was not trying hard to find any. If Saddam wanted nuclear weapons, he was as far as ever from that goal and making no progress. Any biological weapons program was all but non-existent, and if there were any chemical weapons within the borders of Iraq, they were not possessed by the Iraqi government. The information was a direct contradiction of Curveball. It would be CIA director George Tenet who delivered the information personally to President Bush, who would then lose interest in Naji Sabri and dismiss his assertions as disinformation.



The CIA wasn't so sure. French intelligence monitored Sabri's calls, which were then sent to Langley, Virginia and backed up what Sabri had earlier communicated. While the report on the Sabri intelligence was bring written up, Paris station chief Murray was in a rush to get back to France and didn't stay in the US to write the report himself... he left the job for the New York CIA station. Murray would later find out the emerging report was a distortion of his initial filing to New York. A new introductory paragraph was added claiming not only that Saddam possessed biological and chemical weapons, but that he was "aggressively and covertly developing" nuclear weapons... in direct contradiction to Sabri's disclosures and Murray's report. Perception was that the alterations originated from pressure from the White House. This information was given to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and he took the US National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's weapon's programs at face value. Britain had been given a report almost the opposite of what Bill Murray had first reported. Winter 2002, Murray kept trying to work with Sabri through the Lebanese intermediary, and submitted new reports reaffirming Sabri's intelligence but they were met with silence from the White House. Sabri's intelligence was buried and never communicated to Colin Powell at the State Department as he prepared for his UN presentation.



But there would be an even better source than Sabri. Not a foreign minister, but someone with direct firsthand knowledge of the weapons programs. Someone the intelligence community would speak to directly, not through a third party intermediary. As was revealed in the Downing Street Memo (click here) sent to Blair in July 2002, the impression of British intelligence coming back from the US that summer was that America had already made up its mind. The United States was going to go to war. We weren't interested in the truth, but rather in finding information that would confirm our existing opinions. London was more open minded about Iraq's weapons' programs and sought a way to prevent war whereas they viewed the US as merely preparing for an inevitable war. Michael Shipster was the man assigned to, perhaps, the most important mission in the run up to the Iraq War. Shipster is part of Britain's famous MI-6 (CIA)... the foreign part of British intelligence with the MI-5 being domestic, similar to the American FBI. This was an EXTREMELY secret mission... so much so, literally only a handful of people in both the United States and England were even aware of it.



In the 1980's, Rob Richer was a CIA agent who had been stationed in several different locations in the Middle East and now found himself in Amman, Jordan. Early on, he was asked by Jordan's King Hussein to spend time with his young adult son Abdullah. Over the years, he would go on to form a long deep bond with the prince helping him grow into a man and political leader. They are godfather to each others' children. They go on trips together and view each other as true friends. So close was Richer to the Jordanian family, that when terminally ill... King Hussein first summoned Rob Richer to his bedroom to tell him he had chosen Prince Abdullah to take the throne, before bringing in the prince, himself. He would quickly have a new role as an invaluable liaison to Jordan, briefing Clinton on the character of the new king.



In December 2002, Rob Richer had recently been appointed head of the CIA's Near East division. By this time... he had known Michael Shipster for years. By 2002, both men had worked in Middle East intelligence for their respective countries for many years. Shipster told Richer of a plan he had: a source inside Iraq that London had worked with for years. A man named Tahir Jalil Habbush... the head of Iraqi intelligence. He had been a governor of a Southern province of Iraq in the early 90's. By the mid 90's, Habbush moved into the Ministry of the Interior, where he was the undersecretary of security affairs before taking over Iraqi intelligence in 1999. Shipster told Richer that Habbush could be reasoned with and that he knew how to contact him. The heads of MI 6 (Sir Richard Dearlove) and the CIA (George Tenet) were made aware and Richer and Shipster went to work. Rob Richer knew the perfect place for such a meeting: Jordan, the next door neighbor to Iraq. Not only close friends with (now King) Abdullah, Richer was also close to the Jordanian intelligence director Saad Khayr who was godfather to one of Richer's kids. The US has close ties to the Jordanians who perhaps understand Iraq better than any other Mideast nation. From Amman, Jordan, all meetings with Habbush could be monitored by the US directly. Bush's 2003 State of the Union (with the infamous 16 words) was weeks away from being given and Colin Powell's assertion to the UN of mobile weapons facilities wasn't scheduled until February 2003. Both Pennsylvania Avenue and Downing Street were focused on Jordan.



The first meeting between Michael Shipster and Tahir Jalil Habbush was mostly about structure and rules. Habbush told Shipster that IF the US invaded, he wanted to be guaranteed safe passage out of Iraq. Shipster informed him that it wasn't a question of if, the US was serious and ready to invade. Habbush responded to the British intelligence officer... if they invaded, they'd find no WMD, that Iraq didn't have any weapons. That initial report was sent to Washington and London. The White House was shocked... then doubtful. Bush was frustrated and is quoted as telling an aide... "Why don't they ask him to give us something we can use to help us make our case?" In fact, Rob Richer and his Near East CIA division were working on plans for Habbush. Not just info on WMD, but as the Iraqi Intelligence Director, Richer had plans ranging on Habbush convincing Saddam to negotiate an exile or to have someone assassinate the Iraqi leader. But the people at the top (Washington & Langley) were mainly concerned with the fact that Iraqi Intelligence Director was undercutting the United State's primary rationale for war.