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.

Dream Deferred... Dream Denied

Recently, I've been reading a book by Robert Reich called Supercapitalism. I am [what can only be described as] obsessed with the numbers. Wealth gaps in the 1920... wealth gaps in the 1960's... and wealth gaps today. With the period from 1945 to 1975 being the period of smallest disparity... all this time I've been thinking... what can we do to get back to 1965? What needs to be done to get our economy similar to the way it was 45 years ago? What reforms need to be passed? What do corporations need to do? How big do labor unions need to get for more representation?

I now realize that the 1965 dynamic isn't coming back. The time period from 1945 to 1975 (the peak of the American dream) isn't coming back. What is the state of the American Dream? Dream deferred? Dream Denied?

The idea that "dad will take care of everything" is a reality for fewer and fewer Americans. Even before the crash... "REAL wages" in this country have been on a steady decline since 1975. Household income is only stagnant (rather than falling) because more and more women are working. Dad's job alone, can't pay for what it did in 1955.

The gigantic monopolies and oligopolies of yesteryear are gone. When you think of oligopolies from a by-gone era, consider the example of the control NBC, ABC and CBS had over the airwaves, and compare their influence of their industry today. There are still large corporations, to be sure, but their control of market share is not as large as it once was. In the past, giant car manufacturers, tv makers, airline industries, soda suppliers, and other sectors had gigantic labor forces. They controlled their markets. They controlled their prices. Companies dealt with labor and came to labor agreements with their employees satisfying both sides and avoiding work stoppages. Big companies do not control prices any longer. Technology and innovation have made it far easier for small startups to compete. The modernization of infrastructure and telecommunication has made it much easier to compete globally. There are freights of goods going to and fro over the oceans everyday. Adjusted for inflation, the cost of products has dropped substantially over the last 30 - 40 years. You've been forced to. If you can't sell your product at this price, someone else, be it a long term competitor, a new foreign rival, or a small upstart... will. American consumers have never had it so good.

But at what cost? How do we get prices so low? For most American businesses, roughly 70% of your costs are wages and benefits. You lay off workers. You cut back hours. You reduce wages. You prevent raises. You decrease health benefits. You increase premiums. You may drop health coverage altogether. There was little competition in the 60's and even less in the late 40's and early 50's... but global competitors are here. Work forces in most nations are not getting paid as well as American labor, and American companies are trying to find a way to level the playing field. And with giant companies like Wal-Mart, they no longer monopolize the market and try to keep prices high, they use their buying power to push their costs from wholesalers down lower... and lower... and lower. Wal-Mart keeps their employees wages low... to the benefit of their customers. And the businesses that deal with Wal-Mart must either do likewise, or consider moving jobs overseas to meet the demands of what Wal-Mart will pay for goods. Could it be, that prices are already too low? Does it benefit America to lower the price of the average good by another $1.59, if it means that small businesses near Wal-Mart will fall... that Wal-Mart's employees will not be given a fair wage... that the medium size businesses that sell plastics and other goods to Wal-Mart must now ship jobs overseas, because their largest customer is telling them they must lower their prices... again?

I haven't mentioned the stock market yet. Above is a chart showing the history of the Dow Jones Industrial average. For almost one hundred years, the Dow just meandered along until the November 14th, 1972 when it finally hit 1000. Then it just starts shooting upward. 2000 on January 8th, 1987. 3000 on April 17th, 1991. 4000 on February 23rd, 1995. 8000 on July 16th, 1997. 11,000 on May 3rd, 1999. 13,000 on April 25th, 2007. After the housing crash, as of this moment, it is down to 10,428. Though (just like other forms of wealth) the vast majority of stock is owned by the top 5%, there are more and more people participating in the game today, than ever before. Day traders... short-sellers... speculators... stock evaluating companies... mutual funds... hedge funds... et al. Passivity in the markets is a thing of the past. The amount of daily trade volume boomed. With the exception of short-sellers (aren't they evil?), everyone was now trying everything they could to shoot up stock values. Some would look at the above graph and say "something is clearly wrong," and I tend to be one of them, in terms of the real value of these corporate stock, but... I suppose... a thing is as valuable as someone is willing to buy it for. So much so, when a cut throat new CEO takes over, and the markets knows he's going to fire 10% of the workforce and slash benefits for those who remain... the stock shoots up! Employees be damned... we have to think about stock holders.

CEO's, CFO's, & COO's can't afford to be mindful of society (over economy) even if they wanted to. Stock holders are watching. Boardrooms are watching. Hedge funds are watching. CNBC is watching! If you play nice with employees, and start decreasing profit margings (even if its still a good profit margin)... oh, beware the quarterly earnings reports broadcast on CNBC "this is lower than the expectations!!!"... your stock value with dip... and you, as CEO, may be out of a job. They have parachutes made from shiny golden fabric from Mount Olympus, so, I dont feel sorry for terminated CEO's, however, in reality, what are the circumstances that would make it feasible for upper management (in this climate) to help employees, even if only to the uber-slight detriment of management? Modern day boardrooms [slaves to stock expectation] will not allow it.

Where does that leave the modern American employee? As consumers and as stock holders, we want low prices and high quarterly earnings reports from the stocks we hold... but as citizens, as neighbors... as friends and family... as society as a whole... is this good for America? Pundits who talk about the housing bubble on television never mention the economic circumstances that put so many Americans in a position, where so many people were unable to buy a home like their grandparents did 50 years prior. People choose to not see the rising cost of living and decreasing standard of living. I was shocked to see Airline pilots in Michael Moore's film admitting that they and many of their coworkers make no attempt to hide the fact that after all the airline industry restructuring... many of them try to work a second job to survive. What has happened to America? While the Wall St. has been given triage by the government, regular people continue to suffer. Including foreclosed homeowners, who live in homes owned by banks that were bailed out!!!

We are a nation of 300,000,000 people. Manufacturing continues to go overseas (where its cheaper) and more and more people have (low wage) service jobs that can't be outsourced. But even still... we haven't had a month of positive job growth in America since December 2007. January 2008, the Labor deparment reported a net loss of 72,000 American jobs.. Feb 08 = 144,000 lost. Mar 08 = 122,000 lost. Apr 08 = 160,000 lost. May 08 = 137,000 lost. Jun 08 = 161,000 lost. Jul 08 = 128,000 lost. Aug 08 = 175,000 lost. Sep 08 = 321,000 lost. Oct 08 = 380,000 lost. Nov 08 = 597,000 lost. Dec 08 = 681,000 lost. Jan 09 = 741,000 lost. Feb 09 = 681,000 lost. Mar 09 = 652,000 lost. Apr 09 = 519,000 lost. May 09 = 303,000 lost. Jun 09 = 463,000 lost. Jul 09 = 304,000 lost. Aug 09 = 154,000 lost. Sept 09 = 219,000 lost. Oct 09 = 190,000 lost. Nov 09 = 11,000 lost. [Approximately 7.3 million job losses]

The highest unemployment rate in 26 years. It has doubled (4.9 to 10%) in only a couple years. Which "good" jobs are coming back? Is the economy more important than the society? Is the consumer more important than the citizen? It seems clear to me now that we can't go backwards, but how exactly do we move forward? The status quo will only lead us closer and closer to a society of aristocrats and peasants, like 18th century Europe... with an ever declining small and invisible middle class. (Let them eat cake?) I dont know the answer... and I'm even less optimistic that there is a GOOD answer to that question. One that doesn't involve the inevitable further squeezing of an already declining middle class. As soon as I find a good answer, I'll be sure to let you know.

Grand Theft Auto

I dont know how many people are paying attention, but... there is an epidemic spreading across the land. Its something I wasn't going to speak on... something I usually see and just smile... but it happens soooooo much, I just HAVE to finally lace the masses. I'm seeing more and more cars with the "baby" back window smashed in. Clear sign: you have just seen a car break-in victim.



If, on the cusp of 2009, people are still choosing to buy cars with the baby back window, perhaps they are risk takers who are daring thieves? "Yeah, I know its what you like... try me... come do something about it..." And it seems a lot of theives are taking them up on their offer. If you pay attention to details when driving, you will see some of the cars in the lanes next to you with cardboard coverings... duct tape... and in some cases... people just leave it open: perhaps they're ready for a second helping: "daddy, i want some more!"

These cars are targeted because they're easier to get inside. The back door with two windows gives a significantly smaller surface to break ... rather than smashing a larger window... <<<>>> And if its a tinted window? All the better. Why is a tinted baby window the best target? Hey, I think I've explained enough so far. Use your imagination.

Once you're keenly aware of this... you'll start to see it more and more often when you're driving around. The majority of the time I drive, I will see at least one car on the road with evidence of this victimization. And perhaps... when its time for you to acquire your next car, you'll avoid the baby back window... and avoid being... a victim of a car burglary. You have now been officially laced with some game.