This piece in the Telegraph rang a few alarm bells for me. I was unaware that Jordan’s King Abdullah was so close to Saddam and Saddam’s son. Why hasn’t the press asked him about this? Here’s the money paragraph:
“It is unfortunate that Abdullah has hitched his throne to Saddam’s wagon,” Mr Chalabi declares. “He is under pressure from Saddam to do something about Hassan’s decision to show solidarity with the Iraqi people by visiting the conference we held in London on July 12.” Hassan’s appearance at this meeting was laden with symbolism, for Hassan would be a prime candidate for any restoration of the monarchy in Iraq.
The only explanation for Abdullah’s “bad manners” towards his uncle is that “he is so much under the thumb of Saddam”. Mr Chalabi claims that Abdullah has been friendly with Uday, Saddam’s son, for a long time: before Abdullah’s accession, they were fishing companions, and Uday presented the new king with three Porsches. Mr Chalabi accuses Abdullah of evading sanctions and playing a “double game” with the West, allowing intelligence agencies to recruit Iraqi agents in Jordan, but also passing sensitive information to Saddam, including warnings of an impending coup in 1996.
“King Abdullah has become Saddam’s lawyer in America. He defends Saddam and uses every opportunity to warn off any American attempt to help the Iraqi people liberate themselves. I think it is time that people here know what their supposed friends are doing to shore up Saddam’s regime.”
Chalabi, obviously, has an ax to grind. Still, I hope Bush didn’t tip his hand yesterday.
WHERE’S GORE? In New Hampshire, he’s oddly AWOL. Things are looking up.
WHY NOT MEANS-TEST?: Here’s a devastating email from someone who knows the social security system well. At least, I find it a devastating argument for changing the current system:
I’ve never understood the opposition to means testing Social Security. Perhaps it’s my background–I’m a financial advisor who works with the very wealthy. Most of my clients are retired, and I would guess that the average taxable income for my retired clients is about $5 million per year. They all get Social Security, though, typically the maximum of about $22,000 per year. I don’t really know the exact amount because it’s not material. Some of my clients spend more than that $22,000 annual amount every month on clothes alone.
So let’s look at how that works out for an American two-earner household making $80,000 per year. Let’s say each member of the household earns $40,000 per year. That means they each pay $2,480 in payroll taxes, PLUS the unseen employer portion of another $2,480 that would arguably go into employee pockets if it was not being paid as a tax. Our two earners, then, are working to pay $9,920 into the SS pot each year. It therefore takes 2.2 such households to support one of my clients, who do not need the money (some would prefer not to even get it, but you have to in order to receive most corporate pensions). Oh, sure, tell yourself that Social Security is a “trust fund” and not an income-redistribution scheme. Tell yourself that the SSA is setting aside that couple’s tax money to cover their benefit when they retire. As long as you never look at their books, you’ll feel fine. (In reality, it’s a monstrous Ponzi scheme.)
Now, not every retiree makes $5 million a year. But is it reasonable to draw the line there? How about $2 million? So, Senator Snowe, you have a problem with means testing? I guess you’re just looking out for the working stiff.
THOSE SEXY BRITS: Yeah, baby, yeah. But what’s this coming out of my nose?
NOT A MASSACRE: But don’t expect any apologies from the Independent.
The Dish 