Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (697922)	8/24/2005 3:09:38 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Memo: Suicide bomber tried to enter U.S. Wednesday, August 24, 2005; Posted: 1:54 p.m. EDT (17:54 GMT) cnn.com WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. Customs authorities blocked a Jordanian man from entering the country 20 months before he was accused of carrying out an Iraq suicide bombing, according to an internal Homeland Security memo obtained Wednesday. The August 22 memo to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff credited Customs agents with identifying Ra'ed Mansour al-Banna as a suspicious traveler on June 14, 2003, when he flew into Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. "While it is not clear that al-Banna was a suicidal jihadist, the basis for denying him entry was that CBP (Customs and Border Protection) officers that interviewed him believed his intent for entering ... was inconsistent with the purpose of his visa," wrote Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner. Al-Banna has been accused of carrying out one of Iraq's deadliest suicide bombing -- the February 28 attack in Hillah that killed 125 people. But the Jordanian government and al-Banna's family said he carried out a different suicide bombing in Iraq in which he was killed. The terrorist group al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for the Hillah bombing. The Homeland Security memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, said al-Banna was carrying a valid Jordanian passport and valid work visa. But the Customs agents believed the passport was falsified, and ultimately rejected al-Banna's entry after secondary security screening and questioning, said Customs spokeswoman Kristi Clemens. Al-Banna's denied entry into the United States was briefly mentioned in an April report in Time Magazine.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (697922)	8/26/2005 4:18:36 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"If Sunnis reject it, does their constitution revert to the current one?" No. They have no current constitution.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (697922)	8/26/2005 4:39:16 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

An interesting take on the Iraq situation, and prospects for the future there (not un-optimistic at all, more realistic I'd say... I agree with much of Galbraith's take.) Remember: it takes just three provinces to veto the Constitution (& the Sunnis are large majorities in three.) But, that's not a 'bad thing' I think. A much more decentralized model is what they need... not a strong central state. (Of course, without a strong central state controlling the oil revenues, the Sunnis get little or no oil profits. :) That explains much of their opposition... and also why they will likely keep a civil war stoked-up until it costs them too much --- the only way matters like this are ever truly resolved. August 25, 2005 Divided They Stand By DAVID BROOKS nytimes.com President Bush doesn't lack for critics when it comes to his Iraq policies, but the smartest and most devastating of these is Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia. Yesterday, after reading gloomy press accounts about the proposed Iraqi constitution, I thought it might be interesting to hear what Galbraith himself had to say. I finally tracked him down in Baghdad (at God knows what hour there) and found that far from lambasting Bush, Galbraith was more complimentary about what the administration has just achieved than anybody else I spoke to all day. "The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. ... I do believe it might save the country." Galbraith's argument is that the constitution reflects the reality of the nation it is meant to serve. There is, he says, no meaningful Iraqi identity. In the north, you've got a pro-Western Kurdish population. In the south, you've got a Shiite majority that wants a "pale version of an Iranian state." And in the center you've got a Sunni population that is nervous about being trapped in a system in which it would be overrun. In the last election each group expressed its authentic identity, the Kurds by voting for autonomy-minded leaders, the Shiites for clerical parties and the Sunnis by not voting. This constitution gives each group what it wants. It will create a very loose federation in which only things like fiscal and foreign policy are controlled in the center (even tax policy is decentralized). Oil revenues are supposed to be distributed on a per capita basis, and no group will feel inordinately oppressed by the others. The Kurds and Shiites understand what a good deal this is. The Sunni leaders selected to attend the convention are howling because they are former Baathists who dream of a return to centralized power. But ordinary Sunnis, Galbraith says, will come to realize this deal protects them, too. Galbraith says he is frustrated with all the American critics who argue that the constitution divides the country. The country is already divided, he says, and drawing up a constitution that would artificially bind three divergent societies together would create only friction, violence and civil war. "It's not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up violently," Galbraith says. "Iraq wasn't created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill." One of my other calls yesterday went to another smart Iraq analyst, Reuel Marc Gerecht, formerly of the C.I.A. and now at the American Enterprise Institute. Gerecht's conclusions are often miles apart from Galbraith's, but they have one trait in common. Both of them begin their analysis by taking a hard look at the reality of Iraqi society. Neither tries to imagine what sort of constitution might be pretty to our eyes or might be good in some abstract sense. They try to envision which system comports with reality. Gerecht is also upbeat about this constitution. It's crazy, he says, to think that you could have an Iraqi constitution in which clerical authorities are not assigned a significant role. Voters supported clerical parties because they are, right now, the natural leaders of society and serve important social functions. But this doesn't mean we have to start screaming about a 13th-century theocratic state. Understanding the clerics, Gerecht has argued, means understanding two things. First, the Shiite clerical establishment has made a substantial intellectual leap. It now firmly believes in one person one vote, and rejects the Iranian model. On the other hand, these folks don't think like us. What's important, Gerecht has emphasized, is the democratic process: setting up a system in which the different groups, secular and clerical, will have to bargain with one another, campaign and deal with the real-world consequences of their ideas. This is what's going to moderate them and lead to progress. This constitution does that. Shutting them out would lead to war. The constitution also exposes the canard that America is some imperial power trying to impose its values on the world. There are many parts of this constitution any American would love. There are other parts that are strange to us. But when you get Galbraith and Gerecht in the same mood, you know something important has happened. The U.S. has orchestrated a document that is organically Iraqi. It's their country, after all. E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com * Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company