POLJUNK

I always figured that the WMD story was Bush's Tonkin.

Then again, some of those fishy Project For a New American Century memos from the late 90's that identified the need for a Pearl-Harbor-like event on Amreican soil to galvanize public support for an invasion of Iraq/the Middle East take the cake in my book.

Tonkin-Schmonkin, let's commence to some Iranian ass-stompin!!!

The sooner we get this apocalypse over with, the sooner we'll be able to get back to normal.

If the US were to strike Iran, what would that do to the picture in Iraq? Would the shia majority rise up against coalition forces to defend their brethren in Iran? If you think Iraq is a mess now...

Those Project for the New American century memos were (besides being neoconservative blueprints) accurate and reflective of what many people in defense circles were saying: "the Cold War is over; here's the new threat. Americans probably won't accept the urgency of the threat until there's a (big) attack on out soil." So those aren't especially insidious, unless you believe the attacks were "allowed" to happen in order to jumpstart this clash of civilizations.

Now since Mr. Bush wasn't kind enough to furnish us with his real plans for regional reformation (which no one would've gone along with, hence, "WMDs" which the democrats had been beating their drums about), I am not sure how this all plays out.

There is some tension between Iraq & Iran Shia. The Iranians are the radical theocrats; the Iraqi Shias, as embodied by widely-respected al-Sistani, are more quitely traditional, with a sort of Muslim version of separation of church and state (in which Islam is held as law but clerics do not rule in politics).

The thing about Iran is here's a relatively modern, non-Arab country with a sense of national (Persian) pride (unlike cobbled-together arbitrary Iraq) and thus perhaps ripe for some more moderate nationalist movement.

The idea might (?) be to somehow shift power away from the Iranian clerics & create a more moderate state. Maybe it benefits to have things destabilized for the time being, in order to capitalize on all these internecine tensions.

I'm not saying its good I'm just saying this is my guess as to what Bush has in mind.

"There is some tension between Iraq & Iran Shia. The Iranians are the radical theocrats; the Iraqi Shias, as embodied by widely-respected al-Sistani, are more quitely traditional, with a sort of Muslim version of separation of church and state (in which Islam is held as law but clerics do not rule in politics)."

The fear is that these factions will find common ground (and a common enemy)in the war in Iraq and forge and alliance. Iraq under Saddam's rule was secular as he feared extremeist Muslims as a threat to his power. What happens if the once moderate Shia in Iraq start to see things through the eyes of their more radical brothers in Iran?

The likes of al-Sadr have always been Tehran's boys. As such, they have already joined forces and are working to undermine Iraq.

But al-Sistani is far more revered, and the U.S. has done everything to accomodate his views, and for good reason.

There's a lot of bitterness and disagreement between the Sistani and Sadr camps. I imagine the only thing that would get them to join forces would be some much larger-scale sectarian conflict with the Sunnis.

"There's a lot of bitterness and disagreement between the Sistani and Sadr camps. I imagine the only thing that would get them to join forces would be some much larger-scale sectarian conflict with the Sunnis."

Ding ding. And what do we have formenting now?

Iranian nukes?

Yes, and...think about it. It's in the news evey day. It's starts with "civil" but is not so nice in reality.

"...unless you believe the attacks were "allowed" to happen in order to jumpstart this clash of civilizations." - DUH!

I don't mean to get all cosptiratorial on everybody, but the whole 9/11 thing was way to fishy for me.

That infamous PDB aside, I can't help but think that there were those who knew what was in the works; FBI field agents were denied relatively routine warrants to search the homes/computers of the soon-to-be attackers while they were still in flight school (Minneapolis) and Saudi royalty itself was paying the rents for others while the plan came together (San Diego). Let's not forget that nothing was allowed to fly immediately after 9/11 except military aircraft and private aircraft owned by wealthy Saudis (royals) so that they could evacuate their friends and families from the US.

Nobody has the "smoking gun" because if one does nothing, there isn't likely to be much evidence of nothing.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that the Administration itself would have been involved, but it would have been very easy for someone behind the scenes and sympathetic to the idea of expanding American global power to act (or, in this case, not act) independently knowing the likely reactions of the Administration and the public.

If we ask why someone would do such a thing, we should also flip the question around and ask why someone wouldn't do such a thing.

As far as a Clash of Civilizations, remember that Bush is a Christian fundamentalist who believes that the End of Days is coming soon to a world near you. So, what's to lose...

Bush is a Methodist, which is nothing to freak out over, and had been quite modest regarding his faith.

"They knew about 9/11" is a bit too tin foil hat for me--that you had an single-minded group of people in various government agencies making important decisions with a mind to allow some atrocity to take place.

It's hard enough to get government to do the job its supposed to do right.

I don't like that "foment" and "ferment" have to be two different words.

In my nightmare scenario, it wouldn't necessarily have been a "they," but an individual who chose not to act. If there was a "they" it would probably have been a very few people with a "gentlemen's agreement" of sorts among them - no paper trail of any sort. Very unlikely Bush himself was involved (Cheney, on the other hand...). However, a few key people in the right positions would make it all possible. The sheer ridiculousness of this scenario is one of its strengths.

There were definitely people who were aware that something was afoot. To quote Richard Clarke, "The system was blinking red." There would have been plenty of opportunities to sabotage the flow of critical information.

There are those who think that Pearl Harbor was "allowed" to happen in order to wake the American public up to the emerging threats of the day. While I don't personally subscribe to this, perhaps because I don't want to believe it, I have heard plausible arguments that support this view. This is hardly "tin foil hat."

"I don't like that 'foment' and 'ferment' have to be two different words."

Obviously, you're not the only one.