Thursday, September 11, 2014


     So, you're President of the U.S. and your poll numbers have been falling; the domestic situation isn't good and things don't look any better internationally.  And Muslim fundamentalists are once again feelin' feisty and backing it up with deeds.

     11 September rolls around.  Are you worried some entity is going to try to strike directly at the United States -- or are you hoping for it?

     Nothing gets the Gen. Pop. -- and Congress -- pulling together like simple, obvious adversity.  If you're a Chief Executive with a hankering for an FDR moment, a chance to mark down a day that "lives in infamy" has got to be tempting.

     If nothing happens today, the fuse keeps burning.  If something starts to happen and is nipped in the bud, hooray for those who thwart it.  But if -- heavens forfend! -- a strike gets through, there will always be that nagging little worry: did the barbarians make it happen, or did our guys let it happen?

     There's always extra room on the grassy knoll.


Jennifer said...

Pardon me while I adjust my tinfoil hat.

Paul said...

I would not give the ruling power the credit of being smart enough to engineer anything.

If we get hit today, it will not be because o did anything or nothing.

Chem said...

Well, the way you lay it out in your last paragraph, the barbarians still do it in either course of events. Its just a question of whether or not we could have stopped it and deliberately chose not to.

I really doubt it and doubt whether any legacy obsessed administration would choose it. People have done a great job in the adversity and then got fired in the aftermath for not acting right beforehand.

RandyGC said...

If something were to occur today, I would fall back on "never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by stupidity" rule of thumb.

Ken said...

Time for a Short Victorious War™, is it?

Anonymous said...

This presupposes that everybody involved is part of the plot. It's one thing to think that Bush and Biden and Rumsfeld and Holder would be willing, but quite another to suppose that every FBI agent, CIA analyst, police officer or common citizen would not only stand back but also keep mum after the fact.

I recall reading about the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories. I dismiss them for the same reason: even if FDR was willing to let the IJN kill hundreds of American sailors and soldiers, I can't imagine that all the Navy and Army officers who would have to go along with it WOULD do so.

Roberta X said...

Yes but-- Do you *really* think the Internet Conspiracy Ninjas would let it ride?

Keith said...

Whether false flags (eg, reichstag fire, Gleiwitz incident, shelling of mainala), provocations accompanied by a tempting target (re-supply of Fort Sumter, Oil blockade and Pearl Harbour), outright fabrication (Gulf of Tonkin) or just a useful accident (sinking of the Maine - likely due to a boiler explosion in Havana Harbour)

Tin foil or no, the pretexts for aggression rarely turn out to be what the aggressors (and particularly, that great wimpering passive aggressor, uncle sam) claimed they were.

Will said...

Keith: The Maine blew up from a coal bunker fire that overheated a magazine with a common bulkhead. That was determined after examination of recovered wreckage. IIRC, that was kept quiet for a long time.

Hawaii was not considered to be a realistic target for the IJN, so they did not have access to the latest intel. Out of the loop, so to speak, which is why they were focused on sabotage prevention. However, MacArthur's forces in the Philippines WERE considered a prime target, so his HQ was kept up to date, including the latest code equipment. He still lost his entire air force from stupidity. Should have been cashiered for that, not the Hawaiian commanders.

Ken said...

While I hate to pass up a chance to pile on Dugout Doug, Will has summarized it in a way that can scarce be improved.