Warning: raw consipiracy theory ahead!

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."
Paul Wolfowitz on reasons for invading Iraq,
Vanity Fair, May 2003
[sorry - the only link I have is to Weekly Standard article, What Wolfowitz Really Said by Willian Kristol that quotes the interview at length.]

Iran NIE debunks Iranian nuclear threat?
Not a problem!

The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment provides several alternative "concerns", any one of which could justify attacking Iran:
1) "... the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region [the Persian Gulf and the Middle East]."
2) "... it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning extremist Shi'a militia in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force..."
3) "... it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran..."
4) "... the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization..."

Four (4) perfectly good excuses to attack Iran - and Iran's nuclear threat is not among them!

... and who's back in town?
Rice plans to name Wolfowitz to advisory panel
Reuters, 3 Dec 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Paul Wolfowitz, forced to resign from the World Bank because of his role in obtaining a high-paying promotion for his companion, is slated to chair a U.S. State Department advisory panel on arms control, a U.S. official said on Monday.

Can this really be coincidence or, alternatively, simply extremely poor judgment?
Or is there a more sinister explanation?

Note the heading of this post: "Warning: raw conspiracy theory ahead!"... of course I'm going to opt for the more sinister explanation!

W's legacy - which he worries about (he has on occasion compared himself to the first President George W!) - is crumbling. W knows this. A Democratic successor in 2009 would seal his fate - a Democratic successor would work feverishly to undo all the damage W has managed in eight years. Who knows, maybe W worries that with the expanded Presidential power his successor will inherit, even the history books will be re-written to omit his Administration!

[full disclosure: with the exception of the references to Wolfowitz, what follows is copy/pasted in its entirety from a previous post, Let's assume they're not idiots.]

Let's assume the Democratic candidate leads in the polls come 15 Oct 2008. This is not an unwarranted assumption.

The W cabal cannot afford to hand over his carefully crafted expansive Executive to the Democrats. What other option do they have?

Ah!

With Wolfowitz's help, orchestrate a "clear and present danger": an imminent threat to the the nation! With the help of the CIA and whatever other Executive agencies can help, stage a terrorist attack on the U.S. It probably isn't that hard to manipulate Hezbollah - give 'em some money, suggest a target. Hezbollah as the enemy has two advantages:
1. they are a non-state actor
2. they can easily and plausibly be linked to Iran

[The need to orchestrate a "clear and present danger" helps to explain why Wolfowitz is now rejoining W's Administration! - he was a great fabulist as Undersecretary of Defense, providing much of the narrative that led us into Iraq!]

So, come 16 Oct, the U.S. experiences a terrorist attack from Hezbollah.

In response, W declares a "state of emergency" (learning lessons from his best bud, Musharraf). Martial law is declared. Elections are cancelled. The Permanent Republican Executive becomes a fact.

W could even cite the U.S. Constitution to justify adjourning Congress - permanently:
Article II, Section 3
"... [The President] may adjourn them [both Houses of Congress] to such time as he shall think proper"
[note: the introductory ellipsis ("...") is crucial to this reading!]

Do I believe this? ... well, not quite. BUT: neither will I be surprised if Dems are ahead in the polls in Oct and the U.S. is hit by terrorists a few weeks before the election!