What are the implications of this, the War Party’s profound banality? First of all, it both denigrates conspiracy theorizing as a much more commonplace and much less creative pastime than it’s usually perceived as being. None of the mental gymnastics that typically make conspiracy theorists so oddly endearing prove necessary in investigating Iraq. Unlike more famous conspiracy theories such as UFO’s in Roswell, the whereabouts of Elvis, or ‘who shot JFK?’, there was nothing particularly mysterious about this one. And neither was there forwarded any grandiose, all-encompassing project such as could acquire cinematic dimensions or require hidden, ultimate perpetrators such as space aliens or lizards from the fourth dimension. As conspiracies go, the Iraq one was a bit of a letdown.
When Vice President Cheney mocked his nemesis Colin Powell for being “out of the loop” over Iraq, it not only fueled indignant questions of why such disunity could be allowed to happen- it also reaffirmed that Cheney was part of the conspiracy the existence of which he had tried to deny.
In contrast to previous insider criticisms made by Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke, George W. Bush apparently likes Bob Woodward’s book- because it upholds the idea that W. wears the daddy pants in the Administration. The implied charges may be equally d**ning, but at least the president is portrayed as a strong leader. Yet this has serious implications when it comes to the Sept. 11th investigations.
Since the introduction of the Orwellian Patriot Act, the status quo in America has been: “let us ask you a few questions, comrade; after all, you have nothing to hide, do you?” Yet now this conception has been stood on its head- as it rightly should be. Now, the same question is being asked of the government. If there was nothing to be covered up, then surely the powers that be will be glad to offer as much information as possible- right?