There must be a plot to bring back the conspiracy theory

I know there was some discussion about Saddam being hidden away until the appropriate time on another thread, but I couldn't find it. So, I am starting a new thread about conspiracy theories.

Article that caught my eye.

The last time conspiracy theories flourished in respectable circles in America probably was the 1960s and early 1970s.
In those overwrought days, it seemed like everyone nurtured a crackpot theory about the dark forces (the Mafia, the Cubans, right-wing Texas industrialists) that had ordered the Kennedy assassination. But for all the lunacy inspired by the grassy knoll, this was also an era when the U.S. government covertly destabilized Salvador Allende's regime in Chile and a sitting president covered up the burglary of the rival party's headquarters.

Judging from the tone of the current political debate, this conspiratorial mind-set has returned.

Consider a news release issued by the Republican National Committee highlighting remarks that commentator Mort Kondracke made Tuesday on Fox News. Kondracke said former secretary of State Madeleine Albright had just speculated to him in the Fox makeup room that George W. Bush might be hiding Osama bin Laden in order to dramatically unveil the terrorist right before the election.

For Republicans, this was potent evidence that Democrats had lost their rational moorings on the subject of Bush and terrorism. But since Albright issued a statement saying she had been joking, Democrats could easily concoct a conspiracy theory of their own. This curious incident could illustrate the transmission belt from conservative commentary on Fox News directly to the Republican National Committee.

Democrats have made some strange charges in recent days. Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington advanced the wacky notion that American forces had delayed capturing Saddam Hussein to wait for the optimum moment to boost Bush's approval ratings. And Howard Dean, forgetting again the dictum about loose lips, mentioned in an interview with National Public Radio's Diane Rehm that there was an unproven theory Bush had been warned by the Saudis before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Conservatives nurture conspiracy theories of their own. The right-wing press ballyhooed a story in the Sunday Telegraph of London claiming that captured Iraqi documents proved Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had visited Baghdad months before the attacks. This would vindicate the Bush administration's assertions of a longtime connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. But Newsweek has posted an online story convincingly arguing that the documents cited by the British newspaper were almost certainly forgeries.

After the horrors of 9/11, it was tempting to assume that the terrorist threat would have lessened the divisions in the nation. Instead, political polarization, which had already reached dangerous levels during the Bill Clinton impeachment saga, has only grown worse. The level of distrust has mushroomed to the point where Democrats and Republicans no longer debate rival policy nostrums, but angrily advance conflicting views of the world.

The war in Iraq is, of course, the most dramatic fault line. Supporters of military action to oust Saddam almost certainly agreed with Bush when he argued in an ABC interview this week with Diane Sawyer, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person. And there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that. And there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country."

But war critics were prone to jump on Bush's refusal in the interview to deal with the failure of the occupation forces to locate Saddam's purported arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Pressed on this point by Sawyer, the president kept repeating his mantra: "Saddam was a threat, and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country."

Dean's rise and the potency of the anti-war vote in the Democratic Party suggest that the invasion of Iraq will be the central issue in the 2004 presidential race, unless a hawkish candidate such as Richard Gephardt or Joe Lieberman is nominated to oppose Bush. The tenor of the Democratic opposition was suggested by Wesley Clark's bitter comments Thursday in a conference call with reporters: "Instead of capturing bin Laden and destroying the al-Qaeda network, President Bush took us to war in Iraq, monopolizing our time, energy and resources."

It is not in Bush's nature, and certainly not the style of the administration, to admit error. As a result, the president has never spoken candidly about the mismatch between the administration's ominous statements about Saddam's capabilities before the invasion and the postwar appearance of his far more limited military prowess.

The mystery that shrouds the battle against terrorism would probably have given rise to conspiracy theories even without the war in Iraq. But the combination of a war justified by questionable premises, political polarization and governmental secrecy seems on pace to deliver what might be dubbed "The Conspiracy-Theory Election of 2004."