Party in Washington is lucky that the American people, as obese mentally as they are physically, are interested only in stuffing their minds with reality TV, pop music and sporting scandals while they stuff their mouths with ice cream on the couch. With brains forever clogged and mouths invariably closed, political scheming becomes far easier. No longer are secret machinations required in order for the powers-that-be to get away with it.

The tested mental agility of the American people being what it is, it’s no surprise that an alleged conspiracy in ‘American Idol’ is given far greater credence than the possibility of a real conspiracy regarding the Iraq war. And as for the latter, the only one that still holds- incredibly enough- is the administration’s whopper that Saddam and Osama were surreptitiously collaborating on a plot to bring down the empire of the Good.

Yet by any definition, the preparation for the Iraq War was a conspiracy. A small group of mostly unknown men, operating from clandestine quarters deep in the bowels of the Pentagon, systematically manufactured lies and fraudulent “intelligence” in order to start a war against a non-threatening country. They referred to themselves, only half-jokingly, as “the Cabal.” In their all-encompassing desire to make war on Iraq, they both included sympathetic high-ranking officials (Dubya, Darth Cheney) and froze out other ones who were in opposition (Colin Powell, Dick Armitage).

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 damning, 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?

Silencing Whistleblowers

Yet the opposite has been the case. The Bush Administration has gone to great lengths to silence, to stonewall, to forever defer nagging public questions. And this behavior has seemed remarkably odd, even sinister. Indeed, if the government has nothing to hide, then why not let the whistleblowers be heard?

Foremost among the many worthy examples is the case of the heroic Sibel Edmonds, who has vocally maintained the existence of a Turkish spy ring in the highest levels of the FBI, one which unsuccessfully tried to recruit her. She’s also persistently repeated the idea that law enforcement had received many prior warnings about the likelihood of a terrorist attack. Yet deep embarrassment and fear of the potential political fallout has caused American leaders to try and stifle her. On Monday, Britain’s Independent wrote that

“…the US Justice Department is seeking to stop her from testifying, citing the rarely used ‘state secrets privilege.’ Today in a federal court in Washington, senior government lawyers will try to gag Mrs. Edmonds, claiming that disclosure of her evidence ‘would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.’”

Whether or not the government’s contention is true, it seems clear that the former employee has some very interesting insights on why things went so wrong. According to Edmonds’ lawyer, Mark Zaid, “…the FBI wants to shut her up completely,” in order to save itself from embarrassment.

Yet Edmonds herself hit the nail on the head when she said:

“…what are they are afraid of? If I am not allowed to give evidence, the families will not get the information I have; that will be that… if there is transparency, there is going to be accountability and that is what they don't want.”

Archival Indiscretions

A perfect example of this allergy to accountability would seem to be George W. Bush’s new appointment as head of the National Archive, Allan Weinstein. As author John W. Dean charges,

“…the Weinstein nomination has rightly been gathering increasing attention. Indeed, within the archival and historical communities, the nomination has sent sirens screaming and bells clanging. No fewer than nine professional organizations that deal with government records have expressed concern -- faulting Weinstein for his excessive secrecy.”

Another source charges that Weinstein’s “…published historical works have been severely criticized on scholarship grounds”:

“…the criticism centers on his secrecy in not allowing others to view the records he relied upon for his two major works, ‘Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case’ and ‘The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America — The Stalin Era,’ which he co-authored.”

Any doubts regarding the would-be archivist’s agenda are thoroughly dispelled when we learn that:

“…Weinstein fell into favor with conservative Republican circles through his work on Alger Hiss. His work, ‘Perjury: the Hiss-Chambers Case’ (1978, rev. 1998) drew much criticism for the research methods he used. Weinstein's conclusion that Hiss was a Soviet spy drew the wrath of many, but made him a darling to the conservative that helped finance his various projects since.”

The problem goes beyond one man’s idiosyncrasies, however. The Weinstein nomination follows a clear pattern of behavior from Bush- whom Dean dubs “the most secretive president this nation has ever had.” While governor, Bush moved to “…block any later access to his gubernatorial records,” a difficult feat considering that Texas has one of America's strongest public information laws. Bush achieved his aim in 1997- by changing Texan law. And when Bush was elected president, recounts Dean,

“…he simply sent his papers and records with no consultation whatsoever to his father's presidential library at Texas A&M University -- known as the most secretive of all the existing presidential libraries. The result was, in effect, to federalize the papers and records, placing them in a legal limbo where no one could have access. Bush Senior's presidential library is run by the Federal Government -- specifically, the National Archives And Records Administration (NARA).”

While Director and Librarian of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission Peggy Rudd opposed Bush's ploy, the new president’s friend and hand-picked successor, Gov. Perry, “…found new exceptions in the state's information law that they claim give them the keys to the relevant filing cabinets. Good luck to those seeking access. Now it appears Bush is doing what he did in Texas, on a national level”:

“…this effort began on November 1, 2001, when Bush issued Executive Order 13233. The Executive Order drew loud objections from not only historians and archivists, but also members of Congress -- who were highly critical of the Order in hearings. In the end, however, the Republican leaders quelled the grumbling, and Congress took no action.”

We also learn that Bush’s Executive Order 13233 of Nov. 1, 2001 “gutted” federal guarantees of public accountability by reversing the 1978 Presidential Records Act. Bush’s Order

“…granted all former presidents, as well as any persons selected by them, an unprecedented authority to invoke executive privilege to block release of their records. In addition, it granted the power to invoke executive privilege to present and former vice-presidents as well. Moreover, it shifts the burden to the requester to establish why he or she seeks the presidential records. (In contrast, the 1978 law properly put the burden on the former president who seeks to withhold them.) And Bush's Order empowers a current president to block release of a former president's records even when the former president wishes to release them. Finally, it makes the Department of Justice available to represent, in litigation, any incumbent or former president seeking to withhold information.”

Members of the Society of American Archivists and other professional historians’ societies are afraid that Weinstein’s history of partisan and unprofessional scholarship, combined with the Bush Administration’s obsession with secrecy, will compromise the workings of this vital source of public information:

“…in nominating Weinstein, this Bush administration seeks an archivist who will be obedient to its every wish, including possibly withholding the release of presidential records and other information regarding the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

This action represents the administration's campaign to keep as much information from the public as possible. Such a preoccupation with information control only fuels suspicions that Americans would be very unhappy if they knew what White House officials were up to.”

In other words, the article warns, the administration risks abetting conspiracy theorists by its own reticence. Since the National Archive will be taking in more than 2.5 million pages of documents and transcripts from more than 1,000 interviews conducted by the 9/11 commission in September, and since the records from the George H.W. Bush administration are due for unveiling come January, it’s obvious why Bush Junior is pushing for a friendly man in the archive.

Yet it also stands to reason that if the subject of 9/11 is deemed so gravely important that a bipartisan panel is required to investigate it, than shouldn’t a bipartisan panel also be required to choose a head archivist? After all, what will be the point of the commission’s great labors if the results are sealed for reasons of alleged “national security?” The 9/11 Commission has gone to great lengths to collect all the relevant data- but what will it matter for the American people if this data is immediately thereafter sequestered by a partisan archivist?

In the end, such secrecy is unhealthy for the public because it actually promotes the cause of conspiracy theorists. By showing such repressive zeal in its continual blocking of public information, the Bush Administration itself generates suspicions. It is as if the administration is now asking itself if it’s still beating its wife.

Government, Media and Conspiracy

At first, this would seem like an unqualified disaster for the government. Yet on second consideration, we see that it’s entirely in their interests. Better than to deny or to patiently explain is simply to exacerbate that droning excess of white noise- too much information- that plagues America in particular and the globalized world in general.

The modern world’s best antithesis to government secrecy is obviously the internet. But this is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the internet allows for the free and immediate flow of information, pure, unfiltered and oftentimes transferred before it can be doctored by government apologists. Yet on the other hand, the sheer size of the internet and its disturbed variety mean that the lucid and the ludicrous emerge simultaneously and everywhere.

Forget about the continual, tiresome complaints of rival groups- about the alleged dominance of the “liberal media,” or the perceived chokehold of the “conservative media.” The truly dominant entity- when we add television, radio and the print media into the mix- is the media itself, constantly replicating, enlarging, disseminating and otherwise contradicting, embellishing and castigating its own existence and production. It has neither a single master nor message. Far from winning by harnessing a certain message or mantra to be repeated, the government claims victory precisely by playing into this cacophony and encouraging the continual generation of diverging and dissonant viewpoints- the more extreme the better.

Thus the media plays two key roles for government: exacerbating the average guy’s inability to keep up with events through sensory overload, and also justifying its own (real) indiscretions by comparing any criticism of them to the most far-fetched of the conspiracy theories. The former gives the powers-that-be an easy escape from scrutiny (‘just keep creating new information, more white noise’) while the latter provides government with a handy tool for smearing every real, well-supported indictment of their behavior (‘come on, that’s just a conspiracy theory’). Thus in one fell swoop is eliminated all objection- the intelligent along with the idiotic, the juvenile with the justified.

This is why, in the end, the biggest government conspiracy of all may well be the facilitating of conspiracy theories, accomplished accidentally, simply by being secretive to the extreme. Human curiosity increases in direct proportion to attempts to withhold information. By the same measure, creative explanations for governmental mishaps seem to generate ex nihilo and flourish the more that they are deprived of any informative sustenance.

When it comes to 9/11, despite all the intriguing discrepancies- like why the planes weren’t scrambled, or Bush’s movements in Florida while reading stories about goats- it seems most likely that top officials were merely asleep at the wheel before the attacks, and exhibited confusion during and after them. This is embarrassing stuff indeed- and if approached from that point of view, can and should have fatal repercussions for the careers of many high officials. Yet if Bush wins his battle in the trenches of the National Archive, secrecy will not only prevail regarding this key issue- it will also ensure the continued propagation of more outlandish theories that will easily be laughed off. Which is a victory in its own right for the powers-that-be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------