"America's favorite conspiracy theory: the moral argument"
Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 @ 08:56:08 CDT
Topic: Matthew Riemer

By Matthew Riemer
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) -- Putting aside the usual lengthy and semi-philosophical discussions that attempt to accurately explain the term "conspiracy theory," let's turn to a brief summation much more useful for the purposes of this essay: A "conspiracy theory" is simply any explanation, reason, or cause that strongly offends or contradicts others' ideologies or historically-sensitive political systems and models. And, more generally, an explanation for events that seems wildly improbable and elaborate.

So to some, the idea that the United States fought a war in Iraq over issues other than weapons of mass destruction -- even though the expert global consensus was that Iraq had either none or very small quantities of WMD and Colin Powell presented forged documents to the United Nations when making his case -- is a "conspiracy theory" because of how they view U.S. foreign policy (this is the first definition). These individuals see the U.S. as a benign, almost naively bumbling, superpower guided only by altruism. Ulterior motives are spirited away by associating them with some kind of exaggerated and paranoid realpolitik. And it is this historical theory, filled with a kind of de facto racism and condescension, which is quickly becoming America's favorite conspiracy theory: the moral argument (this is the second definition).
This popular conception's basic assumptions are embodied perfectly in a recent essay by Michael Kinsley in the April 21 issue of Time entitled "The Power of One." In this curious piece, Kinsley, at times, both praises and criticizes Bush rhetorically while offering little of substance in his criticisms. He states that Bush lacks "a certain largeness of character or presence on the stage," but also that he is a "great man." Though Kinsley immediately qualifies this by indicating that "great" doesn't "necessarily mean good or wise."

The author then combines the praise and criticism in a single, equivocal sentence: "Bush's decision to make war on Iraq may have been visionary and courageous or reckless and tragic or anything in between, but one thing it wasn't was urgently necessary." This seems to be a trend among journalists and critics: be just equivocating enough so as not to "take sides" or really say anything substantive while getting in your pot shots and simultaneously calling the butt of your pot shots a "great man."

It's later in the article when Kinsley gets into the conspiracies: "Why did Bush want this war? His ostensible reasons were unconvincing. Whatever we may find now in the rubble of Baghdad, he never offered any good evidence of a close link between Iraq and al-Qaeda or of weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the U.S. His desire to liberate a nation from tyranny undoubtedly was sincere, but there are other tyrants in the world. Why this one? On the other hand, the ulterior motives attributed to Bush by critics are even more implausible. He didn't start a war to serve his re-election campaign or avenge his father or enrich his oil buddies or help Israel. The mystery of Bush's true motives adds to the impression of a wizard arbitrarily waving his wand over history."

Here Kinsley lays things out fairly clearly. Since the "ostensible reasons" for the need for war were "unconvincing" and those offered by Bush's critics "even more implausible" (he doesn't say why) it must be Bush's (and by association America's, since Kinsley never uses the labels "Washington" or the "U.S." but only "Bush") sincere "desire to liberate a nation from tyranny." Moreover, this is the only possible conclusion one could have as the author likens Bush to a "wizard arbitrarily waving his wand over history" whose "true motives" are mysterious.

Such observations are interesting for their notable lack of analysis. As mentioned above, Kinsley gives no explanations as to why theories of why the war was fought advanced by Bush's critics are "implausible," only that they are. So he discredits both lines of thinking -- those of the administration itself and then those of its critics. And in the final analysis, the President is abstractly portrayed as a mysterious wizard, albeit a sincere and morally guided one. Thus we have America's favorite explanation for world events. It's also known as the "bumbling bear theory," which, to reiterate, places the United States in the role of the benevolent benefactor of the global community whose guiding principles are Christian morals and who only unintentionally and accidentally does bad things. Some will even blame Washington's unquenchable desire and exuberance to do good as the reason that things sometimes go wrong.

Kinsley's historical construction is finally topped off by a healthy dose of cynicism when he says: "Bush is not the only one who decided rather suddenly that disempowering Saddam had to be the world's top priority. When Bush decided this, so did almost every congressional Republican, conservative TV pundit and British Prime Minister. In polls, a large majority of Americans agreed with Bush that Saddam was a terrible threat and had to go, even though there had been no popular passion for this idea before Bush brought it up. You could call this many things, but one of them is leadership."

Either the author is employing some incredibly dry sarcasm or he's very naive when it comes to politics and war in the 21st century.

First, the decision was not Bush's. He was simply the man who was president when influential, life-time politicos such as Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's long-time geopolitical aims came to fruition spearheaded by the increasingly well-known neoconservative ideology given great stock in Washington these days. These men were calling for the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad when Bush was still Governor of Texas and didn't even know what the Ba'ath Party was.

Second, and more importantly, Kinsley attributes the Congress's and public's sudden decision to view the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as a top priority to Bush's leadership as well as his "spiritual power over so many minds." There's no mention of a pervasive and propaganda filled media that reached new heights of manipulation even by American corporate media standards. That the BBC openly questioned and even complained about stories coming out of the Pentagon, calling them "disinformation," and said American news agencies were too patriotic is immaterial when it comes to Kinsley's "great man" who is neither wise nor good theory. Implicit in the author's words is the sense that the media is of little influence over what the historically unaware American public thinks and that Republicans in Congress "during a time of war" feel no need to parrot what a Republican president thinks.

Michael Kinsley, as well as a host of others, would well benefit from a viewing of the documentary The Trials of Henry Kissinger in which the former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor explains that it is impossible for states to interact in the way individual human beings do. Kissinger observes that people are typically guided by some kind of moral system when interacting with one another, but that this is impractical, if not undesirable, for state-to-state relations. The overvaluation of individual's rights and the need to protect the innocent can impede political objectives that have more pragmatic issues as their focus, such as resource security and regional hegemony.

But it is critical that this is not how the Bush administration (U.S. administrations for decades have feared this as well) is seen by the general public, so -- to counteract this reality of geopolitics -- the American public is sold the mother of all conspiracy theories: the moral argument. Why delve into obscure and often difficult to understand historical and political topics -- that most don't even have the time for -- when world events can be summed up much more neatly with an us-good/them-bad, altruistically based explanation?

[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.]

Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.
This article comes from YellowTimes.org
http://www.yellowtimes.org
The URL for this article is:
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1366

...is an oxymoron.

Lets see now....

1..the UN weapons inspectors werent allowed to view iraqs "wmd" stockpiles.
2-iraq was found in violation of UN security council resolutions.
3-the UN decides to allow more time for iraq to comply.
4--the US says that the UN is weak and will not enforce its own resolutions.
5--the US "knows" that iraq is harboring wmd.
6--US invades iraq
7--no wmd are found
8--people die and govts friends are awarded huge contracts and US and UK control the oil.

Hmm.....conspiracy theory?
The brainwashed media is now trying to backpeddle on the lies that they purportrated.
Of course the reporters (who are supposed to be unbiased) are hesitant to take any side because they might end up blacklisted.

Public disinformation rules the day.
The bush family gets thier way
Morality of war is thier lie
As bodies burn and people die.

>..the UN weapons inspectors werent allowed to view iraqs "wmd" stockpiles

And whose fault was that?

Liberal/ararchist answer - USA

Correct answer - Saddam

The UN called for Saddam to disarm, to provide evidence that their WMD's had been destroyed. So, if Saddam had them destroyed, why didn't he come clean? All he had to do was to present the documentation showing where the WMD's had been destroyed and lead the UN inspectors by the hand and show them exactly where it took place and the evidence that it happened. He didn't do that. Even incompetent Blix told the UN that they weren't receiving full co-operation with the Iraqi government. With someone who had no WMD's, Saddam sure went to a lot of trouble to make everyone believe he did.

...animal draw itself up to make itself look bigger when cornered?

No real difference.

The truth is the Bush Junta claimed they had Iron Clad Evidence just ask Colin, I've got the photos right here, Powell.

There are no WMDs® and the Bush Junta knew it before they went in to Conquer the Oil Fields.

They L-I-E-D.

ANYONE who believes otherwise is a S-U-C-K-E-R.

The Invasion and Conquest of Iraq was a War Crime which will only benefit Duhbya's Cronies.

He is guilty of a Breach of his Constitutional Authority and Responsibilities and should be:

Impeached

Tried in the Senate

Vacated from Office

Tried for TREASON

If found guilty - swing.

So, why didn't Saddam come clean with the UN?

The Weapons Inspectors were in Iraq.

They found no Weapons of any significance.

Duhbya insisted he had proof they were there.

Where are they?

If Duhbya had sufficient proof to invade another country, kill their people, and establish a new Military Dictator, then he should be able to immediately order that the Occupation Forces take the Presstitutes on a tour of the Sites.

He has not done so.

They did not exist.

Just as the proof of their existence did not exist.

ANYONE who believe otherwise is a S-U-C-K-E-R.

Blix said the Iraqi government wasn't co-operating. The 1300 page document that Iraq delivered to the UN was full of holes. The inspectors found weapons that were not listed in the 1300 page document.

If he had destroyed his WMD's, all Saddam had to do was to allow the UN inspectors to verify it. He should have welcomed them with open arms and allowed then to eyewitness the destruction of all his illegal weapons from day one. That's all he had to do to have the sanctions lifted. He didn't. He played dodge-ball instead. For someone who didn't have WMD's, he sure made every effort to make others believe that he did.

Things are only irrelevant to you when you got your balls in a crack and want to refocus the attention only onto the things that you want them focused on.

So, why didn't Saddam come clean with the UN?

S U C K E R--A1

We support the killing of Muslims and niggers. Please visit our website.

Why didnt Saddam come clean?
Only he knows.
Ever read the reports showing that some of the UN weapons inspectors were spies for the CIA?
I'm sure you would have a very different reaction if the UN wanted to come to America and inspect all over the country including the white house.
The UN asked for more time because the inspections were working.
SLowly, but they were working.
Then the US defys the UN security council by going against Article 6 of the US constitution.
So we invaded and no weapons were found.
I guess the "innocent until proven guilty" is a bad example to use.

"Why didnt Saddam come clean?
Only he knows. "


Only he knows where all the , obviously stockpiled and hidden WMD are .

What's all the confusion about?

we got plenty big bad bomb for you. also many powder killer we sell very cheap. $ accepted or charge please. 2for1 with guarantee of min.kill, proof required. all customer be happy, or else...

If you DID have "plenty big bad bomb," we wouldn't be messing with you. Liar. Everyone knows that we only invade defenseless countries.

thanx stephen

We support the killing of Muslims and niggers. Please visit our website.

Schotky, inventor of the transistor, knew that white men are superior. White men invented the computer. If it were not for white men, women sould still be doing it doggy-style.

The white man has brought us so much. It is time to thank the white man buy purchasing your next computer from our all white, purely Aryan computer store in Harbor City, California.

Computers N.L.A. has not fear of flying the Confederate flag. We realize that white's are superior. All of our sales agents are white. Brown people are allowed in only when the store is closed and then only to perform cleaning services.

KOBE SBM, our star web master, with a Master's Degree in Aryan Studies, will assist you with your hate website, if that is on your agenda. We'll even host it for free, provide cover for your fake identity stolen from some random victim, and provide false information to anyone seeking to know your identity.

Computers N.L.A. accepts only dollars, marks, or gold. Come to the Herr und Frau computers store where you can here the Valkerei of Vahalla singing strains of the Uberlunginglied while browsing our porn.