Conspiracies are the New Game
And this time they are not as covert as they used to be back in the good 'ole days.

Remember the times when people talked about the assassination of John F. Kennedy possibly being a conspiracy of the CIA and the Mafia. Despite many theories, as so eloquently delivered in Oliver Stone's movie JFK, we will have to wait till the year 2037 before we find out if there actually existed such a conspiracy.
My guess is we won't, because by that time every piece of corroborating evidence will have been mysteriously mislayed.

Of course I absolutely believe that there was a conspiracy and anyone who thinks that JFK was shot by the lone gunman in the book depository is a bumbling fool. And anyone who thinks that the killer was shot by someone acting on his own is even a bigger fool; that was the most imporant part of the conspiracy cover up.
This is a large contrast with today's conspiracies, which seem to be openly proclaimed. Not with so many words, but public enough to recognize.

Let's start and the first one might be the harshest one ever: the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9-11. There are (substantiated) rumors that these attacks have been staged by American intelligence agencies. Just to make myself immediately clear on this: I do not believe this, although with the rate George W. Bush is turning the United States into a dictatorship I will not be too surprised either when this conspiracy turns out to be true.
It is all just too convenient: economy is slagging and funds generated for all the top people in Bush's office by the companies they have a big stake in (predominantly the oil industry and the military industrial complex) is slowing down. And those funds are in need of an injection. What better way than to start a war?! (Sounds a lot like the plot of a popular 1997 movie doesn't it?)

Admit it, the war on Afghanistan did not have as objective to find Al-Qaeda's Osama bin-Laden, but to replace the anti-US government run by the extreme muslim Taliban with one that is more US-friendly. That part succeeded, although the country is completely in shambles without any prospect of being helped back on its feet economically by the invaders. That might prove to be a bad decision, for economic negligence is very fertile ground for anti-American sentiment and all that it causes ...
Now, with Iran slowly moving towards a more secular, even democratic government and all other Middle Eastern countries more or less under the influence of US politics it only left the Iraq Situation that needed to be dealt with.

Now, I think we all agree that the US troops invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussain's "government" because he is a danger to the world for having mass destruction weapons is quite ludicrous. There were two things at stake here. One: oil, obviously. Two: reconstruction deals. I have trouble understanding the necessity to think up all these conspiracy scenarios.

Why conjure up this theory about the Axis of Evil, while it is so easy to spot what the real deal is? From the beginning it was obvious that the main concern was to establish a solid supply of crude oil before the US depletes its own resources in 20 years. Does the US government blatantly underestimates its citizens and people across the rest of the world? While being almost in total control of mass media in the US they can afford to dismiss the public's opinion. If European governments or media throw up a differing point of view, they get ostracized. Belgium refused to support the US decision both politically and military and in reaction the US threatened to move the NATO headquarters from Brussels to Poland. Do Bush & Co think we all feel much better if we are led to believe that the Iraqi people, who were suffering from a very oppressive and aggressive tyrant, needed to be liberated? If they do, then they should set free the people of Israel, China and most African and Latin American countries too. Did Bush really expect to find weapons of mass destruction? Yeah, right! The UN weapons inspectors have turned over every grain of sand in Iraq unable to find anything. In the few instances where they did find something, the weaponry was so antiquated and in disrepair it was basically harmless.

And the worst part is that this scheming is also rubbing off on politicians from other countries. Britain's Tony Blair comes to mind first, but also the Dutch prime minister is guilty as charged.

There can be no two ways about the death of Dr. David Kelly not being suicide. Through the BBC he was ready to blow the whistle on how the report on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was falsified to trick the people in backing up Blair's stance on the inevitablity of the invasion of Iraq.
Understandably during the hearings in the House of Commons most anything relevant was swept under the rug and covered with the cloak of charity. George W. Bush's doctrine is apparently gathering a following.

But also the Dutch prime minister declared, after having a hearing in the Lower Chamber on the subject, that the Dutch people have not been misinformed about the reasons behind the US intervention in Iraq. Quite shocking.
What baffled me more was that nobody really cared that the Dutch government defended this viewpoint without any criticism.

Maybe that's the crux: no-one really cares what's going on in the world as long as it doesn't affect our immediate living environment. That could very well be the lesson people need to draw from all of this.
Governments know about the people's lack of commitment as well, so that is why they hardly make an effort to diligently cover up their dirty tracks.
That is why I am afraid Bush will get re-elected come November 2004.

Remember, these were just thoughts that racked my brain; it does not necessarily mean to be the truth. But, come on, it does make you wonder, does it?

René Wirtz

Other columns

© René Wirtz 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003