ABC News reports that the White House is divided on releasing ghastly photos of the human malevolence finally gunned down.
Which, parenthetically, reminds me: I've read a few Christian political commentators who, notwithstanding their hatred of Osama bin Laden, confess they are dutifully praying for his soul. I'm not. Of course I'm not a Christian, or for that matter a member of any organized belief, but if I were a Christian I'd be all the more convinced that God is perfectly capable of sorting out the garbage, sans my human intervention.
At any rate, the internal White House debate harbors one side's belief that the photos are perhaps too "grisly and graphic, displaying a gaping hole above his left eye where brains and blood can be seen." On the other side of the debate is the contention -- and this is what caught my eye -- that they'd release the photos so as to "squash conspiracy theories that the terrorist is not dead."
This second squad can't be serious. "Squash conspiracy theories"? About Osama bin Laden? Or anything to do with 9/11? Or anything to do with anything official since the pharaohs? It can't be done. Evidence and proof and rationality and logic mean nothing to the conspiratorially minded. In fact the more evidence and proof and rationality and logic one dumps on them, the more they hunker and quiver in insider superiority. They "debate" like Daffy Duck ambulated; babbling and backflipping and handspringing across the terrain, never to be pinned down on one issue before soaring to the next.
Besides, does the White House not know, which one prominent conspiracy theory Web site re-announced yesterday, that "Bin Laden actually died in December of 2001 of natural causes"?
You bet the White House knows that. There's not a spot of doubt otherwise. For this White House, you see, is in cahoots with the former administration, which was in cahoots with the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and civil engineering faculties from Maine to Hawaii. And now, according to another of the Web site's stories, it's "Lying about bin Laden's death" because "They've lied about everything to do with 911."
Everything. They. Lies, lies, they're all lies and liars, so naturally any proof offered by the liars will be greeted as lies. A pretty nifty argumentation scheme.
One simply cannot penetrate the tin foil. What's more, attempting to block its moonbeams is met with even more huddling self-satisfaction. The aforementioned Web site, for example, carried a story whose lede read: "After comment-threading at Huffpost this afternoon about the range of inconsistencies between the White House account of the anti-Bin Laden operation and what appear to be the facts, this little message greeted me when I went to leave a link to tonight’s piece there an hour ago: Sorry, but you have been banned from commenting."
Ah hah! You see? The naked truth will not out; no, no, not to the benighted multitudes, because the conspiracy morphs and amplifies and tangles ever deeper.
Hence, dear White House, there is no debate. Release or don't release, it makes no difference as far as conspiracy theorists are concerned, since they already possess the inside scoop.
I'll get emails. I always do. And lots of them. They always read the same: Gee, you know, I don't usually endorse this conspiracy stuff, but on this topic, the contrary evidence is actually quite spooky and hey I'm an educated guy and I've studied this nefarious affair now for o so long etc. etc. -- so please don't casually dismiss my lunacy.
Years ago, I made the mistake of responding to a couple of these meshuga-grams, noting certain flaws in their logic. Both immediately fired back unrelated as well as additional arguments. I learned my lesson. I trust the White House doesn't really expect anything different.