And this is probably just as true of the old theory of the cover-up of Bin Laden’s 2001 death, which is now given new vigor by the Obama Administration’s announcement yesterday that it has finally succeeded in killing him.
What gives that old theory even a grain of plausibility?
The grain comes from the recognition that any war-based economy and society gets a benefit from the perpetuation of its enemies, and would therefore be tempted to hide the death of its greatest enemy of all time.
And of course, it goes without saying that Bin Laden’s followers would benefit from perpetuating the myth the he could not be killed.
But what gives anyone in this country the motive to claim that Bin Laden really died in 2001, and that the President is lying about it now?
Certainly our president’s political enemies will clamor to deny him the glory of this current accomplishment.
Personally I love the idea that Obama accomplished what George Bush failed to accomplish. It wouldn’t be the first such accomplishment, and probably not the last (think: health care reform).
And this particular achievement — the elimination of Bin Laden — will likely help Obama get re-elected (a fact which in itself serves as more fodder for the conspiracy theorists).
What sort of evidence do purveyors of Bin Laden’s 2001 death offer in support of their theory?
You can examine most such evidence on the following website, which — by the way — the operators claim was the victim of a massive denial-of-service attack “just moments before President Obama announced that the U.S. had killed Osama Bin Laden.” Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t really out to get you.
Of course, to take seriously the theory of Bin Laden’s 2001 death, you’d have to believe the improbable idea that your government and your president would lie to you.
And I suppose the hurried burial of Bin Laden “at sea” after being shot in the head deep inside Pakistan will only serve to stoke the fires of skepticism even more.
Remember, you read it here last.