He's the fellow who -- somewhat unfairly -- is credited with 'Credo, quia absurdum est', 'I believe because it's absurd'.

The greater the faith, the greater the merit.

The weaker the evidence, the more faith is needed to believe.

So the greatest merit comes from believing that for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

And that seems to be the hire-fire-promote policy of our governing Junta, in and out of government.

Cause surely, when they find something like this, only one person knows about it. Did he take photographs? Is there anyone who can vouch for where he was when he said he discovered them? Does he have any contemporaneous documents, or did he not even make a note of his very important finding? Who in the admin. did he tell about his findings?

Can we confront Bolton, Bush, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Cheney, Rice with this information and see what their reaction to it is?

Wow, another opportunity for real reporting and investigative journalism instead of mere bluster and punditry. Anyone of you right wingers want to take up the challenge? I thought not.

One of the remarkable things about many conspiracy theories, is when the theory itself just doesn't make sense even within itself.

Never mind the vanishingly small odds of so many people being in on it remaining perfectly silent and whatnot. None of the usual reasons to discount conspiracy theories, but just, the idea that, at a fundamental level the theory just doesn't make sense.

In this case the stupidest part of this is that Russia and China were involved in moving the WMDs to syria for some reason and are "helping" countries like Iran get the bomb.

Never mind that nuclear powers like being in an exclusive club and neither China or Russia has much motive to help Iran or Syria join the club, but if they really wanted that they could just give them a bomb! They're already nuclear powers, why not just ship a nuke to Iran or Syria if that's their aim?

I'm sure someone can post-facto explain away this discrepancy but at a glance, this alone makes the thoeory remarkably stupid.

Dear Future Historians:

This discussion is NOT a satire or a parody. We early 21st-century CE Americans really ARE in the grip of irrational leaders.

They are at least as ignorant and comical as we portray them here. We are NOT exaggerating.

They also are extremely dangerous. They seem to be getting stronger. We are doing what we can to oppose them. So far, they are winning.

Glenn's Update:

It is not uncommon for a substantial portion of the population of any country to live in a purely mythical world, where desire -- rather than reality -- dictates beliefs. But it is most assuredly unusual for such a group to be the dominant political faction governing the world's only remaining superpower.

With all due respect, I think an excellent case can be made that virtually the entire post-Cold War era (and part of the run-up to it, as well) has been dominated by such thinking, only not in such an extreme form.

Indeed, Kevin Phillips makes the argument--in Wealth and Democracy--that Spain, Holland and Britain before us have all followed the same imperial trajectory, wherein a totally unforeseen shock at the heigth of imperial power leads to a roughly two generations-long period in which the elite continues to prosper (indeed, as never before) in a bubble, while the vast majority of the population stagnates, and loses all hope of improving their lot through their own hard work and intelligence. Such periods are dominated by a reactionary politics that celebrates tradition and the old ways precisely because it is incapable of facing the existing realworld challenges.

Phillips is describing a broad, long-lasting outlook that affects the entire field of vision. While this may superficially seem quite different from Bolton (and others) denying the non-existence of Saddam's WMDs, I would argue that the difference is merely one of degree, and that one can easily find intermediary examples to connect the two.

An obvious case in point is the Star Wars missile defense fantasy. When it was first proposed by Reagan as a way of derailing the Nuclear Freeze Movement, thousands of scientists refused to work on it, because it was technically impossible, a political fantasy designed to divert attention from the difficult, but essential work of negotiating with our enemies (sound familiar?)

More than 20 years later, nothing has changed. Franco is still dead, and Star Wars is still a fantasy, but we are deploying a non-working missile defense system nontheless--first in Alaska, soon in Poland and the Check Republic. (It bears remembering that Rumseld chaired a private study group in the late 1990s that found--contrary to the Pentago--that Star Wars was indeed feasible, after all. It was his role in heading up this group that greased his way into the SecDef position.) At the same time we have pressed forward with an impossible missile defense system (which, even if it could work, would never defend us from terrorist attacks, much less cruise missiles) we have steadfastedly refused to take serious action to counter global warming--which peer-reviewed scientists have unanimously agreed upon as a threat since at least 1993.

This is precisely the condition that Glenn describes as "most assuredly unusual"--a population living in a purely mythical world that is the "dominant political faction governing the world's only remaining superpower."

Technically, I suppose, Glenn is correct, since it is unusual for the world to have only one remaining superpower, regardless of what sort of people are running the show. But Phillips makes a strong case that it is utterly normal for a declining world power to be gripped by fantasy for a period of approximately two generations, and the counter-point examples of Star Wars and global warming dramatically illustrate the counter-factual intensity of that fantasy.

Britain, of course, was not the world's sole superpower back in 1914. But the widespread enthusiasm for a quick little war was strikingly similar to reality disconnect we ourselves have been witness to. And the inability to stop, once the true carnage became evident, is likewise all too familiar.

I do think that Glenn has a point to make here. I simply think it needs re-thinking and re-stating. What we're seeing with Bolton and others is not without precedent, sadly. But it could well be called the reductio ad absurdum of all that has gone before.