There is an interesting parallel between the search for Elizabeth Smart's kidnappers and the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction. They both invoked a theocracy of evil. In August of 2003 the headlines read Secrets To Die With Ricci?

Richard Albert Ricci shows no sign of responsiveness and has irreversible injury to the brain stem, including the portion of the brain responsible for consciousness, said Dr. Richard Sperry.
He collapsed Tuesday night in his prison cell from a spontaneous cerebral hemorrhage. Police say the question of Ricci's survival looms large in the search for Elizabeth and the investigation into her abduction.

Everyone believed that Ricci was responsible for the abduction of Elizabeth. The investigation was focused almost entirely on this suspect. The question, why? He had worked at the Smart home, but the clincher was his criminal record. He was an "evil"man. We know now he was not guilty rather it was a couple of religious nuts, Mitchell and Barzee. I was reminded of the Smart case when I read Confronting the Theocracy of Evil an article by Scott Ritter. He recounts meetings he had with members of British Parliament on the issue of Iraqi WMD. After arguing that there was little evidence to support the view that Iraq had WMDs the following conversation took place between Scott and Bruce George

"I still believe that this war was justified over the issue of WMD," he said, "if for no other reason than Saddam's ongoing intent to acquire them in the face of UN inspections."

"Intent?" I asked, incredulously. "What intent? No one has made a case that Saddam was attempting to either hold on the hidden WMD, or reacquire new capabilities."

George was taken aback by my words. "Certainly you can't be saying you don't believe Saddam wanted WMD?" he asked.

"What I believe and what I know are two different things," I replied. "Our two nations went to war because our respective leaders said they knew Iraq possessed WMD, that they knew Saddam intended to acquire WMD. It has turned out that there has been no WMD found in Iraq, and no hard evidence to sustain any ongoing acquisition of WMD by Saddam."

"Yes, we know that," George repeated. "But we also know that Saddam intended to get these weapons in defiance of the UN, and for that reason he had to be removed."

"How do you know this?" I asked. "On what basis can you back this up?"

"Because," George said, with a smile, "Saddam is evil."

And with that, the discussion ended.

Here is how Scott defines 'theocracy of evil'

I had come face to face with a phenomenon I have come to describe as the 'theocracy of evil.' Going beyond mere political ideology, the theocracy of evil encompasses a faith-based value system that embraces a simplistic 'good versus evil' opposition. If Saddam is evil, such thinking holds, then evil must be confronted, and such niceties as fact and fact-based logic no longer apply. As such, WMD became simply an enabling issue -- something designed to focus the attention of the public while those in charge pursued the broader agenda of confronting evil.

The 'theocracy of evil' establishes a deeply ingrained mindset that may be the reason why the U.S. intelligence community failed to accurately assess Iraq's WMD capabilities; why Congress failed to adequately debate the issue of Iraq before voting to go to war; and why the American public willingly allowed itself to be drawn into a war without demanding more proof to back up the Bush administration's allegations. If Saddam is evil, such thinking holds, then he surely intends to acquire WMD, and as such every bit of data collected regarding Iraq must be assessed with that assumption foremost in mind.

The Bush Administration told us they knew Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and they told us they knew that Saddam was trying to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction. The problem was they failed to provide the evidence. David Kay said we were wrong. Scott Ritter clarified the problem when he said what we believe and what we know are two different things. When we act on beliefs rather than knowledge we make mistakes. When we claim our beliefs to be true without evidence we lie.