WMD in Iraq as the pretense for invading. That to me, was a conspiracy. The "evidence" seems to have been clearly orchestrated from the very top of the Bush administration. It seems evident that George Tennant was forced, or perhaps strongly coerced to a acumulate information any way he could to substantiate the claim that yellowcake uranium was purchased to make nukes. Then Colin Powell testifies to the UN that we must... Blah blah, smoking gun, blah. I'm not much of a conspiracy guy but only because I'd be over consumed by my attempts to uncover the truth. My guess is that many "conspiracies" are accurate and many are partially accurate and some are bunk. But I don't think anyone's "crazy" for holding an unpopular opinion. Those people are often vindicated by time. Edit: Did I misunderstand the question? Are you asking what our definition of a conspiracy is?
Nope, this is what I was asking for. Remember, no wrong answers. Yes, WMD will turn out to be one of the central conspiracies of the 2000's. Our government expected them to exist because we were the ones that sold them to Saddam, and he was known to have used them (allegedly) in his quest for control. What we didn't bank on was not being able to find them and the war effort reliably floundered from there. I hear you about becoming consumed. It's a big black hole that you can fall down, and then realize that it's affecting your real life.