So here's a bunch of people in Afghanistan, who would otherwise not even have the bus fare to travel from their village to the capital city there, but the official story claims that under the direction of their mentor living somewhere in some remote cave, they were able to obtain US visas (from United States consulates), enter the US, receive flight training, suppress reports of their activities, hijack airliners, avoid getting shot down, and fly into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, during which time yet another building (one quite unrelated that came to be known as Building 7) also collapsed (2).

Yeah, right... that reminds me of an incident that happened in December of 2005 in Iran (3). On December 6, a C-130 transport plane crashed into a 10-story apartment building in a residential area of Tehran. Now that building, compared to the WTC towers is quite flimsy. You might notice I didn't say was flimsy because the building still stands even though the tenth floor was engulfed in fire. But forget about that building. No fire has up to now been able to cause the collapse of a skyscraper with so much steel built into it anywhere in the world. Even if they could find scientific justification for the collapse of the Twin Towers (which they cannot), how could they explain the collapse of Building 7 that was not hit by any airliner? They have tried all sorts of stupidities, but they mostly prefer to not talk about that to the extent that most ordinary folks I talk to are not even aware of that building's collapse.

But the stupid idiots are not the American people. They are not members of congress, Joint Chiefs of Staff, owners of corporate media, or even establishment "liberals", such as Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean who have their own agenda and know what they are doing. They know whose interests they are representing. They know telling lies is all part of their job; it's their lifeline.

The idiots are the reporters in the media, intelligence bean counters, a few university professors, and some even in the left ... who are so naively buying into the Administration's fairy tales about 9/11, its war of terror, Al-Qaeda, Al-Zarqawi ... and by mindlessly repeating these tales even partially, they are helping the establishment's cause and leading the public in the (perhaps unintended) direction of confusion, conformism and passivity, thus perpetuating the administration's lies and deceit. As a result, rather than discussing the sorry state of national healthcare or education in this country, everyone is talking about terrorism or the undocumented workers here.

By now everyone who has any interest in politics has heard how Bush and Blaire discussed using American spy planes painted in UN colors to lure Iraq's Saddam Hussein into war (4), but these people just refuse even for a moment to make the logical jump and consider the possibility of the Bush regime's complicity (direct or indirect) in the September 11 attacks.

Likewise, even though thanks to the American corporate media, the general public has not heard of "Operation Northwoods" (5), according to which, the US government had planned to commit terrorist acts on US territory in order to blame Cuba, the documents are out, but our 'patriotic' liberals still refuse to make the connection. How mindless and gullible can one get?

Every time they hear an FBI agent complain that his/her warnings about the hijackers were ignored, they are conditioned to interpret this as "bureaucratic incompetence" and "operational or tactical error" rather than deliberate and criminal attempt to suppress the evidence in order to allow for the attacks to take place. They will tell you that there is no evidence to support such a claim, but they never ask themselves: "Where the hell is the evidence to support the hypothesis of inadvertent errors and bureaucratic incompetence that they are so readily and mindlessly accepting?"

An example is correspondent Ray Suarez's reaction to a reporter's description of the sentencing trial of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui on March 20, 2006, on PBS (6). The reporter begins by explaining that the FBI agent who was called by prosecution (to promote the US government's case), in his testimony attacks his superiors, accusing them of suppressing his reports of Moussaoui's presence in the United States (7). In this court, the government is asking for death penalty for Moussaoui because, they claim his timely confession could have helped save the lives of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and here is an FBI agent effectively saying that if his superiors had not suppressed his reports of Moussaoui's presence and activities, the attacks could have been thwarted. Hearing such testimony, any decent and halfway honest person should be shocked, and at the very least, consider it appropriate to further investigate the FBI agent's allegations, but not Ray Suarez. You should see the look of misery on this guy's face as he attempts to trivialize and divert the significance of the report. I should add that I happened to be watching this segment of the News Hour that evening, and Ray Suarez should not be blamed alone; every single journalist who heard of or reported the court proceedings on this day and neglected to put the obvious two and two together is guilty of complacency and in essence pandering to the Administration.

And how many times have you heard corporate reporters talking about the Bush administration's attempt to "secure America's borders"? We hear that quite often these days as Jim-Crow policies and practices are being revived in the name of "immigration reform". Has any one ever asked the obvious: Has there ever been any credible report or evidence of terrorists attempting to get into the US territory by sneaking in through any of the borders? The 9/11 hijackers certainly didn't get in that way. They went to the US consular offices in Saudi Arabia and obtained their visas legally. Then why is the Bush administration planning to pour billions of dollars into the pockets of crooked contractors, the likes of Halliburton to "secure" America's borders (8)?

Despite the flood of propaganda coming from the Administration and the corporate media, some people are taking notice and starting to ask serious questions. Actor Charlie Sheen's recent stand challenging the official 9/11 fairytale (9) is a welcome example. All he is doing is ask some simple, common sense questions that would have come to everyone's attention if the Bush regime with corporate media's help had not created such an atmosphere of hysteria. Charlie Sheen is already being maligned by those who fear the truth for being brave enough to speak up against the official lies. But how many of our beloved liberals are asking these types of questions?

Today, Bush is not only declaring his inherent right to brand groups of human beings as "terrorists" and therefore without any rights, to engage in torture, to hold American citizens as enemy combatants, to engage in domestic spying on Americans the extent of which is totally unknown, he is also tacitly declaring it within his jurisdiction as president to conduct leaks to discredit and destroy those who dissent. Are our idiotic liberals waiting for the day when Bush declares his "inherent constitutional right" to conduct terrorist attacks against US citizens in order to carry out the US Empire's policies?

(8) Aside from its propaganda value, the issue of "securing America's borders" helps divert the public's attention from real issues by feeding the fires of racist US congressmen and their brown-shirt Minutemen to further harass the undocumented immigrants on whose backs this country's economy thrives. Secondly, it gives the Administration all the pretext to pour billions into the pockets of criminal contractors.