Thanks for the reference to Bernstein's article. The extent to which the media was, and probably is, infiltrated, was not clear to me before. The fact The Zbig played a part in this is fascinating also. Now we have his daughter sitting as a panel member on a cable news show, discussing politics as a faux reporter/opinion maker/distorter. Is it impossible to think that she is also a psyops plant spewing 'news' that is regularly delivered to the masses?

The Achilles heel for the New Reich is 9/11. I know this blog routinely steers away from the topic, but it will eventually be impossible to avoid, as it remains the modern linch-pin for the fake GWOT, and the main raison d'etre for all the illegal torturing and spying that have gone forth since. Listening to the news on a daily basis, one still hears the justification that 'everything changed on 911', and this is why everything that has come after can be justified.

The topic itself is still very hot. I am hoping that at some point Mr. Greenwald will address it in terms of the legal implications of it being a false flag operation. Since there is now indisputable proof that the towers were demolished with explosives (google nano-thermite and WTC 7), it is clear that the conspiracy that brought the towers(3) down was much larger than Osama and 19 guys in a few planes.

Is this a crime worth investigating, or should we look to the future about that, also?

Excuse me please for not having read the comments before. It has probably been said already on the thread, but Kristol's argument is well aplied to tortue as well. Those who are noble do not torture, while those who aren't do. Even if they are both using the waterboard.

One might refer to this as tortured logic, but for psychopaths and Straussiians it is just life as they know it.

Again, apologies for not having read the thread. The final comment of your column caused me to think of a justification for the state of affairs as we know it. In the first paragraph you quote, the court indicates that in a democracy they would not expect this kind of action of cover-up.

The conclusion is clear. You no longer live in a democracy. That is the justification. Can it get any more obvious?

As always, your scathing comments and commentary are highly illuminating. I notice that the one topic that you still do not include in your theories that the left-wing-loony-mob believed, and have subsequently proven to be true, is the now indisputable fact that the events of 911 were an inside job.

The discovery of unexploded nano-thermites in the dust of the destroyed towers pretty well wraps it up.

Will you address this topic at some point in your column, or is it still too hot too handle?

You hit the nail on the head. The false flag event, the creation of fear to drive an agenda, is the main tactic used to keep people in line. Whenever you hear the news these days, and it mentions some terrorist activity, the first thought is false flag attack.

Close scrutiny of any number of 'terrorist events' since 911 will show that the majority are disguised to push people towards greater reliance on state control . Look at London 777, and the Madrid train bombings. Almosty certainly orchestrated by government operatives.

The US Government is the master illusionist, whether it is military or economy. Unlimited funds, and a wish to remain in power. Who benefits from those bombs indeed. Cui bono, the main question that should be answered when looking at any 'terrorist' activity.

As always, your commentary is penetrating. Your mention of the Van Jones situation reminded me of how all roads lead to 911, and how the media keeps its watchful eye on that particular topic as well. It suggests that anyone who thinks that the 'official' conspiracy theory is a crock, is a left-wing-wack-job. Anyone who expresses such an opinion must be silenced. Van Jones had, I believe, signed some petition that suggested something along the lines of a new impartial investigation of 911. Ergo, he must be fired.

In an article not long ago you wrote to one commenter that you had viewed the evidence about 911, and had found it unconvincing. In fact, this is what you said...

"I've said as clearly as the English language permits that I don't find those theories and evidence presented for them to be persuasive, and have referenced my reasons why.

There are categories in the world other than (a) people who emphatically affirm the truth of 9/11 inside job theories and (b) people too fearful to "touch" the topic. I'm neither in (a) nor (b)."

Frankly, I find your argument unconvincing. If you had read about the recent discovery of nano-thermites in the dust of the WTC buildings, I would have thought it would be hard to remain neutral or supportive of the official story. Are you aware of this evidence?

Your voice would be a welcome, rational one in the PR battle to advise the population not just about what they are suffering at the hands of those in power, but how we are enticed to believe it is all in the name of fighting 'terror' against those who never harmed us.