By Kevin Barrett, http://www.truthjihad.com 

From "Book the First: What Is Truth?
Is the Truthful Life Happier than the Untruthful?" 

Persons of the Dialogue 

Socrates (the narrator), Credulus, Neoconus, Braindedicus, Cowardiphon  

I went down the Chatroomicon, a chimerical agora that one enters through magic boxes, with my companion Credulus, son of  Gullibles, who had told me that some oafs from the island of Jamesrandia, by the names of Neoconus, Braindedicus, and Cowardiphon, were planning to "log on," as he termed it, and put my undeserved reputation for wisdom to the test. 

We arrived and, seeing we had the place momentarily to ourselves, Credulus turned to me and said, "Socrates, there is a question I have been meaning to ask you, but I hesitate, since we may be interrupted at any moment." 

"Ask away, Credulus," I said. "The latecomers will have to wait their turn." 

"That is one thing they surely will never do, Socrates. They are more prone to insult than argument, and with their boorish manners they hurl jeers and jibes the way angry, chattering monkeys hurl their dung." 

"That does not sound like a very promising dialogue, Credulus. All the more reason for me to converse with you first, and them later if at all." 

"If they barge into the middle of our conversation, we may find it difficult to continue our dialogue."

"Never mind that, Credulus. Please tell me what is on your mind." 

"All right, then. Socrates, there is an argument I have been considering for some time now, which forces me to continue to believe that in spite of everything you say, the government's sacred story about 9/11 being the work of 19 guys with boxcutters led by a man on dialysis in a cave in Bactria must be true." 

"Your argument sounds most impressive. What is it?" 

"Simple, Socrates! The government is far too inept to organize an operation of such scope and complexity. Why, they can barely collect our taxes or deliver the mail!" 

"An interesting point, Credulus. So if we abolished the Postal Service and the IRS, and fired all of their employees, we could get the mail delivered, and our taxes collected, more swiftly, accurately, and efficiently by replacing them with nineteen young sex-and-drug-crazed Arab men and one older guy in a cave with a terminal kidney condition?" 

"Well, not exactly, Socrates. But think of it -- 9/11 was a complex, coordinated attack on four different targets. If you're right, and the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition, and the Pentagon bombed or hit by a missile, think of how difficult the whole plan must have been!" 

"I am thinking, Credulus, or at least doing my best. Let me rephrase my question: Do you assert that nineteen young Arab wastrels and a terminal kidney patient in a cave would be more capable of executing a complex military attack than professional military planners, special forces troops, covert operators, and organized criminals, especially if they were in some way authorized by the top of the acting chain of command?" 

"You have put me in a difficult position, Socrates, as usual. But having come this far, I must press on with the argument that you have already, I admit, had some success at undermining." 

"Press on, then." 

"The top of the chain of command on 9/11, President Bush, was a boob! He couldn't possibly have orchestrated 9/11!" 

"Are you asserting that a government led by a boob cannot accomplish anything elaborate?" 

"I certainly am, Socrates. Governments are incompetent to begin with, so when they are led by an arch-bumbler, it stands to reason that their incompetence must be magnified, so that they cannot accomplish complex tasks successfully." 

"Would you say that delivering the mail every day to and from 200 million addresses is a complex task?" 

"Of course." 

"So for eight years the Postal Service was part of a federal government nominally led by a man you call a bumbler (which we have not yet established that he actually is or was). Did that in any way impede it from getting the mail delivered?" 

"No...except for a brief period after the anthrax attacks." 

"I am glad you mentioned that. Now Credulus, I am going to ask you to search your memory, and failing that, Google, and tell me: Where was that anthrax manufactured?" 

(Credulus googles around a bit before answering.) 

"It was manufactured in a U.S. government military laboratory, Socrates." 

"What was scrawled on the anthrax envelopes?" 

"'Death to America, death to Israel, Allah is Great.'" 

"Who does the FBI blame for the anthrax attacks?" 

"A U.S. government scientist, Socrates." 

"Was he a Muslim?" 

"No, Socrates, a Christian." 

"Has the FBI explained why he tried to frame Muslims for the attack?" 

"No, Socrates." 

"Can you think of any reason why a non-Muslim scientist at a U.S. military bioweapons lab would launch a murderous anthrax attack and make it look as if Muslims had done it?" 

"Perhaps he hated Muslims?" 

"Perhaps. Might those who were planning wars against Muslim nations have had a better motive?"

"Yes, Socrates, they might have. But the whole matter is shrouded in mystery. The man the FBI blames for the anthrax attacks, Bruce Ivins, was exonerated by the FBI's own handwriting analysis and timeline." 

"So why are they still blaming him? Why doesn't he fight back to clear his name?" 

"He died, Socrates." 

"Just in time to be blamed for the attacks?" 

"Yes, that is true." 

"So in spite of the Bumbler-in-Chief, some individual or group within the U.S. biowarfare community, presumably non-Muslim, was able to launch a deadly terrorist attack and have it blamed on Muslims?" 

"Yes, Socrates." 

"And that individual or group got away with it for seven years if it was Ivins, or to this very day if Ivins was a patsy?" 

"I am afraid that is also true." 

"Might non-Muslims within the US military-intelligence community have orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and blamed them on Muslims, just as with the anthrax attacks?"  

"My argument, which you are treating so roughly, is that they could not have, because 9/11 was far more elaborate than the anthrax attacks, which could be plausibly explained as the work of one man." 

"How many targets were attacked on 9/11?" 

"Four...three with apparent success." 

"And how many targets were attacked during the first two hours of the Boob-in-Chief's invasion of Iraq?" 

"Many thousands, Socrates." 

"Were those targets defended by a hostile force?" 

"Yes." 

"How many defenders were there?" 

"Over a hundred thousand, Socrates." 

"Which do you think is a more complex logistical feat, Credulus: attacking thousands of targets halfway around the world that are guarded by over one hundred thousand trained professionals...or attacking four nearby targets that are guarded by nobody, because the people who are supposed to be defending them are actually doing the attacking?" 

"Clearly, attacking thousands of heavily-guarded targets halfway around the world is far more complex." 

"How did the Idiot-in-Chief accomplish such a feat?" 

"I can't imagine, Socrates, I really can't. But somehow he did." 

"I am not sure that he had any more to do with the logistics of the attack on Iraq than with those of 9/11. In any case, it occurs to me that we are taking for granted a premise for which we have seen no evidence, and against which we have seen considerable evidence, namely, that George W. Bush is an idiot." 

"The evidence is everywhere, Socrates! If you honestly doubt Bush's idiocy, just go to Youtube and watch him attempting to speak." 

"A good point, I admit. But if he is really as stupid as he looks, how did he manage to make himself the most powerful man in the world?" 

"He didn't, Socrates! He never achieved anything honestly by his own efforts in his life. The man was born with a silver spoon in his nose!" 

"Then how did he become the world's most powerful man?" 

"At every step along the way, he was aided by wealthy, powerful friends and would-be friends of his family." 

"So it was a group of wealthy, powerful, presumably competent people, not Bush himself, who were responsible for his rise to high office?" 

"Indeed, it cannot be doubted." 

"Might those people, and other competent people, be responsible for the success of such complex logistical feats as the 9/11 attacks, the daily delivery of mail to 200 million addresses, and the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq?" 

"I suppose it is possible. But I refuse to believe it. The military and intelligence services are part of the government, and the government is just not competent enough to pull off such a monumental deception as 9/11." 

"Simply repeating a statement does not make it true, Credulus, especially after reasoned dialogue has shown it to be false, or at least deeply questionable. But leaving that aside for the moment, I am interested in some of the implications of your views about the incompetence of government. You hold that governments are, by and large, inept?" 

"Yes, Socrates, I believe they are." 

"For a bunch of boobs, they have certainly built some impressive monuments, organized some complex and seemingly effective services, and fought some technically demanding and highly accomplished wars--not that wars are intelligent enterprises, mind you." 

"That is all true. But in many cases it is not so much the government that is responsible for these and other successes, but private individuals and corporations working alongside it. Consider the example of the World Wars. Millions of individuals volunteered to help the war efforts, and it was the private corporations that worked together to create the productive apparatus that brought victory." 

"Are private corporations still involved in the productive apparatus surrounding the military and intelligence services?" 

"Of course." 

"In your view, are these corporations largely made up of intelligent and efficient people, while the government itself is made up of incompetent boobs?" 

"Yes, I suppose that is the case." 

"Do these intelligent and efficient people in the private sector have access to great financial and technological resources?" 

"Yes, some of them do." 

"So in your view, power in this country has two layers: A private corporate sector full of intelligent, efficient people some of whom have access to great financial and technological resources, and a government sector full of incompetents and buffoons." 

"I might not put it quite that way, Socrates, but I suppose that is a logical corollary of the argument I have been advancing." 

"Does this government, consisting almost entirely of buffoons, itself have access to any resources of power--financial, technological, police, or military?" 

"Of course it does, Socrates. It has a budget of over a trillion dollars a year, a law enforcement system that reaches into every remote village and hamlet in the land, massive military forces, and a huge number of ultra-sophisticated and highly destructive weapons." 

"How did such an incompetent organization, made up of such incompetent people, get its hands on all that?" 

"I can't imagine, Socrates, I really can't. It does seem inexplicable." 

"Perhaps I can help you devise an explanation. If the government, which controls such vast resources, is really as incompetent as you claim, might the competent people and organizations outside of government figure out a way to take over the government, in order to get their hands on all those resources?" 

"They might. In fact, they almost certainly would." 

"When they established control over the government and its resources, would they announce what they were doing, or would they do it by stealth?" 

"They would probably do it by stealth. If they announced what they were doing, they would invite jealousies and conflicts with the dominant beliefs of the people, who like to think they govern themselves democratically." 

"So you admit that an incompetent government controlling vast resources would always, sooner or later, and probably sooner, be taken over by competent individuals and groups, most likely in secret?" 

"I suppose that is true, Socrates." 

"So perhaps it is merely the façade of government that is incompetent, while those who have managed to seize real power for themselves and their allies, including control of the government, are, by definition, competent?" 

"That does seem undeniable."  

"It may be undeniable given your premise that the government is incompetent, which, as we have just seen, is a premise that undermines itself." 

"I am afraid you are right, as usual..." 

Suddenly Neoconus, Braindedicus, and Cowardiphon rushed into the Chatroomicon and noisily interrupted my dialogue with Credulus.  

Neoconus began shouting "Socrates is a conspiracy theorist" and the other two took up the chant. After they had worn themselves out chanting, Braindedicus, in an attempt to feign cleverness, presented me with a round, shiny, concave object that he called a tinfoil hat. Cowardiphon, for his part, looked exceedingly ill at ease, so when the noise had diminished, I asked him what was troubling him. 

"Your horrible ideas upset me, Socrates, almost as much as the thought of the millions of crazed Muslim fanatics drooling for death in spectacular suicide attacks against myself and my loved ones! I wish Homeland Security would shut you up, for you are undeniably corrupting the youth of Athens." 

"Calm down, Cowardiphon, and go clean yourself up, for you seem to have lost control of your bowels. As for the rest of you, I am afraid that your heated but unenlightening conversation has left me with a powerful thirst for a nice, cold glass of hemlock." 

I clicked on the hemlock icon and logged out.
 

Kevin Barrett is the author of the brand-new Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters, which deconstructs the "war on terror" through Socratic questioning. Blacklisted from teaching at American universities since 2006, Dr. Barrett has recently worked as a talk radio host, author, public speaker, and congressional candidate. One of the best-known critics of the War on Terror, Dr. Barrett has appeared on Fox, CNN, PBS, ABC-TV, and Unavision, and has been the subject of op-eds and feature stories in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, and other publications. He lives in Lone Rock, Wisconsin with his wife, two children, and a dog named after Salman Rushdie.