It is interesting, if not wholly typical, that a Google news search of the words “Morgan Reynolds” and “inside job” returns exactly ten matches. Reynolds, a former Bushite (chief economist in the Labor Department during Bush’s first term), told United Press International on June 8 “that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is ‘bogus’ and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.” A revised Google News search simply using Reynolds’ name returns an astounding 20 links to news and opinion articles and posts at Conspiracy Planet, WorldNetDaily, Collective Bellaciao, Uruknet, From the Wilderness, and a few others. So taboo is wandering afield of the official story on nine eleven, Texas A&M (where Reynolds once worked) “acted promptly to define his status as Professor Emeritus, and point out that he didn’t even have an office there,” reports Jim Marrs for Blogcritics. “The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001,” said Texas A&M president Dr. Robert M. Gates in a written statement. “To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale,” and the “pale,” of course, is defined by Bush and the corporate media, both confirmed liars and lie disseminators. In order to paint Reynolds with the wide brush of conspiracy kookism, Marrs went a step further.

It looks like the Aggies PR department has been taking notes from the lingering controversy at the University of Colorado and statements made by Professor Ward Churchill. Churchill is accused of academic fraud, plagiarism, misrepresenting his Native American heritage, and misconduct. (He said the victims of 9/11 deserved what they got, because they were “Little Eichmanns”.) The CU PR department is now looking at a massive overhaul.

Ah, yes, Ward Churchill—never mind that Churchill more or less bought into the official version and put his own spin on it: nine eleven was blowback engineered by Muslims seeking payback for decades of imperialism in the Middle East. Never mind that, as more than one person who understands covert actions has stated, it would be impossible for a gang of cave-dwelling medieval Muslims to pull off such a complex and sophisticated operation. But never mind, I am wandering beyond the “pale” here, and not doubt I should get myself to professional head shrink, pronto.

Meanwhile, John C. A. Bambenek dismisses Reynolds as a shameless self-seeker, grudge-holder, and, for good measure, throws in the Ward Churchill angle:

This guy’s expertise is in the economics of crime and punishment that is clear. It’s doubtful that he’s got any experience in demolitions or civil engineering. Why would he say stuff like this? Maybe he was booted out of Labor on bad terms, maybe he wants attention (it worked for Ward Churchill), who knows? 9/11 conspiracies have become a cottage industry though. What I do know is that this scenario is highly unlikely and if it was an “inside job” it would have had to be started before Bush got into office.

Of course, we have plenty of evidence Bush planned to invade Iraq well before the Supremes elected him to be president, although the corporate media has not reported this very well either.

Now we have another former Republican (or maybe he still is a Republican, albeit a Republican before Republicans were neoconized) asking questions about the official version of events and the “war” against the Iraqi people. “A former high-ranking Republican official, also a well-respected author, tells the American people to stop listening to Bush administration lies about Iraqi war and claims the mainstream media will not publish anything he writes against Bush or his policies,” writes Greg Szymanski.

A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan stepped back into the political spotlight this week, expressing doubt about the official 9/11 story and claiming “if they lied to us about Ruby Ridge, Waco and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why should we believe them now.”

Paul Craig Roberts, listed by Who’s Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world, has evolved over the years into a major Bush basher as well as neo con critic. Roberts said he hasn’t changed his political ideology or jumped from the Republican-conservative ship but “just can’t respect a party leadership who doesn’t respect the truth.”

Saying 9/11 is only a part of a mysterious but deadly neo-con puzzle, Roberts looked back at history for some answers.

“They (neo cons) are making such fatalistic mistakes and are about as insane as Hitler and the Nazi Party when they invaded Russia in the dead of the winter,” said Roberts who now, as a hobby, syndicates a national newspaper column, adding to his long and impressive list of academic, journalistic and political credentials.

Oops, Roberts blew it—he used the “N” and “H” words and thus flushed his esteemed career and credentials down the toilet.

Even with his impressive background, Roberts, once a former columnist for Business Week and a thorn in the side of liberals back then, said “the times have drastically changed,” adding his views are no longer welcome in the mainstream media if they are critical of Bush or any of his policies.

“It’s like the Nazis removing dissent without using the Gestapo,” said Roberts, whose articles are circulated widely on the Internet and appear regularly in the American Free Press, an alternative publication. “Most publications, like the Washington Times, for example, will not print anything critical of Bush, his strategies and, definitely, anything seriously opposing the war is off base.”

Of course, late last week, we had Karl Rove, acting as a spokesman for our own version of the Nazi Reichssicherheitshauptamt (the Nazi version was responsible for fighting all “enemies of the Reich” and Rove is now responsible for fighting all enemies of the Strausscons and the all-war-all-the-time agenda), tell us that “liberals” (he means Democrats) “offer therapy and understanding to our attackers,” in other words they are traitors, as the wingers never tire of telling us, more or less demanding they be rounded up, in Reichssicherheitshauptamt fashion.

Soon after Rove made his comments, White House Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett came out added some color to Rove’s rough sketch:

What Karl Rove was pointing out—and he was quite specific I might add—in his speech, was that MoveOn.org, a liberal organization, that put out a petition and a statement right after 9/11 saying don’t respond militarily, show restraint, that’s exactly what he was talking about. For the life of me, I don’t understand why these Democrats feel they have to rally behind this liberal organization that was clearly in opposite views of even them and their votes at the time. So I think this a much to do about nothing, a little bit of maybe trying to get the distraction off of Sen. Durbin’s apology, but what Karl was saying is a public record, and like I said, I think it’s obvious that its odd that they feel they have to defend this liberal organization.

So, in other words, Rove and Bartlett are demanding the “liberals” in Congress denounce MoveOn as an anti-American, jihad-appeasing, Osama-coddling organization, i.e., they are traitors and terrorists and should be treated as such. Rove is setting up the parameters, although the “liberal corporate media” does not see it as such, instead concentrating on Rove’s over-the-top approach. It will be interesting to read their take after people like Ward Churchill and Paul Craig Roberts are hauled into court and charged with treason, as the wingers demand. Rovian politics is not kind and gentle and inclined to let MoveOn exercise their First Amendment right. In Bushzarro world, enemies are not only taken to the woodshed, they will eventually be rounded up and excised from the body politic for speech and commentary beyond the “pale.” It gives aid and comfort to our engineered enemies.

For now, I’ll let the “N” word slide.