With reality like this, who needs conspiracy theories?

This is not unique: most people think their case is strengthened if embellished, which is why we incorporate into our language expressions like "literally", when we mean "not really". "It's literally five minutes' walk from the station," means, "it's more than five minutes' walk from the station." A person has no need for words such as "literally" or "honestly" if their assertion is not dubious.

Take the media and the Iraq war. The case against the war gets stronger every day: the handover of some power to a puppet administration has been carried out with a tremendous flourish and the fabled weapons of mass destruction no longer feature in British or American government propaganda at all. History has been reinvented to tell us that the whole thing was about removing a dictator in order to improve human rights.

But the new prime minister, Iyad Allawi, is a former Ba'athist strongman and his US-backed organisation, the Iraqi National Accord, provided some of the dodgy intelligence used in the run-up to the war.

If the new regime were subject to parliamentary questions (which would require elections to have taken place, mind you), it would be interesting to hear his answers to questions about how long reconstruction will take and when foreign troops will leave. I imagine his answers would be "45 minutes".

Moreover, the USA does not invade countries to improve human rights. And we can justly point to the human rights abuses committed by coalition forces.

The Daily Mirror, however, obfuscated the issue by publishing fake photographs, and this is as good a reason as any why you shouldn't overstate your case: when you get found out, you undermine the credibility of your side.

We had no need for fake photos in the Mirror. The things we already knew were happening were bad enough – worse, in fact.

Truth is the best weapon in the arsenal of the progressive. But we are under-confident in our case, so we overstate it for maximum impact – leading to some pretty wild conspiracy theories.

We're right about most things. For example, Al-Qaeda was brought about by US intelligence, this much we know. But it's also fair to say that US intelligence has let Al-Qaeda get a bit out of hand, and is wishing it had set clearer boundaries and fed it fewer E numbers when it was little.

There are many things wrong with George W Bush, but I doubt very much that it says ‘criminal mastermind’ on his passport

Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11; Al-Qaeda unquestionably was (some might say, "Yes, well, that's what they want you to think", but hold on – I know we're often lied to but some things are just true, and that's nothing to be afraid of).

It's also true that the White House blithely ignored the danger posed by Al-Qaeda before 9/11, and the fact that Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks of 9/11 doesn't justify the ensuing attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

But I have read on some of the more inventive websites that George W Bush himself organised the attack on the World Trade Centre. Well, I'm sorry, but that was a skilled operation, involving knives, and we know for a fact that Bush isn't allowed to use sharp things.

Also, there are many things wrong with him but I doubt very much that it says "criminal mastermind" on his passport.

And I hope you are ready for this one: I have even seen a theory – nay, assertion of fact – trumpeted on the internet that no plane hit the Pentagon on 11 September 2001.

Well, if it's true, that plane's been in a holding pattern for a very long time now, and the passengers' patience must be wearing thin. Not even complimentary drinks from the bar will compensate for all those missed appointments.

Moreover, I've seen the pictures and if no plane hit the Pentagon, Washington DC has one hell of a termite problem.