Molly Ivins weighs in

Okay. Molly Ivins has a great column on the domestic spying story. It's called, "Good old Constitutional crisis" and it starts like this:

AUSTIN, Texas -- Uh-oh. Excuse me. I'm so sorry, but we are having a constitutional crisis. I know the timing couldn't be worse. Right in the middle of the wrapping paper, the gingerbread and the whole shebang, a tiny honest-to-goodness constitutional crisis.

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country: Damn the inconvenience, full speed ahead. On his own, without consulting the Congress, the courts or the people, the president decided to use secret branches of government to spy on the American people. He is, of course, using 9-11 to justify his actions in this, as he does for everything else -- 9-11 happened so the Constitution does not apply, 9-11 happened so there is no separation of powers, 9-11 happened so 200 years of experience curbing the executive power of government is something we can now overlook.

That the president of the United States unconstitutionally usurped power is not in dispute. He and his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, both claim he has the right to do so on account of he is the president.

Let's try this again. The president is not above the law. I wish I thought I were being too pompous about this, but the greatest danger to our freedom always comes when we are scared or distracted -- and right now, we are both.

Only I don't think it's a tiny constitutional crisis. I think it's a big constitutional crisis. Once you decide the fourth amendment can simply be ignored because you're the president, you have set the precedent for ignoring the whole Bill of Rights.

Now, about 9-11. Here's the comment someone made when this article was posted on Smirking Chimp:

Go get 'em Molly!

Molly pointedly notes, "He is, of course, using 9-11 to justify his actions in this, as he does for everything else".

We know the main stream media has done a poor job reporting on the 9-11 Commission's giving the administration grades of D and F in terms of preventing another terrorist attack. But few are aware of the even more significant lack of coverage of credible information indicating that the premise of 911 is wrong.

The New York Times has just released an oral history of the first-hand reports of firefighters who were in the World Trade Center towers after the planes hit. They report hearing explosives being set off inside the buildings. Dr. Steven Jones, a professor of physics from Brigham Young University has written a very incriminating scientific paper (available at 911TrueStory.com) that argues a controlled demolition is the most reasonable explanation for the collapse of the twin towers and WTC Building 7.

Imagine the implications if Dr. Jones is correct!

He urges an independent scientific investigation to determine whether controlled demolition or the administration's official story better explain what happened to the World Trade Center.

Additional information, allowing comparison of the official story vs. the controlled demolition scientific argument is available at 911TrueStory.com .

I'm tired of tip-toeing around the 9-11 story. The official account just doesn't add up - never did add up. I think this administration has amply proven that they are capable of anything. They've demonstrated they will happily trash the Constitution and they've demonstrated they'll happily send thousands of Americans to be killed or horribly maimed on the basis of a blatant lie. What won't they do? Ask yourself who benefited from 9-11. Think about it. And before you write me off as a conspiracy theorist, please read this article by Gore Vidal who is no crack-pot. Especially read the section entitled, "Bush and the dog that did not bark".