In her blog, Rosie tried to soften and obscure her radical positions on 9/11, and in the process mangled the Constitution and pretended the issue is that her critics are stifling her Constitutional “freedom to speak.” She started out sympathetic and seemingly respectful, mouthed patriotic platitudes and then repackaged her tin foil hat rantings as mere “inquiry” and an extension of her First Amendment right to “entertain ideas”:

9/11 affected me deeply, as I know it did many Americans. The falling of the twin towers served to remind me that many of the assumptions Americans have about their lives are rooted in false feelings of security. In light of this reminder, I have begun doing exactly what this country, at its best, allows for me to do: inquire. Investigate. America is great in so many ways, one of which is the freedom to speak, and indeed think, freely. I have, of late, begun exercising the rights bestowed upon me by the democratic system I value, and the exercising of these rights has taken the form of an inquiry into what happened five years ago, an inquiry that resists the dominant explanations and that dares to entertain ideas that push me to the edge of what is bearable.

Well, it is painfully clear that something is pushing her to the edge, but that is between Rosie and her Cirque du Soleil coach. First, maybe Barbara Walters can explain that our Constitutional “freedom to speak” only means that that the government and state actors cannot abridge a person’s speech. It doesn’t mean that Bill O’Reilly cannot criticize her; in fact, it is just the opposite. Like many liberals, she doesn’t seem to understand that “free speech” also applies to those with whom they disagree-- even conservatives and Republicans.

She then backed away from previous remarks and claimed she is still deciding what to believe:

I have come to no conclusions and, given the scope of the subject, will not for some time.

If she is going to voice these opinions, at least be honest about it. In addition to blogrolling 911 Scholar.org and WTC7.net and her statements, she used “scare quotes” around the word “terrorists.”

Rosie misstated the cause of the controversy and minimized her extremist dogma and then slickly shifted the focus to the people who are upset at her simple “act of asking” by insinuating they are un-American and against democracy, which neatly positions herself as the real patriotic American:

If the very act of asking is so destabilizing for people, than I have to wonder whether the fabric of our democracy is indeed so raveled it is beyond salvage. My own belief is that the act of asking is itself reparative, because it brings to life the values on which our constitution rests. I am, therefore, pledging my allegiance, hand over heart, trying, as always, for a rigorous truth.

All that is missing is “God Bless America” playing in the background. If Rosie really is searching for the “rigorous truth,” she would bring on the 9/11 experts from ”Popular Mechanics.”