OK, I'm answering a bit late, but here goes...

DougR, I could *almost* buy the idea that the 9/11 widows have an advantage in that they are difficult to respond to without being labeled "insensitive". I say "almost" because if Ann Coulter is idiot enough to write the sort of libelous, vicious, disgustingly vitriolic shit that she wrote about them and then claim some sort of "high moral ground" because she is "daring to speak the truth", I don't buy it for a second. People with a valid political point to make have no need for statements such as the following, which do nothing to advance their point and are purely venomous attempts to gain publicity and sell books (now who is calling who a media whore?):

"By the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

DougR, I have both agreed and disagreed with you in the past. I'd like to have your input on this quote? Does this qualify as "sympathizing with those who have lost loved ones, while still disagreeing with their point of view?"

Sorry to get "testy" as Ann herself might put it ;) but I just can't understand reasonable people defending the things she had to say. Now, her right to say it, absolutely--freedom of speech is essential! But freedom of speech also means accepting fully the consequences of that speech. Don't shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre and then expect everyone to wave the First Amendment and shout, "Hurrah!"

OK. In the immortal words of Batman, "I've gotta go to work."

Cheers all,

Molly