She goes too far, I'll give you that, but she has a valid point that posts like yours (purposely) overlook. The point about the 9/11 wives and Cindy Sheehan and such is that debating them is off limits. Unless you lost someone the way they did you can't sit and debate their political philosophy without being the villain.
I agree with her 100%. American quasi-Liberals do it all the time with the war, where they spout that if you aren't willing to go and die you can't support the war, and then in the same breath vilify such attitudes when they have to deal with them. You see the back-and-forth here when someone says that unless you are willing to do what soldiers do you can't differ with the job they are doing.
The anti-Conservatives want it both ways, as usual. They want to be able to parade their victims with a memorized series of talking points, and then when someone like Ann Coulter takes them to task they start waving the bloody shirt. I listened to an interview with her and the snippets that have caused the uproar, and people are really making it into something it isn't.
I don't like the statement she made about divorce stuff, but this is someone who has to deal with the most disgusting attacks on her whether she says things like that or not. She's not calling them 'little eichmanns', anyway, she's simply saying that hiding behind the victims of war or terrorism to shield your political opinion is cowardly.
Sheehan stated in one of her disgruntled letters to the press that there would never be a good discussion of the war in Iraq so long as there were dissenting opinions there clouding the subject. That's the attitude that Coulter, and many of us, are angry about. It isn't that we are wrong, but it isn't even tasteful to SAY what we think in the presence of these fragile flowers.
Well, if they are fragile, they don't need to be out there provoking a debate they don't want to take part in.
