You said, in part: Actually, none of those women asserted that view [that you can't say anything bad because they are 9/11 widows] ...the majority of America simply had the decency and respect to listen to them because of their unique view on the terrible events that unfolded that day.
***
These widows DID have a unique view and position because they were related to the actual victims of 9/11. Their view is NOT unique as it relates to US foreign policy, preparation for such terror events and backing democrat presidential candidates. These women can speak authoritatively on what it means to lose a husband in a terror attack (just as Cindy Sheehan can speak on the issue of losing a son in battle). Their authority does not extend to opinions on whether it was appropriate to go into Iraq or Afghanistan, and certainly not into the issue of presidential politics. They have the right to state their opinions, but they have no more authority than Barbra Streisand on such issues, and those who disagree with them should not be treated as being insensitive to "the poor widows."
what about the views of the other 2996?
"These widows DID have a unique view and position because they were related to the actual victims of 9/11."
And it ends there. They offer no unique insight other than the loss of their husbands. Guess what, there 2800+ other families that lost family members. However, the drive-by media didn't court them, treat them as royalty and trumpet their whining and crying.
Why did they treat the Jersey girls that way? Because they had a very liberal point of view that matched the MSM. So, the MSM media used them to get at the Bush administration. And the Jersey girls new that.
I would have used the language that Colter did. But her points are correct. The Jersey girls allowed themselved to be used.