[sinkspur]

Yet the process of thinking through the whole thing is so complex that all most people are going to retain is that Ann made a nasty crack about the their personal lives, as you say.

I don't know what you're trying to say. It is most certainly not complex to have a politicial disagreement with somebody without getting personal. Every dummy knows when that is happening, just as they know when somebody is attacking somebody else.

Bones is attacking these women, no matter how many qualifiers she or you or anybody else uses to try to explain away that unpleasant fact. She had no reason to speculate about the status of their marriages or what their dead husbands might or might not have done when she could simply have taken them to task over their statements to the 9/11 commission.

Instead of talking about her dopey view of evolution, everybody is focused on her gratutious trashing of innocent dead men.

Coulter may sell a lot of books, but she's going to be doing it with her pants around her ankles.

[Jameison]

"Bones is attacking these women"

She is?
Excellent!

[papertyger]

She had no reason to speculate about the status of their marriages or what their dead husbands might or might not have done when she could simply have taken them to task over their statements to the 9/11 commission.

Yes, she did. She's playing a game you obviously have NO insight into. You really need to read Rachel Simmons "Odd Girl Out."

[txrangerette]

Sink, of course she's attacking the women. But she's not attacking their marriages. She's using rhetorical devices to force the dumbed down masses to THINK about these women as being similar to a Cindy Sheehan type.

We knew what Casey Sheehan stood for and that Cindy was trampling on all he stood for, using his sacrifice in Iraq to do so. For all we know, Ann points out, these women may be doing that to husbands that would scream at them to shut up and go away if they could. But they can't cause they're dead. So Ann just wants people to ask themselves some pointed questions about whether these women ought to be so sainted and so credible and so unassailable just because their husbands were terror victims and they decided to trash Bush.

But of course, most of all, as pissant acknowledges, she uses her rhetoric to sell her book.

[OldFriend]

Not only were these women willing to exploit the death of their husbands but they were willing to abandon their infant children to caretakers so they could bask in the limelight of Chris Matthews and his ilk.

There is something profoundly wrong with that picture, IMO.