Well then, what was the "truth" to be found in her surmising on Hannity and Colmes: "How do we know that their (The Jersey Girls) husbands weren't going to divorce them before 9/11?"
What was Ann's truth there? What dirty thing was she more than intimating there? Wasn't that invective at it's worst on her part? Commenting like that on these women's personal relationships with their killed husbands, to me, was as despicable an the left's disgusting remarks over the years. Was that necessary by her or at all in good taste?
In my opinion there was NO NEED for her to go there. Her point about the "protected victims" being used to spout liberal bull had already been made.
She had previously made her point, and had made it very well ......... she had them all squirming already, but her immaturity (or whatever) made her go over into the gutter.
But, I'm rooting for her, she's very effective.
This one is still a good point, IMO.
The Jersey Girls' celebrity was based entirely on their marriage to men who died on 9/11 (in conjunction with their opposition to Republicans)... If they were divorced from these men, then there would be no reason to shower them with attention. Because they are basing their authority on the magnitude of their suffering that resulted from the deaths of their husbands, it seems legitimate to point out that IF their husbands were going to divorce them (and as Ann said, we don't know that they were), their authority falls apart.