The delicate Captain Ed is overcome once more by the vileness of it all:
Whether Rall or Coulter says it, impugning the grief felt by 9/11 widows regardless of their politics is nothing short of despicable. It denies them their humanity and disregards the very public and horrific nature of their spouses’ deaths….
This represents the downside of provocateurs, even those entertaining enough to enjoy for 80% of the time. Instead of arguing facts or philosophy, the provocateur usually relies on ad hominem attack in order to degrade and dismiss their opposition. A little of that goes a very long way, and unfortunately Coulter delivered it in droves yesterday. She owes these victims closest to 9/11 an abject apology and a retraction of her remarks, and she should pray that she doesn’t ever experience the kind of loss that these people have had. Regardless of their politics, their grief was and is all too real, and that drives their public engagement. I doubt a single one of them wouldn’t gladly trade their influence for one more day with the ones they lost. Shame on Ann for implying otherwise.
How, precisely, does questioning the obvious enjoyment and employment which these women derive from their dubious celebrity – however tragically it was obtained – “deny them their humanity”? They’ve been grieving publicly for nearly five years now! This is politically correct nonsense of the first degree and full credit to Ann for pointing out the complete lack of credibility possessed by these women to speak out on anything but their grief.
Perhaps in the Captain’s kinder, gentler world, no wives ever leave their husbands and no one ever kills a family member for the insurance money. Sure, it’s possible that some of these women would trade in the money, fame and influence to have their husbands back, but it’s equally possible that they cackle gleefully in secret at the Faustian deal they have so visibly accepted. I don’t know and neither does Captain Ed, but Coulter’s point would not have inspired such a reaction if everyone didn’t know exactly what she was talking about. The idea that there are holy women ennobled by grief whose pronouncements must be accepted unquestioningly is absurd; given that there are no shortage of similarly grief-stricken 9/11 widows that Coulter is not criticizing, it should be clear that the Captain’s point is just another attempt to showcase indignant drama.
And his point, such as it is, is particularly ironic considering how Ann Coulter is the one pointing out relevant, if uncomfortable facts, while the Captain himself is doing nothing but pointing his finger and decrying others, again demanding an apology is rather less likely than seeing the Stanley Cup settled on Hell’s home ice.
Another day, another example of faux outrage. When did the conservative movement come to be dominated by such a bunch of whiny, oversensitive scolds?
UPDATE: The White Buffalo points out a similarly “despicable” post from the Captain robbing the famously bereaved Cindy Sheehan of her humanity:
The inevitable parade of nutcases will be in full flower tonight as the President delivers his State of the Union speech. (Sheehan is one of the two individuals mentioned.)
Given that the good Captain previously accused Sheehan of having “gone seriously off-balance with grief”, I can only think that he owes her “an abject apology and a retraction of [his] remarks”. What’s more offensive, accusing someone of enjoying fame, political influence and millions of dollars or accusing someone of being a seriously unbalanced nutcase?