Coulter actually says this in her new book, "Godless: the Church of Liberalism" (released, oh so cleverly, on 6/6/6). She's referring to widows of 9-11 and Iraq who have spoken out against the Bush Administration. You know, real people who have suffered real loss and pain as a result of Bush's thoughtless actions or inactions.
This morning on NBC, Matt Lauer took Coulter to task (sort of) for making the statement. Here's the transcript; you can also watch the video at http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/coulter-911/.
LAUER: Do you believe everything in the book or do you put some things in there just to cater to your base?
ANN: No, of course I believe everything.
LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, and in particular a group that had been critical of the administration: "These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if [sic] the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process." And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much." Because they dare to speak out?
COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity.
LAUER: So grieve but grieve quietly?
COULTER: No, the story is an attack on the nation. That requires a foreign policy response.
LAUER: By the way, they also criticized the Clinton administration.
COULTER: Not the ones I am talking about. No, no, no.
LAUER: Yeah they have.
COULTER: Oh no, no, no, no, no. They were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding.
LAUER: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?
COULTER: No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for being able to talk about, while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point. Let Bill Clinton make the point. Don't put up someone I am not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.
LAUER: Well apparently you are allowed to respond to them.
COULTER: Yeah, I did.
LAUER: So, in other words.
COULTER: That is the point of liberal infallibility. Of putting up Cindy Sheehan, of putting out these widows, of putting out Joe Wilson. No, no, no. You can't respond. It's their doctrine of infallibility. Have someone else make the argument then.
LAUER: What I'm saying is I don't think they have ever told you, you can't respond.
COULTER: Look, you are getting testy with me.
LAUER: No. I think it's a dramatic statement. "These broads are millionaires stalked by stalked by griefparrazies"? "I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much"?
COULTER: Yes, they are all over the news.
LAUER: The book is called "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." Ann Coulter, always fun to have you here.
Fun? Coulter has gone completely off the deep end of the Marianas Trench. People who have experienced the death of a loved one as a result of government action or inaction have every right - and every authority - to speak out against that action or inaction. They are no more protected by a "doctrine of infallibility" than Coulter is by freedom of speech. Unfortunately.
(Thanks to Eric Dickey for the scoop.)