I read Christine Grimaldi's article about Ann Coulter's book and comments regarding the 9/11 widows ("Writer's Claims Disturb Families of 9/11 Victims," Sentinel, June 15), and I found myself nodding my head in agreement with the outrage expressed by those interviewed.

I have been wondering, too, if anyone asked Ann Coulter what her thoughts are on other grieving family members getting rich off the loss of their loved ones? Just a few come to mind right away - John Walsh, for instance, whose son, Adam, was brutally murdered. Look at all the "fame and wealth" he's acquired in the 25 years since his son died. Never mind all the people he's helped along the way - that's just a coincidence, I'm sure. Then there's Candi Lightner, who has reveled in the "celebrity" of the loss of her 13-year-old daughter, Cari, for 26 years. The fact that Lightner has brought attention to the issue of drunk driving is just a byproduct of her eagerness to become a celebrity, I suppose. And, let's not forget Paul Michael Glaser and his wife, Elizabeth. How dare they seek "fame and fortune" in the name of their daughter, Ariel, who died of AIDS after her mother received a tainted blood transfusion? And Mr. Glaser continues to use the deaths of his wife and child as opportunities to appear before Congress in what can be nothing more than a shameful attempt to maintain his celebrity status. He was there to help raise awareness for pediatric AIDS? A likely story.

I believe Ms. Coulter's real problem is with the fact that the inquiry by the "Jersey Girls" brought attention and criticism to a government machine that Ms. Coulter seems to eagerly support. To suggest at all that anyone who lost a loved one on 9/11 would seek fame or wealth intentionally through their unfortunate involvement with the tragedy is just ridiculous.

As far as I can tell, the only people who've managed to get rich from 9/11 are the government contractors. Is there a chapter on Halliburton in her book, too?

Noreen Baldwin

Waikoloa, Hawaii