First, she's freaking out because a marine who is running for public office refers to himself as a "warrior." She thinks this terminology is some sort of secret code to extremist tin foil hat types, apparently.
Next, she's breaking out a major upgrade in the Reasoned Discourse level. Interestingly, she refers to her new commenting guidelines as "Rules of Engagement." If I were crazy, then I'd think that this was some sort of "secret code." I mean, why use a militarized phrase that practically reeks of conflict and violence? There were plenty of words with non-military etymologies such as "Commenting Guidelines," "Comment Policy," "Discussion Rules," and so on.
I think this is another case of double standards. I remember after the tragedy where Gabby Giffords was shot, the gun control folks and media (but I repeat myself) trotted out a graphic from Sarah Palin calling on folks to "target" various seats. Interestingly, even though the DNC using exactly the same language, graphics, and rhetoric, they got a free pass. Even more ironically, the progressive "Mother Goose" blog had written a vitriolic piece attacking Rep Giffords just prior to the shooting and calling for her to be targeted as she was a blue dog heretic, but that got flushed down the memory hole too.
If it is inappropriate to militarize our civil discourse in a given context, then it is inappropriate for both sides to do so. If one takes that view, then one might make an exception for speakers who are actually in the military or who study military science, or for different contexts where such language is appropriate (for example, discussing drone strikes in Pakistan would be an appropriate time to talk about "rules of engagement"). It seems to reek of at least irony if not offensive double-standards for Joan to blast a veteran for referring to his honorable service and then turn around and use militarized language herself to advance her cause without a second thought.