Liberal human shields

David Limbaugh:

With all the controversy surrounding Ann Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," some might overlook important substantive points she has made.

Critics may say, "Precisely. That's our complaint with Ann. Her insulting remarks deflect attention from the points she's trying to make."

Not so fast. Whether she intended it this way or not, the "harsh" remarks she made in the book have proven one of her theses in a way the book alone could not have done -- at least not as effectively.

She contends that liberals have employed certain "human shields" to advance their unpopular arguments, especially those pertaining to the war on terror. These people have either earned respect, like military heroes, or become sympathetic figures through personal tragedy, like Cindy Sheehan and the widows of 9/11 victims.

As a result of their status, these individuals are entitled to say anything they want, not just as a matter of free speech, which no one would dispute, but with full immunity from criticism. Their actions and statements cannot be challenged, no matter how ludicrous, no matter how destructive.

The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said as much when she wrote that it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute" (cited by Coulter, p. 127).

Sorry, but that presumably well-meaning statement is just flat wrong, and wrongheaded. If it were true, we could delegate authority over the nuclear "football" to grieving parents of soldiers killed in action and let them unleash our ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) on suspected terrorist strongholds. Forget "collateral damage," their moral authority is absolute.

...

David and Ann are both right and it is about time that these debates focus on facts and not the emotional baggage of those making an argument.

As usual, the liberals' outrage is highly selective. It is not the people or their circumstances that are sacrosanct, but their liberal positions. Liberals accorded none of their precious war-hero deference to John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Indeed, they called them liars -- when they weren't -- and much worse. They have savaged combat-decorated Marine Ollie North. They have no use for retired generals supporting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Not on their lives would they defend 9/11 widows or mothers of war victims in support of President Bush's war effort.

...

It should also be noted tht the Swiftvets were speaking out against Kerry's original slander of their service in Vietnam, yet they were attacked for questioning Kerry's service in Vietnam. Calling them war criminals was OK with the liberal media, but questioning Kerry's service was beyond the pale.