Re: oh please.

Considering they went after her directly, I think her response is actually
fairly measured.

She has been accused in specific terms of having blood on her hands for the
Gifford shooting.

Hotair covered her speech and addressed the blood libel question.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/12/video-journalists-and-pundits-should-not-m
anufacture-a-blood-libel/

Update: Some are criticizing Palin’s use of “blood libel,” saying that it refers
to a specific anti-semitic charge from centuries ago that Jews supposedly used
the blood of Christian children in preparing ritual food. But as Glenn Reynolds
points out to Politico’s Ben Smith, Israel uses “blood libel” today to rebut
charges of deliberately killing Palestinians, and Tony Blankley used it in a
column to describe John Murtha’s accusations against Marines about murders in
Haditha. It’s a functional political term.

Update II: Big Government got a statement from Alan Dershowitz, no right-wing
sympathizer, on Palin’s use of the term “blood libel”:

	The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in
public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based
false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People, its current usage is
far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the
State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly
nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she
reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have
caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of
the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this
widely used term.


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:47 PM
To: Daniel Amos off-topic listserver
Subject: [DADL-OT] oh please.

I don't necessarily disagree with all *that* much of what she says, but good
grief.  The Constitution a "sacred" document?  (What kind of Christian *is*
she?)  And the casual suggestion that she's a victim of "blood libel" (a term
that typically refers to anti-Semitism)?

I don't blame her for wanting to get back at the left-wing nasties who have
tried to hijack this atrocity for their own partisan ends, and in context, I
guess she's rather restrained about it all.  But still ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/palin-accuses-media-of-blood-
libel-in-casting-blame-on-arizona-shooting/article1866910/

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot