![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bemused_leftistPalin isn't the first to apply the term 'blood libel' to political speech that accuses the opposition of, in effect, having blood on its hands. Here's a Democrat in 2006 saying that Rove (and the Bush administration) is practicing 'blood libel'.
What Rove is giving voice to here is nothing less than the new blood libel of our age: that those who oppose the Bush Administration's unconstitutional actions are opening the door to a new 9/11. The implication is clear: anyone who speaks up for the Constitution is working for the death of innocent Americans.
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=542246
By Chris Floyd, the author of Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime.
Hm, I wondered if any GOP jumped on Floyd for stretching the meaning of the term 'blood libel', but a quick Google didn't find anything.
What Rove is giving voice to here is nothing less than the new blood libel of our age: that those who oppose the Bush Administration's unconstitutional actions are opening the door to a new 9/11. The implication is clear: anyone who speaks up for the Constitution is working for the death of innocent Americans.
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=542246
By Chris Floyd, the author of Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime.
Hm, I wondered if any GOP jumped on Floyd for stretching the meaning of the term 'blood libel', but a quick Google didn't find anything.
