'Blood libel' -- applied by a Democrat to Rove's talk in 2006

[bemused_leftist]

Palin 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.

Comments

[trinker.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

Chris Floyd's use at least shows awareness of the history of the term. I suspect this is why there was essentially no reaction. Compare various uses of the word n*gger - Dr. Laura uses it differently than Ta-Nehisi Coates.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

What specific things did Floyd say that gave you that impression? He and Palin were both criticizing claims that one faction's behavior would lead to "blood on their hands."

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Argh. Too many links ago. Evidently Chris Floyd used the term repeatedly.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

I had the impression it was his same piece about Rove and al Qaeda on the phone, just reprinted at several sites, which happens.

Maybe Floyd put 'quotes' around the word and Palin didn't? ;-)

Good night.