Giuliani defends Palin: Shooting had 'nothing to do' with 'a map'

The Hill ^ | 1-16-11 | John T. Bennett and Bridget Johnson

[Justaham]

Onetime Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Sunday defended Sarah Palin’s response to critics who placed partial blame for the shooting that injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) on the former Alaska governor.

But Giuliani and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) questioned the wisdom of her response.

Several days after the mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., Palin posted a video statement on her Facebook page charging her critics in the media had committed a “blood libel” for pinning blame on her.

Her critics said she had helped create a political atmosphere that could lead to such an event by previously posting a map with gun sights over some vulnerable lawmakers' districts. Those charges were “reprehensible,” Palin said last week.

But Palin’s use of “blood libel” only generated more criticism. The term has long referred to what many scholars call a false charge that Jews murdered children and used their blood for baking matzos during Passover.

Giuliani said during a “Face the Nation” interview on CBS that her use of that term was off the mark -- but the former New York City mayor also defended Palin.

He called her response to the blame “one of someone accused” unjustifiably, adding “facts and circumstances” uncovered thus far show alleged shooter Jared Loughner was not motivated by an politician or ideology. Rather, his apparent unstable mental condition is to blame, Giuliani said.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

I so agree...

by never allowing ANY criticism of her...the Palin fans create exactly what the left does...a caricature of Palin,
one is perfectly evil, the other perfectly good....

but certainly not a person of substance that can easily handle critics.

[P-Marlowe]

One word she could have used, rather than “blood libel”, is defamation.

That is too broad. It doesn't make that point that what they were accusing her of was "having blood on her hands". Those words were used by Commentators in the MSM including the New York Times. That was BLOOD LIBEL and nothing less.

You defame someone when you claim that they lied when they didn't. That is defamation. When you accuse someone of being complicit in a massacre of innocent people, you are committing nothing less than BLOOD LIBEL. That term is not uniquely owned by the Jews any more than the word HOLOCAUST, which is used by Liberals to speak about Kentucky Fried Chicken. Liberals have diluted the whole meaning of the word Holocaust.

Palin has done nothing more than educate the public. People not only know that Palin was the target of liberal Blood Libel, but that Jews historically have been the target and still are the target of Islamic Blood Libel.

Once again, Sarah Palin drives the debate.

As always.

[greene66]

You’re correct. The simple words defamation, libel and slander were too impotent to actually define what happened. The media was reveling in the fresh blood of innocents, deliberately trying to pin mass-murder on Palin and the Tea Party. “Blood Libel” is a gravely serious accusation, but in this case is was spot-on accurate.

[goat granny]

Perhaps waiting for the dead to be buried is the proper time to now defend. Just an observation...

[VRWC For Truth]

Palin performed a surgical stike on Soetoro before his Pep Rally Memorial. This kept him on the fence and on the defensive in his speech.

[Jim Scott]

Sarah Palin, in her now-famous Facebook speech, struck just the right tone. In my opinion, her use of the phrase 'blood libel' to describe the false accusations that charged her with having a moral responsibility for the deaths in the Tuscon, Arizona rampage of a lunatic, based on her opposition to the Obama/Democrat agenda and the use of 'targets' on an electoral map and the phrase (in losing an election), "don't retreat, reload" was apt - and unquestionably effective. Sarah Palin is constantly called 'divisive', mostly by Democrats that despise what she stands for and by some Republicans that prefer someone else as the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. The reality is that Palin is only 'divisive' to those who disagree with either her political positions or her viability as a GOP presidential candidate. Sometimes both. They'll have to get over it.

[presently no screen name]

And you proved mine - for it’s obvious you see what isn’t there - and proved it by your posts.

[calcowgirl]

His words... starting at the 00:08:30 mark.
“... yeah, she used the wrong word in responding to it...
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7252222n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

But generally, he defended her.

[presently no screen name]

Yes I know he defended her - that wasn’t in question. I was questioning the author - wanted to read Rudy’s words and not the author’s interpretation. IOW, I don’t trust the media. Thank you!

[calcowgirl]

wanted to read Rudy’s words and not the author’s interpretation.

Then listen to the video I posted. Sheesh! Are you waiting for a transcript, or what?

[presently no screen name]

What are you talking about? What made you think I didn’t listen?

I was explaining what my original concern was hearing/reading HIS words. And saying thanks should have been another clue that I listened! Geez.

[2ndDivisionVet]

[calcowgirl]

What made you think I didn’t listen?

Perhaps because you made no mention of listening to his actual words, or acknowledging that I gave you a quote? Just a thought.

I was explaining what my original concern was hearing/reading HIS words.

No explanation was required. I understood quite clearly and that is why I gave you a link - to hear for yourself.

And saying thanks should have been another clue that I listened!

The words it followed made it sound quite sarcastic.

But you're welcome.

[presently no screen name]

Thank you, I do appreciate it. Sorry for any misunderstanding on my part.

[PaleoBob]

It’s disappointing to me to hear that Giuliani decided to pile on Palin. He was—up until this moment—my favorite Rino. Now, I have no favorite Rino.