This little find is delicious. Another liberal elitist hypocrite exposed. Liberals love to throw around the phrase blood libel, apparently. They’ve done it for years! Who knew it was one of those expressions that was for reserved only for them? Don’t even think about saying “blood libel” unless you’re a liberal, ok? And while we’re at it? Only liberals can be victims of intolerance, got that? Same goes for defamation. If you’re a conservative, you cannot be defamed, because you have no right to breathe. Just sit back and be “civil” while we slander you, okay?
Legal Insurrection’s William Jacobson exposes legal analyst Andrew Cohen’s monstrous double standard regarding, you got it, “blood libel”:
Writing recently in The Atlantic, Cohen [who also provides legal commentary for CBS Radio] took Palin to task for using the term:
“Sarah Palin may or may not be the victim of unwarranted criticism in the wake of Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting spree in Tucson last Saturday. As far as I’m concerned, that is a non-justiciable “political question”– as federal judges get to say — and one that I will gladly leave to the legions of inspired commentators who have been gnawing on that particular bone for the past few days.
But whatever Palin is, or is not, neither she (nor anyone else) is the victim here of a “blood libel,” as she claimed Wednesday in responding to the tragedy in Arizona and the way she perceives it was handled by the media.”
Cohen then goes on to cite the historical meaning of a “blood libel” and finds that Palin did not use the term correctly:
“If Palin did not know what a “blood libel” means she should not have included the phrase in her remarks. And if she did understand its dark significance she should not have included the phrase in her remarks. Either way, It was inappropriate and insensitive.”
Cohen, though, recognizes that many people, including Cohen himself, have used the term other than in the historical context, so Cohen was sure to include a mea culpa:
Nor is it a viable defense to a politician’s sloppy use of the phrase that others — on the left or on the right — have loosely used the phrase before or that most Americans don’t understand its tragic import anyway. Two or more wrongs don’t make a right, right?
Trust me, I know. I have loosely used the phrase before, at least once, and I cannot even claim as a defense any ignorance of its terrible meaning. In 2005, I used it to describe the work of Ward Churchill, the professor who once called the victims of the World Trade Center attack “Little Eichmanns” and complicit in their own deaths…”
But Cohen neglects to mention that Ward Churchill was not the only person towards whom Cohen had used the term “blood libel.”
In May 2008, Cohen accused then presidential nominee John McCain of engaging in a “blood libel” not because McCain accused someone of complicity in murder, but because McCain criticized “activist judges”:
“it is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat.”
If Cohen so casually threw around the term “blood libel” in the heat of a presidential election, who is Cohen now to attack Sarah Palin for using the term as to false accusations that she caused the murder of several people in Tucson?
For such rank hypocrisy, Andrew Cohen is the Official Award winner.
My favorite part of Cohen’s ridiculous piece of crap legal “commentary?” Palin “may or may not have been the victim of unwarranted criticism” about a shooting she had nothing to do with. Classic. Next time there’s a random mass murder, let’s blame Cohen for it, and see how quickly he defends himself as a victim of “blood libel.”