Talking Points Memo:
A Washington Times editorial defends Sarah Palin's use of the phrase "blood libel" in the wake of the Tucson shootings, by calling media criticism of Palin "the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers."
Palin had been criticized for using the term "blood libel" to characterize media attacks against her, because of associations between "blood libel" and persecution of Jews in Europe. The term has its roots in the false charge that Jews would murder children and use their blood in religious rituals.
The choice by the Times to describe media attacks as "pogroms" is even more unfortunate since the term usually refers to destructive riots that targeted Jews during the time of the Russian Empire, and often resulted in massacres.
[...]In an editorial on Wednesday, the Washington Times wrote that "Mrs. Palin is well within her rights to feel persecuted."
"Typical of blood libel," it says, "the attack against Mrs. Palin is a false charge intended to generate anger made by people with a political agenda. They have made these claims boldly without evidence and without censure or consequence."
Do these people purposefully plan their offensive remarks in advance, are they really that stupid, or is it some combination of both?