Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton jumped back into the debate over what caused an Arizona lunatic to go on a killing spree, including shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, insisting again — and without proof — that the gunman is an extremist who was motivated by his political views.
“Based on what I know, this is a criminal defendant who was in some ways motivated by his own political views, who had a particular animus toward the congresswoman,” Clinton told CNN while traveling through the Gulf States yesterday.
“And I think when you cross the line from expressing opinions that are of conflicting differences in our political environment into taking action that’s violent action, that’s a hallmark of extremism, whether it comes from the right, the left, from al Qaeda, from anarchists, whoever it is. That is a form of extremism,” she continued.
Clinton’s comments went beyond her remarks earlier this week, when at a town hall-style meeting in the United Arab Emirates, she described shooter Jared Lee Loughner as an extremist, without explaining what beliefs motivated him to kill.
The shootings have prompted an ongoing feud among politicians and pundits over what motivated Loughner — politics or insanity.
Sarah Palin yesterday blasted critics who suggested she might have egged on Loughner by including Giffords on a map that targeted 20 Democrats for defeat in last November’s congressional elections. The map included cross hairs over each district, and in urging their defeat, she told supporters, “don’t retreat, reload.”
In her most extensive remarks, Palin called the shootings “acts of monstrous criminality” — and then accused the media of shifting the story to make it appear the attack was politically motivated.
“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” Palin said. “That is reprehensible.”
Palin’s choice of the term “blood libel” tapped a religiously sensitive issue, since it was once used to describe the outrageously false charge that Jews would sacrifice Christian children to use their blood to make matzo for Passover.