Why are people saying Sarah Palin had nothing to do with the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, saying its manufactured by the liberal media?

It is the far Left political machine who manufactures this sort of thing, it is part of their strategy. The media is only involved to the extent that they are cooperating wiht the Left's strategy. Because the Left has been waiting for a tragedy to pin on their opponents, it is their mode of operation.

Just as Clinton made the most of the Oklahoma bombing, they have been waiting of a tragedy to "make the most of" and now they think they have it. They are urging Obama to "pin this on the Tea party" Not all of the left is convinced however, as this quote from Steve Kornacki points out: --quote-- Steve Kornacki, the news editor of the left-wing Salon.com, noted that Longhner's "political thinking isn't particularly coherent or organized. " He said attempts to link Sarah Palin to the Arizona tragedy because her website once put crosshairs on a map of Ms.

Gifford's district along with those of 18 other Democrats may show that Ms. Palin's "opponents are trying just a little too hard to make her the villain. " http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073950591444000.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Evidence of Liberals advance plannig to manufature just such a response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTKYU7f68Ys.

Because they are in denial. They refuse to believe that constantly talking about guns and using shooting imagery is harmful. They refuse to believe that constantly demonizing your opponents with exagerations and outright lies could lead to violence.

The particular poster of Palin's may or may not be relevant; but, her rhetoric and that of Hate Radio and the Tea Party have everything to do with the shooting. As does the NRA and the virtual lack of any gun control in Arizona.

It seems pretty simple: Because she had nothing to do with it. Believe me, i'm no Palin fan. I'm no Republican fan.

But I am a former Beltway insider. And I'm Jewish--as is Rep Giffords. And I've survived several Traumatic Brain injuries myself.So on several levels, I know of what I speak.

And while I've lost some abilities, my ability to reason and debate is still intact--in fact, it's sharper. So let's think through this rationally: A former US Governor and former and possible future candidate for President of The United States, a FOX News mouthpiece and a reality-show publicity...seeker... putting a hit out on a Member of The United States Congress? Besides the Federal crimes Loughner could be accused for, you'll note that in these TWO Arizona cases I came across, there are aggravating factors that push murder to aggravated murder, namely in State v.

Knapp (Knapp I), "Heinous, Cruel or Depraved" (exactly as it sounds--read the summary) and in State v. Holsinger, "Procurement of Murder by Payment." (aka "putting a hit out on someone," as I read this) and "Grave Risk of Death to Others" (looks like catching innocent bystanders and not the intended target. I'm no attorney but I will bet max, all chips in that Sarah Palin isn't about to take a needle for several counts of one or two of these state crimes for the terrible tragedy that occurred.

Because she had nothing to do with it. Read the cases I read: "State v. Knapp (Knapp I), 114 Ariz.

531, 562 P.2d 704 (1977) "PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of two counts of first-degree murder and was sentenced to death on each count. This is the defendant's automatic, direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. "AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: "(F)(6) (Heinous, Cruel or Depraved) - UPHELD The Court attempted for the first time to define the terms "heinous, cruel or depraved," stating that those terms "have meanings that are clear to a person of average intelligence and understanding.

" 114 Ariz.At 543. Cruel means "disposed to inflict pain esp. In a wanton, insensate or vindictive manner: sadistic."

Id. Heinous means "hatefully or shockingly evil: grossly bad. " Id.

Depraved means "marked by debasement, corruption, perversion or deterioration. " Id. The Court found that the facts of this case fall squarely within the meaning of "heinous, cruel or depraved," but did not separate the facts supporting cruelty from the facts supporting heinousness or depravity.

The facts supporting the entire finding were that the defendant poured fuel in great quantity around the room that his two infant daughters were sleeping in, stood in the doorway and threw a lighted match into the room, then went to bed to lie down while the children burned. The medical evidence demonstrated that the cause of death was incineration and not just carbon monoxide poisoning. "We can hardly think of a more ghastly death than this for anyone."

Id. "MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: "None sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. The defendant did not prove the existence of the (G)(2) mitigating circumstance of "unusual and substantial duress."

Although the state argued that a possible motive for the crime was the defendant's fear that his wife was going to leave him, that evidence was insufficient to establish duress as a mitigating circumstance. JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences affirmed. "State v.

Holsinger, 115 Ariz. 89, 563 P.2d 888 (1977) "PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The defendant was convicted in Superior Court (Maricopa) of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, burglary, and conspiracy to commit burglary. The defendant was sentenced to death on the murder count and to prison on the noncapital counts.

This is his automatic appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. "AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: "(F)(3) (Grave Risk of Death to Others) - UPHELD The (F)(3) finding was upheld without discussion. The defendant solicited a codefendant to enter the house of Dr. Harry Schornick.Dr. Schornick was wounded, but not killed.

Dr. Schornick's housekeeper was shot and killed. "(F)(4) (Procurement of Murder by Payment) - UPHELD This aggravating circumstance was upheld without discussion. The evidence established that the defendant conspired with several other people to cause the death of Dr. Harry Schornick.

The defendant hired another person to kill the victim so that the defendant's wife would eventually inherit some money held in joint tenancy between the victim and the defendant's mother-in-law. He expressed this motive to coconspirators and gave information to them about how to commit the crime. He furnished the murder weapon and advised the others that they would receive something of value for committing the crime and gave them money and drugs the evening of the crime.

The actual intended victim was wounded and his housekeeper was shot and killed. "(F)(5) (Pecuniary Gain) - UPHELD This aggravating circumstance was upheld without discussion. See facts described above.

"MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: "The Court noted, without further discussion, that none of the statutory mitigating circumstances existed. In addition, the sentencing disparity between the defendant's death sentence and his codefendant's life sentence was not mitigating because the codefendant's participation was relatively minor when compared to that of the defendant."JUDGMENT: Convictions and sentences affirmed. " And I haven't even gotten to the Federal crimes--I don't need to.

This should be enough. Are you kidding me? That people ARE saying Palin had anything to do with it baffles me.

Now, what I WILL give Sarah Palin credit for is one of a few things: lack of knowledge or poor management skills, perhaps discriminatory hiring practices or worse yet, insensitivity and/or revenge, And I am not saying any of these DO exist. But they are possible reasons why the release of her soliloquy video containing the term "blood libel" was released the weekend following the incident: Here are POSSIBLE explanations for such a slip-up for someone who has any aspirations of living in the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue NW in DC. There is only one building there...a big, White House.

Lack of knowledge: she had no idea that "blood libel" referred to Jews in Nazi Germany; poor management skills: A staffer put it in there deliberately. Perhaps discriminatory hiring practices: Maybe there's not a bagel in the bunch at Camp Palin insensitivity: She possibly knew what it meant but used it anyway because she knew it would get her face on TV even more. And/or revenge: tired of the media picking on her family, though they provide so much mindless entertainment, and wanted to shift the blame and/or focus off herself.

How's that workin' for ya? Once again, let me expressly say that I have no idea what happened with that video and that it's all speculation. I'm not saying any of it DID or DIDN'T happen.

What I AM saying is that if one were to take a rational look at how exposed Palin is and the fact that she's possibly going to run in 2012, I believe it it is highly far-fetched, at best, to think she had any involvement in the incident in Tucson. Are there idiots going off that map that was immediately pulled off her website? (Why?

) Sure. Will there be copycats? Possible.

Have things like this made it even more difficult for the average American to ever meet the person form they voted? You bet.

Because it is true, she had nothing to do with it. This was the work of a sadly deranged young man. Let us pray for the wounded.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.