It is a fairly simple causal chain: 1) Person A says x about Person B. 2) Person B says that could get them shot. 3) Person B is shot.

I fail to see how 3) makes 2) "blood" or any other libel, rather than a perfectly rational observation. Again, anyone who disagrees is free to sue Giffords for libel if they think it will make Palin look better. Though I would think the last thing any Ohioan wants right now is another lawsuit over the political process....

I will stop there, since we are making no more progress than when we last discussed this, and continued discussion of it has greatly diverted the thread from its original topic. Obviously, violent inflammatory merits government investigation when it DELIBERATELY and EXPLICITLY encourages violence, but I am not alleging Palin had such intent; she was "only" dangerously reckless (though such recklessness is itself sufficient to disqualify a national leader, IMHO.)