VIDEO: Gabrielle Giffords Talked About Sarah Palin's Target List

VIDEO: Gabrielle Giffords Talked About Sarah Palin's Target List


Incredibly eerie in retrospect. Here’s what Gifford said on March 25, 2010…

“…for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district, and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”

This was in response to Giffords’ door being shattered by somebody after the Palin target list popped up.

And here’s the video…

Again, I ask Republicans to stop using gun rhetoric and symbolism in their campaign literature. It’s completely unnecessary and only appeals to extremism within your base.

  • Simon

    Again, I ask Democrats to stop peddling this despicable attempt to connect the shooter to the right. It was appalling enough when the facts were unknown; it is all the worse now that we know something about the shooter.

    The left has directly pinned the blame on the right. But the “reasonable” people are doing exactly the same by a more circuitous route. The connection of the shooting to the “rhetoric of the right” is MEANINGLESS unless the shooter was a righty, and we know that he was not. Unless the shooter was a righty, the answer to the claim that rhetoric will beget violence is that it hasn’t yet. Yesterday provides no example of violent action following supposedly violent rhetoric unless the shooter was a righty.

    Whether you realize it or not, “he may not have been a righty but they should still turn down the rhetoric” is saying “well, it turns out that he had nothing to do with the tea party, but they’re to blame anyway” in other words.

    Justin, please put politics aside for decency and stop spreading this lie.

  • Simon

    I’ll try this another way. Suppose, for sake of argument, Loughner had nothing to do with the right. Suppose he was a communist or a nazi or what have you, and he killed Giffords for oppressing the workers, supporting Israel, whatever. Okay? Now, if that is the case, what changed yesterday?

    The answer must be “nothing.” And if that is so, rhetoric that was acceptable on Friday remains so today. And if you say “well, but it wasn’t acceptable Friday,” yet nothing has changed, that means the current round of criticism has <i<nothing to do with the Giffords shooting.

    And since we actually don’t have to asume, since we know this isn’t actually a hypothetical, since we know that Loughner had nothing to do with the right, we know that the current round of criticism has <i<nothing to do with the Giffords shooting.

    The criticism of the tea party and Sarah Palin does not follow from the shooting; it simply uses the shooting as pretext to advance preexisting criticisms. It is nothing but a cynical attempt to exploit tragedy based on a lie. And the irony is that these people–with a straight face, no less–accuse the right of demonizing the left while simultaneously accusing the right of responsibility for multiple murder. Lies and farce.

  • bubbaquimby

    Who was it that said this?
    “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”

    That’s right Obama when talking about Republicans.

    Sarah Palin did not invent the use of military and gun rhetoric in politics. Stop acting like she did.

    Oh and here is an old map of DLC’s targets.

  • Tully

    “If you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Sarah Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting — which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie — or you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. So which is it?” –Glenn Reynolds

    Some will go for both, apparently.

  • jc123

    It’s not they are saying that the Right is to blame. It is to say that ‘extremes on both sides’ need to calm down. ALL rhetoric is way too violent. And this rhetoric can breed hatred to the point of violence.

    I’m sorry that those on the right are taking offense to this. I’m sorry that some are directing it at the right. Personally, I’ve never heard commentary that directed the request to cool down the rhetoric only at the Right.

    If you really don’t think the rhetoric has the strength to bring people to action, ask yourself, why speak it, then? The point is to convince people to a call to action. The hope is it will be something reasonable, but there are unreasonable people.

    I voted for Obama. If Obama uses rhetoric about violence, I think it is poorly chosen, and I hope he would quit. I hope you request the same from the people you support or have supported. Ask them to stop. Ask in public forums. Ask at town hall meetings. Just ask… because speech does have power. It can convince people who are misguided to perhaps rethink their actions.

  • Mike A.

    I particularly liked in ’09 at an Obama Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire where a republican protester brought a gun. Or the time in Arizona where a man brought an AR-15 and pistol outside a convention where Obama was speaking. These people were heralded as heros by the right. Of course these were legal actions, but the subtext behind them was not innocent. And, unless I’ve missed this, these are not actions typical of any previous president in modern times.

    But of course none of these actions breed violence. wtf

  • Geoff

    No matter how hard you guys try to deny it or apoplectic you become in doing so, the plain & simple truth is the Palin & the far right are directly responsible for the murder of 6 people (so far) & the maiming of 14 others.

    If Palin was as innocent as you are trying to pretend, she wouldn’t have scrubbed her site & her tweets yesterday. Not the actions of an “innocent” person, attempting to destroy evidence.

    “Who was it that said this?
    ‘If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun'”

    Actually, that’s a paraphrase of what Sean Connery’s character, Jimmy Malone, says to Eliot Ness in the 1987 movie, The Untouchables.

    “Malone: You wanna know how you do it? Here’s how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way, and that’s how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?”

  • Chris

    Simon the far right rhetoric has been way more and increasingly violent every since obama won over an old white guy and his crazy veep. There’s no way you can deny that.

  • Simon

    Geoff says that “the plain & simple truth is the Palin & the far right are directly responsible for the murder of 6 people (so far) & the maiming of 14 others.” But remember, kids, it’s the right that is creating a climate of hate by demonizing their opponents.

    As Tully alludes to, count me with Glenn Reynolds on this one. The sheer cynicism of the left’s response—the dishonest opportunism of it—is amazing.

    And what’s all the more amazing is that left seems to now inhabit a hermetically-sealed bubble in which a tea partier got jazzed up by Sarah Palin’s rhetoric and shot a Democratic Congresswoman; they continue to regurgitate the lie no matter what happens outside the bubble, and no matter that the underlying premises of the lie have been discredited and disproven. People like Geoff have sunk to the intellectual level of 9/11 truthers. It’s disgusting and disgraceful. You ought to be ashamed.

  • Tully

    Bullshit, Chris. Political rhetoric has always been ugly, the last decade has been no exception, and it hasn’t gotten noticably worse than it has always been.

    Why it seems like only a couple of months ago that Joe Biden was talking about strangling Republicans and Obama was comparing Republicans to hostage-taking terrorists. Oh wait, that WAS only a couple of months ago.