I don't have that idea, at all, which is why I didn't say that, so maybe YOU should read what I wrote before critiquing it. I have the idea that when interviewed about the vandalism Giffords not only cited the climate of hatred and militance that's supposedly STILL irrelevant (despite the fact she and 18 others were shot) but EXPLICITLY REFERENCED PALINS USE OF CROSSHAIRS ON HER DISTRICT as something that could have dire "consequences". I think it's absurd to say Loughner was completely uninfluenced by that climate, which Palin undeniably helped create, but that's not the primary connection between Palins website and the murders: What EXPLICITLY links Palins website imagery with Giffords is the victims reference to them PRIOR to being attacked.

Now, we can debate whether publicly suggesting Palins provocative incendiary imagery threatened her makes Giffords guilty of libel (actually slander, since it was spoken). We shouldn't, however, debate the following facts:

1) Palins website had images of Giffords' district and others under crosshairs,

2) Giffords publicly suggested that endangered her,

3) Loughner subsequently tried to kill her, and

4) In the wake of 3) Palin and Co. say the suggestion in 2) is libel.

Perhaps Palin was unaware Giffords herself made the suggestion prior to the shootings, but that only makes her "don't accuse without all the facts" hypocritical, because Giffords' suggestion was all over Palins beloved internet between the shootings and her indignant response on FB four days later. Why do you think so much of the brouhaha centers around Palin in particular? She's on the defensive so she's screaming libel, but the main person she's screaming it at is the shooters intended target, whether she knows it or not, and all ignorance of that fact would do is prove (once again) Palin doesn't have the judgement to run a hot dog stand, let alone the US government.

While the all the militant hatred Palin and others have created probably influenced Loughner, the bottom line on THIS shooting is that Gabrielle Giffords originated what's been called, "blood libel" since it happened. If Palin thinks that's libel she should file suit; Giffords shouldn't be hard to find when she needs to serve her papers.

The REAL bottom line to all this is that what people like I and Giffords have been saying for the past two years has been frighteningly and tragically proven true: The kind of inflammatory, provocative, militant language Palin and the rest have used to incite hatred since Obamas election is incredibly dangerous precisely because it does encourage already unstable people to do something horrible. Lie down with dogs and wake up with fleas, but however embarrassed Sarah Palin is I think Gabrielle Giffords has taken enough bullets for her.

YOU sound like a murderers doting deluded mother; "I don't care about the EVIDENCE, look at the FACTS and you'll SEE he's innocent!" Yet facts, they say are stubborn things.

Did Giffords say Palins use of crosshairs on her district could lead to something like this? Watch the tapes.

Did Palin and others call that "blood libel"? Check FB and the op eds.

Those are FACTS; you can dispute them as surely as you can the specific gravity of iron--with the same chance of being right.

Did Palin mean anyone to shoot Giffords? Of course not.

Did she help fill a powder keg? As surely as the Rodney King verdict.

Those are both opinions, but they seem quite true regardless of our ability to verify either.