She can say what she wants, the facts prove that was not the case. Giffords doesn't get a halo or oracular ability from being attacked, ya know. If anything, what we see from this case is that lunatics often attack people for no sane reason, not the first time we've seen a major political figure injured by someone who's motives were simply inexplicable... almost like they lost the ability to engage in reason.

This is kinda the first big flaw in your argument, and you simply keep ignoring. Repeating that Giffords said she thought it could cause violence simply won't make the comment by her any more relevant. And yes, she was wrong in my opinion to make that statement as the rhetoric aimed at her by them did not exceed already common levels of rhetoric. It might not seem so to her, or to you, but you might want to take it on faith that the right doe snot view rhetoric from the left as particularly cheerful and civil. Or were you under the impression it is nice and polite to refer to an entire large ideology and its leaders in particular as violent stupid raving lunatics is 'civil'? And without 2) then yes, your whole case falls apart.