Neiwert excuses violent rhetoric of Eric Fuller aimed at Tea Party member. Why? Because he really “meant no harm”
by Larry Simons
January 31, 2011
For the first time this year, Andy Ostroy just may be in danger of losing a third consecutive Fraudie award to none other than Crooks and Liars liberal loonball, Dave Neiwert.
In Neiwert’s January 29 article titled, "Tucson shooting victim explains his threatening outburst: 'I really meant him no harm'", he sinks to new lows [even for him] as he attempts to explain away the threatening comment Tucson massacre survivor Eric Fuller made to Trent Humphries, a Tucson Tea Party leader.
At a January 15 Town Hall meeting sponsored by ABC News, as Humphries stood and spoke about gun control, Fuller pointed a camera at Humphries, clicked it and said, “You’re dead”. Fuller was taken away and arrested for the remark. Since this hateful rhetoric was aimed at a Tea Party member, it was barely mentioned on liberal blogs. Crooks and Liars’ Nicole Belle mentioned it in a story, but not without adding a smidge of justification for Fuller’s violent rhetoric. Belle said:
“I think it's important to first and foremost say that threatening violence is unacceptable. I don't know Fuller's political ideology nor do I think it matters. Wrong is wrong is wrong, on either side of the aisle. At risk of being accused of being Dr. Frist, I have to wonder if Fuller is suffering some sort of PTSD from the shooting, but his issues may run deeper and longer than last week.
Some on the C&L team have speculated that Fuller was trying to make a larger point over the dangers of the casual use of violent rhetoric and how it charges the climate with fear and instability. In a CBS profile, he blamed Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Sharron Angle for their eliminationist rhetoric. The pointing of a camera demonstrated just how easy it is to point a gun and get off a shot before anyone else can unholster their gun in response. It's an interesting point, although it's far too early to make definitive statements on Fuller's motivation.”
First Belle says Fuller’s political ideology is irrelevant to her, then proceeds to say that he may have suffered from PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] from the shooting and his issues may run deeper. While it may very well be true that Fuller was traumatized by the shooting, isn’t it interesting that when violent rhetoric is directed at conservatives/right wing/Tea Party members, immediately liberals eliminate the possibility that the rhetoric was politically motivated and that “mental instability” is the sole cause of such outbursts?
Then Belle adds a theory that Fuller may have been just trying to make a point of how quick someone’s life can be snuffed out by a bullet, by clicking his camera to illustrate that in the same period of time it takes to snap a picture, someone’s life could be over.
What a crock of shit.
Then, to make matters worse, Belle, before [and after] coming up with bullshit excuses and justifications for Fuller, interjects that his behavior is unacceptable and “wrong is wrong”. Well, naturally, the liberals have to say the behavior is bad, or else they would be cheerleading for Fuller. But despite how many times they say it’s “bad” and “unacceptable”, they immediately begin to justify and excuse the behavior.
Enter Dave Neiwert, King of the Loons, to provide his defense of Fuller. In his latest article [his ONLY article about Eric Fuller, I might add ], Neiwert says this:
“You may remember Eric Fuller -- the survivor of the Tucson massacre who fingered right-wing rhetoric for fueling the tragedy, and then a few days later was arrested for making a threatening remark at a Town Hall gathering directed at a local Tea Party leader. Fuller has now given a thoughtful interview to the local station in Tucson, KGUN, in which he tries to explain why he said what he did:
When Tucson Tea Party leader Trent Humphries suggested it was too soon to talk about tighter gun control, Fuller did something that got him arrested. He pointed a camera at Humphries and said, "You're dead." Now, Fuller has apologized for the perceived threat that landed him in hot water with the authorities.
[words of Fuller]
"I'd like to reiterate my apology to Mr. Humphries. I really meant him no harm. However, what I was trying to do is demonstrate how very quickly within the same space of time as the click of a shutter on a camera that another person can pull a trigger and your life is over, it's done," Fuller said.
A “thoughtful” interview Neiwert? Here is a guy who made a death threat to someone, in fact it was “eliminationist” rhetoric [“eliminationist” is Neiwert’s favorite word to describe “right wing” extremists] and Neiwert says his interview was “thoughtful”?
Neiwert is humanizing Fuller, making him appear as if he is someone we should feel sorry for. Yes, Fuller was shot, and that’s a tragedy. But, to attend a Town Hall meeting a week later, spew eliminationist rhetoric [how can you get more eliminationist than saying, “You’re dead”?] in Tucson where a mass shooting took place and then have the nerve to say the shooting happened because of “right wing” hateful rhetoric and then turn right around and threaten someone with death? That deserves zero sympathy.
Also hilarious is Neiwert calling Fuller’s words a “perceived threat”. Yep. That’s a liberal for you. When conservatives say vile and threatening things, there absolutely is NO DOUBT it's a threat. When liberal Democrats say them; it is not a threat. It’s a “perceived” threat.
Amazingly, Fuller’s given reasoning about why he said, “You’re dead” is exactly what Nicole Belle said it would be. Can Belle predict the future? Or does Fuller read Crooks and Liars? It is pretty obvious that the word got around real quick in liberal/Democratic circles that maybe Fuller was demonstrating a point of how quick a life can be taken and that someone either coached him on what his given reason was, or like I said, Fuller read it online himself.
How absurd is an explanation like that anyway? As if Fuller needed to demonstrate how quick someone can get shot by snapping a picture….as if nobody knows it only takes 1 second to pull a trigger.
Thanks Eric Fuller for such profound wisdom. Without your visual demonstration, nobody would know a gunshot takes a split second.
“Back when this happened, Nicole suggested this might be what Fuller intended. And as she observed at the time, that's really no excuse: Even if Fuller intended no threat in his remark, two things remain obvious: A) it would be reasonable for anyone hearing that remark, especially the recipient, to interpret it as a threat; and B) it is nonetheless violent rhetoric in any event.”
Yeah, Nicole Belle is a psychic, I have already concluded. Either that, or Fuller frequents Crooks and Liars and read for himself what his reasoning was even before he knew it was his reasoning. Notice, like Belle, Neiwert does not fail to call the statement “violent” and a “threat”. That is because they have to, or else the entire article would sound like it was written by Fuller’s lawyer.
“For people who are confronting the real-world ramifications of violent rhetoric, this sort of reaction (especially on an emotional level) is perfectly understandable -- but it is also perfectly destructive. Violent rhetoric cannot be beaten by more violent rhetoric. It can only be defused by breaking the cycle of violence, choosing words that advance the debate, as President Obama put it, "in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."
Still, given that the man was still recovering from his wounds, as Karoli pointed out, and was placed in an excruciatingly difficult situation to begin, I'd like to think most reasonable people would cut him some slack and accept his clear apologies.”
Translation: Violent rhetoric is understandable. It’s also bad. You can’t say violent rhetoric causes violence and then spew violent rhetoric yourself. Say nice things because Obama wants that. Fuller said it because he was in pain and put in a bad situation [he had a good reason, so he is justified]. Everyone should forgive him for making a death threat because he apologized. If you don’t forgive him, you’re not a reasonable person and probably filled with hate.
So, to Neiwert, if you walk up to someone and say, “You’re dead”, you should be “cut some slack” and forgiven [especially if they apologize and say they never really meant any harm]. If you use the word “target” or even show crosshairs on a picture, you are an accessory to murder. Despite the fact that just yesterday on The Huffington Post, the word “targets” were used in this sentence:
“Tea Party Eyes GOP Targets for 2012”
So, let’s recap [according to Neiwert]:
This [Perfectly OK, and you should be forgiven if you say it]
David Neiwert is a colossal lying scumbag.