James Taranto Needs To Take A Remedial Reading Class

Is James Taranto incredibly stupid, or does he just think that his readers are?

From How Code Pink Supports the Troops (A "peace" group appeals to the authority of a mass murderer) by James Taranto:

"We support our troops when they shoot their officers," read a banner held aloft by some "antiwar" protesters back in the spring of 2003. Well, jejune anarchists have as much right to free speech as the rest of us, and anyway, surely they were just being provocative. They don't really believe that, do they?

Don't be so sure. On Veterans Day, six days after the Fort Hood massacre, a group that styles itself Code Pink: Women for Peace issued a statement urging President Obama not to send more troops to Afghanistan. It began as follows:

This Veterans Day, our hearts ache for the soldiers and their families affected by the recent shootings at Ft. Hood. Our hearts also ache for the soldiers and their families who continue to be affected by war in Iraq and Afghanistan on a daily basis. Now more than ever, CODEPINK is committed to helping to heal the hearts of those touched by war, and doing whatever we can to bring our troops home.

(Hat tip: BigGovernment.com.)

It's bad enough to draw a moral equivalence between professional soldiers, who volunteer to risk their lives in defense of their country, and murder victims. But it gets much worse:

Our soldiers clearly need more care; the last thing they need is to be put into more harm's way. Even US military officers think so--Matthew Hoh resigned from the Foreign Service in protest of the lack of clear mission and achievable results in Afghanistan, and of course the Ft. Hood shooter was a Major who did not wish to be deployed to Afghanistan.

We have read a lot about the background of the alleged killer, Nidal Hasan, and we don't know of any basis on which to think he agreed with Code Pink's stated position that "our soldiers clearly need more care." In any case, mowing them down in cold blood would seem an odd way to give voice to such a view. Yet the Code Pink ladies are eager to have us believe that the killer is a kindred spirit. They think that imputing their opinions to him strengthens their case via an appeal to authority: "Even US military officers think so."

This isn't precisely the same as the banner we cited atop this item. But Code Pink's motto could be: "Our officers support Code Pink when they shoot their troops."

How low can you go? How slimy must you be to write something as vile and dishonest as this? To say that this is misleading is an understatement.

First of all, Code Pink is not a “peace” group, it is a peace group. They are not pretending, they are real.

What the hell does “appeals to the authority of a mass murderer” even mean? Even though I don’t know what it means, I am certain that Code Pink has never made such an appeal, even though James Taranto tells me that they have.

Trying to connect what was on a banner from 2003 specifically to Code Pink and to what Code Pink wrote on November 11, 2009, is quite a stretch, don’t you think? Just a tad bit deceitful, no? It doesn’t seem to bother James Taranto, but it bothers the hell out of me.

Code Pink never draws a moral equivalence between professional soldiers and murder victims. Just because James Taranto says that they do does not make it so.

Nowhere does the writing of Code Pink state that they view murderers as kindred spirits.

I’m with Code Pink, our soldiers need more care. Is James Taranto trying to say that they do not?

Nowhere does Code Pink claim the motto "Our officers support Code Pink when they shoot their troops."

Here is the original and unabridged writing by Code Pink that James Taranto so crudely distorts for his own evil and twisted machinations.

James Taranto is full of shit.