Breivik Praises Pamela Geller, Denounces English Defence League, and This "Vindicates" Geller?

Yesterday Robert Stacy McCain stated outright that Breivik's interest in the English Defence League vindicated Pamela Geller's denunciation of the latter.  Geller claimed the EDL was compromised by fascist infiltration, Breivik was an early supporter of the EDL, so therefore Geller has been vindicated in her denunciation of the EDL.  2 + 2 = 5.

McCain's conclusion came after extensive research into the matter....oh wait, no it didn't.  He did a quick mental calculation on what would bring him the most "linky love" and hits, and drew the conclusion out of thin air.

Basically, he said (or strongly implied) that since Breivik had supported the EDL at an earlier point in time this proved that Geller was right in denouncing the EDL for its alleged infiltration by fascists.  Of course, Breivik hates Nazis and denounced fascism, so McCain's uninformed opinion is illogical.  Further, as time passed, Breivik withdrew support for the EDL because the EDL refused to use violence and terrorism espoused by Brevik and preferred to work peacefully through the system.  This further reduces McCain's conclusion to blatant nonsense, one borne of a casual and careless "guilt by association" fallacy.

I did a word search in Breivik's 1500 page manifesto, on the words "Geller" and "the EDL."   Breivik praised Pamela Geller and denounced the English Defence League.  So using R.S. McCain's dubious "guilt by association" logic, this proves that Pamela Geller is a fascist and the EDL a peaceful and responsible organization -- the exact opposite of McCain's conclusion yesterday.

Of course, I am being facetious to illustrate the weakness of McCain's logic.  Breivik's praise of Pamela Geller (he refers to her as a "decent person") does not in any way impugn the integrity of Geller.  Breivik did not base his violence on anything Geller (or anyone else on the right) said.  He merely used Geller and others as valid examples of how the left denigrates and marginalizes conservative voices, and in that observation, Breivik was factually correct.  (His conclusions on what to do about it is another story.)

What is my point here?  It is simply that responsible journalists and writers do not casually denigrate the reputations of others based on "guilt by association" or by putting two and two together and getting five.  Both Pamela Geller and Robert Stacy McCain are both guilty of this unethical practice, even though both of them have been similarly smeared themselves, and should know better.

Post Script:
Here's what Breivik writes about Pamela Geller:

I have watched, for the better part of a year, a number of decent human beings including, but not limited to, Pamela Geller, Paul Belien, Diana West, the Baron and Dymphna from the Gates of Vienna blog and many others, being at the receiving end of a vicious smear campaign from Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs which is unlike anything I have seen in my life. After engaging in an insane witch-hunt on imaginary Fascists, whose ranks seem to grow every month, Mr. Johnson now suddenly chooses to look the other way in silence when very real Fascists use violence to silence their critics in a major Western city. I admit that makes me angry, and I think I have the right to be so.

It should be noted, once again, that Breivik's growing anger was the result of leftist Machiavellian smears, not conservative rhetoric.  Charles Johnson bears much more blame for Breivik's anger (and indirectly, his resulting violence) than anything that can be attributed to anyone on the right.  (Hey, C.J., that must make you feel very proud.)

Here's the link to my prior post describing Breivik's denunciation of the English Defence League.