Which Is It?

In a piece for the Wall Street Journal, University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds carefully demolishes the case made by representatives of the Left in order to justify their reprehensible action following the Tucson shooting on Saturday.  He then asks of them the most cutting question I've yet heard or read:

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?