True, I don’t know what Durbin intended; I was merely hazarding a guess.

As for my “one is as bad as all” remark, I will admit that this was overly simplistic. There is a certain distinction (though the difference is subject to debate), but whether (for example) the events at Abu Ghraib were official policy or just some guys letting off steam, the end result is the same–the people imprisoned there are no less tortured, the actions in question are no less wrong, and our image in the world is no less tarnished.

That’s just my opinion. Any resemblance to anyone else’s is purely coincidental.

One vs many. Just as bad? I don’t think so. One or a few is an aberration. Many is a functional systemic problem. And I nor you know what Durbin intended. I can buy that as long as we don’t know what Bush intends or his motives.

I imagine that his invocation of the Nazis in this case was not intended to slander the troops; rather, it was intended to underscore the point he was trying to make–that this is not the way American* soldiers are supposed to behave. Such an example, as distasteful as it may seem, tends to focus the mind.

*I, and I imagine international law, would argue that no soldier should torture people, but I believe that Durbin was addressing the behavior of American soldiers** in particular.

**And yes, I realize that it is very likely a handful of soldiers who are doing this, but quite frankly, whether it’s only one soldier or military policy at large, it’s still just as bad.

Bu the armed forces of many nations have used harsher measures than that. Israelis, Brits etc.

Why did Durbin then pick instead of them, a group known primarily for racist mass murder? To describe our voulnteer troops.

As Dugger fails to note, Durbin was very specific, almost graphic, as to why he was comparing specific behavior our troops were engaged in to behavior historically associated with Nazis. Bill Quick was comparing Helen Thomas to Stalin using vague attributes not normally associated with Stalin, hoping more overall non-specific negatives would be carried as well.

Sir Joseph.
Captain Corcoran, it is one of the happiest characteristics of this glorious country that official utterances are invariably regarded as unanswerable.

What is that? Arrrgh! Lightening bolt!

That’s “an” equivalence, and I’m not sure that’s spelled correctly.

OK, so there’s a difference of magnitude.

My view is that neither Quick nor Durbin made a direct comparision. They both made the error of mentioning disparate people in the same paragraph, inviting some observers to assume and equivalence.

Is it ridiculous to compare a respected journalist with a murderous dictator? Absolutely. It’s an idiotic and inappropriate analogy, and indicative that Quick just has no desire to be taken seriously. But he’s not trying to literally say that Thomas = Stalin, as Oliver’s post suggests.

A minor blogger … A powerful US Senator… Dugger Feb 22, 2007 1:12:10 PM

US service men should not be committing the same actions as the worst examples of humanity. If they do, punishment is required. Yet, when someone of whom you approve uses eliminationist rhetoric, you are rushing to his or her defense. Really, you need to see a metaphysician to help you correct your lack of ethical and moral values.

Hilarious. What a loser.

Gladly.

A minor blogger made an inappropriate analogy using a murderous dictator concerning a partisan journalist.

versus

A powerful US Senator makes an inappropriate analogy using an extremly murderous ideology aganst a volunteer group of low paid US servicemen risking their lives for their country.