I don't see it. I see the article as saying more that Hitler was horrible, and Bush is even worse than that.
The reason why Bush is worse is because Hitler meant well. That's what it says. That's what I am talking about.
It's a false dilemma to assume this means the writer thinks Hitler's dishonorable acts were ok
I never said that. I said that in comparison to Bush, he's not as bad, which is what you agree he said.
Of course, as pointed out by both smitty and I, the writer is factually wrong that Hitler meant well.
And I agree with that.
I find your mockery wanting
I find your understanding of it to be wanting.
and it is more likely to backfire and make the left stronger.
No, it's not.
Taking weak and cheap shots makes your side appear petty and unable to field a better argument.
Mocking the left for taking cheap shots, by pretending to take a cheap shot, is an actual cheap shot?