You are arguing with statists. There is no crime a countries leader can commit that would be worse then what a rag tag bunch of uncontrolled terrorist can do, according to them. They have no moral equivalency standard. They are happy that Saddam tortured people because he was the state. All hail the state. Also, their statist egos blind them to morality.
There’s a lot of truth to what you’re saying...but. Do you recall how gung ho liberals were for military action against Bashir in Syria? I remember them salivating once he crossed Obama’s ‘red line’ & gassed his own people. [Or so I understand, though I also have read comments indicating that it wasn’t Assad who did that. I’m afraid I haven’t followed it as closely as some.]
Anyway, all of a sudden the Left got hot & bothered about a dictator torturing & killing his own people. Usually they act as if—just as you said—they *like* that kind of thing. But in Bashir’s case they wanted Obama to be Mr. Tough Guy & give Bashir a good thumping.
So what do you make of that? Was it the fact that they thought Obama was serious about the ‘red line’, & they figured they’d better play up the torture, suffering & death to give O cover for military action? Or if not, what was going on? There was undisguised dismay on the Left, of all places, when Obama weaseled out of his threat & tossed the ball into Putin’s court. Obama really let down the side on that one. What’s your take?