Is Senator Durbin a Patriot?

Given Senator Durbin's speech linking American actions to despotic regimes in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Cambodia, is it possible to consider him a patriot?

We keep talking about patriotism, but can you be a patriot and be wrong? I think patriotism centers on intent, not outcome.

This is an old post on a patriot I disagree with:

Michael Schwartz: Patriotic Hero
The anti-war SUNY professor is a hero and patriot. He is known for espousing that the US should lose in Iraq, and in Fallujah in particular.

I think the guy is a patriot and a hero because he is taking an unpopular position that he apparently believes and is willing to take personal risk to espouse it. Unlike Churchill, he does not denigrate particular people (i.e. victims) in making his case. Also different from Churchill, I think Schwartz has a defensible (though wrong) position. It is defensible because if his premise is accurate (that the US action creates more danger than it solves) then his solution is better for America (because it will reduce future US action). This contrasts with Churchill, who seeks the downfall of America.

Without people like this professor who are willing to stand up and argue unpopular positions, we really would have a steamrolled population, and meaningless freedom of speech. He proves that America allows dissent, and he widens public discourse, even if he is wrong. Churchill did the opposite, by painting anyone who drifts out of the mainstream as someone actively seeking the downfall of America.

That is why Schwartz is both a patriot (because he is trying to better America) and a hero (because he is doing so publicly with personal risk involved). And he can be both even when he is wrong with his solutions.

Those who attack him without addressing his arguments, however, are neither patriotic nor heroes.

______

So, based on the distinction I have drawn on patriotic dissent, I think Durbin could be a patriot, if his intent is to make sure we lose the war and bring the boys home, because he thinks that is best for America (for whatever reason). He could also be a patriot if somehow he thinks that his speech will help us win, even though I think that is clearly mistaken, like Schwartz.

But if he did it believing it would make it harder to win the war, but thinks the war needs to be won, then he is not patriotic at all...just an opportunist trying to make a name for himself, and very much like Churchill.