I think both of these are examples of things people were idiots to say, but which of these two is more outrageous:
1) A tenured university professor saying, ex post, that a vicious terrorist attack that killed thousands was entirely justified and demonstrated considerable restraint considering what was actually deserved. Also, the same professor has engaged in academic fraud.
2) A sitting member of the House of Representatives saying, ex ante, that he personally wants to drop nuclear bombs on Syria and that, "We won't have to worry about Syria anymore." Oh, and he claims to have said this to the President.

Number one is of course Ward Churchill, who has been embroiled in controversy for weeks. Number two, Representative Sam Johnson, just made his remarks this weekend. Hopefully this will get some attention as well. Two caveats: The story about Johnson is new, so it's not very well developed and more could come out about it. Also, Johnson, as a member of the House of Representatives, has access to intelligence I don't. From the actual remarks he made, he appears to be saying that because the Weapons of Mass Destruction which weren't found in Iraq are now in Syria (which could, in principle, be based on intelligence he has access to, though I doubt the intelligence would first be released in this manner), it would be a good idea to drop nuclear bombs on them. This second part is a moral and strategic claim, and is pure nonsense.

Update: Yglesias calls the Representative's office here.

Update: I'm trying to find out about how many people would be killed by the small (nuclear) bombs which an F-15 would be able to carry. This has some bearing on whose statement is more outrageous, though it's not dispositive.