It just goes to show that people will post something that they know to be false or misleading, which dovetails nicely with the original point of this thread. <s>

I'm guessing Tom's point about consolidation refers to the party running all branches of gubmint, when your own WH attorneys toss Geneva, endorse waterboarding, make hosptial bed end-runs around the acting atty general, the hundreds of signing statements, warrantless wiretapping, replacing your own USAGs with more loyal Bushies, failing to archive emails, using secondary email systems, loyalty oaths and the like. All with little or no consequences (excluding Libby to some degree).

I dont recall Tom heaping praise on hillary. And i happen to agree with your reply to Tore's comparisons. But i find it interesting how reflexive the need is to move the discussion to "everyone's a sc*mbag" when someone tries to weign in on George's legacy. And I think you missed my swipe at Harry. Theres definately enough complicity to go around, but i think you know who owns the lion share. And i would have to guess that spending 2.5 billion a week in iraq with total estimates reaching into the trillions has some bearing on the economy.


>I'm not even sure what the logic is behind the 'consolidation' argument but I wasn't ignoring anything, just questioning a specious statement that somehow the entire state of everything is EVER the total result of the occupant of the white house. Especially the economy, but also the action or inaction or bone-headed action of the federal government in general. In many respects Bush and his cronies are weasels, but if you believe for a minute that Pelosi, Byrd and Reid are not, then you are hardly objective. Any party that can think of letting Hillary Clinton back in the White House - even on a tour - is not in a good position to criticize the prodigal son of the Bush clan. <s>
>
>( and that said even realizing that like all right-thinking, enlightened people I realize that Bush is evil incarnate, worse than Hitler, Pol Pot, Vlad the Impaler and the guy Eli Wallach played in Clint Eastwood movies and that he would be the worst person ever in the history of the world if it weren't for Cheney ... )
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It seems like GWB has consolidated all three branches of government into one – the executive. We do not need a constitution but we do need an attorney general to interpret it.
>>>>>
>>>>>An amazing accomplishment in that the legislative branch is controlled by Democrats <bg> but I suppose everything they do is still somehow Bush's fault? You really don't see the humor in that?
>>>>
>>>>'Consolidation' took place when the the Rs had majorities. Although with the likes of spineless Reid et al, I dont think it woulda mattered.
>>>
>>>And so the theory is that not only is George Bush the stupidest president we've ever had but he outsmarted all the Democrats <s>
>>
>>Your statement that consolidation happened while the Dems controlled congress is just incorrect. It occurred when the Rs had majorities. So George had a lot of help.
>>
>>>
>>>I used to think only radical feminists were completely devoid of any sense of humor or irony - now I see it has spread <g>
>>
>>I'm surprised you ignored 6 years of George's admin to claim that the dems controlled congress in order to use the 'So everything is Bush's fault?' line.