So why is it wrong to still bring up W, when con-jobs still whine about Clinton, Carter and even FDR?
We still hear complaints about Clinton (not my favorite, nor do I defend him, so skip the false reductionism), and con-jobs still blamed everything on him right up until W was sent packing (and occasionally since).
How can we a a nation move past W's abuses when so many of you still refuse to even admit to them? Instead, we get the 'dictator' spin-job (which suggests an inability to critique the current prez in a fact-based manner), when W was far indisputably closer to a dictator than Obama.
The Right's failure to honestly address W's abuses suggests you merely want to resume them. Your dishonest agitprop also seems to confirm this. Are you deliberately watering down the use of the word 'dictator' because that's what you want, someone more anti-freedom than W?