Baileywikipedia

On the continuing issue of Hitler/Iran (with not so much immediate emphasis on Iran), Barnum's Baileywick popped this missive into the comments section (reproduced in its entirety but punctuated by my comments)...

Naturally, I do not agree with Tono Rondone that Bush orchestrated 9/11, or that Hunter S. Thompson was murdered. I don't think Bush is another Hitler, even though I don't think that Ahmadinejad is another Hitler, either.

No, naturally not that, since Hitler "is a unique moment in the history of Germany, Europe, and the world." Not even a cloned Hitler with Hitler's memories and personality could produce another Hitler, it seems.

So, despite the fact that BW uses some pretty obvious sophistry, and has a deep and unhealthy reliance upon some poorly written freshman logic textbook or other, it is nevertheless the case that he's right about T.R. Except ...

"[U]ses some pretty obvious sophistry" and "has a deep and unhealthy reliance upon some poorly written freshman logic textbook or other," eh?
Let's hope BB's evidence is up to his assertions.

Of course, Hitler was already Chancel[l]or of Germany when the Reichstag fire took place, but it was the Reichstag fire that allowed him to take advantage of the clause in the German constitution that allowed the chief executive, in times of national crisis, to assume whatever powers necessary to put the crisis to an end.

Close, but Hitler relied on President Hindenburg for his appointment as Chancellor and for declaration of those powers. After that, Hitler seized his real power ("Within weeks, Hitler would be absolute dictator of Germany and would set in motion a chain of events resulting in the second World War and the eventual deaths of nearly 50 million humans through that war and through deliberate extermination.")
In contrast, Bush had trouble with the Miers nomination.

With that assumption of power, Hitler disbanded the Reichstag, turning a constitutional democracy into his own little megalomaniacal dictatorship.

Hitler coerced the Reichstag into effectively disbanding itself, and that was the seizure of power.

While T.R. is wrong to compare Bush to Hitler in any meaningful way, it nevertheless does stand to reason that there is a valid comparison here between the arguments made for increased power to the executive -- that times of national crisis give the President the power to conduct matters as he sees fit (in the present case, not only the fighting of wars, but also any "related" intelligence gathering or sorting activities -- I put "related" in scare quotes because the President also maintains that he is the sole authority in determining which activities are legitimately related to the war).

I'd like a supporting citation presented in favor of the latter claim.

As it was in the German constitution (the clause was, of course, written out after WWII), so in our interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. To give the President unlimited power in any sphere of his activity is, I think, the first (or second, or third) step on a slippery slope toward the New American Fascism.

Pending the citation, it seems proper to regard BB's proposition as a straw man with respect to the real-life situation.

Nevertheless, I will note again (since I have a problem with being misinterpreted over here from time to time), that Bush's movements in the direction of fascism do not make Bush a fascist, and much less justify a meaningful comparison to Hitler. T.R. is just wrong.

I'll take that to mean BB thinks that T.R. is wrong.

Where was the "sophistry" and the reliance on a poorly-written freshman logic text, BTW?
Or was that just BB's occasional indulgence in ad hominem?