The Bush administration has consistently claimed that the government must expand their power and restrict the rights of citizens in order to maintain security and prevent terrorist attacks. They have aimed for warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention and torture of so-called "enemy combatants", spying on peaceful activist groups, suppression of non-violent protests, etc. I bet they would even love to control the mass media, although they appear to be compensating using the "fair and balanced" FOX News, a news network that blatantly displays its bias in favor of the conservative right.
So it's ironic when there is a bomb attack in China, a police state of the sort that the Bush administration can only achieve in their dreams. Even with an oppressive level of control over the populace, China still hasn't been able to prevent terrorist attacks on their soil. Is a significant erosion of civil rights worth the prevention of a few terrorist attacks? Given that a nation much more like a genuine police state still suffers from plenty of terrorist attacks, I'm somewhat dubious whether expanded government power at the price of civil rights would actually help prevent any terrorist attacks at all. Some might even be able to make the case that it would actually motivate more terrorism.
Seven years ago, when the Onion published a parody article about a speech by Bush which blatantly has him declaring his intentions to destroy the peace and prosperity of America, I would have found the article hilarious. But now that we have gone through seven years of the Bush presidency, it's incredibly depressing to find how much in the article have actually been achieved. Only a few things in the parody speech have not come true, such as there being no tax hike that was to follow the tax cuts, and the ban on oil drilling in certain regions is still in effect, although the administration is doing its hardest to lift the latter.
When there is a parody speech with the president advocating harm to one's own country, one would expect that the authors and readers to think that a real president would not aim to achieve most of the things mentioned in the speech. So it's very hard not to think that there's something terribly wrong with the government of the United States when most of them have indeed been accomplished.
To show that President George Bush is not totally out of touch of what democracy means, he views the rigged presidential elections in Zimbabwe negatively. The sanctions that the United States has suggested to the United Nations are the sort that seem to be more focused on punishing the government rather than the citizens, such as an arms embargo and a travel ban. He might actually be letting the US government do something right for a change.
Rabid anti-Bush fanatic that I am, however, I can't miss the opportunity to point out that he should have ordered a thorough investigation of voting irregularities in his own election, instead of leaving it to the opposition party to make a wishy-washy investigation. If it were up to me, I consider voting fraud an extreme threat to democracy so that I would have had any such allegations investigated thoroughly, even if the election results had been in my own favor.
I can't believe that Bush would preach responsibility when he is the great dodger of responsibility. Or is he planning to admit responsibility to all the screw-ups that happened during his administration? Really, he should be the first one to follow his own words, otherwise he'd never even try to fix things. Not that he could do much with less than a year left.