George Bush is once famously quoted as saying that the US would be easier to govern as a dictatorship if he were the dictator. While I've never heard this quote directly, I have often heard it attributed to him (mostly by critics).
He appears to have taken steps to make the US easier to govern over the years. Operating with a solid base of UnConstitutional legislation from his predecessor, Bush used the tragedy of September 11, 2001 to further erode our rights and remove our government further from that which was intended.
He looked to history for lessons on how to do this. Apparently, he noted that Abraham Lincoln's use of war to justify shredding the Constitution had gone unchallenged for over a decade and a third, and decided that would make for sound strategy on the part of his administration. By declaring "war on terror" (invoking the rhetoric used by Reagan of the war on drugs and earlier by Johnson of the war on poverty), he declared an open ended war that could not possibly be won against an enemy that could not possibly be singled out, so that any action against any individual could possibly be construed as an action in the war on terror. This rhetoric was invoked when my van was searched without a warrant in 2003 because I committed the heinous crime of occupying it while parked on a public street, and I have no doubt it has been invoked on many others in similar situations.
Bush's violations of the Constitution under the assumed war powers granted by his unilateral (and UnConstitutional) declaration of a war on terror echoed Reagan in one substantial way: just as Reagan's war on drugs brought about the policy of asset seizure in direct defiance of the Constitutional protection requiring due process, Bush's war on terror brought about the same policies, adding to it the right to arrest and detain individuals indefinitely without the benefit of a trial or even of families knowing they have been seized. How many mothers in the middle east are going to sleep not knowing if their son is dead, lost, or locked away in some prison or forgotten due to the crime of simply having been a Muslim Arab in a war zone, or a Muslim Arab in America? The truth is, there may be none who fit that description, but until/unless the records are made available to the proper personnel, we will never know that for a fact, will we? Ironic, isn't it, that the same American public who demands that a parent who refuses to open their home to an UnConstitutional search by government agents is "hiding something" would accept the fact that a PUBLIC SERVANT refusing to release certain pertinent details of the actions of the US government is not?
Bush has further insisted that simply questioning his activities is treasonous, and many of the GOP faithful have accepted that maxim entirely. But, while concluding that illegal activities have taken place and taking action on that assumption may indeed constitute treason in certain situations, the mere questioning of the activities of the government certainly does not. The first amendment specifically enumerates our right to petition the government for redress of grievances; how, then, may we do so if we cannot ask questions of our government?
Bush's closing of the White House to public tours is another issue. The White House is OUR house, as citizens. We own it, we maintain it, and we have a right to access it. The Constitution specifically forbids titles of nobility, and that ban extends all the way up to the President. There IS a way to secure the tours to the White House, and it would not be unreasonable to require two weeks' notice before a tour may be secured, so that background checks may be completed and that security may be provided, but the White House MUST be reopened to the public. It is OUR property, NOT that of the President, and that should be remembered.
The "war on poverty", the "war on drugs", and the "war on terror" all need to be brought to a conclusion with the same ax. All are spurious excuses for exceeding the authority of the executive branch of government, and all are unConstitutional because they are "wars" that are completely unwinnable, that have no defined enemy, and that have employed unConstitutional actions of all three branches of the federal government in their implementation.
While Republicans (and some Democrats) may refuse to accept it, there IS a case for impeachment of the President that could be made. But the same case could be made of both Democrat and Republican presidents going back to Lincoln and of many presidents that predated Lincoln. The answer, then, is not to suggest impeachment of Bush as a remedy, but to restore democracy one initiative, one candidate at a time. To do that, we must first educate ourselves as to the rights we are guaranteed (NOT GIVEN) under the United States Constitution, and of our state Constitutions, and as to the limitations placed on the governments therein. We must then USE that education to vote out enemies to democracy and vote in those who would restore it. It's a long process, certainly, but if we are dedicated enough we can do it.