What's our Policy on Democracy

This is a brief post to kick off the blog...hope you all enjoy and offer some insightful comments.
Watching the Bush administration one has to wonder what their policy on democracy is exactly. It seems that nations who currently have a Unitary Executive (The Artists formerly known as Dictators) are felt to need democracy and the nations currently suffering under the weight of democracy, like the good ol' US of A, need to have a Unitary Executive. It would seem that this administration is willing to go to any lengths to accomplish both aims. Obviously, they feel that violence is appropriate in accomplishing both goals and they have done violence to bodies, violence to minds, violence to careers and reputations, violence to science, violence to logic, and violence to the constitution. Obviously they feel that the Unitary Executive of the US should have all the characteristics of the former Unitary Executive of Iraq, such as secret prisons and torture.

The thought to ponder is: What happens after we establish democracy in Iraq and a Unitary Executive in the US? You know the one who is in the process of granting himself the right to torture and absolving himself and his cronies from responsibility for abuses already commited so that his egomania might rival that of the former Unitary Executive of Iraq? Wouldn't the theory seem to require that the democratic government of Iraq would be required at that point to attack the US to overthrow the Unitary Executive and re-establish democracy here and put the neo-unitary exec on trial for war crimes? At that point does Haliburtons Iraq division get all the contracts to bring democracy back here?

Is this the perpetual motion war machine that represents the business plan for institutions like Haliburton for the next century?

Or maybe we all need to do a little more critical thinking about the people we've put in power in this country?