Wouldn't we be under a police state if Bush was not incompetent?

I think you are mistaken in your essment of the events in question. Bush is resisting congressional inquiry by subpoena to protect the framework of counsel by advisers. Bush never aimed to provide legal justification for any such aggressive control of the executive branch; he provided existing legal authorization when explaining his actions because he is open and direct. The problem most critics have is that Bush says what he is going to do, and then does just that, which is hard for some people to understand because they are always looking for the hidden agenda. The Executive Branch is still accountable to the Constitution and we are no where near any sort of a dictatorship. You need to take a deep breath and relax a bit before jumping to conclusions and parroting the critics and pundits who can't tolerate being wrong in the first place. Peace out.