Many have accused George W. Bush, and so America, of fascism. Some without defining it, but thanks to Dr. Laurence W. Britt, we have an executive summary here, with video, and a learned treatise of sorts here, identifying what Dr. Britt calls the 14 basic characteristics of fascist states. Excerpting:

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
So, we have a wealth of genuine and proven fascist talent from which to establish a reference. With apologies to Dr. Britt and his thoroughness, Wikipedia provides what appears to be a more scholarly (though less visually stimulating) summary of fascism here. Skipping ahead just a little, it seems Dr. Britt has omitted a handful of additional characteristics that might assist in making the "fascist : non-fascist" call simpler. Let's go right to fascist stigma number one. Excerpting:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

Flags? Bunting? Oh my. I do live in a fascist state. I myself have worn a lapel pin but swear never to do so again. But "the fervor to show patriotic nationalism" Dr. Britt mentions above doesn't seem to have affected us all; for example, The New York Times (part of the "controlled mass media" Dr. Britt mentions in point 6?) which, among many others, has lambasted our president and his policy with such vigor that a reasonable man might conclude  that  The Times is neither controlled nor patriotic nor even unbiased. Perhaps the Times and countless other media comprise a small spike in the heart of US fascism as explained in the Dr.'s warning sign one. Catchy slogans? Please. Pride in the military? Okay. Given,  fascist governments were proud of their militaries. So were ancient Rome and the city-states of Greece but no one (yet) has called them fascist. As for demands for unity? Does Dr. Britt see disunity as either a desirable trait in nations or a common thread among non-fascist states?

Regarding Britt's last point, "suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia," I site a few things foreign and ask if it is fascist to regard these with caution or, not having Dr. Britt's courageous world view, even fear:

Here. Here. Here. And a summary of sorts, here.

It is also of interest to apply criterion one above to say, Islamic thought:

Flags and banners and slogans? Check. (But no bunting or lapel pins (or lapels) granted.)

Patriotic nationalism? Check.

Demands for unity. Check.

Controlled mass media (from point 6 but mentioned here). aljazeera.

Pride in the military. Check.

So far, Dr. Britt's case to brand George W Bush and the US fascist seems like scatter-shooting to me.