I've been thinking about this on and off for a while now, but hearing Bush speak these days feels like a cross between listening to an elderly relative who is suffering from a severe neuro-degenerative disease and being pitched by the smarmiest used car salesman in the nation. However, what I find most interesting is not just the latest massive dose of illogical thought, but also how some very obvious points have been missed entirely (which probably only emboldens Bush, if he's aware of these errors of omission by our "mainstream media"). I'd like to focus attention of three of the most egregious claims (made either by Bush or his minions, official or not), then I'll address the "Bush mind."
The first myth is straight from the deranged horse's mouth: Bush kept us safe from subsequent terrorist attacks. Well, that's only true if one classifies the anthrax attacks as non-terrorist, which means we'd need to spent a lot of time on a semantic debate, and of course the Bush supporters of these last days will never concede anything (Olbermann mentioned the anthrax on recent show). However, there is an underlying piece of illogical thought underlying this claim which is undeniable, because the World Trade Center was attacked first in early 1993, just a bit over a month after Clinton was sworn in as President. Clinton never had the benefit of a memo warning him that Bin Laden, or any other terrorist, was intent on striking a major blow within the U.S.A., as Bush did.
Thus, if anyone can claim to have "kept us safe" after it had become clear how dangerous specific terrorist groups had become, it would be Clinton. Applying Bush's own standard, it was Bush who failed to continue keeping us safe, by allowing the second World Trade Center attack to occur (as well as the anthrax attacks). I'm amazed that I have heard nobody point out how Bush essentially condemned himself on this issue with his own definition of "safe keeping." What if there is now a third major terrorist attack, after a few months of Obama being sworn in, but then not another one. Can Obama claim to have "kept us safe" too? According to the Bush standard, the answer is yes, as ludicrous as this may sound to us reasonable folks. The fact that Clinton wasn't craven enough to argue this point is relevant in the context of the Bush mind, which I'll discuss later.
Secondly, Bush now claims that the Mission Accomplished banner was his big mistake, despite all the needless deaths he caused by commission or omission. Actually, the mistake was not to recognize that there were at least two missions. The first mission, defeating Hussein's armed forces, was accomplished, and so there was nothing wrong with the banner, so long as Bush mentioned that a second mission, securing the nation of Iraq, was still ongoing. Not doing that was indeed a huge mistake, costing many more American lives than would have been the case if a realistic plan was adopted. The fact that our "media elite" keeps allowing Bush to claim that a piece of paper was his biggest mistake is disappointing, even though I hold a rather low opinion of them already (with the few exceptions, such as Maddow and Olbermann).
Lastly, we are being told that "torture works," and some even use the fictional TV show, "24," as an example. There is an inherent illogical element here. Let's say a terrorist attack is imminent and you have a member of the cell that is going to carry out the attack. Why would the terrorist tell you the truth? All he needs to do is to lie to you. Then you will chase a false lead, and before you can even get back to torture him again, the attack will already have occurred. If the attack is not imminent, then torture can only work if the organization is tight from top to bottom, meaning that all members have key information. This was not the case with the 9/11 gang. Moreover, if you capture a member of a cell, the other members will soon know that something is wrong, and will change their plans. It's certainly possible that if you a tremendous amount of torturing, knowing that you will be torturing plenty of innocent people, you will obtain all kinds of useful information (though not necessarily one piece of information that will stop a terrorist attack), and by that standard, torture should be used against just about anyone who appears to have committed any crime that the government really wants to stop or uncover. Obviously, this would be "cruel and unusual punishment" meted out before a person was even convicted of a crime, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least a few of our present Supreme Court justices would find that acceptable, as horrifying as that is for an honest American to admit.
The second issue I'll address is the Bush mind. The Oliver Stone view, as I understand it, is that "W." is motivated primarily by a need to show his father that he is "worthy." To me, whether this is true or not is not especially interesting. What I find more interesting is how Bush thinks his biggest mistake is a banner, a piece of paper with a couple of words on it. From what I've seen of this man, it seems as though his entire professional world is based upon shame. The banner gave those he viewed as adversaries, such as many of the reporters who attended his press conferences, an opportunity to shame him. On the other hand, when David Gregory spoke French at a press conference which was attended by Bush and the French Prime Minister, Bush decided to attempt to shame Gregory. Bush seems totally unmoved by those who died in the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and of course the servicemen/servicewomen in Iraq. Thus, I see no indication of a conscience in his mind. Nixon and Cheney may have been more paranoia motivated, but Bush seems to be incapable of seeing things from the point of view of others, and only fears being shamed. The irony, of course, is that this has led him to preside over the most shameful Presidency in our recent history, if not of all time.
There is also a strong "control freak" element to the Bush mind, apparently, which I'd guess is related to his addiction problems ("dry drunk" syndrome in particular, as Katherine van Wormer pointed out in 2002). Bush needs to control what one might call the thoughtosphere. He can't accept the notion that intelligent, well-meaning people might totally disagree with him, but as long as you ostensibly go along with what he's saying (thereby not corrupting the thoughtosphere), he has no problems with you, no matter if you are totally incompetent or even monstrous. Bush told us he was going to be a "uniter," and not a "divider," but he did the exact opposite (keeping Karl Rove until the "bitter end"). Clearly, this is an individual who thinks he has the right to make up facts as he goes along, and if anyone points out that his view of the world is obviously inaccurate, he has a mental "meltdown."
This is consistent with those who have argued that Bush may have an "antisocial personality disorder." Having been exposed to such people from a young age, I'd have to agree that this appears to be the case. One thing really sticks in mind in this context, which is David Kaye's remark about his meeting with Bush (to talk about the lack of WMDs in Iraq). Kaye apparently expected Bush to be regretful about the invasion, given the lack of WMDs, but he said Bush didn't seem like he had or would lose a night's sleep over it. This, along with Bush telling parents of dead servicemen not to sell the metals he had just handed them (and saying so in a nonchalant, almost jovial way) not to sell the medals on ebay are quite telling.
Recently, at approval numbers that probably can't get any lower (as well as a great deal of excitement over Obama), Bush has chosen to attempt to convince us of his great worth. This is an excellent demonstration of his need to impose his will on others, as wells as his inability to comprehend social reality, as probably well over 90% of us perceive it. This is a man who is deeply troubled, most likely on several levels, and it's unfortunate that there is no current mechanism that prevents such individuals from becoming President. For better or worse, "we the people" are the only the obstacle to another disturbed character making promises, becoming President, then doing the opposite, without ever giving his decisions a second thought, no matter how obviously flawed they are, and no matter how destructive and divisive they are.
NOTE (added on later): I didn't address the "surge was successful" myth because that was covered by the mainstream media. I will add, however, that it's rather audacious for a person who initially didn't listen to General Shinseki (who said that many more troops would be needed even before the invasion occurred), then sat on his hands for years while things deteriorated rapidly in Iraq, to state that his meager "troop surge" made all the difference in the world. If this is the case, logic tells us that Bush was beyond awful as a "commander in chief" for continuing with a clearly failed policy for so long when so little was required for "success."
SECOND NOTE (added later): Although it should be obvious, with the right wing nutosphere, everything has to be stated explicitly and in excruciating detail (which, of course, can damage "narrative flow" when you write these kinds of essays). Thus, I'll mention here that it is certainly not impossible that a really stupid terrorist could be tortured and provide crucial information, but the alternative is also possible, which is that he might provide such information more quickly if treated within the bounds of civilization. The key point here is that the Bush/Cheney crowd always seemed to resort to fearmongering with the most unlikely scenario. Really, by the "Cheney Doctrine," there would be no end of "threats" that would require us to take the most extreme action. On the other hand, what was really needed right before 9/11 was better coordination among our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, along with an administration that considered terrorist threats a top priority.