and again for Bush to ask "what were we talking about again?" or words to that effect.

While the topics discussed were described as "wide ranging" and the president at times expounded incoherently on subjects like the war in Iraq, finding Osama and Social Security, as with most of his previous speeches the abiding feeling we are left with is that the American Commander in Chief lacks the intelligence required to lead a troop of monkeys, much less an entire nation. That is not to say, however, that Bush did not sound confident, he did, and always does, but the fact that he is unaware that he is an idiot and indeed believes that he is a genius, simply gives us all the more cause for concern.

In order to best summarise the interview, we have separated the content into three categories: Obvious Lies, evidence of Bush's ineptitude, and evidence of Bush's self-deluded Messiah complex

The Lies

The Post: Can you be sure that by the end of your second term, that there will be a significant reduction (in troops in Iraq)?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm still on the, as quick as possible.

The Post: Do you disagree with Colin Powell's assessment, then, that he thinks it can be done?

THE PRESIDENT: My assessment is, is that we will -- one of the reasons why the military sent an assessment team to Iraq recently was to assess our training mission, because success in Iraq will depend upon the Iraqis defeating the enemy. And so we're constantly assessing to see whether -- where we can improve training, how we can do things better, and what the Iraqis think they need, in order to do their job.

And so the troops have been helping to provide as much security as possible for the elections. The political process is going on. And at the same time, doing their job and training these Iraqis. So we're constantly assessing, and that's what this is. The panel will report back to determine how best to train the Iraqis. My answer to your question is, as soon as possible, based upon fulfilling the mission.

The elections -- I am pleased that the elections are going forward. I recognize that there are a group of terrorists trying to stop the election process. I have been amazed by the spirit of the Iraqi people. There's a big front-page story; I'm sure you read that. Please don't tell me you haven't.

The main lie here is contained within the idea that those opposing the US occupation are terrorists - that they are not ordinary Iraqis attempting to defend their homeland from an occupying power. The idea that "success in Iraq depends on Iraqis defeating the terrorists" is therefore a blatant lie. "Success", as in real freedom for Iraq, depends upon the removal of US troops and the US proxy government headed by CIA asset Allawi. This, however, will never happen because the Iraq war was waged for the purposes of invasion and conquest.

As for the Iraq elections; there will be no democratic elections in Iraq because if there were, the vast majority of Iraqis would obviously vote for candidates who oppose the US presence in Iraq. The US will not allow this to happen and the fact that known CIA asset and current "interim" Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi is running for election is proof of this. The reality is that the plan to bring elections to Iraq is a deliberate ploy to ultimately foment civil war in Iraq which will of course necessitate a US troop presence for many years to come. How convenient for Israel.

The Post: In Iraq, there's been a steady stream of surprises. We weren't welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn't gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.

Blatant lie number 2. The majority of those that voted for Bush were fundamentalist Christians who voted for him because of his stance on "moral issues" such as same sex marriage. In any case, the election was very likely stolen, as evidenced by the many reports of irregularities with the electronic voting machines that were used widely throughout the country during the 2004 election. The idea that Americans voted for Bush as an endorsement of his and his cabinet's criminal record over Iraq is therefore laughable and evidence of the deep state of delusion into which Bush has sunk. We say "delusion" because psychological profiles of Bush suggest that he actually genuinely believes his own lies. Of course, Bush is simply a puppet, a figurehead who is being used by others who are well aware that they are lying to the public.

Listen, in times of war, things don't go exactly as planned. Some were saying there was no way that Saddam Hussein would be toppled as quickly as we toppled him. Some were saying there would be mass refugee flows and starvation, which didn't happen. My only point is, is that, on a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad.

Blatant Lie Number 3. Saddam was not captured. He was flown out of Iraq in April 2003, probably to Belarus. The man that was planted and then captured was one of Saddam's infamous body doubles. A close examination of pictures of the two men will prove this point. While the Iraq war may not have provoked a refugee crisis, the Iraqi infrastructure and economy are in tatters. Starvation may be just around the corner.

The Post: Why do you think [Osama] bin Laden has not been caught?

THE PRESIDENT: Because he's hiding.

The Post: Our allies have done all they can do to help catch him?

THE PRESIDENT: We're on the hunt.

The Post: Do you think others are on the hunt, too? Are you happy, content with what other countries are doing in that hunt?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

The Post: Anyone you're not happy with? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Look, bin Laden is elusive, and he is in a remote part of the world. And we are -- I am -- I can't think of anybody in the world who is our ally who isn't willing to do what is necessary to try to find him. And so I am pleased about the hunt, and I am pleased that he's isolated. I will be more pleased when he's brought to justice, and I think he will be.

Blatant lie number 4. Osama is a CIA asset since the time of the Afghan-Russo war when he was used by the CIA to funnel funds and weapons to the Afghan fighters. The Bush administration needs a bogeyman to scare the American people into accepting restrictions on their civil liberties and to justify the continued bogus "war on terror" which is a war of global conquest. The US has consistently avoided capturing Osama and has on many occasions deliberately let him escape. He also made an appearance in the US elections when a video appeared just days before the vote.

Coincidence? We think not.

The Post: How concerned are you about the enormously high levels of anti-Americanism, particularly in the Muslim world? And is that an indication that somehow the terrorists are winning the hearts and minds of those people?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, it's interesting. The people of Afghanistan, which is a part of the Muslim world, are really happy that the government of the United States, along with others, liberated them from the Taliban. I suspect that people in the Muslim world, as we speak, are thrilled that supplies are being delivered by U.S. servicemen and women. The Iranians -- the reformers in Iran are, I suspect, very hopeful that the United States government is firm in our belief that democracy ought to spread. In other words, there are some places we're not popular, and other places where we're liked.

In essence Bush's answer about the enormously high levels of anti-Americanism is that he doesn't really care. He does not care about the fact that extortion, corruption and poverty are everywhere in 'liberated' Afghanistan. Nor does he care about the fact that Afghanistan opium production has leaped with the overthrow of Taleban. He does not care that vast numbers of people around the world now see American for the brutal imperialist regime that it always was.

The Post: Only two-thirds of the beneficiaries of Social Security, as you know, are retired people. The rest are disabled and people collecting survivor's benefits. Do you think that the rising costs of disability and survivor's insurance is causing the overall Social Security problem, and can you promise that the benefits will not be touched under your reform plan?

THE PRESIDENT: We will look at all aspects of Social Security, of course, but the main focus I have been on, focusing on -- the main issue I have been focusing on is the retirement system aspect of Social Security, because it is a pay-as-you-go system. The number of payers is declining quite rapidly relative to the number of retirees. And that, thus far, has been our focus, because that is the part where the Congress needs to focus.

And to answer the disability insurance, we have no plans of cutting benefits at all for people with disabilities.

The Post: So they'll definitely remain untouched?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I said, we have no plans for cutting benefits.

The Post: Is that just for disability, or for survivors, as well?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're --

The Post: It's a different benefit for --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you're right. Frankly, our discussions in terms of reform have not centered on the survivor/disability aspect of Social Security. We're talking about the retirement system of Social Security. I think that's an accurate statement.

MR. McCLELLAN [Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary]: You're talking about at or near retirees, right?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, they're talking about survivor and disability benefits, and we have had no discussions of that, thus far. The best way to put it -- the answer is, we have no discussions of that, so far, in terms of changing them, I think is the best way to describe it.

An expert piece of filibustering - Bush style. The truth is that Social Security is being siphoned off to support the "war against terrorism". The whole idea that Social Security is bankrupt is false, at least according to the records available to the public, as much of a lie as the story that there were WMD in Iraq. That Bush may wish to bankrupt it to finance his military adventures is, of course, a possibility or even a likelihood. But this would come from a refusal or inability of the US government to pay back the Treasury bonds the government owes Social Security, not because there are more retirees than contributors -- the oficial story. This spike was foreseen twenty years ago and measures were taken to prepare for it. However, if the money has been embezzeled since Spetember 11, they need to find another reason, blame someone else. The government cannot admit this of course, so the plan is to privatise Social Security, hand it over to Wall Street and wait for the impending collapse of the US economy, at which point the blame for there being no SS funds will be laid at someone else's door.

The Ineptitude

THE PRESIDENT: I called Abu Amas the other day, and I told him I'm looking forward to seeing him again and working with him.

Here we see evidence of just how unaware Bush is of current world events. The name is was trying to enunciate was "Abu Mazen", the "nickname" of new Palestinian President Abbas.

The Post: A parochial question for The Post in D.C.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm trying to stay concentrated.

The Post: What's that?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm just trying to stay concentrated. You've got a whole --

The Post: . . . I've got to ask you at least a couple domestic questions. Your answers are short, though.

THE PRESIDENT: A lot shorter than usual.

We are not sure what was going through Bush's mind in the first part of the above quote, what is very interesting however is the comment from the Post reporter: "I've got to ask you at least a couple domestic questions. Your answers are short, though." How could the post reporter know that Bush's answers were short to questions that had not yet been asked? Ok, we realise that very often reporters are given questions to ask the President, but are they given the answers also? And if so, who wrote the questions and answers? Certainly, we suspect that it was NOT Bush. Here again we have evidence for the complete incompetence of Bush as any kind of "leader".

The Post: When you talk about Social Security, you talk about the crisis being now, given the demographic inevitabilities of the system and the financial strains. Is Medicare in crisis, given that it has the same exact demographic strains?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the difference, of course, is that in Medicare, we began a reform system that hopefully will take some of the pressures off the unfunded liabilities, and that is providing, for example, a drug benefit, that will, hopefully, in cases, replace the need for surgery. I used to tell people a lot on the campaign trail that Medicare would pay for the heart surgery but not for the medicine that would prevent the heart surgery from being needed in the first place. Heart surgery costs nearly $100,000, and the medicine could be $1,000. And that's a reform that not only reflects the new nature of medicine, but it's a reform, hopefully, that has cost benefits for the long run.

Notice that in the above Bush ends up saying the exact opposite of what we suppose he means, saying that Medicare would pay for the more expensive heart surgery and not for the drugs that would prevent it in the first place.

In the following extract we have further evidence that Bush has little or no idea about the concepts behind the words that are scripted for him to say.

The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --

THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.

If you are not shocked by the fact that the "Commander in Chief", the "President of the United States of America", the "leader of the free world" has just stated that he was totally unaware that, just a few months before, he himself had told the nation that he was planning to "partially privatize" the Social Security system. To make matters worse, he puts his amnesia down to the fact that he was "tired". We wonder what else Bush has rubber stamped in a state of semi-consciousness. But wait, there's more to come...

The Post: So have you talked to Senate Democrats about this?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have talked to Senate Democrats, and I will continue to talk to Senate Democrats. And I'll continue --

The Post: Did you --

THE PRESIDENT: We had a meeting with -- I think before Christmas we had the leadership in, didn't we?

MS. DEVENISH [Nicolle Devenish, the White House communications director]: That was Republicans.

How ironic. Not only can Bush not remember what meetings he was at, he can't tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats either. But then again, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Notice also that Bush has two aides sitting in on the interview and listening carefully in case Bush needs to prompted to say the right thing or quickly censored.

The Messiah Complex

The Post: But you haven't reached out personally to [Senate Democrats] Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu or [Joseph] Lieberman, people that seem open, at least to the idea, because so many Democrats say, no way.

THE PRESIDENT: I will. First step is to make sure people address -- are willing to address the problem. In other words -- in the campaign, you might remember, in going to one of the debates -- Senator [John] Kerry said -- I don't want to put words in his mouth, but basically said, this is something that we can grow the economy and Social Security will be okay. I think he said that. It's not fair for me -- I don't like when people put words in my mouth, and I try not to put in theirs.

But my point is, is that to me, that points at part of the challenge of getting the issue moving forward. That's why I love when you all put it in the front page of your newspaper, the different aspects of Social Security; so and so says this, and so and so says that -- because it means people are at least talking about it. And my view is, the more it's talked about and the more it's debated, the more likely it is people will recognize that we have a problem that we need to address.

And I meant what I said in some of the big speeches I gave, and oftentimes on the campaign trail, where the job of the president is to confront problems, not to pass them on. Plus, I enjoy confronting problems. I enjoy it when hot shot political reports say, can you believe -- sitting around the coffee table -- can you believe old Bush is trying to take this on?

Bush really seems to think that he can take on the world and win, despite the fact that he cannot get the names of high profile political leaders right and fails to remember the content of his speeches on important issues concerning the American people and their future. Not that any further evidence was needed to conclude that "old Bush", is nothing more than a useful idiot. The future does indeed seem bleak when a man like Bush can rise to the top of a society that is touted to the world as an example of freedom and democracy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------