Someone with greater knowledge of history and more free time can do a better job than I of anaylzing Bush's identification with Winston Churchill. (W. keeps a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office and has visited the war rooms he used during the Blitz.)
Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames, debunked some of Bush's fantasy in 2002, during the run-up to the Iraq war. (Source: BBC.)His main points were that Churchill had a much greater understanding of the importance of alliances and public support than Bush does, and that Churchill was conscious of the strategic impact of his dedcisions.
In Soames's words, ["O]ne of the comparisons that does not stand up was that Churchill was a great thinker in the round of the whole scene.
"It would be lunacy to pretend you can just go into Iraq without having regard to what is going to happen in the Middle East."
I would add, briefly, that Churchill knew and loved both history and tradition. One of the few genuine elements of Bush's political persona is his anti-intellectualism. Another is his disdain for any tradition or convention that might limit his power to do as he pleases. (A third is his aggression.)
Another contrast that is particularly galling, this week: After becoming Prime Minister, Churchill treated Neville Chamberlain, in public and privately, with consideration and respect. No doubt Churchill was motivated in part by the need to keep the cabinet and government from splintering. But he was also a human being capable of genuine compassion and consideration.
Churchill was no saint, but it's difficult to think of a wartime leader Bush resembles less.