We all know that politicians frequently lie and that all politicians lie at one time or another (as do everyone else, just not in a much of a public setting and on the record). Politicians also like to broadcast a message in coded terms, so they are harder to pin down in the future.
Bush has been a politician for a long time. If he didn't want us to have the impression that Scalia and Thomas were his model SCOTUS appointments, he could have easily named a slew of others. He didn't.
Now he comes along with a nominee who is not quite in the mold (Roberts) and a second one even less so. What are we supposed to think in comparing his actions to his implied intentions? What about the third and fourth appointments?
He named them as judges he respected. He also said "He's an unusual man. He's an intellect. The reason I like him so much is I got to know him here in Austin when he came down. He's witty, he's interesting, he's firm. There's a lot of reasons why I like Judge Scalia. And I like a lot of the other judges as well." So are we supposed to gather that his criteria for nominating judges as that they be "witty", "interesting" and "firm"? He says he likes a lot of other judges as well. But he is not listing the criteria he uses to appoint a judge, and he certainly doesn't say "I promise I will appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia."
With regard to Roberts, there is nothing in his record to indicate he isn't exactly what Bush says he looks for in a judge. In fact, if you read the whole transcript at your link, you can see that Roberts fits Bush's criteria to a tee. Yet somehow this indicates Bush has broken a promise?
"Now he comes along with a nominee who is not quite in the mold (Roberts) and a second one even less so. What are we supposed to think in comparing his actions to his implied intentions? What about the third and fourth appointments?" SEEMS YOU HAVE THE CRYSTAL BALL. WHY DON'T YOU TELL US?