If the Iraq didn't happen would Bush be a popular President?
608842
Unfortunately, I don't think it's the "man" that's not popular, but the policies that his administration has developed & implemented.
216620
He wouldn't be working. Any buisiness he touched went belly up. if it was not for the family support and the Bush money raising money, G.W. Bush was would be pushing a cart around the streets and talking to himself.
307924
I think he would have gone into Afghanistan and focused on getting Bin Laden. He probably would also have strengthened security measures within the states (something that Bush still hasn't done, or at least not to an extent where it shows a difference). One thing that he would not have done was go into Iraq for supposed WMDs.
169606
there is always a percentage or possibility, but I don't think so.  \n\nBush is a puppet for the wolfowitz doctrine and other high profile secret societies. He is not for the people, he is for corporations, and making money for him and his cronies. Not helping any of use americans. Bush is a good puppet.
47360
Probably not (and no, that was not a stab at President Bush himself).  Many American's probably couldn't even name the president 30 years ago, let alone any individual act that he did -- and contrary to popular belief the world was just as harrowing back then as it was now.  So unless something truly dramatic happens (mankind reaches Mars during his term, for example), he'll just go down as just another American President.  And if you think 9/11 alone was significant enough to mark his place in history, how many of your can name the president during Pearl Harbor, an equally shocking event? (You'd be surprised how many people couldn't).
176651
How can one know the answer to some hypothetical question whose answer is somewhere in the future.  History has not judged George W. Bush yet as he is still President.  What we have here is just a lot of people here you either think everything he does is wrong and those that give him their support right or wrong.  None of this will go very far in the judgment History will have on the man.  Each President has highs and lows in their popularity, which also goes nowhere in history actually judging the merits of his programs.  There are those who believe that Hilary Clinton would be far superior of a President that Bush however that is just polls as well and have no basis in fact for the way people feel.  If in fact Hilary would be elected she would also be judged by history after her term(s) and then you could compare the two, but you can not have anything but an opinion now, not facts.
532014
Bush has a low approval rating. Very low. Bush and his type of people have caused the United States to be looked upon by the world as a terrible nation.
741730
I think he will be remembered overall as the least popular President in the history of the United States, His legacy will also be one of causing Islamic extremism and hatred of the US to drastically increase, while at the same time destabilizing the middle east. He will also be remembered for helping to turn a budget surplus into a record deficit, encouraging industry to send jobs oversees, etc. History will not remember this man kindly.
1075203
Only if thats what he wants. I think he has retired from public office. The Iraq speech  was bad for him. He was too use to taking orders.
779921
Yes, absolutely. I saw one report that the world didn't blame the Americans for anything done by Bush in his first term because they dildn't know what he was about. But when they reelected him, knowing what he was about, they became complicit in his policies. So yes by the majority voting for Bush in 2004, you could say the American people are partly to blame for the debacle in Iraq.
830145
President Bush might be last because of his misadventrures in Iraq.
867597
God, I hope you are the real thing because this is such a weak forum to get real solid input of the type you are asking for.  \n\nThe answer is unknown.  It would have also been unknown if the Reps had won the House, so there.  The general answer is "not much" since the president has the biggest role in foreign policy and especially in military action.  If the administration would do a better job of promoting  conceptual clarity on their actions in Iraq it might be easier to reach more agreement in the general population.  \n\nThe action in Iraq was necessary and I believe overdue.  The exit strategy of leaving a stable and secure democratic society will be in the region's and our best interests.  Don't be fooled by the immediate and limited view that many liberal thinkers use to trash our role there.   The outcome of an early  exit would leave a world much more exposed to dictator thugs and adversarial others that have no interest other than their own immediate gratification by bringing death and destruction everywhere where freedom should reign.
139369
The majority didn't elect bush twice.  In 2000, Gore won the popular vote.  I think it is hard for us to follow someone who is so careless in his direction for America.  And when you ask us why we can't say something intelligent, we are asking the same question about bush.  And it's so disappointing that we have to say that.
75041
Yes, unfortunatly.  If you want to think that, it's okay.  Almost everyone these days hates Bush.  But in the 2004 election, they picked him.
913465
Bush did not run in this Election. It was not a Presidential election.  He cannot run in the next Presidential, because he is limited to 2 terms in office, and he is in his 2nd term now.
1021519
He would have been a fantastic president!!\n\n1. He would have continued the PAY AS YOU GO system that Clinton used to balance, and keep balanced, the budget. (Bush got rid of that as soon as he came into office = deficits)\n\n2. He would have accepted the Taliban's offer to hand over B. Laden after 911; therefore, I doubt we would have ever had to even go into Afghanistan. (Note: not the offer made to Clinton. There was another offer after 911)\n\n3. If Saddam continued to give inspectors a hard time, Gore would have only invaded Iraq with support of the United Nations. BTW, the UN never said no but only to give inspectors 6 more months. \n\n4. He would have stayed with the Kyoto agreement thereby we would not have an environment that is going to hell. It would at least be recovering instead of getting worse.\n\nSo, if Gore had been elected, we would not be in a unilateral war, we would have a cleaner environment, our budget would be balanced = continued great economy from the 90s, B. Laden would have been punished for 911 already, 1000s of ppl would still be alive that have died from this war on both sides, and the rest of the world would not hate us.
790099
Someone's going to have to do it eventually to pay off the debt for the Iraq War.  Of course, it won't happen until the next presidential election.  Bush is already one of the most unpopular presidents ever.  Logic suggests that a Democrat will probably be elected.  That prez will have to raise taxes to pay off the Bush debts and the Republicans will chant their familiar song about Democrats raising taxes.