No, it's merely an observation of realists who actually understand the relationship between capitalist market economics and their absolute dependence on having a functional society in order to create what is mostly a free market.
Whatever we might think of George Bush II, he will not be considered a lucky POTUS.
He took office just about the time that the market was turning south, then 9-11 happened; then Katrina happened; then after some apparent economic recovery, the economic meltdown happened on his watch, too.
We can debate whether we think he handled things well, but hopefully we can all agree that the things Bush II faced during his term in office were events that would have tested the abilities of best of presidents.
Personally, I think he didn't stand up well to the tests of office, but much of what he had to deal with was not his fault, regardless of how you think he dealt with it.