In Gallup's average approval ratings, W actually does a little better than Obama.
OVERALL AVERAGE APPROVAL RATING WHILE PRESIDENT:
John F. Kennedy - 70%
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 65%
George H.W. Bush - 61%
Lyndon B. Johnson - 55%
Bill Clinton - 55%
Ronald Reagan - 53%
George W. Bush - 49%
Richard Nixon - 49%
Barack Obama - 48%
Gerald Ford - 47%
Jimmy Carter - 46%
Harry S. Truman - 45%
Donald J. Trump - 40%
Dubya is an interesting case
He had over 80% approval after 9-11 down to 28% when he left office
That man used up a lot of political capital
Much like Lyndon Johnson. An unpopular war destroyed his presidency.
I didn't like Bush Jr. either, he FUBAR'D immigration, punted economic policies to the same people Obama did and was probably the worst war time President ever.
The difference between Bush and Obama economically was not that much. And the media completely gave Obama a pass on the wars in the M.E. If you had no other means of communication besides CNN, MSNBC, NYT etc. - you would have thought the wars ended the day Obama took office...just like the protest fizzeled and virtually disappeared.
I think Bush 43 would have made a good President if not for 9-11
His Bush Doctrine in the war on terror resulted in two unnecessary invasions and upset the entire region
Those invasions were necessary and long overdue. Afghanistan is far better off today than it was back in the year 2000. Iraq currently has a murder rate lower than California did in 1990. Kuwaiti Oil and Saudi Oil have never been safer from foreign attack, seizure or sabotage. The invasions removed regimes that were threatening to the United States and the world just like the regimes of the Axis powers during World War II. Its a great thing.
Few if anyone will be writing any books in the future about how it would be great if the Taliban came back to power in Afghanistan, and Saddam's regime came back to power in Iraq. Then again, you do get a tiny minority of extremist that fantasize about Hitler today.
Those invasions were misguided and unnecessary
Afghanistan seemed prudent at the time, but given how quickly Bush abandoned the war on terror there, it was not that critical
Bin Laden ended up in Pakistan and the Taliban are still waiting in the wings
Both invasions were necessary and accomplished a lot of good of U.S. security. Two threatening regimes were removed from power. Saddam had survived the post-Gulf War years of containment. He had essentially wrestled free of most sanctions and the weapons embargo that had been put on to contain him. He was starting to make Billions of dollars a year through illegal oil sales. Money talks, and oil is money. It was only a matter of time before SADDAM would succeed in rebuilding his past military capabilities. The United States and other member states had
responsibility to bring Iraq into compliance with UN Security council resolutions in regards to WMD and remaining problems resulting from Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait in 1990. Kuwait was owed Billions of dollars in damages and thousands of Kuwaiti's were still missing and unaccounted for. As mentioned before, the United States was already engaged in active combat of one sort of another every year in Iraq due to Iraqi violations from 1991 to 2003. The containment mechanisms of sanctions and the weapons embargo had fallen apart. Anything and everything were flowing across the Turkish/Iraqi border, the Syrian/Iraqi border, the Jordanian/Iraqi border and even the Iranian/Iraqi border. There was also no way to know what Iraq still had in terms of WMD or when they would develop new programs. Inspectors had been kicked out of the country and even if they were later let back in, they would never be able to properly due their job due to Iraqi harassment. In hindsight, Saddam should have been removed in 1991, but the general feeling back then was that the defeat in the Gulf War was too big for Saddam to survive. No one seriously believe he would still be leading Iraq by 1996. An internal replacement by Iraqi's would be far less costly than an invasion. But unfortunately, Saddam survived, and the means of containing him crumbled. That made it a necessity to remove Saddam. Failing to remove him in 2003 or soon after would have resulted in the rebuilding of Saddam's military capabilities, both conventional and un-conventional and a new crises in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia which would put the entire global economy in jeopardy. It was the United States and other members states of the UN to never let what happened to Kuwait in August 1990 ever happen again. It was clear that the only way to insure it would never happen again by 2003, was through Saddam's removal. Saddam's potential means of again threatening the global economy's most vital region made regime change the only option.
Every administration since Bush left office has taken events in Iraq seriously, although Obama made the massive mistake of prematurely withdrawing US forces at the end of 2011. US troops have been in Iraq since 2014, and the results have been fantastic. The United States has finally essentially achieved its goals with the new Iraqi Government, stable enough within its own country, and not a threat to its neighbors. The new Iraqi government has even become a bridge for discussion and negotiation between Iran and Saudi Arabia. All these things are good for the region and the world, and would not be possible if Saddam were still in power. If Saddam had remained in power, the United States would already be fighting or facing a far more costly war with Saddam's regime armed with new weapons easily purchased on the world market. The cost of dealing with a rearmed Saddam would mean far heavier US casualties, and far heavier civilian casualties, let alone the risk to Kuwaiti oil and Saudi oil so vital to the global economy. So in the long run, the removal of Saddam has been a big win for Iraqi's, the region, and the world.
Not invading Afghanistan in 2001 would have just let the terrorist problem fester and get worse. The United States made a mistake of abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets left in 1989. The results were not good, and help to lead to the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City and Washington D.C.. In order to prevent such attacks of that scale from happening again, at minimum the United States had to remove the Taliban government. In the years since 2001, the United States has helped the new Afghan government and military grow in size and capability. There are 34 provinces in Afghanistan, each with a provincial capital. Over the past 18 years the Taliban have only taken one of those provincial capitals, but lost it to the Afghanistan military within weeks. This is a far cry from the Taliban's capabilities in the mid-1990s, when it only took them two years to take over 90% of the provincial capitals in the country. So the U.S. invasion has been good for Afghanistan, the region, and the world. The terrorist threat is reduced, the Afghan military and government continue to improve their capabilities every year. The Afghanistan military is suffering heavy casualties, since the United States drew down its forces from 100,000 to just 14,000. But, despite the drawdown of U.S. forces, the Afghan military continues to hold on to all the provincial capitals in the country. They now just need to reduce the casualties their taking in fighting the Taliban and increase their control and coverage of the more rural areas of the country.
Counter insurgency and nation building are difficult projects that often require lots of time and persistence to work. A decade at a minimum, but usually much more than that. The investment in both Afghanistan and Iraq has been worth it because of the national and global security threats involved. Back in 2008, there were 180,000 US military personal in Iraq and 35,000 US personal in Afghanistan. A combined 215,000. Today, those numbers are 5,000 and 14,000. A combined 19,000. That just goes to show how much things have improved.
