I don't think he made a misguided decision to go to war. There are plenty of people - on both sides of the proverbial political fence - who acknowledge that, at the time, the intelligence on Iraq pointed to continuing WMD programs.
The argument against going to war, at the time, was not based on the belief that there were no WMDs in Iraq, it was based on the belief that increased inspections would be enough to contain Iraq. That fact seems to be conveniently forgotten and people act as though the rest of the world was claiming that the WMD didn't exist.
Alternatively, many people who spend the majority of their time talking about Bush being a complete and utter moron who can't utter a complete sentence, conclude that Bush was lying and, despite having an IQ below 100, that he was able to pull of the greatest con job in U.S. political history, fooling Gore, Kerry, and every last one of his fiercest political opponents, as well as German intelligence, who concluded that Iraq could have a bomb in three years, and British intelligence. Even Chirac stated that Iraq was building weapons.
The problem, in my opinion, was not in those "reasons" for war, but in the absolutely horrible execution of the war. The administration went with the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz "war on the cheap" philosophy rather than the Powell "overwhelming force" method, which would likely have avoided the casualties we are seeing now.
So if you want to lambaste Bush for mismanagement of the Iraq war, go right ahead. You won't get an argument from me.
But when people continuously parrot trite crap like "Bush's war for his Daddy" they simply come across as partisan crackpots who are no different than those who found Vince Foster's death to be just one of a hundred murders committed by Clinton.
That's why Bush is still showing strength in the polls. It's not that Bush is unabashedly loved by the majority of Americans, it's that the misguided, misinformed nonsense being spewed forth by the activist left frightens people away from Kerry.
