In browsing the sometimes humorous posts at DUh, I came across a poll that essentially summarized the majority of the DUhers' gripes with President Bush. Someone posted a poll asking which issue was "unforgiveable." The two issues with the most votes were 1) Bush stole the election in 2000 and 2) Bush lied about going into Iraq.
First of all, I recall that an independent group of journalists actually went ahead and completed the Florida recount and determined that instead of winning by 500 or so votes, Bush actually won Florida by a much larger number of votes. In other words, had the recount been allowed to continue, it would have merely solidified Bush's win in 2000. For more info, see www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html. Why oh why, then do has this issue not been laid to rest?!
Second, as far as Iraq goes, it appears that the primary justifications for taking out Saddam Hussein were 1) His refusal to comply with UN Resolutions regarding WMDs, among other things; 2) He provided support to Al Qaeda terrorists; and 3) He was a tyrant who murdered millions and brought instability to an important region of the world.
1) Sure, President Bush "sold" the war in Iraq partially on the issue of WMDs that haven't really materialized. But, if I recall, he based this justification on the intelligence that was available at the time. When I read John Kerry's statements from the time period, it sounds like he felt the same way as Bush on the issue.
On a similar note, the anti-Bush crowd blasts Bush for not doing more with the weak and unsubstantiated intelligence regarding Bin Laden and 9/11 (they seem to ignore the fact that Clinton had much of the same intelligence, but did little either), but then they blast him for doing too much with the intelligence on Saddam Hussein. Granted, I don't think the intelligence on Saddam had him planning an attack on American soil. But he certainly did not hide his desire and intent to help those that would.
2) The link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda still seems to be unclear. The 9/11 commission determined that there had been "contacts" but not "cooperation" between the two. Some intelligence indicated that there were stronger ties, other intelligence says no. To me, this question still seems to be up in the air (not that it matters<--see number 3 below).
3) This point doesn't seem to get much airtime, but I believe it is one of the most significant reasons for going into Iraq. It probably doesn't get much airtime because it's difficult for anti-Bush people to refute.
On another note, where do the Bush bashers get the idea that the U.S. deposed Saddam out of greed for oil? I see people (including high-profile folks) throwing this one around alot, but they never point to anything objective.