The issue was did Bush 43 start a war. The clear answer is no.
Before Bush 43 the US were at war with Iraq.
After Bush 43 the US are allied with Iraq.
Despite what the sensationalist media claim (and in fact the worst lies do not even come from them but from conspiracy Web sites), the invasion went fairly well, certainly not worse than any other invasion of the magnitude.
It's easy to blame Bush and the invasion for terror attacks after the invasion. It's also easy to pretend that those same terror attacks didn't happen under Saddam, where the Iraqi government supported such attacks and the media certainly didn't report them.
But the fact is that Iraq is now an ally of the US and that Iraqis just elected a very pro-American government.
Incidentally, under Bush 43 the post-invasion government of Aghanistan was also completely loyal to the US. How long did it take Obama to change that?
Just days after meeting with Obama, Karzai, who has increasingly distanced himself from his U.S. backers, said that U.S. and NATO troops risked being seen as invaders rather than saviors of the country. In the speech, Karzai also delivered extraordinarily harsh criticism of the Western governments fighting in his country, the United Nations and the British and U.S. news media, accusing them of perpetrating a fraud that denied him an outright victory in last summer's presidential elections.
And Karzai has met with leaders of China and Iran, showing he has options for support from other countries.
And no, this is not because Obama is more hawkish than Bush 43 and violence in Afghanistan has increased because of that. It's because the US are no longer perceived as a trustworthy ally. Middle-eastern allies have to look elsewhere for protection.
The same happened in Lebanon a short time ago when the Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt, switched sides and now supports Hizbullah. Under Bush 43 he perceived the US and Saudi-Arabia as Lebanon's most trusted allies.
Meanwhile, the King of Jordan is trying to repair Obama's mess in Jerusalem:
"The economic challenges have also not helped in prioritizing the peace process," he noted. "Having said that, I know very well that Obama and his administration are extremely committed to the two-state solution and moving the process forward. But they've had other things to deal with."
Not that the King doesn't also lie a lot:
King Abdullah of Jordan on Wednesday urged the international community to intervene in order to prevent "Israel's provocative actions in the occupied Palestinian territories, which are intended to change Jerusalem's identity."
Abdullah met Wednesday afternoon with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, after which the royal palace issued a harsh condemnation against Israel.
"We cannot keep quiet in face of the Israeli steps that are meant to change the status quo in Jerusalem and cleanse it from its Arab citizens – both Muslims and Christian," the statement read.
He doesn't seem to remember that Jerusalem was a Jewish city before Jordan invaded it in 1948 or that the issue is not Israel cleansing Jerusalem of Arabs but the PLO's demand to cleanse the city of Jews.
But this is the usual strategy of the Arabs, I'm afraid. Try something and then accuse Israel of trying it.