Even though the "Mission Accomplished" banner was probably a blunder, Bush did a better job handling Iraq. Bush was correct that there were WMD's there, and he did not want to leave until the job was finished. Obama pulled the troops before the country was stable, just because elections were coming up.
Yes, Bush handled it better due to his relationship with the public. Bush was viewed as an "all American American", people felt that they could relate to him. Whereas Obama is less relatable to some mainly because of his past vocation as a lawyer which could be viewed as one of the top jobs too have as well as one of the best paying. Bush gave valid and clear reasons as too why it was necessary to intervene. Bush was also more authoritative as is demonstrated by his use of Presidential orders and Vetos.
Bush and Blair's ploughing into Iraq is a large reason of why the Middle East has ended so unstable. Their underhanded tactics has led to a new, stronger generation of militant groups who are now finding it easier to find troops because of those who have been left angry and without place due to the conflicts. Obama has done his best, but it's going to take a long time to repair the damage that has been done by the Bush Regime.
America has to learn to stay out of some places. I think it was an unwise move to go into Iraq, they should have changed from within. Now Iraq is a mess and people from Iraq is coming to Europe full of hatred, they don't care if it was Americans or other western countries who invaded Iraq, they just want revenge. Americans have to learn to mind their own business, and only meddle if they are asked to meddle.
Canada stayed out, and they aren't quite as hated as Americans.
No, Bush was the one who got us in there under false pretenses to begin with, leaving the next president with a broken country and an all but impossible exit scenario. There ended up being no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, which was the pretext for invasion in the first place.