Hmm interesting write up. Taken at face value, it would appear he was a capable bureaucrat (could get things fine within a system), but as a politician he was lacking. Which I guess makes sense.
Politicians have to compromise and made deals with the devil and other things which require good rapport even with those you disagree with. They also need to sell their ideas to people and have them accept those ideas. Bureaucrats on the other hand just have to work well within a system. There are similarities of course, but I think one of them requires more agreeability and charisma than the other where procedure and connections are more important.
Saddam Hussein was deep in debt and heading for an appointment with the IMF. Much of that debt was owed to Kuwait and he figured that annexing Kuwait would clean up his books from the Iran-Iraq war. He told the U.S. Ambassador that much; she said nothing in reply, went home to inform the Pentagon. Saddam took that as a "yes".
Bush put together a large coalition, established a lot of legitimacy, and ultimately won the war, and sent the troops home to a ticker tape parade.
Bush ended the "Vietnam Syndrome", completing the rebuilding of the military. CNN didn't show you the four days of nonstop ground combat that traumatized veterans who experienced the same mental health symptoms as Vietnam vets.
(You might think Bush and the CIA are evil, but up to this point, his team GOT THINGS DONE)
Saddam Hussein tried to blow the ex-president up when he was visiting Saudi Arabia. He took it very personally and so did his son -- that's why GW Bush was in such a hurry to attack Iraq after the Sept 11 attacks.
That war was a mistake to begin with, but in retrospect the Bush crew make big mistakes in the "nation building" phase - Don Rumsfeld for instance would be compared favorably to Robert McNamara except that he went along with Gulf War II.