History has been unkind to presidents who waged war, all right -- except to those who are still waging it. FDR was reelected in '44, as Nixon was in '72.

The advantage Bush has is that the war on terrorism isn't over yet. It is possible that a new round of hostilities could erupt in 2004 (say in Iran, for example) which could discourage Americans from removing the administration in midstream, so to speak. Whether that will come to pass, I don't know.

How the economy is faring on election day, and how successfully Bush will have restored order in Iraq by then, will determine who wins. Judging by the administration's poor performance to date in both areas, Bush will lose -- despite his edge in campaign funds, and despite his having the media in his hip pocket.

It seems very likely that Bush would engineer more conflict to perpetuate his rule. The foundations have already been laid for Iran, Syria and Korea. The "Axis of Evil" could be as broad as the Republicans want.

But there's also that twenty-year death-in-office cycle thing to contend with. Harrison (1840), Lincoln (1860), Garfield (1880), McKinley (1900), Harding (1920), FDR (1940), JFK (1960) and Regan (1980 - brain death only, but it still counts IMHO). History is against Bush in every way.

I think that's called Tecumseh's curse. Reagan barely escaped it when he was shot by Hinckley. Of course Bush will escape this as it most likely only applies to elected presidents.

I generally agree with some of Stockley's points in the linked article, but he shaves his definition to eliminate exceptions that contradict his conclusion. He wants us to think that any President who "leads us" into war won't serve a full term afterwards because of the political ramifications. But McKinley led us into the Spanish-American War in 1898 and was elected easily in 1900. That some nut kept him from serving until 1904 by assasinating him afterwards has nothing to do with the political ramifications of the conflict.

Similarly, Lincoln and Roosevelt led us into war in 1860 and 1941 and were re-elected in 1864 and 1944. That they died in their subsequent term tells us nothing about the electoral consequences of their wartime leadership. You could argue that each of them didn't really "lead us" into war in that the country was attacked at Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor. But such an argument falters on the fact that both Lincoln, in the run-up to Fort Sumter, and Roosevelt, during the Lend-Lease days, worked hard to manuever their opponent into firing the first shot so that the President could occupy the moral and political high ground. That's certainly an example of leadership; unfortunately it's a type of skilled leadership that is sorely missing these days.

In Political Science this is referred to as the Rally-'round-the-flag effect. President's get a big boost in popularity when the war begins, but eventually, their popularity rankings sink back down to levels below where they were prior to the beginning of the war.