I communicate with a wide variety of people over the internet. They run the gamut of the political spectrum. The reactions to the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina have been, for the most part, true to form. The frothing Bush-haters are whipped up into a lather about how horrible a job Bush supposedly did/is doing in handling this crisis. If you keep pushing them, though, ultimately, it always comes back to Iraq. Eventually, after all the high-minded sounding arguments about evacuation plans and relief efforts, these folks will devolve to this argument: "If we weren't spending all that money and manpower to fight Bush's personal war in Iraq, there would have been the necessary funds to reinforce the levees (presumably overnight), there would have been the necessary manpower to run the evacuation and relief effort."
This, my friends, is what is known as a crock.
I have come to firmly believe that the hatred of Bush is a result not so much of what Bush has or hasn't done or his political ideology, but more a result of the American Left's desire to "get us back for what we did to President Clinton." You see, the vast right-wing conspiracy managed to prove that Bill Clinton was a liar, so the Left has decided that it must bring the same charge against Bush. That's why the anti-war rhetoric always claims that Bush lied to the American people. It wouldn't be enough for them to say that he had been wrong in his reasons. No, they have to take the next step and assume he knew the WMD's weren't there; therefore, in their minds, he lied.
I happen to be one of those Kool-Aid drinkers who thinks the WMD's managed to get secreted out of Iraq in the 6 months we were forced to wait before we invaded, but that's beside the point. Even if there were no WMD's at all, that is not proof that Bush lied to us.
Seriously, when you find someone who is attacking "the government" for how poorly things were handled and are being handle in New Orleans, keep pressing. Eventually, you will hear the word Iraq escape his or her lips.