That is not surprising. Most people are transaction-cost minimizers (rather than utlity maximizers, as the rat-choice model wants us to believe), which means that having to choose between easily available schlock and a good value that requires some effort (intellectual or otherwise) to obtain - they will go for the schlock. Therefore, a simpleton (like Bush) who can speak in sound bites over an articulate person who tries to express a complex idea.
Moreover, most people feel good about themselves not by virtue of their own accomplishments - they are incapable of accomplishing anything on ther own - but by virue of denigrating others, especially those they see as inferior. Thus, if they are deprived of the suitbale objects of derision (such as unpopular minorities, outsiders, foreigners, or individuals perceived as weak an unmanly) - such people start feeling very bad about themselves. Conversely, an authority figure (Bush) who supplies them with a legitimate object of derision (Saddam), makes those people feel good about themselves, and in response they feel gratitude toward such an authority figure (cf. the popularity of public executions in the middle ages).
Putting those two together - Bush is a mean simpleton who supplies scapegoats - and that makes him a very appealing figure to the majority of people, not just in this country but elsewhere. This is not exactly a social problem but a social norm, as most people are stupid, arogant, vain, and lazy - and love it when an authority figur lets them being themselves.
Wojtek