Your first two points have validity - your latter three points are utter nonsense.
I see... lets see.
Libya erupted after Obama took over - Qhaddafi was well behaved after Afghanistan/Iraq and Bush's warning for him to behave
What? Yes Libya happened after Obama took over, but the seeds of revolution were put there under Bush's watch. Dont even try to deny it.
Syria erupted after Obama took over
Again, so what? Revolution in Syria only happened because people saw it was possible because of Bush taking out Saddam and emboldening various sects and tribes across the Middle East to rise up against their governments.
Iraq is not as stable as it was when Bush left, partly because the US is not there to keep the Iranians from interferring
Iraq was never stable, both under Bush and Obama. It is a mess today and has been a mess since day one of the invasion and the Iranians started to interfere as soon as the first US troops entered Iraq. Anyone with even the minimal knowledge of the Middle East could have told Bush and his right wing wackos that this would happen.
Egypt erupted after Obama took over.
And so what again. The seeds of revolution were put in place by Bush. Because of Iraq, Mubarak felt that he had to loosen his grip... and that cost him his job.
Do you get the trend here?
Yes the trend that you are in total denial of what damage Bush and his policies did not only to individual nation states but to the whole region and to the image of the US.
It amazes me that we heard all the time about the "brilliant" Bush doctrine to push democracy and revolution against dictators like Saddam in the Middle East, and suddenly when it happens after he has left office and the new guy is a black guy with the middle name of Hussien, then all of a sudden it is bad and all his fault that it is happening... gezz the double standard really stinks ...
Everyone around the world realized Obama was all talk no action and they could act with impunity.
LOL of course they could act with impunity, because Bush had committed all US forces to 2 wars and gone bankrupt doing it. Add to that, the total lack of respect the US has now due to these policies and you have a mixing pot for people not caring what the US thinks... and it shows. Oh and the financial melt down and the lack of accountability there also had a big influence on nations and people's attitude towards the US.
The only reason Libya ended up differently was because the French had interests in the region and they convinced NATO to act, against Obama's wishes and Mr. Lead from Behind jumped on the bandwagon as it was heading out.
Come on...If anyone had interests in Libya it aint the French... but Italy. And Obama balked about using US forces in Libya because BUSH the moron had committed the US to two wars and starting a 3rd was a big no no. That is why the US pushed for a European/NATO solution with US back up and it worked some what. You simply did not have the money or troops to do anything with!
But like in all of these cases every time the US butts its head in (mostly Bush but also Obama) the only ones who really gain anything are the Islamic fundamentalists and AL Q groups and of course Iran.. and it all goes back to the invasion of Iraq which was a mistake of epic proportions if the overall goal was to prevent Iran and its allies from getting more influence.
In almost every country in the Middle East, public opinion was more favorable to Bush than Obama.
And you can provide evidence of this of course? From a reliable source?
You blaming Bush for what's happening in the Middle East after Bush left office and Obama supposedly offered a new day would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragically stupid.
Do you seriously think that the day Bush left office, that his policies stopped having any influence on what happened from that day? Revolutions takes years to brew, they do not start and happen over night.
Let me ask you this... was it Bush Sr that should get credit for the fall of the Iron Curtain... it happened after all on his watch?