That'd be a pretty hard argument to make since President Obama authorized the raid on the compound in Abbottabad, winded down the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and switched to using drones and strike teams to handle targets instead of authorizing unilateral invasions of entire countries with the use of trillions of dollars and over a million people. Could you imagine if we had used President W. Bush's tactics to deal with targets in places like Mali, Yemen, and Syria? It'd be an unmitigated disaster (assuming Iraq wasn't an unmitigated disaster, because if it was, then I don't have a good term for handling terrorists in Syria the way we handled them in Iraq).
Depends on your point of view - from where I sit, your take is utter nonsense.
1. Obama was able to give the order to raid the compound in Abbottabad because of intelligence gleaned from the Bush authorized enhanced interrogation techniques that Obama roundly dismissed and condemned before and after he took office. Without that intelligence, you may still be looking for bin Laden.
2. Obama did not wind down conflict in Iraq - in fact, Obama simply allowed the Bush administration withdrawal agreement with Iraq to take place. However, Obama was instrumental in being unable to negotiate with the Iraqis on an agreement to retain a certain level of troops in Iraq while the country transitioned and stabilized. As a result, Iraq has been anything but stable and has been drifting into Iranian influence since the date Obama walked into the Oval Office.
3. Obama did not wind down conflict in Afghanistan before he ramped it up, increasing the troops in the area although not as much as his military experts requested, extending time in the country without any appreciable mission or gain, and long past virtually every international country who cooperated with Bush in Afghanistan. The result is a continued, failed, Afghanistan, perhaps the most corrupt country in the world, with the US condoning or sanctioning negotiations with the Taliban. Talk about dealing with the devil.
4. The use of drones under Obama has been to the moral disgrace of America and I believe America will rue the day when a US President authorized the first and many after murders of innocent people in sovereign countries that America was not at war with and whom America explicitly or implicitly indentifies as an ally. Innocent men, women, and children, are not just "collateral damage" when a US President decides he wants to "take out" a bad guy. People like you wanted Bush tried for war crimes because a few prisoners got embarrassed by rogue soldiers whereas you think Obama is a hero for murdering people indiscriminately.
5. Finally, places like Mali, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Egypt, etc. were not "problems" when Bush was President - these places didn't become roiled in discontent until the great Obama decided to go to Egypt, in many respects the lead country in the middle east, and gave the masses the impression that America was behind them in their fight for freedom and independence. Was the message bad? No. But it was a disaster when it was given by a man without the ability or the backbone to back it up. He sat on his ass and watched as young people all over the middle east rose up against oppression and the great Obama sat in his golf cart and let them be beaten back and many die in the process. How cruel to encourage people and give them hope and then abandon them when they need you most.
But, it's all your individual perspective.
