You're assigning a decade long trend in American popularity to what's happened in less than one year? That's hilarious. Obama is wildly popular overseas, whether or not that's warranted is another matter.
I'm not assigning anything, I fully understand that those dictatorships were problems, what I am assigning to him is blame for softening up our admittedly weak response even further, to potentially catastrophic levels. And Obama does not poll well overseas, as a matter of fact, he's viewed as rather weak among allies and enemies alike.
Aside from that, the international cancers that are the N Korean and Iranian governments date back 30+ years,
Further than that, N.Korea is a failing of the 50's, and Iran is Jimmy Carter's baby, the big problem IS that Obama is returning to the political tactics that allowed those cancers to be born initially.
but the recent diplomatic failures concerning international nuclear policy are directly attributable to Bush Administration "sanction/guns only" policies.
Further back than Bush, Clinton had some nuclear flubs with his "nuclear energy" concessions, but it is more than that, N.Korea should have been stamped out during the Korean conflict.
So the Bush Administration's decision to hand over significant control to international forces is Obama's fault?
Never said that did I? I am blaming NATO for the failure, however, any decision that Obama makes is now his responsibility.
How does that make sense?
I elaborated above.
Further, how did Obama not inherit two wars? At his inauguration there were 55,000 international troops in Afghanistan. Little more than 34,000 (63%) were American troops. Along with thousands of American civilians coordinating with the effort, how can you possibly argue that he did not inherit this war?
Inheritance is NOT an excuse, how he handles it is his responsibility, and will be judged accordingly, on his handling of the inheritance he gets a solid D.
As opposed to what, an endless war policy?
Endless war is not an option, however neither is leaving a power vacuum in a powderkeg like the middle east, anything short of accomplishing solid goals is unacceptable.
Right, the president has no influence on monetary policy. The economic collapse was a decade in the making, starting with the
Commodities Reform Act of 2000,
This is incorrect, the president's influence is twofold, he may suggest policy and sign bills, congress sets monetary policy, which is why they possess the "power of the purse". You falsely assign blame to an act in 2k, the housing crisis dates back to the 70's with the creation of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, it was exacerbated by years of willfull ignorance of the shortfalls in these programs, further so by 1990's strongarm tactics to force risky lending, and finally profiteering by companies looking to cash in on the situation.
The blame is bipartisan and equally applied across socio-economic borders. There's no need for partisanship on this issue.
This we can agree on.