However, the fact remains that Bush managed to leave Iraq in a stable condition. So, one can factually say that he fixed, to the extent anyone was able, what he broke.
And, when Obama left office, it was broke again. Because of actions taken (or a lack thereof) by Obama, no one else.
Ok, one can hardly call Iraq circa 2006–07 “stable.” Sure, there was less fighting at the time, but the country was no closer to resolving the enormous power vacuum Bush had caused.
Moreover, the invasion of Iraq, and to a an extent Afghanistan as well, had a ripple effect across the whole region, exacerbating anti-Western tensions and giving an opportunity for terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, and later Islamic State to take hold and amass power and influence.
Obama’s cautiousness in the Middle East is certainly debatable. One could certainly argue that it would have been more difficult for Islamic State to make the inroads that it did in Iraq with US forces present. But given the physical and financial toll conventional forces face in combating terrorism, with little results to show for it, it’s difficult to justify the type of prolonging of the Iraq War that you seem to be suggesting. Bottom line, Obama chose to heed the will of the majority of Americans and not extend an already ruinous war.
Let’s separate Obama from the latter two. For them, both statements are correct; they are both civil rights leaders and race-baiters. You may ignore the latter if you wish.
If you think fighting for black people’s equal rights is race baiting, I don’t know if there’s much I can do for you. I don’t agree with everything Jackson and (particularly) Sharpton says and does, but whenever I hear someone call leaders like them race baiters, it sounds too much like they want them to shut up so as not to upset the white folks.
How Al Sharpton has anything to do with the G20 is absolutely beyond me, but I digress…