but then this is a motorcycle forum, eh...... 
Yeah. And, by the way, I wasn't trying to scold or be a netcop or anything. Just noting...
but as for distractions, if you were a foreign leader would you push Bush ( I or II) or Obama farther? before being afraid of military action? not that simple for the Putin debate, but pretty close for some of the middle east leaders 
Well, since you asked, I would have found Bush II much more easy to manipulate. And it was much easier to isolate the U.S. geopolitically as a bad guy under Bush II since he managed to piss off every ally we had. And I would have been less worried about his ability to use force, if not his willingness, because he had already over committed forces and budget on stuff like invading countries over WMD's that didn't exist (a case which also serves as an example of how easy he was to manipulate -- I mean his primary source of intelligence on that came from one Iraqi expat with dubious credentials -- unreal).
Bush I and Obama are actually very similar in both their likelihood of using force and their preference for limited engagements (e.g., Bush I pushed Iraq out of Kuwait without crossing the Iraqi border & Obama used limited air strikes to help bring down Gadhafi), avoiding invasions that would then require lengthy occupations, and the use of diplomacy and economic sanctions as tools (regarding the latter, Obama's approach of targeting Russian oligarchs rather than the general population -- as Bush I did with Iraq -- with sanctions seems an improvement in strategy). Certainly Obama has used assassination -- with both drone strikes and special forces teams -- more overtly than either, perhaps more than any president ever, and it will probably take a while to judge the effectiveness of that as a policy. If I was a bad guy in a stateless organization like a terrorist group, that would worry me. Though that's not a tactic he could use against Putin, I think everyone outside of Fox News watchers -- that is, the rest of the world -- understands that while he doesn't like to commit to full scale military actions, he hasn't demonstrated many qualms about killing people as a tool for foreign policy or domestic security.
Bottom line for your question: I would consider both Bush I and Obama more formidable adversaries, though perhaps less gunslingers, than Bush II. Skip the partisanship because it only fouls the analysis.
I'm going to disagree with you somewhat. Bush I built an extensive and international alliance, did exactly what he pledged to do, respected his allies and punished those who went against the alliance. It was a tour-de-force of international diplomatic persuasion and cooperation.
Clinton was part of a coalition that intervened in the former USSR eastern block genocides and ultimately performed well enough in an international effort, although his record was mixed regarding Somalia. Thankfully commanders on the ground disregarded his orders to pull out and quickly assembled an international rescue effort with the Pakistanis (and Malaysians (I think?)). If it had gone wrong, those commanders would have been washed up or possibly court marshalled for not following orders from the CIC. Luckily, it went well.
Bush II was a loose cannon and pissed away all the international goodwill that could have propelled him to greatness as an international leader. Iraq was uncalled for, and strikes me as small minded payback for Hussein making an attempt on his father's life.
Obama, has signaled he has no stomach for a fight if there isn't unanimity within the proposed alliance. Putin's clanging disapproval of force used in Syria, despite near total agreement within the EU and US, completely put the brakes on any meaningful action. I believe it indicated to Putin that Obama could not hold together even the most obvious of alliances.
Greenlighting a drone strike isn't really much of a command decision, after all, there are no friendly forces really at risk. The order to take Osama Bin Laden was an act of leadership. However, there was no real international effort involved.
In short, I don't see much similarity between Bush I and Obama.
