This is a bit overplayed. Between any consecutive administrations, there will be policies that HAVE to remain relatively consistent, regardless - especially military policies, which are fairly non-ideological once a conflict is underway.
Bush was inept for invading Iraq; he was inept for disbanding the Iraqi army; he was inept for his handling of Katrina, and for delegating to cronies in general. He was inept for basically ignoring domestic policy, and for presiding over an admin who thought that deficit spending didn't matter.
1) EVERY President since Ike has gone about the 'deficit spending doesn't matter' path. Clinton gets credit for trying not to outspend revenue, but he too failed in this regard.
2) The BULK of the deficit spending under Bush came under a DEM led Congress
3) Obama and the Dem led Congress have made the Bush deficits look trivial by comparison... hence Obama continuing the same economic folly as Bush
4) Bush began the bailouts, Obama continued them... were some necessary, yes.... but they account for a large chunk of the Bush deficits in 2008 and the Bush/Obama deficit of 2009.
5) Obama began an unnecessary endeavor in Libya, not by any means the scale of Iraq, but similar overall philosophy
6) Bush hosed up Katrina (along with local gov), Obama has done what for the tornado striken people of Alabama? the deliberate flooding of 100k acres in Misery? What will he do for the people of Joplin?
7) Bush gave us the atrocious pill bill, Obama continued down the same path and provided the monstrosity of Obama care
8) GITMO under Bush.... same under Obama in all manners..... except for the constant protesting/bitching/moaning from the left leaning media
Tell us.... just what about Obama is different?