I think they knew that eliminating Saddam Hussein was going to have an impact in Iran, not sure they truly understood just how big the impact would be. Sure it allowed Iran to take control of Shiite politics in Iraq but could Bush/Cheney or anyone in the Bush Administration have guessed that OBozo was going to see to it that Khadaffi was deposed giving rise to ISIL/ISIS in the Midle East which furthere destabilized an already barely stable region?
I don't think so.
Could Bush/Cheney have foresaw OBozo's "red line" threat with Syria, only to back down from it and kiss Bashir al Assad's ass?
I don't think so.
If it's true that Bush/Cheney were responsible for creating the conditions for Iran's rise to dominance in the middle east (and they are....) then Obama's similarly responsible for the destabilizing effects of Libya, Syria and Northern Iraq (the Kurds) which gave rise to ISIL/ISIS.
Could anyone have really seen just how bad Obama was going to f**k up the Middle East after Bush/Cheney?
I don't think so.
Didn’t Dick Cheney support Obama’s ousting of Gaddifi? My memory says he spoke in favor of it
Liz Cheney supported it: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0611/Liz_Cheney_pushes_Republicans_on_Libya.html
I generally agree - Bush/Cheney created the conditions, but at least they were committed to see it through with the surge, and commit long-term troops and resources to stabilized Iraq. No one realized (or publicly stated anyway) in 2003 that it would absolutely need a multi-decades-long US presence there.
Obama - out of political reasons, or pure spite, simply abandoned Iraq. I know it was not his war, and was he handed a hot potato by Bush, but at least it was a stabilized hot potato. Moreover, His and Clinton's actions after the "Arab Spring" were simply inexplicable by rational thought, especially in Libya and Egypt.
Its why I say - the USA is now too politically divided to fight and win such wars. Its a key concern/fact any US policy maker (and any US enemy) should consider