Teddy, despite being damn-right the most awesome and badass President of all time, was also pretty appalling. 

A progressive war-mongerer. Just like many of our Presidents today. Also, he had completely bizarre views on how the world worked, and was amazingly racist (though, I don't necessarily blame him for that, as it was more a product of his time).

A)  Amazingly racist?  He was one of the most progressie people of his time.  Hell, he almost didn't win reelection specifically because he was seen as being "anti-white" because he put more black people in higher places then anyone else, specifically went out of his way to promote "Pro black" white politicians in various areas regardless of party and was the first president to invite a black man to dinner at the white house?

In general, Teddy Roosevelts views on race were summed up as "People should be judged by ther individual character regardless of race. (Or sex, he was actually an early proponent of woman's suffarage."  

He did hold the belief that other races on average were "less advanced" then white people, but could get there with proper education, treatment and training... though so did Booker T. Washington actually.

Because I mean, at that point it was true basically... because black people at that point were all slaves, and the children of slaves and intentioanlly kept out of stuff that basically taught you how to survive in modern day society.  Even Booker T Washington wanted to put civil rights on the backburner while working more on things like education and jobs.

B) Actually for his time, you could more call Roosevelt's position "Agressive Moderatism".  He essentially split the issue on almost every thing involved in his presidency.

C)   He stopped more wars in his presidency then he fought in.   It's a little known historical fact, because the whitehouse burned information afterwords, but the Roosevelt Corralary was inacted specifically because Geramny planned to invade and conquer Venezuela due to property rights, and prepare it as a position from which to attack the US.... and additionally prevented a German/French War from happening due to Wilhelm's anger at not having any african colonies.

All it did was make sure that other countries also mostly left central and south america alone, more or less forcing them to adopt "Libretarian" type views in accordinace with it.

The only issue really is Panama.  Which only came about because of Colombia deciding to go back on two treaties they had already agreed on.

Including the Panama Canal deal.  Nations of that time would of mostly just invaded and took what they were owed by agreement.  Which is what happened in the above case with Germany.  (Well and your UK, but you guys backed out pretty quickly.)

All told, it's hard to think of many presidents who intervened less who had so much ability to mess with other countries.

I'd go with A.  I mean, I don't see how B would increase it's popularity.

Ignore it was happening sure, but increasing it's popularity would seem to suggest that said people are starting to identify it more with Obama.

Of course it could always just be... C  "Screw all that that's years old and boring."

Yeah, I was being overly generous. Naturally, it's just "RAH RAH BLUE TEAM" bullshit. The fact that the same people who hyperventilated when Bush wanted to wiretap the likes of al-Awlaki without a court order don't get exercised over Obama killing him based on some supposed legal justification to which we're not even privy, kinda leaves only the one option.

Did anything ever even leak about the legal justication?  I'm curious whether they went with the ever popular "He stopped being a citizen after he went over there."  a vague "The army can kill rioters so why not this guy" or something completely else.

Really, thinking about it, the even greater comparison is probably Bush's legal position on torture... torture vs murdering a US citizen.

I dunno.

lol to bad that unemployment number is completely wrong. The United States has more of a 15-20% unemployment rate. Your a moron if you actually believe those numbers the government is giving you.

According to a New York Times article I read, the people who've seen the memo say it basically concluded that he was a traitor during a time of active war and could therefore be targeted like any other al-Qaeda member.

al-Awlaki was killed because he was telling truth in a place the US doesn't want truth to be told.

Find al-Awlakis videos and watch them. I don't condone his actions (getting people killed) but he was killed for not accepting the US BS and telling the truth about why America has become a target of radical Muslims.

Basically, they want us to leave them alone right and not have any bases over there.  I don't even really see the point of bases on land anyways when we have the aircraft carrier fleet that we have.  Putting one or two carrier fleets in the region is enough power to stop most countries in their tracks.

The question is will they stop their Anti-American hate if we actually did pull out of those countries or would they just continue to chant death to America.  My guess is that they would continue the chant but I don't see any point in land bases over there myself. 

How would most Americans like Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim nation to have a base inside the USA?  Probably wouldn't like it too much. 

How would you feel if a bomb went off in New York City, killing 30 innocent people and 2 children, set by say Russia, who was targetting suspected Checniyan terrorists?

That's your answer.

Aside from which, if you believe Obama, the whole thing only cost 1 Trillion.  Making at worst 1/15th of the problem... if for some reason you want to count the ENTIRE thing as part of government debt out of laziness/bias... versus counting it as a percentage of the budget during that time... which, the budgets have been huge.