Great rhetoric with no action is still way better than terrible rhetoric backed up by force. Bush's foreign policy was a complete disaster. Accomplishing nothing would be a tremendous improvement by comparison.
As a thought experiment, do you think that Putin would have attempted to dislodge Crimea from Ukraine or Assad would have used chemical weapons had Bush still been in power? If you're tempted to answer "no," then that is a success of Bush's foreign policy. But if words will never be backed up with power, then words are just words and can be safely ignored.
But none of them came anywhere close to the debacle of Iraq. The "red line" nonsense was definitely bad. Making big declarations and ignoring them is not smart. But it's not even on the same level as invading a sovereign nation, getting a million or so people killed, and wasting an unimaginable amount of money for no reason.
I don't know that Ukraine qualifies as bad US foreign policy. We don't really have a responsibility there. (Contrary to the popular rhetoric on the internet, the treaty under which Ukraine gave up their Soviet-era nuclear weapons merely required the signatories to respect Ukrainian sovereignty, not guarantee it. Russia is violating that treaty, but the treaty does not require the US to assist.)
Would Assad have used chemical weapons had Bush still been in power? Maybe not. But seeing as how Bush is responsible for the whole regional mess in the first place, that hardly seems like plus on his side.
Would Russia have taken Crimea if Bush were still in power? I don't see why not. Not only did Bush waste a ton of lives and money, he also set the precedent that he would ignore any country capable of actually resisting. He invaded Iraq for imaginary WMDs, but ignored North Korea's actual WMDs even though they were a part of the "axis of evil." Russia has even more WMDs than North Korea and I imagine they would be confident that nothing would be done.
After more than a decade of the US being involved in a mistaken invasion, we, as a nation, are war weary. Without a serious issue within our borders, the US simply will not do it. Every analyst, both in the US and outside, knows that.
I personally think the "red line" thing was mostly good PR for the anti-Obama politicians. I don't think it had any real impact on our foreign policy. The words the President used weren't, as so often claimed, "If Syria uses chemical weapons, we'll invade". He said, quoting him from his comments on Aug. 20, 2012; "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation." By the time we knew that chemical weapons had been used, many other things had also happened, too, so the "equation" had a lot of new variables.