Jeb Bush links Clinton to rise of Islamic State

[webfact]

Bush links Clinton to rise of Islamic State
THOMAS BEAUMONT, The Associated Press

BURBANK, California (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush will step up his criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton and her tenure as secretary of state on Tuesday, arguing in a speech on foreign policy the U.S. Democratic front-runner shares in the mistakes that he says led to the rise of the Islamic State group.

The former Florida governor will also call for a renewed sense of U.S. leadership in the Middle East, which he says is needed to defeat the militant group and an ideology that "is, to borrow a phrase, the focus of evil in the modern world."

"The threat of global jihad, and of the Islamic State in particular, requires all the strength, unity and confidence that only American leadership can provide," Bush will say, according to excerpts of his remarks as prepared for delivery.

In a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, Bush plans to tie the rise of the militant Sunni group, which now occupies a large swath of Iraq, Syria and other Middle Eastern countries, to the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011.

"ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat," Bush will say. "And where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this?

Clinton, he says, "stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away. In all her record-setting travels, she stopped by Iraq exactly once."

American troops left Iraq in December 2011 as required under a 2008 security agreement worked out by former President George W. Bush. Both countries tried to negotiate plans to keep at least several thousand U.S. forces in Iraq beyond the deadline to help keep a lid on simmering tensions among Islamic sects.

The Iraqi government refused to let U.S. forces remain in their country with the legal immunity President Barack Obama's administration insisted was necessary to protect them. Obama, who campaigned for president on ending the war in Iraq, took the opportunity to remove U.S. forces from the country.

"It was a case of blind haste to get out and to call the tragic consequences somebody else's problem," Bush will say. "Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous."

Since last year, after IS gained a foothold in Iraq and Syria, Obama has ordered the deployment of about 3,500 American military trainers and advisers who are helping Iraqi forces fight the Islamic State.

But despite 6,000 airstrikes flown by U.S. and allied forces on IS positions over the past year, American intelligence agencies recently concluded that the group remains a well-funded extremist army able to replenish its ranks with foreign fighters as quickly as the U.S.-led coalition can eliminate them. Meanwhile, the group has expanded to other countries including Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan.

Bush has yet, either on the campaign trail or in the preview of his Tuesday speech released by his campaign, to say exactly what a U.S.-led campaign against IS would look like if he is elected president.

That includes saying how many U.S. forces he would potentially seek to return to Iraq, although he has said he supports allowing U.S. military personnel to join Iraqi fighters in guiding airstrikes, which they are barred from doing now. Bush has said he supports a no-fly zone in Syria, but has not suggested U.S. advisers or fighters deploy to Syria.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-11

[Jingthing]

That's a fair point.

I actually think it's good for Hillary's chances if Bush is nominated.

The big question in this election is will people ultimately reject "dynasty" or not.

Assuming Hillary is nominated AND Bush is nominated, the clear answer will be no.

Then it's easy ... Clinton brand is much more popular nationally than the Bush brand.

[Usernames]

And this is what is wrong with Bush. Look at his "prepared remarks"--prepared by someone not including Jeb Bush, I'll bet--and how they had to be put out in advance of the actual, well, remarks. Sort of like peeping out to see if the coast is clear and if he is going to say something oh, so wrong, and being prepared to dash back under his rock if someone is offended too much. This is why I support Trump.

[khwaibah]

And this is what is wrong with Bush. Look at his "prepared remarks"--prepared by someone not including Jeb Bush, I'll bet--and how they had to be put out in advance of the actual, well, remarks. Sort of like peeping out to see if the coast is clear and if he is going to say something oh, so wrong, and being prepared to dash back under his rock if someone is offended too much. This is why I support Trump.

Donal, Donald, Donald, Donald

[Chicog]

I really don't think a Bush should start banging on about IS when the family created it!

[Steely Dan]

Some would go further and suggest the rise of Isis was not down to complacency and naivety but was the direct result of conscious policy decisions. In a sane world this would have been more than enough to bring down the government.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/08/07/rise-of-islamic-state-was-a-willful-decision-former-dia-chief-michael-flynn/

[zaphod reborn]

And Bush's daddy is responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda, and his brother was at the helm when 9/11 occurred. IS hasn't killed as many Americans as Al Qaeda. I wouldn't bring up the presidential performance of family relations, if I was Bush.

Edited August 11, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[Seastallion]

Some would go further and suggest the rise of Isis was not down to complacency and naivety but was the direct result of conscious policy decisions. In a sane world this would have been more than enough to bring down the government.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/08/07/rise-of-islamic-state-was-a-willful-decision-former-dia-chief-michael-flynn/

Yet, a year ago, anyone who suggested this on this forum was branded anti-American and conspiracy theorist.

Funny that when the left say it, it's rubbish, but now it is peddled by the right as ammunition against the left.

[lostoday]

Some would go further and suggest the rise of Isis was not down to complacency and naivety but was the direct result of conscious policy decisions. In a sane world this would have been more than enough to bring down the government.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/08/07/rise-of-islamic-state-was-a-willful-decision-former-dia-chief-michael-flynn/

Yet, a year ago, anyone who suggested this on this forum was branded anti-American and conspiracy theorist.

Funny that when the left say it, it's rubbish, but now it is peddled by the right as ammunition against the left.

Is there no one who does not read Thai Visa?

[khwaibah]

Some would go further and suggest the rise of Isis was not down to complacency and naivety but was the direct result of conscious policy decisions. In a sane world this would have been more than enough to bring down the government.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/08/07/rise-of-islamic-state-was-a-willful-decision-former-dia-chief-michael-flynn/

Yet, a year ago, anyone who suggested this on this forum was branded anti-American and conspiracy theorist.

Funny that when the left say it, it's rubbish, but now it is peddled by the right as ammunition against the left.

Is there no one who does not read Thai Visa?

Yea about 95% of all foreigners and 98% of Thais.

Edited August 11, 2015 by khwaibah

[SheungWan]

Some would go further and suggest the rise of Isis was not down to complacency and naivety but was the direct result of conscious policy decisions. In a sane world this would have been more than enough to bring down the government.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/08/07/rise-of-islamic-state-was-a-willful-decision-former-dia-chief-michael-flynn/

Yet, a year ago, anyone who suggested this on this forum was branded anti-American and conspiracy theorist.

Funny that when the left say it, it's rubbish, but now it is peddled by the right as ammunition against the left.

Populism is seeing the hard left and right swimming in the same pool. The first clear sign of this was the sight of the red-brown alliance in Russia. There are historical echoes but we'll leave that for now. As for Jeb Bush, he is putting pressure on Hilary as to whether she is running as Obama's heir or carving out her own space. If she is pushed into the former an opportunity for Jeb further down the line.

[Rancid]

It must be pleasing for Jebs' handlers to see him string so many words together without dribbling.

"ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat," salivated Jeb. Hmm, read recently that the miltary leadership of ISIS are none other than competent Iraqi army officers that ended up jailed in some hell hole (later released with a grudge) after the US disbanded their army. The fact that there were no WMDs and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, well anyone can make an honest mistake.

And we know what happened when the US trained and equiped "new" Iraqi army ran into ISIS led by the old commanders...

Wasn't it Hillary that said "we came, we saw, he died" when boasting the murder of Gaddafi. Yes she is a lovely person, no doubt more war, death and destruction is what her presidency would bring. But she still isn't tough or corrupt enough for Jeb, well so he's been told.

[bendejo]

He has some impressive speechwriters. That "culture of life" thing he spouted this past weekend is right up there with dad's "thousand points of light" thing from 1992: sounds upbeat and appealing but as hollow as it gets. But this IS stuff, well, it sounds like they're playing it as "hey, never mind why we were there in the first place, let's focus on what was done when we were there, and everything that went wrong is the fault of HRC and Obama." Ain't gonna work with anybody outside of the moron vote. It's up there with those stories of how Obama was part of a leftist movement in 1968 (he was born in 1961).

Ever notice how these people who beat the drum for being pro-life are usually in favor of the death penalty?

[sdanielmcev]

It was Clintons' job as Secretary of State. She failed.

Go ahead and blame the 2 Bushes. I've heard better arguments on the playground.

[geriatrickid]

It was Clintons' job as Secretary of State. She failed.

Go ahead and blame the 2 Bushes. I've heard better arguments on the playground.

Your comment is akin to blaming the police when crazed lunatics go on a killing spree. The only failure was the Iraqi invasion. It failed because the country was not pacified and the instigators who took refuge in Syria, Iran and elsewhere were not eliminated. This was your dream team of the violent guttersnipe Cheney and his stooge Bush the younger. in action. The failure was starting a war, but not having the ability to end it with the defeat of all enemies.

When the allies liberated most of Europe, they didn't stop and negotiate a truce with the barbarians and their supporters. They followed through.The result has been a relatively stable Europe. When the free world stopped at the North Korean border and then pulled back, it laid the foundation for the sadistic madness that is the little fat boy, the North Korean dictator.

Secretary Clinton was one of the few Secretaries of States of the past 25 years who was well respected by foreign countries. Tough, intelligent and savvy. She can run circles around Jeb the former governor of one of the most politically corrupt states in the USA. The only hope for the Republican party is if Trump crushes Jebadiah in the primaries.

[Emster23]

"ISIS grew while the United States disengaged invaded from the Middle East Iraq and ignored created the threat," Bush will say. Saddam never allowed Islamic whackos any space to get organized. He may have been awful tyrant, but he seems to have been right man for the job....

[Berkshire]

"ISIS grew while the United States disengaged invaded from the Middle East Iraq and ignored created the threat," Bush will say. Saddam never allowed Islamic whackos any space to get organized. He may have been awful tyrant, but he seems to have been right man for the job....

Going a bit OT here, but I often theorize whether the Middle East can handle democracy, let alone thrive. There will always be Islamist extremists and it seems the only way to handle them is with a swift hammer, not kid's gloves. The west cheered the so-called "Arab Spring," but freedom in that region doesn't seem to mean the same as freedom elsewhere. Perhaps only ruthless dictators can maintain order in that toxic environment.

[sdanielmcev]

It was Clintons' job as Secretary of State. She failed.

Go ahead and blame the 2 Bushes. I've heard better arguments on the playground.

Your comment is akin to blaming the police when crazed lunatics go on a killing spree. The only failure was the Iraqi invasion. It failed because the country was not pacified and the instigators who took refuge in Syria, Iran and elsewhere were not eliminated. This was your dream team of the violent guttersnipe Cheney and his stooge Bush the younger. in action. The failure was starting a war, but not having the ability to end it with the defeat of all enemies.

When the allies liberated most of Europe, they didn't stop and negotiate a truce with the barbarians and their supporters. They followed through.The result has been a relatively stable Europe. When the free world stopped at the North Korean border and then pulled back, it laid the foundation for the sadistic madness that is the little fat boy, the North Korean dictator.

Secretary Clinton was one of the few Secretaries of States of the past 25 years who was well respected by foreign countries. Tough, intelligent and savvy. She can run circles around Jeb the former governor of one of the most politically corrupt states in the USA. The only hope for the Republican party is if Trump crushes Jebadiah in the primaries.

You're trying to change the subject. The subject isn't the first 2 Bushes. It's Clinton. She failed. Miserably. Show me, and the rest of the world what she did. We'll wait.

Since you bring up WW2, you might want to check out the mess the allies left in the middle east. Or WW1. Or, to be more precise, that they didn't fix.

[webfact]

UPDATE:

Bush: US may need more troops in Iraq to beat Islamic State
By THOMAS BEAUMONT

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Tuesday the U.S. may need to send more ground troops into Iraq to defeat Islamic State militants, but he stopped short of saying how many as he outlined his strategy for combating a threat that's "spreading like a pandemic."

In the first major foreign policy speech of his White House bid, Bush sharply criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state and accused the Democratic front-runner and President Barack Obama of allowing the militant group to take hold in the Middle East.

"Who can seriously argue that America and our friends are safer today than in 2009, when the president and Secretary Clinton - the storied 'team of rivals' - took office?" Bush said. "So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers."

Along with saying he would potentially boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, where roughly 3,500 American military trainers and advisers are already helping Iraqi forces fight the Islamic State group, Bush offered a broad look at how he would take on the group in neighboring Syria — which Bush and Middle East experts agree is a far more complicated task.

Beating back IS there will require the removal of that country's president, Bashar Assad, Bush said. To do so, he said he would aim to unite the moderate forces fighting IS in that country and for U.S. troops to "back them up as one force."

"And we should back that force up all the way through - not just in taking the fight to the enemy, but in helping them to form a stable, moderate government," he said. "It's a tough, complicated diplomatic and military proposition, even more so than the current situation in Iraq. But it can be done."

Bush has previously touched on aspects of his strategy for Iraq, such as allowing the training and advisory troops already in the country to join Iraqi forces on the battlefield and help in better guiding airstrikes. He again expressed support for a no-fly zone in Syria.

In his speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Bush tied the rise of IS, a militant Sunni group that occupies a large swath of Iraq and Syria and has a presence elsewhere in the region, to the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011.

"ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat," he said. "And where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this?" Answering his own question, he said Clinton "stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away. In all her record-setting travels, she stopped by Iraq exactly once."

Clinton has said she supported keeping a residual force behind in Iraq, but a proposal to do so fell through after Baghdad refused to give the troops immunity from legal charges, as Washington demanded.

"That's the position we all agreed to," said James Jeffrey, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and a deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush, whose administration set the withdrawal deadline in a 2008 security agreement.

By blaming Clinton for the rise of Islamic State militants, Bush is trying to divert attention from the actions of his brother, who pushed for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Clinton campaign senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.

"This is a pretty bold attempt to rewrite history and reassign responsibility," Sullivan said. "President Bush signed an agreement that required us to be out by 2011."

The alternative would have been for the U.S. to maintain troops in Iraq who were subject to the Iraqi legal system and there against the will of the host country. Obama, who campaigned for president on ending the Iraq war, took the opportunity to remove all U.S. forces.

"It was a case of blind haste to get out and to call the tragic consequences somebody else's problem," Jeb Bush told a group of about 1,000 supporters at the Reagan library. "Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous."

Despite 6,000 airstrikes flown by U.S. and allied forces on Islamic State positions over the past year, American intelligence agencies recently concluded the militants remain a well-funded extremist army able to replenish their ranks with foreign fighters as quickly as the U.S.-led coalition can eliminate them.

Bush addressed what polls show to be Republicans' top concern, national security and terrorism. But while 60 percent of Americans said the effort to stop IS was going badly in a CBS News poll taken the first week in August, they were basically tied on whether U.S. ground troops were the answer: 46 percent for, 45 percent against.

"American voters are worried about getting back in," said Elliott Abrams, a deputy national security adviser under George W. Bush who is advising Jeb Bush, among other Republicans. "But Gov. Bush is certainly making no effort to avoid the issue. And he doesn't seem to think he ought to shy away from it because his name is Bush."

Several other GOP candidates have criticized Obama's actions and called generally for a more aggressive U.S. posture. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has been the most specific, calling for up to 20,000 U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria and a U.S.-led force to maintain stability afterward.

"If you don't do what I'm talking about, you're not serious about destroying ISIL," Graham told The Associated Press on Saturday, using one of the Islamic State's several acronyms.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-12

[ezzra]

UPDATE:

Bush: US may need more troops in Iraq to beat Islamic State

By THOMAS BEAUMONT

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Tuesday the U.S. may need to send more ground troops into Iraq to defeat Islamic State militants, but he stopped short of saying how many as he outlined his strategy for combating a threat that's "spreading like a pandemic."

In the first major foreign policy speech of his White House bid, Bush sharply criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state and accused the Democratic front-runner and President Barack Obama of allowing the militant group to take hold in the Middle East.

"Who can seriously argue that America and our friends are safer today than in 2009, when the president and Secretary Clinton - the storied 'team of rivals' - took office?" Bush said. "So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers."

Along with saying he would potentially boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, where roughly 3,500 American military trainers and advisers are already helping Iraqi forces fight the Islamic State group, Bush offered a broad look at how he would take on the group in neighboring Syria — which Bush and Middle East experts agree is a far more complicated task.

Beating back IS there will require the removal of that country's president, Bashar Assad, Bush said. To do so, he said he would aim to unite the moderate forces fighting IS in that country and for U.S. troops to "back them up as one force."

"And we should back that force up all the way through - not just in taking the fight to the enemy, but in helping them to form a stable, moderate government," he said. "It's a tough, complicated diplomatic and military proposition, even more so than the current situation in Iraq. But it can be done."

Bush has previously touched on aspects of his strategy for Iraq, such as allowing the training and advisory troops already in the country to join Iraqi forces on the battlefield and help in better guiding airstrikes. He again expressed support for a no-fly zone in Syria.

In his speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Bush tied the rise of IS, a militant Sunni group that occupies a large swath of Iraq and Syria and has a presence elsewhere in the region, to the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011.

"ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat," he said. "And where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this?" Answering his own question, he said Clinton "stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away. In all her record-setting travels, she stopped by Iraq exactly once."

Clinton has said she supported keeping a residual force behind in Iraq, but a proposal to do so fell through after Baghdad refused to give the troops immunity from legal charges, as Washington demanded.

"That's the position we all agreed to," said James Jeffrey, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and a deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush, whose administration set the withdrawal deadline in a 2008 security agreement.

By blaming Clinton for the rise of Islamic State militants, Bush is trying to divert attention from the actions of his brother, who pushed for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Clinton campaign senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.

"This is a pretty bold attempt to rewrite history and reassign responsibility," Sullivan said. "President Bush signed an agreement that required us to be out by 2011."

The alternative would have been for the U.S. to maintain troops in Iraq who were subject to the Iraqi legal system and there against the will of the host country. Obama, who campaigned for president on ending the Iraq war, took the opportunity to remove all U.S. forces.

"It was a case of blind haste to get out and to call the tragic consequences somebody else's problem," Jeb Bush told a group of about 1,000 supporters at the Reagan library. "Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous."

Despite 6,000 airstrikes flown by U.S. and allied forces on Islamic State positions over the past year, American intelligence agencies recently concluded the militants remain a well-funded extremist army able to replenish their ranks with foreign fighters as quickly as the U.S.-led coalition can eliminate them.

Bush addressed what polls show to be Republicans' top concern, national security and terrorism. But while 60 percent of Americans said the effort to stop IS was going badly in a CBS News poll taken the first week in August, they were basically tied on whether U.S. ground troops were the answer: 46 percent for, 45 percent against.

"American voters are worried about getting back in," said Elliott Abrams, a deputy national security adviser under George W. Bush who is advising Jeb Bush, among other Republicans. "But Gov. Bush is certainly making no effort to avoid the issue. And he doesn't seem to think he ought to shy away from it because his name is Bush."

Several other GOP candidates have criticized Obama's actions and called generally for a more aggressive U.S. posture. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has been the most specific, calling for up to 20,000 U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria and a U.S.-led force to maintain stability afterward.

"If you don't do what I'm talking about, you're not serious about destroying ISIL," Graham told The Associated Press on Saturday, using one of the Islamic State's several acronyms.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-12

This is beggar belief...

US ex-intelligence chief on ISIS rise: It was 'a willful Washington decision'

https://www.rt.com/usa/312050-dia-flynn-islamic-state/

[Credo]

Bush III: The Saga Continues.

[arfurcrown]

Well no doubt now the arms manufacturers and defence industry as a whole as well as the body bag manufacturers will all be pouring their investment money into the Bush presidential campaign.

The prospects of vastly increased profit from another conflict that will make the Vietnam episode seem like a church picnic are staggering,

Beats the profit gained from supplying the national police force with weaponry and body bags does it not?.

[Anthony5]

Bush : I like the smell of a fresh war when I wake up.

[BKResort]

This election will be a piece of cake for Clinton.....no competition on sight.

[impulse]

UPDATE:

Bush: US may need more troops in Iraq to beat Islamic State

He missed the timing by about 2 weeks:

July 28, 1965

Johnson announces more troops to Vietnam

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/johnson-announces-more-troops-to-vietnam

But I know. It's different this time...

Edited August 12, 2015 by impulse

[Thakkar]

Bush ties the rise of (ISIS)...to the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011.

Just because US Troops shouldn't be there at all is no reason to not keep them there forever.

T

[Pinot]

It was Clintons' job as Secretary of State. She failed.

Go ahead and blame the 2 Bushes. I've heard better arguments on the playground.

Your comment is akin to blaming the police when crazed lunatics go on a killing spree. The only failure was the Iraqi invasion. It failed because the country was not pacified and the instigators who took refuge in Syria, Iran and elsewhere were not eliminated. This was your dream team of the violent guttersnipe Cheney and his stooge Bush the younger. in action. The failure was starting a war, but not having the ability to end it with the defeat of all enemies.

When the allies liberated most of Europe, they didn't stop and negotiate a truce with the barbarians and their supporters. They followed through.The result has been a relatively stable Europe. When the free world stopped at the North Korean border and then pulled back, it laid the foundation for the sadistic madness that is the little fat boy, the North Korean dictator.

Secretary Clinton was one of the few Secretaries of States of the past 25 years who was well respected by foreign countries. Tough, intelligent and savvy. She can run circles around Jeb the former governor of one of the most politically corrupt states in the USA. The only hope for the Republican party is if Trump crushes Jebadiah in the primaries.

You're trying to change the subject. The subject isn't the first 2 Bushes. It's Clinton. She failed. Miserably. Show me, and the rest of the world what she did. We'll wait.

Since you bring up WW2, you might want to check out the mess the allies left in the middle east. Or WW1. Or, to be more precise, that they didn't fix.

That's two "She failed miserably" on this thread.

If you repeat a lie often enough...

Why bother responding to you? If Fox News says she failed miserably, she failed miserably. It's the party line. Just like the failed Obama Presidency, eh?

Who cares about anything Jeb has to say at this point, anyway? No one is listening to him. He's a loser. Blah blah blah Clinton.

I want to hear Trump insult people, especially bleeding women.

[keemapoot]

^That brings up a pertinent point. Given Clinton's age, she certainly doesn't have menstrual cycles anymore, so if Trump wins the nomination, it will be difficult for him to claim she is "on the rag."

[blazes]

Can we all take a moment to remind ourselves that it really doesn't matter who becomes president of the United States.

Even a crazy jerk like T. Rump would not be able to raise a finger without first consulting all the generals and (above all) the arms companies.

[humqdpf]

I really don't think a Bush should start banging on about IS when the family created it!

While I have at last some time for Jeb Bush, this argument (if that is what it is) that H. Clinton's actions led to the rise of IS is a bit like an arsonist blaming a fireman for wrong hose selection as the cause of the resulting devastation!

It gets even worse, as I think Clcog alludes - George Senior started the whole jihadist movement by supporting the various mujahideen groups in Afghanistan against the Soviets. George Junior started the Iraq war based on the non-existent weapons of mass destruction and that the Sadaam regime was somehow connected to the 9/11 massacre event - both completely false. There were no WMD and of all the leaders in the Middle East, Sadaam was a kind of secularist who would have had no time for Al Qaeda and its idea of a fundamentalist caliphate.

Having backed the USA into a war that could not be won but could very well grumble on with great loss of life (both Iraqi and American), the next administration would have to try to extricate themselves and the USA from this mess.

The central question should really be whether H Clinton and Obama tried to withdraw the troops too early. I actually do not have a lot of time for Hiliary and much to disagree with Obama but this kind of decision is always going to be a real throw of the dice, whatever you do, where the outcomes are highly unpredictable.

If the Republicans have a chance at the White House, Jeb is probably the best face to put forward, given the plainly unelectable and sometimes strange folks in the lineup this time around. But that is not going to happen if he takes this stupid approach. Yes, go after H Clinton and there is plenty to go on. But saying that she is responsible for the rise of IS and especially with his lineage would be to throw the towel in rather early.