For those who pay attention to the dysfunction of Obama’s foreign policy you’ll note there’s currently a battle between Obama and Clinton to distance and blame the other for the rise of ISIS and radical jihad.

They both agree the origin of ISIS is the Syrian civil war 2011 and 2012. The argument between them is one of “who’s policy is to blame”?
Clinton argues she wanted to arm the rebels early in the 2011/2012 Syrian uprising. And if the “moderates” had been supported the “radicals” would not have been able to rise.
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” ~Hillary Clinton
President Obama argues there was no option to arm the moderates because they were not capable of fighting.
The president rejected criticism that the military advances by ISIS in Iraq could have been prevented if he had been willing months ago to provide heavy armaments to the Syrian rebels who were fighting against ISIS and the forces of President Bashar al-Assad in that country.
“It’s always been a fantasy,” he said, “this idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.” ~ President Obama
The answer to who is correct is actually neither. (more…)







(