It's generally accepted that the Second Iraq War was a major cause of the current situation in Iraq and Syria, so I think it's a little unfair to criticise Obama's handling of a situation created by Bush. That doesn't exonerate Obama of wrongdoing, but the question has to be asked - if Bush had handled the Second Iraq War better, what situation would Obama be in politically now?
How is it Bush's fault that Obama chose to use the situations to create regime change and aid the people opposing Assad, which included ISIS? Obama gave aid to the people who were our enemies in Iraq.
If Obama had been there trying to stop ISIS you'd have a point, but he went in to Syria to create regime change. Same with Lybia.
I'm also curious how Bush is at fault for Yemen.
That genuinely made me laugh aloud. You realise (I hope) that Obama stood against Bush's war and that he was subsequently saddled with a Congress of whom over 200 voted for the war?
The same Congress that didn't give Obama permission to go into Syria and Lybia? Yeah, they really pushed him into it.
Obama is regularly excoriated as being un-American, anti-American & even "not-American". Supposedly 48% of Republican voters believe he is a Muslim. The general hate & vitriol directed towards Obama by the far-right has been unending.
It's called partisan politics. It works both ways. People opposed to The Patriot Act supported Obama's signing it's extension and defense of the NSA spying. Most of the anti-war movement disappeared after Obama took office.
Every president in my lifetime has been unfairly smeared by the other party and both parties support their candidate doing what they opposed previously.
Obama has gotten nothing worse than all other presidents.
Bush didn't seem to have much idea about anything before coming to office,
And you just proved my point. Attacks on Bush's intelligence are equally as bad as attacks on Obama's patriotism.
but Bush's closest advisors: Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz had clearly advanced the idea of invading Iraq & getting rid of Saddam before 911 & before Bush came to power. They had, in fact, already attempted (unsuccessfully) to pressure President Clinton to follow this policy.
And that is relevant to Bush's intent how? Oh, that's right; Bush was a puppet, but Obama was an innocent not given a choice.
The implication of what you are saying IS that Obama is a warmonger. It hasn't "gotten bigger"
Bush left us actively at war with 2 countries (3 if you count the decades long Somalia stuff) and Obama now has us in 5 countries (6/Somalia). Depending on the when and the where determines whether we are fighting ISIS or helping their groups overthrow regimes.
- there are far fewer US men & materiel in the Middle East than during the Bush Presidency.
It's like claiming police deaths are down because we replaced men with ED-209s.
Sure, less troops are at risk, but we are bringing death from above. What ability we had to reach the people was removed, but we didn't stop killing. When we kill bystanders while trying to bomb a target there is no US military medic running in to save lives. Now the people who are trying to help have to fear a second strike.
What has happened is that the consequences of Bush's actions in Iraq have spilled over into neighboring countries. It would still be "bigger" if Obama had done absolutely nothing to intervene in those countries.
This would be a sound argument if Obama had tried to aid Assad and Gaddafi in stopping ISIS. Instead we went in to overthrow them, aiding ISIS. I still can't believe Obama praised the death of Gaddafi after the videos of how he died were out. We're on the same team as the bayonet sodomizer!!!
And in Yemen, we were involved before ISIS and al-Qaeda. That is more likely Obama trying to smooth out issues with Saudi Arabia after the Iran deal.
I personally supported the Iran deal. If the choice was that or war number 6(7) I pick the one that doesn't kill people.
It's easy for libertarians to act holier-than-thou when it comes to foreign policy (or anything else when it comes to that), because libertarians have never actually exercised any executive power in the US.
Fair point, and why I am always cautious of any politician. Until people try non-intervention you can't say it won't work.
What I do see is libertarian politicians identifying themselves with the party that voted 96.4% (House of Representatives) & 100% (Senate) in favor of the Iraq War resolution - the party of Trump, Crux, Rubio, Christie et al who are all lining up to say how they would "carpet-bomb" & the Middle East & tear up the nuclear agreement with Iraq.
Careful. There is a difference between libertarian leaning Republicans, like Rand Paul, and Libetarian candidates like Gary Johnson.
. I think Trump wouldn't be able to attract many Democrats. 
