Donald Trump says he is being treated unfairly by the media.

The Associated Press says he's correct.

The folks at the AP would never say that directly of course. But consider this article previewing Trump's big foreign-policy speech Monday in Ohio (italics mine).

"He's struggled to stay on message and has consistently overshadowed his policy rollouts, including an economic speech last week, with provocative statements, including falsely declaring that President Barack Obama was the 'founder' of the Islamic State."

Falsely? That's the reporter's opinion, not objective fact.

The statement in question could be considered false only if the listener construed Trump's word as an accusation that Obama had spent the past few years running around Syria recruiting troops for ISIS - and had somehow kept it from the public.

That's nonsensical. Trump later labeled his own words as "sarcastic." His contention was clearly that the actions of Obama as president and of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State led to the rise of ISIS.

There's plenty of support for that statement. In a recent article in Chronicles, Mideast expert Jim Jatras noted the anti-Trump bias evident in the coverage of that comment:

"As of this writing, not one American media source of which this writer is aware has brought up in relation to Trump's claims the August 2012 report from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) stating that 'there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.'"

Those "supporting powers' include the U.S. Perhaps Clinton and Obama didn't intend for the Islamic extremists to set up an Islamic State. But that's what happened.

Does that mean they are "co-founders" of ISIS?

I'll leave that for you to decide.

As for me, since I'm an opinion columnist I'll give you my opinion of how the media should have reacted to Trump's statement.

Someone should have asked him why he didn't include George W. Bush among the co-founders.

In that speech, Trump made it clear once again that he ranks his fellow Republican among the biggest bunglers in the Mideast.

He went out of his way to repudiate the theory of "nation-building" in the Mideast that began with Bush in Iraq and was carried on by Obama and Clinton in Libya, Egypt and Syria.

He even quoted his own statement to Esquire Magazine predicting in 2004 that Bush's adventure in bringing democracy to Iraq would be a failure:

"Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over," Trump said.

The Donald certainly got that right. And he got a lot more right on Monday in what was billed as his major foreign-policy address.

One such moment came when he said in no uncertain terms that he wants to forge an alliance with Russia to chase ISIS out of Syria and Iraq.

According to Jatras, the Clinton camp is on the opposite side of that issue.

"With the kind of people coming in with Clinton, I think we could look at a ratcheting up of tension and a much stronger confrontation with Moscow," he said.

Jatras said that when it comes to ISIS, Clinton has relied on advisers who are more concerned with ousting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad than defeating the Islamic state.

"I think she would be getting us further into the Syrian quagmire," he said.

So do I. If there's any evidence Clinton has learned from her mistakes in Libya and Syria, I've yet to see it.

Meanwhile Trump is making it clear he's learned from her mistakes as well as Obama's and Bush's.

"If I become president, the era of nation-building will be brought to a very swift and decisive end," he said. "Our new approach must be to halt the spread of radical Islam.

"All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country that shares this goal will be our ally."

This is a fascinating debate - or at least it should be. We are seeing two completely contrasting views of foreign policy.

Trump's view is that the country should stop getting in pointless wars and should have good relations with the only other superpower on the planet. I don't see how any intelligent adult could disagree.

But that view is being portrayed in the media as somehow irresponsible. Meanwhile Clinton has been getting a free ride.

When it comes to that "founder" issue, for example, the reporters could have gone back and looked at how her actions did or did not lead to the rise of ISIS.

That's what journalists are supposed to do.

I wish they'd start doing it.

PLUS: One Hillary Clinton ally on the Syria question is former CIA Director Mike Morell. As former CIA agent Larry Johnson writes here, the views these people have about provoking Russia over Syria are insane:

"With respect to Syria I will repeat a point I have made previously. Part of the blame for the bloody civil war there lies with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and has been made more deadly and bloody because Obama/Clinton helped provide weapons and training to radical Islamists. Come to think of it, Mike Morell was part of that process. Besides calling into question his judgment let me add to the bill of particulars that he also is a war criminal.

"What, under other circumstances would be funny incident, is listening to Mike Morell desperately try to smear Donald Trump as dangerous, ignorant and reckless while he, Morell, is calling for killing Russians in Syria who are there at the express and legal invitation of recognized state. That, boys and girls, is called an act of war. It is the kind of provocation that would fully entitle Russia to retaliate militarily against the United States. So let me get this straight, Morell wants us to think he is the voice of reason and moderation, like Hillary Clinton, and he wants to start a fight with a nuclear power? Yeah, that's brilliant judgment."

AND -MORE FROM AMERICAN PRAVDA: I'm beginning to think the initials A.P. stand for "American Pravda." Check out this Clinton campaign press release masquerading as an objective analysis of the Trump foreign-policy position.

Check this obviously slanted prose on Trump's argument that Obama and Clinton bungled by backing rebels and trying to promote democracy in Syrian and Libya:

"While Trump is right that Libya, Syria and Egypt appeared more stable seven years ago, his analysis leaves out the simmering resentment for autocratic governments that would bubble over during the 2011 Arab Spring. That cannot be ascribed to Obama and Clinton."

This might as well have been written by Clinton's speechwriters. That line about the "simmering resentment for autocratic governments" has been used by every inside-the-Beltway foreign-policy "expert" trying to justify American intervention in events that are none of our business.

The plain fact is that both Obama and Clinton supported through violence rebellions in both Libya and Syria that turned out disastrously.

If the AP wants to run opinion pieces on Syrian and Libya, I'd suggest this 2012 column of mine in which I predicted the debacle that would ensue.

Not that this was difficult. Anyone with a brain could see that the idea of spreading democracy in the Mideast was a disaster after the Iraq War.

If the AP reporters were any good, they would have been writing that story four years ago.

Instead they're writing Clinton press releases.